If the Texans don't take Reggie Bush

[burmafrd]

Drafting for need is only bad if you reach. Ferguson and BUsh are pretty much equal in value- but you NEED ferguson, You have a multiple 1000 yd rusher already on the team - imagine what he could do with a decent line. NOT to mention that your QB has been getting beaten to death for 4 years.
THis BPA and nothing else is just as much BS as solely drafting for need. The Lions did the BPA three straight years and ended up with 3 WR's. Tell me that wasn't stupid.

 

[Rack]

No way in hell is Ferguson equal in value to Bush. That's crazy talk.



Ferguson is a very good player, but he's not on Bush's level.


If they stay at the #1 spot Bush will be their guy, as he should be.

The Lions did the BPA three straight years and ended up with 3 WR's. Tell me that wasn't stupid.

No, they didn't. Mike Williams was not the BPA when they picked last year.


And using the Lions as an example is stupid. I mean Matt Millen is their freakin' GM.

 

[Hostile]

i thought nyc was the only place were the guys dressed like girls. i swear, i'm the only john wayne left in this town.

Not when I get there on the 27th.

 

[Pabst]

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, the most important places to put money are the Offensive and Defensive Lines.

While there is no point in comparing talent levels between Bush and Ferguson, due to the differences in the position they play, I feel taking a Running Back over a Left Tackle is foolish 99% of the time, in terms of the early round draft. There are exceptions, of course.

Let's face it, Running Back is the position in football with the shortest "life-span," if you will. Running Backs get beat up, early and often. Especially fragile backs. Would you rather plug in a Left tackle and then forget about the spot for a decade, or a RB where every play might be his last? Hell, just look at the runners taken in the top 10 since the 1990 draft year.

Edgerrin James, Ricky Williams, Curtis Enis, Lawrence Phillips, Tim Biakabutuka, Fred Taylor, Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, Ki-Jana Carter (#1 Overall!), Marshall Faulk, Garrison Hearst, Jerome Bettis, Tommy Vardell, and Blair Thomas.

I'll leave Ronnie Brown, Caddy and Benson out, since they are still "fresh."

Out of those runners, with plenty of time to evaluate them, would you take any of them #1 overall? Faulk and Bettis, sure. A few others have had decent careers, but aren't worth the #1 spot. But just look at the guys with short careers, riddled with injuries, or those who were busts. Quality can be found at RB later. Even Emmitt lasted to 17 when the Cowboys drafted him. Barry Sanders, quite possibly the most exciting running back to ever play, was picked 3rd in the '89 draft. Theres two of the best backs to ever play the game, and they didn't go #1.

While this is certainly a personal preference, and I by no means expect my thoughts to be "right" or "wrong" in terms of drafting, I wouldn't draft a RB over a LT early unless it was a glaring need for my team.

 

[joseephuss]

Not when I get there on the 27th.

I may be going up to NYC on the 22nd, but I unfortunately I am more Walter Brennan than John Wayne.

 

[Rack]

I wouldn't draft a RB over a LT early unless it was a glaring need for my team.

And your drafting for need is what would cause your team's downfall.


And who says the Texans don't need a RB? Davis is a walking injury report.

 

[Doomsday101]

And your drafting for need is what would cause your team's downfall.


And who says the Texans don't need a RB? Davis is a walking injury report.

I think it is a bit of both need and BPA.

 

[Hostile]

I may be going up to NYC on the 22nd, but I unfortunately I am more Walter Brennan than John Wayne.

No foul there. I like the old movie stars and movies over most of the stuff today.

 

[theogt]

And your drafting for need is what would cause your team's downfall.


And who says the Texans don't need a RB? Davis is a walking injury report.

This will be the the determinative post on drafting for need vs. drafting BPA in...

3...

2...

1...

IF YOU PICK BASED SOLELY ON EITHER MEASURE YOU WILL DRAFT POORLY!!! The best method is to simply weigh each interest. Whoever does so the best, is the best drafter.

 

[Kangaroo]

If the Texans dont take Reggie Bush, there will be riots of biblical proportions through the streets of metrosexual Houston

Um I take offense to that quote living here in houston; wait maybe the only part of houston you have been in is the Montrose area which explains everything.

Then the question is why the heck where you in that area you trying to pick up a date Heavy

 

[Rack]

This will be the the determinative post on drafting for need vs. drafting BPA in...

3...

2...

1...

IF YOU PICK BASED SOLELY ON EITHER MEASURE YOU WILL DRAFT POORLY!!! The best method is to simply weight each interest. Whoever does so the best, is the best drafter.

If Bush and Ferguson were of equal value, Ferguson would be the wiser pick. But they aren't. It's not even close. Bush is one of those players you just don't see very often. There will be another Ferguson next year, and the year after that.



If they can get a great deal for the #1 pick, then they should target Ferguson. But if they stay at #1 it would be dumb to draft anyone but Bush.

 

[Pabst]

And your drafting for need is what would cause your team's downfall.


And who says the Texans don't need a RB? Davis is a walking injury report.

I don't quite understand the analogy. Show me a team that has drafted BPA every year, and one that has drafted need every year, and I could make an objective analysis. Fact of the matter is, no team does either. You try to balance addressing team needs with the BPA.

Let's face it, you draft in the top 10 for a reason; to improve your team in the best way possible. Drafting a player that might (probably, in Bush's case) be a slight to moderate improvement over another average/above-average player you already have, rather then addressing another area which needs desperate attention, seems a bit foolish to me. I can understand the analogy of reaching to fill needs. Reaching is foolish. Personally, when given this specific example, I do not think Ferguson would be a reach at #1 overall, however. I like Ferguson, a lot. Not as much as Bush, mind you, but for their positions, I like Fergusons value more.

In regards to Davis, you are right, he has been injured. It is the nature of the position, above all others, that players get injured. Which goes back to one of my previous points, in my prior post.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

 

[theogt]

If Bush and Ferguson were of equal value, Ferguson would be the wiser pick. But they aren't. It's not even close. Bush is one of those players you just don't see very often. There will be another Ferguson next year, and the year after that.



If they can get a great deal for the #1 pick, then they should target Ferguson. But if they stay at #1 it would be dumb to draft anyone but Bush.

I completely agree. 100%. I would just add that, personally, I would NEVER take a lineman in the top 5. Just wouldn't do it. (See, the law of diminishing returns). It's simply not worth it.

 

[Rack]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

If you're saying it would be wise to take the much lesser player just cuz it feels a need, then yes we do disagree. We couldn't disagree more.

 

[Doomsday]

With the horrendous state of their O line, passing on Ferguson is just plain stupid. Or trading down and using those picks to fix their O line. Taking Bush is just plain dumb.

Once Kubiak has the Oline start using Denver's patented chop blocking techniques they will show a huge improvement. Bush is just too good and will be a great fit for their new offensive scheme for them to pass up on him.

 

[Pabst]

If you're saying it would be wise to take the much lesser player just cuz it feels a need, then yes we do disagree. We couldn't disagree more.

Just because he doesn't make SportsCenter, doesn't mean Ferguson is a "much lesser player." I assume this is the principle area of disagreement between the two of us. You feel I am overrating Ferguson, while I believe you are underrating him. So be it, I won't force you into a loaded question to appease my vanity.

To look at the whole of my prior posts, one could assume that I would:
1. Identify my teams needs
2. Rank players, giving them draft grades (Humorously enough, most teams develop their draft boards by taking their own needs into concern, and grading players higher or lower depending on their level of "need." There is no magical BPA board that all teams use.)
3. Compare team needs with players available at that spot
4. Determine if a player that fits a need, while not being a "reach" for the given draft slot, is available.
5. If available, draft that player. If not, trade down. If no trade-downs are available, draft the best player on your board.

I have ordered it for easy comprehension. If that is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Theres a reason why everyone on this board is talking about LBs, S's, and WRs when it comes to the draft. They are needs for the Cowboys. A Punter might be the BPA: would you still take him knowing a great 3-4 OLB is on the board? Of course not; that position is of considerably less value. The draft is all about finding value at a given spot, while addressing your needs at the same time. If you only took the BPA, you could very well end up with 7 quarterbacks.

 

[Rack]

Just because he doesn't make SportsCenter, doesn't mean Ferguson is a "much lesser player."

I stopped reading right there since I never mentioned a thing about sportscenter.


You want me to read your posts? Don't start them off with crap like that.

 

[ndanger]

The sky will fall

 

[Pabst]

You want me to read your posts? Don't start them off with crap like that.

What a coincidence, I was feeling the same way towards your two sentence long retorts.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Bush is going #1 period......