Rodgers, Peterman, you suck.

[vlad]

Those picks are haunting us pretty badly when we think about how badly we need Columbo back. This is also why I hope we draft BPA in terms of OL, even if that means trading up. You can never have enough good OL. Sure they haven't won the big one, but look at Philly all those years, they have plug-and-play skill parts, heck look at Garcia last year.

 

[AbeBeta]

BPA, trading up, and focusing on one position are not consistent statements. If you take BPA you are taking the "best player available" regardless of position and doing it at whatever spot you are drafting.

 

[Doomsday101]

Those picks are haunting us pretty badly when we think about how badly we need Columbo back. This is also why I hope we draft BPA in terms of OL, even if that means trading up. You can never have enough good OL. Sure they haven't won the big one, but look at Philly all those years, they have plug-and-play skill parts, heck look at Garcia last year.

By the way Rogers signed with Denver

 

[burmafrd]

BPA without regard to need or position is just as stupid as drafting strictly for need. Detroit went that route and ended up supposedly with the BPA available at their pick and got 3 WRs in 3 years. It is very rare, unless you are in the top 5, that only one person is the BPA. Usually, there are AT LEAST 2 or 3, and sometimes more, depending on how your scouts evaluated the board.
what you do is look at those 2 or 3, and if they meet a need take that player. If they do not meet a need, trade down.

 

[Doomsday101]

BPA without regard to need or position is just as stupid as drafting strictly for need. Detroit went that route and ended up supposedly with the BPA available at their pick and got 3 WRs in 3 years. It is very rare, unless you are in the top 5, that only one person is the BPA. Usually, there are AT LEAST 2 or 3, and sometimes more, depending on how your scouts evaluated the board.
what you do is look at those 2 or 3, and if they meet a need take that player. If they do not meet a need, trade down.

I agree. I think you have to look at BPA that fills a need.

 

[AbeBeta]

BPA without regard to need or position is just as stupid as drafting strictly for need. Detroit went that route and ended up supposedly with the BPA available at their pick and got 3 WRs in 3 years. It is very rare, unless you are in the top 5, that only one person is the BPA. Usually, there are AT LEAST 2 or 3, and sometimes more, depending on how your scouts evaluated the board.

Of course, at least two of their BPAs weren't the best players available. And they were picking top 10 in the position that general lends itself to the most first round busts.

Also, Mike Millen is ********.

 

[Woods]

Well, while Peterman and Rogers may suck, we suck for drafting them :

We'll do better this year!

 

[burmafrd]

We are due for some good luck in the O line area. Of course, if McQ turns out to be a quality tackle, and we get Colombo back, then those two make up for Rogers and Peterman. And while it took a while, Gurode is doing well- so that makes up for losing Johnson. So as regards getting good players, we would be more even. One more really good O line pick would put us in good shape.

 

[AbeBeta]

Well, while Peterman and Rogers may suck, we suck for drafting them :

You are so right. No other teams in the league have had picks wash out. Why does this only happen in Dallas?

 

[Woods]

We are due for some good luck in the O line area. Of course, if McQ turns out to be a quality tackle, and we get Colombo back, then those two make up for Rogers and Peterman. And while it took a while, Gurode is doing well- so that makes up for losing Johnson. So as regards getting good players, we would be more even. One more really good O line pick would put us in good shape.

I think we'll probably pick up 2 OL in the Draft this year. (Heck, we've got 10 picks.) It's obviously a concern, as S. Jones mentioned a week ago. Let's hope we get lucky . . . .

 

[burmafrd]

BP missed on only about 3 picks (two years of starting for Johnson sort of leaves him out) in 4 drafts on the first day. Bad luck for us that 2 of them were on the O line.

 

[burmafrd]

the more I think about it, actually in a way it was Petermans pick that really hurt more. Because he failed, we got Rivera. If he had shown a lot right off the bat, we would not have spent big money on a guard. And since rivera blew his back, we had to go get another guard. Rogers really only cost us the year with Petitti; Colombo was good last year.

 

[Woods]

the more I think about it, actually in a way it was Petermans pick that really hurt more. Because he failed, we got Rivera. If he had shown a lot right off the bat, we would not have spent big money on a guard. And since rivera blew his back, we had to go get another guard. Rogers really only cost us the year with Petitti; Colombo was good last year.

It was also just bad timing in that the picks were the same year, or in close proximity to each other, I can't remember. I think we were just a bit unlucky.

 

[AbeBeta]

Peterman was more bad luck than a bad pick -- his knee injury was very nasty -- as I recall he ripped it all up - ACL, PCL, Patella tendon -- the whole deal. Despite modern technology and surgeries -- that sort of injury is very tough to come back from 100%

 

[vlad]

I was just venting and I realize was BPA means. I don't think you need to stand pat to take the BPA. Available implies not yet taken, best means better than the rest right? anyway, just venting and I didn't see the JJT article that best expounded on this.