percyhoward
Research Tool
- Messages
- 17,062
- Reaction score
- 21,861
The board has to rule above all.
Making the wrong pick by ignoring your board is no worse than making the wrong pick by ignoring your needs. It's still the wrong pick.
I just think that if you ignore how you have slotted your board, and take a lower ranked player when your #1 player in the entire draft is available, then you have literally invalidated your entire draft preparation.
I think you're putting it to the test with every selection you make, regardless of how much you consider need. If you take it seriously, it's the reason you take player #2 over player #3.
Well, given what we know, which is the only thing that we can base our suggestions off of, who would you have selected at #4? Or, who would you have selected at #6, with the assumption that Ramsey has been selected by the Ravens (as they allege they would have gone), and Ezekiel Elliott still on the board?
Trade down to 6 and take your highest-rated available defender. (Probably Floyd, if that matters.)
The entire draft preparation process is a pro-analysis exercise - this is why they take measureables, have guys participate in the same drills, review performances against common opponents, etc. Where it gets somewhat subjective, and potentially prone to error, is character assessment, and projection of injuries. I don't think that any NFL team in this day and age approaches a draft without months of analysis of what player is the best fit and player for their team.
This strikes me as a thorough description of half the picture, because it's completely player-centered, with no consideration of the team's strengths/weaknesses.
Again, to say its not the best move is very subjective. All we have to work off of is their own rankings.
If you're trying to figure out which moves most improve your team, you have a lot more information at your disposal besides the team's player evaluations. You know what factors are associated with winning, so you can break down your team to identify the areas where you're most likely to have success in the coming season(s) and where you'll probably need help.
I can understand where people may think that a running back is not a great investment high in the draft. I also can understand where people would say that defense should have been the pick.
Generally speaking, RB at #4 isn't a great investment, but that means nothing when there's a great RB available and your team really needs a great RB. If that had been the case, it would have been a smart investment.
That being said, the process and preparation do matter here.
There's more to those things than player evaluation.
Making the wrong pick by ignoring your board is no worse than making the wrong pick by ignoring your needs. It's still the wrong pick.
I just think that if you ignore how you have slotted your board, and take a lower ranked player when your #1 player in the entire draft is available, then you have literally invalidated your entire draft preparation.
I think you're putting it to the test with every selection you make, regardless of how much you consider need. If you take it seriously, it's the reason you take player #2 over player #3.
Well, given what we know, which is the only thing that we can base our suggestions off of, who would you have selected at #4? Or, who would you have selected at #6, with the assumption that Ramsey has been selected by the Ravens (as they allege they would have gone), and Ezekiel Elliott still on the board?
Trade down to 6 and take your highest-rated available defender. (Probably Floyd, if that matters.)
The entire draft preparation process is a pro-analysis exercise - this is why they take measureables, have guys participate in the same drills, review performances against common opponents, etc. Where it gets somewhat subjective, and potentially prone to error, is character assessment, and projection of injuries. I don't think that any NFL team in this day and age approaches a draft without months of analysis of what player is the best fit and player for their team.
This strikes me as a thorough description of half the picture, because it's completely player-centered, with no consideration of the team's strengths/weaknesses.
Again, to say its not the best move is very subjective. All we have to work off of is their own rankings.
If you're trying to figure out which moves most improve your team, you have a lot more information at your disposal besides the team's player evaluations. You know what factors are associated with winning, so you can break down your team to identify the areas where you're most likely to have success in the coming season(s) and where you'll probably need help.
I can understand where people may think that a running back is not a great investment high in the draft. I also can understand where people would say that defense should have been the pick.
Generally speaking, RB at #4 isn't a great investment, but that means nothing when there's a great RB available and your team really needs a great RB. If that had been the case, it would have been a smart investment.
That being said, the process and preparation do matter here.
There's more to those things than player evaluation.
