This whole drafting the best player available talk around here is ridiculous

[Car123]

Blaine Gabbert was bpa when Cam was drafted. Just ask half the people at espn. Duhh

Imagine if we drafted Gabbert. Yikes.

[Growl]

We haven't invested high picks on "the best player available" since Gettleman's been here. What he says in press conferences is irrelevant when compared to his actions. We ignore free agency and draft to fill our needs.

That's just the way it is.

[CPF4LIFE]

Star should be relatively easy to retain.  Though I felt he took a big step back last year, I think he's a long term player here.

 

KK might be difficult to keep.  He's so explosive and disruptive behind the LOS he'll have leverage and be in high demand.

 

In my perfect world we lock up Cam, Luke, Norman, Star and Short next season when we've got nearly half our cap space available.  Might not be able to touch Star and Short yet though with the whole CBA and rookie contract thing.

 

I think we'll be on the lookout this draft/offseason for another DT to make one somewhat expendable and because Cole and Dwan are really getting up there in age.

 

I think one of the biggest reasons we resigned them is to keep Star and KKs snaps down. They are not getting any real wear and tear right now, i think its stupid to keep a player fresh for 4 years and them let them walk to another team in their prime. In that situation the team that they go to benefits more from them than we do the team that drafted them. They are getting the finished product kinda like Hardy, i dont expect that type of situation to keep happening over and over again. We lost Hardy, but KK could potentially be a top 3 DT by the time his 4 years are up. Gotta find a way to keep him.

 

[Frizzy350]

I think one of the biggest reasons we resigned them is to keep Star and KKs snaps down. They are not getting any real wear and tear right now, i think its stupid to keep a player fresh for 4 years and them let them walk to another team in their prime. In that situation the team that they go to benefits more from them than we do the team that drafted them. They are getting the finished product kinda like Hardy, i dont expect that type of situation to keep happening over and over again. We lost Hardy, but KK could potentially be a top 3 DT by the time his 4 years are up. Gotta find a way to keep him.

 

 

True but also by limiting their snaps you limit their opportunities.  Sacks, tackles for loss and QB hits are what drive the market for Dlinemen.  By cutting down on their opportunities you will be in better shape to retain them at a reasonable price because nobody will be making Suh-like offers to them.

 

But heck there are some wicked smart GMs out there who will actually watch tape and see the havoc he causes on a consistent basis who will offer him a good contract.  As long as ESPN and Madden aren't drooling over him I think we can retain him before he hits the open market.

[Bartin]

I will say with 100% confidence we are not keeping KK and Stars snaps down to lower their price 2 years from now. It's so they stay fresh. Tired legs get pushed out of the way. OL don't get rotated so you are at an advantage with constant rotations.

[heel31ok]

If you would have polled draft experts last year as to what our biggest need was, the universal answer would have been left tackle.

By the time our pick came up, all of the tackles worth taking in the first round we're already gone.

If we didn't follow a BPA philosophy, we would have taken the best remaining tackle anyway, even though it would have meant using our first round pick on a lesser talent.

So basically, we'd have passed over Kelvin Benjamin for Morgan Moses or Cyrus Kouandijo.

That is why you draft BPA.

 

that doesn't excuse not drafting a OT at all as there was still talent available and the result was we pretty much sucked at OT the whole year.

 

[Montsta]

We had the same discussion last year and I'm sure we'll have the same discussion next year.

If each player a team scouts is given a numerical value 1-100 and is put on a board, then all other things being equal, yes, need will win out.

So if our pick comes up and there are five guys that are rated relatively close to each other, let's say a left tackle rated an 75, two wide receivers rated at 83 and 84, a cornerback at 85, and a defensive tackle at 97.

Under this scenario, there is no doubt in my mind that Gettleman picks the defensive tackle because he is overwhelmingly superior to the other players. Now of course it doesn't fill an immediate need, but as I stated before, rosters are a fluid entity that change constantly so what isn't a need right now might be a need soon.

Now let's take this same scenario and say the defensive tackle is an 84-85 value. In this scenario, I believe the team can go with the wideout over the defensive tackle, because even though the DT is technically the best player available, it is by such a minuscule margin that you can get the value there that you are looking for while also fulfilling an immediate need.

I would argue that in neither of these scenarios is it ok to take the left tackle, regardless of how badly we need one. Reason being, you simply can't pass up on either of the remaining players mentioned that are far superior to that player. Maybe, and it's a small maybe, if that tackle was as high as say an 83 could you entertain it, but even then it's a tough call I'd rather not make.

But then that's why the front office is in the war room and I'm writing this from the bathroom (shoutout to SCP). Because those are the calls they need to make during a draft that changes with each passing pick.

[Moorgan]

We had the same discussion last year and I'm sure we'll have the same discussion next year.

If each player a team scouts is given a numerical value 1-100 and is put on a board, then all other things being equal, yes, need will win out.

So if our pick comes up and there are five guys that are rated relatively close to each other, let's say a left tackle rated an 75, two wide receivers rated at 83 and 84, a cornerback at 85, and a defensive tackle at 97.

Under this scenario, there is no doubt in my mind that Gettleman picks the defensive tackle because he is overwhelmingly superior to the other players. Now of course it doesn't fill an immediate need, but as I stated before, rosters are a fluid entity that change constantly so what isn't a need right now might be a need soon.

Now let's take this same scenario and say the defensive tackle is an 84-85 value. In this scenario, I believe the team can go with the wideout over the defensive tackle, because even though the DT is technically the best player available, it is by such a minuscule margin that you can get the value there that you are looking for while also fulfilling an immediate need.

I would argue that in neither of these scenarios is it ok to take the left tackle, regardless of how badly we need one. Reason being, you simply can't pass up on either of the remaining players mentioned that are far superior to that player. Maybe, and it's a small maybe, if that tackle was as high as say an 83 could you entertain it, but even then it's a tough call I'd rather not make.

But then that's why the front office is in the war room and I'm writing this from the bathroom (shoutout to SCP). Because those are the calls they need to make during a draft that changes with each passing pick.

/thread

[MedellinHeel]

We had the same discussion last year and I'm sure we'll have the same discussion next year.

If each player a team scouts is given a numerical value 1-100 and is put on a board, then all other things being equal, yes, need will win out.

So if our pick comes up and there are five guys that are rated relatively close to each other, let's say a left tackle rated an 75, two wide receivers rated at 83 and 84, a cornerback at 85, and a defensive tackle at 97.

Under this scenario, there is no doubt in my mind that Gettleman picks the defensive tackle because he is overwhelmingly superior to the other players. Now of course it doesn't fill an immediate need, but as I stated before, rosters are a fluid entity that change constantly so what isn't a need right now might be a need soon.

Now let's take this same scenario and say the defensive tackle is an 84-85 value. In this scenario, I believe the team can go with the wideout over the defensive tackle, because even though the DT is technically the best player available, it is by such a minuscule margin that you can get the value there that you are looking for while also fulfilling an immediate need.

I would argue that in neither of these scenarios is it ok to take the left tackle, regardless of how badly we need one. Reason being, you simply can't pass up on either of the remaining players mentioned that are far superior to that player. Maybe, and it's a small maybe, if that tackle was as high as say an 83 could you entertain it, but even then it's a tough call I'd rather not make.

But then that's why the front office is in the war room and I'm writing this from the bathroom (shoutout to SCP). Because those are the calls they need to make during a draft that changes with each passing pick.

 

This. 

 

Every player is given a number or put into a tier. 

 

When you have guys of similar number value or in the same tier need will generally win out. 

 

BPA and need are intertwined. 

[CAVSS]

I wouldn't be upset if we picked Mariota. And I love Cam. If we could get another four years of good QB play without paying 120mil. We would be true dynasty contenders. Unlike every team that has paid that much to a QB not named Brady Rogers or Peyton.

[jfo89]

Lol I'm not so sure that's the common theme around here. Most people know that you draft BPA based on your needs. As long as the BPA fits a need we'll draft him. We don't need a DT, OG, QB, RB, or CB in the first but any other position is fair game.

Ehh. We won't take a QB or G but I think all the rest are possible, but not probable.

[jtm]

The percentages show that 75% of 1st round picks become starters and 50% in the second round. You have to hit on these picks and the rest is gravy if you will. The good teams regularly hit on the later round picks and bad teams don't.

[Rags]

Kiper and most of these other big draft experts have been way off the mark these past few drafts.  Teams are finally wising up by not listening to them.  

 

Lol if you think Teams listen to outside scouting reports as much over their own scouting team.

 

 

Just

 

Lol.

[SIGCHI222]

Can't wait for draft day...some of you are going to be so surprised while the rest of us will immediately see how the pick makes sense.

Gettleman is not going into that square hole you want him to.