Let's say These Are the Positions We Draft....Who fills the spots?

[Bartin]

If we want to consistently be in playoff and SB contention, we are best served by following teams that use BPA like the Ravens, Packers, and Seahawks than teams that draft for need. Filling needs is for free agency. Long-term roster strategy is better done drafting quality players even if they sit for a year or two because the starters are still serviceable.

 

Drafting for need by definition can't have a 3 year or 5 year long term plan. It's "what do we need this year" every year, and frankly I was tired of our past successes being 1 year and done. We ran hot and cold for the playoffs using a draft for need philosophy, and am happy with our new BPA  approach and the better future it is appearing to bring.

 

The teams you mentioned employ different strategies than the Panthers. The Seahawks draft players based on athletic profiles. The Ravens strategy is to acquire as many picks as possible in order to use the shot gun approach by maximizing their comp picks by letting players go and signing players who were cut rather than true free agents. The Packers flat out just don't really participate in free agency and use a need based BPA drafting style. Mostly what those three teams and in addition the Patriots have in common is that they try to get as many comp picks as they can and to trade down to get more picks. Something Gettleman has not really shown a desire to do. Sure we get two this year, but we could have had four pretty easily and he's mostly thrown out the possibility of getting one for Hardy next year already.

 

Gettleman's approach appears to be to prioritize re-signing players if he can, trying to identify cheap contributors in free agency and drafting based purely on BPA. It is working so far, but it's really nothing at all like those teams.

[O-Ther]

The teams you mentioned employ different strategies than the Panthers. The Seahawks draft players based on athletic profiles. The Ravens strategy is to acquire as many picks as possible in order to use the shot gun approach by maximizing their comp picks by letting players go and signing players who were cut rather than true free agents. The Packers flat out just don't really participate in free agency and use a need based BPA drafting style. Mostly what those three teams and in addition the Patriots have in common is that they try to get as many comp picks as they can and to trade down to get more picks. Something Gettleman has not really shown a desire to do. Sure we get two this year, but we could have had four pretty easily and he's mostly thrown out the possibility of getting one for Hardy next year already.

 

Gettleman's approach appears to be to prioritize re-signing players if he can, trying to identify cheap contributors in free agency and drafting based purely on BPA. It is working so far, but it's really nothing at all like those teams.

 

You made my point for me. Seattle drafts on athletic ability, not on positional needs. Ravens acquire extra picks to draft more good players regardless of position. Packers use a need based BPA style. The common denominator is drafting BPA, not need, which was my point.

 

Thanks!

 

[Bartin]

You made my point for me. Seattle drafts on athletic ability, not on positional needs. Ravens acquire extra picks to draft more good players regardless of position. Packers use a need based BPA style. The common denominator is drafting BPA, not need, which was my point.

 

Thanks!

 

80-90% of the NFL uses some sort of BPA as part of their draft process and need based BPA might as well be drafting for need since pretty much no one drafts strictly based on need only. Hurney was need based BPA. The pure BPA approach Gettleman preaches is one almost no one in the league uses. It's completely different.

[gettlemanjack]

1. (WR) Kevin White

2. (OT) La'el Collins

3. (DB) Trae Waynes

4. (RB) Todd Gurley

5. (S) Landon Collins

6. (WR) Amari Cooper

7. (LB) Shaq Thompson

[heel31ok]

What is this? Why couldn't you just do a mock like the rest of us idiots.

 

you just answered your own question.