thoughts on draft strategy and depth of talent at positions

[rayzor]

Wes Bunting over did a quick article discussing the positions that were the deepest in this draft class with a list of potential top 100 picks from each.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/What-are-the-deepest-positions-in-the-NFL-draft.html

5) wide receiver

4) quarterback

3) runningback

2) offensive guard

1) cornerback

heres one thing to consider if you agree with that (and most do from what i have seen among draftniks and analysts i follow), is that depth at a position means that you can wait a while in lieu of addressing another need that may not have the depth that these positions have.

one of the many problems going straight BPA regardless of position or depth at the position in the draft is that if you choose to pick early a player at a position that is deep because they are supposedly the BPA, then you miss out on quality picks later in the draft at areas you need to address.

take DT vs. OG for example. this isn't considered to be a very deep class of DTs this year. after the first 5 or so DTs, there is a pretty significant drop off in talent. meanwhile, even though you have the best OG since hutch, this class has a lot of legit starter quality talent.

so if DT and OG are among the top two needs in the draft which do you go after? filling the OG need early means that there is less talent available at DT than OG. if you opt to address DT first, while the DT you draft might not be as talented as the OG you could have drafted, you'd still have a better quality OG later as opposed to DT. in other words, if you draft the best OG in the first, the best you might do at DT later would be a no better than a backup. meanwhile, if you went DT in the first and decided to wait until the 2nd or 3rd to address OG, you should still be able to draft a legit starter.

so what are you better off doing? ignoring needs? ignoring depth at the position? or paying attention to needs and scarcity of talent at the positions you need and adjusting your draft strategy to that?

again...this isn't meant to be a discussion of whether or not DT or OG is a need, btw. it's a hypothetical.

[jramsey4]

Its funny how different you are from me compared to a year ago. We both loved Cam last year but this year you completely disagree with my assessment that OL is going to be the 1st pick. I am becoming convinced that Decastro will be the best pick there. I really don't care about perceived value, what I care about is actual value. I would rather have an elite G (which RG IMO is as big of a concern is DT) over a DT that is a solid run stuffer and the rest is raw potential (which considering the busts of DT taking in the top 10 the last decade could never be achieved). Ideally we could move down 4 or 5 spots and still grab him but who knows.

Oh BTW I disagree with your assessment of this class of DT being not to deep. Its just shallow at the top of the draft. There are some solid prospects in the mid rounds. I like Wolfe and Mike Martin.

[rayzor]

my thoughts were the same as this year. you draft to fix what is screwed up the most.

last year it was the offense and the biggest thing we were missing was a legit QB. we drafted accordingly, even though newton was seen as a project and wasn't considered to be the BPA by many. it was all about perceived value and raw potential.

drafting clausen in the 2nd when we did was all about going for the BPA with the best actual value. he was considered by most to be the 2nd best QB in that draft and a legit top 10 talent.

point of it all, though, is if are you not better off getting 2 legit starters and upgrades over what you have currently than just one? if, like in this scenario, you take a OG in the first and wait until the 2nd to address an area of need without much depth in the draft then you very likely only come out with one legit starter.

if you go for just the BPA all the time, esp. early, you lose any real hope of being a balanced team and can find yourself overloaded in one position or in a few positions and lacking in talent at many more.

[jramsey4]

my thoughts were the same as this year. you draft to fix what is screwed up the most.

last year it was the offense and the biggest thing we were missing was a legit QB. we drafted accordingly, even though newton was seen as a project and wasn't considered to be the BPA by many. it was all about perceived value and raw potential.

drafting clausen in the 2nd when we did was all about going for the BPA with the best actual value. he was considered by most to be the 2nd best QB in that draft and a legit top 10 talent.

point of it all, though, is if are you not better off getting 2 legit starters and upgrades over what you have currently than just one? if, like in this scenario, you take a OG in the first and wait until the 2nd to address an area of need without much depth in the draft then you very likely only come out with one legit starter.

if you go for just the BPA all the time, esp. early, you lose any real hope of being a balanced team and can find yourself overloaded in one position or in a few positions and lacking in talent at many more.

Starters we already have. We need stars or at least really good players. I think its just a matter of opinion. I believe our OL cost us a lot of momentum that could have amounted to more points and our D is getting back one of the best MLB in the league and we have FA to address a run stuffer (I agree with you on Garay). Then if Jason Jones becomes available switch him back to UT and you have one hell of rotation. You can't use a rotation at G. Then address the secondary in the 2nd. One guy I think has the potential to be a star at CB is Trumaine Johnson.

[panther4life]

Lets say with our first 2 picks we decided we are targeting the bpa at 3 different positions.

Lets say Position when our pick comes around in the first you have your choice of position A. with a 97 grade, Position B. with a 92 grade and position C. With a 91 grade.

Now history tells you Position A.(the deepest) historically has 7-8 picks gone before you pick again in the 2nd round and Positions B. And C. have 4-5 picks gone before you 2nd round selection.

Looking ahead the players you assume should be available at our 2nd pick carry the following grades.

Position A. 88

Position B. 85

Position C. 87

Position A. in the first and Position C in the 2nd total out to 184. That is the highest total between any combination of the 2 and the route I would take.

Btw does anybody remeber "Draft Confidential: with Bill Parcells' from last year?? I am sure you can find a video of it on Hulu or something, worth watching if you missed it last year. It was 100% the best thing I have ever seen behind the inner workings of a draft war room.

[rayzor]

Starters we already have. We need stars or at least really good players. I think its just a matter of opinion. I believe our OL cost us a lot of momentum that could have amounted to more points and our D is getting back one of the best MLB in the league and we have FA to address a run stuffer (I agree with you on Garay). Then if Jason Jones becomes available switch him back to UT and you have one hell of rotation. You can't use a rotation at G. Then address the secondary in the 2nd. One guy I think has the potential to be a star at CB is Trumaine Johnson.

the thing is there are good quality OGs available in the draft later than the first. the same can't really be said for DTs...again, in that scenario.

[jramsey4]

the thing is there are good quality OGs available in the draft later than the first. the same can't really be said for DTs...again, in that scenario.

Well if we get Garay and Jones in FA we won't need a DT. Garay will be the run stuffer and Jones will be the penetrator/interior pass rush. Neither should be to expensive and Jones is one of the best UT in the league the Titans played him out of position all year. Not to mention the rotation of Fua/Mcclain/Neblett. DT (unless your name is Suh) usually don't contribute there rookie years anyway.

[rayzor]

i wasn't wanting to get into any hypotheticals regarding FAs and such. just a straight strategy regarding the draft.

getting too hung up on OG vs. DT. it's the draft strategy i'm interested in.

say the greater need was for OG but it had a smaller class of quality starters than DT who just happened to have a prospect graded out higher than any OG. would you draft the DT that graded out higher than the top available OG even if that meant having to settle for a an OG that was really only good enough to be a backup? or would you draft the best OG , even though he graded out lower than the best DT and go back and pick up a DT later that was good enough to be a good starter for you?

[jarhead]

I disagree with just about everyone on the Panthers single biggest shortcoming and that is pressure on the qb.I am not saying CJ and Hardy are bad players but the base of any good defense is pressure on the qb.I agree that we need to upgrade the cb and saftey postion but we need a bonfied stud that can pressure the qb.You can have an average secondary if you are consistly putting pressure on the qb

Having said all that I do not see that guy in the draft.

[Riverboat Ron]

I'm shooting for the BPA with the first pick. Pressure on the QB is only second to good QB play imo. I might be in the minority, but if Quinton Coples falls to us, I'd cream my pants. I'm still waiting for more interviews and the combine to be definitive, but I think he's going to be a very good DE. I think a lot of the heart knocks on Coples are a little too strong until we know more. That being said, I have a very strange feeling that Hurney will select Reiff or possibly DeCastro if either is available. Honestly I wouldn't have a problem with this, I think the O-line can be upgraded, really depends on how much trust they put in Otah getting healthy.

[theyhateme45]

my thoughts were the same as this year. you draft to fix what is screwed up the most.

last year it was the offense and the biggest thing we were missing was a legit QB. we drafted accordingly, even though newton was seen as a project and wasn't considered to be the BPA by many. it was all about perceived value and raw potential.

drafting clausen in the 2nd when we did was all about going for the BPA with the best actual value. he was considered by most to be the 2nd best QB in that draft and a legit top 10 talent.

point of it all, though, is if are you not better off getting 2 legit starters and upgrades over what you have currently than just one? if, like in this scenario, you take a OG in the first and wait until the 2nd to address an area of need without much depth in the draft then you very likely only come out with one legit starter.

if you go for just the BPA all the time, esp. early, you lose any real hope of being a balanced team and can find yourself overloaded in one position or in a few positions and lacking in talent at many more.

I have to respectfully disagree with you 100%

I think the reason we got into trouble with Jimmy is because we went for a position on need instead of the BPA. In any other year if Qb was not a need, I do not think we draft Jimmy as there were better players still on the board... That's why all those other teams keep passing over him.

I believe when you reach for a position of need early you are increasing the chances of not getting what you need. Lions with Wr's Falcons needing a pass rusher with Anderson ect ect. I think when you focus on a position you try to make some one better than they may be just because you really need that position, and when players don't plan out in the 1st few rounds it can hurt you.

So I would rather go the safer route and draft talent that we feel most confident about their ability to contribute to the team for the future. The year we took Beason there were other needs people had listed as more important for us, however we took a stud and it has worked on. Drafting a Rb when we all ready had one ect. You get great players you will be able to fill in the rest... You draft a bust it does 0 good to you... that position is still a need and now you lost out on a playmaker.

The only exception is QB... because it is so vital to success if you need QB then that is a time you can reach as the good QB's are hard to find and if you are sold on their upside and need one draft for your QB need.

So for me whoever is the best stud on the board the first two picks... take him... unless it's a position that could get no PT (like QB we have cam or C that would only play C since we have kalil).

[Woodie]

I disagree with just about everyone on the Panthers single biggest shortcoming and that is pressure on the qb.I am not saying CJ and Hardy are bad players but the base of any good defense is pressure on the qb.I agree that we need to upgrade the cb and saftey postion but we need a bonfied stud that can pressure the qb.You can have an average secondary if you are consistly putting pressure on the qb

Having said all that I do not see that guy in the draft.

Not all pressure comes as a result of what looks obvious at first glance (sacks and hurries, primarily by DE's). Sometimes it's the ability to collapse the pocket and take away the space a QB can step into.

To be honest, that has been a major problem for this team for quite a while now. Looking at this past season, both Johnson and Hardy were able to get into the backfield, but we had so little push up the middle that the QB was simply able to step up in the pocket to avoid them. Take away that middle, and suddenly both Johnson and Hardy look much better as pass rushers. This is why a guy like Brockers could be invaluable to us. Not only can he stop the run, but he can also push the pocket and take away the hole a QB can step into...even if he's not getting sacks himself.

[rayzor]

I have to respectfully disagree with you 100%

I think the reason we got into trouble with Jimmy is because we went for a position on need instead of the BPA. In any other year if Qb was not a need, I do not think we draft Jimmy as there were better players still on the board... That's why all those other teams keep passing over him.

http://www.panthers.com/media-vault/videos/Marty-Hurney-on-Jimmy-Clausen/c6387ca5-434f-4300-ab54-179702d7cf82

@ the 1:20 mark

clausen was the best player on their board. not just best QB, but best player....on their board.

when we took beason, we had the very oft injured and IRed dan morgan starting for us. MLB was very much a need.

when we took stewart, fox wanted a dual threat. running the ball was the most important part of his offense. we had done that with steven davis and deshaun foster. then we got williams to replace davis whom we let go in '06. we then drafted stewart to replace foster who was released in '08.

otah filled a need that existed at RT. who was his prime competition at that point? travelle wharton who we figured out was better as a guard than a tackle. they wanted a big RT mauler so they got one.

point is that this team typically does address needs in the first round, which it should. you can get away just going BPA after the first, but imo, you do more harm than good by overlooking need and just going strictly by BPA regardless of position or need.

[jarhead]

I'm shooting for the BPA with the first pick. Pressure on the QB is only second to good QB play imo. I might be in the minority, but if Quinton Coples falls to us, I'd cream my pants. I'm still waiting for more interviews and the combine to be definitive, but I think he's going to be a very good DE. I think a lot of the heart knocks on Coples are a little too strong until we know more. That being said, I have a very strange feeling that Hurney will select Reiff or possibly DeCastro if either is available. Honestly I wouldn't have a problem with this, I think the O-line can be upgraded, really depends on how much trust they put in Otah getting healthy.

Well people have him rated pretty high for a reason.....I just am not smart enough to see it other than his physcial attributes.