Drafting For Need - Why Not?

[mgteich]

We've drafting early for need many times before. Wilfork, Warren, Seymour, Mankins, Mayo, Meriweather and Graham were all needs picks.

Of course, the "problem" occurs when a team pays much too much becaue the there is not a match of player and value.

A) Well, this year there are several OLB/DE's that will be available in the 12th to the 43rd spot range in this draft.

B) We have a huge need.

C) There are many 3-4 teams picking directly after us.

D) We have the resources to get what we want.

E) There is no reason not fill our needs at OLB/DE in this draft.

The open question is how many, if any, of the top OLB/DE prospects will be still available at 44.
============

So, we could move down at have a really good shot at WR's, TE's and RB's in the 44-53 range. OR, we could move up and have a really good shot at OLB/DE's. Isn't that the real choice?

After all, even if we use two seconds to move up, we still would have a high second to work with.

 

[Marqui]

You should always draft the best player available that fits a need >_<

 

[DaBruinz]

We've drafting early for need many times before. Wilfork, Warren, Seymour, Mankins, Mayo, Meriweather and Graham were all needs picks.

Of course, the "problem" occurs when a team pays much too much becaue the there is not a match of player and value.

A) Well, this year there are several OLB/DE's that will be available in the 12th to the 43rd spot range in this draft.

B) We have a huge need.

C) There are many 3-4 teams picking directly after us.

D) We have the resources to get what we want.

E) There is no reason not fill our needs at OLB/DE in this draft.

The open question is how many, if any, of the top OLB/DE prospects will be still available at 44.
============

So, we could move down at have a really good shot at WR', TE's and RB's backs in the 44-53 range. OR, we could move up and have a really good shot at OLB/DE's. Isn't that the real choice?

After all, even if we use two seconds to move up, we still would have a high second to work with.

It's always amazing how people twist things to fit their ideas and just ignore what the coach says..

The Patriots draft for VALUE. That value is a combination of NEED and BPA. It's not just one or the other.

As a seasoned poster, MG, you should know this better than anyone. And I am very surprised that you would say otherwise.

As for wasting picks to move up, you have to put it into perspective. Will the players you are talking about acquiring bring the value of 2 picks as you are suggesting???

 

[patsfan-1982]

the pats have so many needs this year that they will not have to reach for any one they could take the best OLB. DE. WR. OL. TE. at #22



but if they realy want a OLB they need to take one at #22 Sergio Kindle, Jerry Hughes, Ricky Sapp, Brandon Graham, could all be gone by pick #44 and it's not a lock that Jason Worilds, or Koa Misi, will be there. like you said there are alot of 3-4 teams picking after the pats.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

No matter who they pick, it fills a need (unless it's a QB). They aren't set at any position.

 

[RodThePat]

No matter who they pick, it fills a need (unless it's a QB). They aren't set at any position.

You're confusing need with "omg we don't have all-pros at every position, boo-hoo".

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

You're confusing need with "omg we don't have all-pros at every position, boo-hoo".

Never said that but whatever.

 

[gomezcat]

The problem with drafting purely for need is that it is a very short-term solution. If you grade your current corners at D, but feel that the best corners in the draft are a B-, then you might think about picking them.

That's OK until you pass on the A- Defensive End, who goes on to have a HOF career and causes all sorts of mayhem in the process. You passed on him because the current veteran grades out at C+/B- and therefore the need wasn't as high as the corner position. The A- DE might sit for a year, while he learns the ropes and a veteran fills in. His short-term value is, therefore, not good.

The B- corner might start and therefore be better value in the short-term, but it's a decision which will cost you later on. There is a big caveat to this. Bill Belichick almost certainly has very good job security. He has, in fairness, earned that security and it allows him to address areas of future rather than current need. Tom Cable, on the other hand....

The other point is that it is not sensible to ignore areas of need and pick BPAs only. Taken to its extreme form, that led to the nonsense of the Lions and their previous regime's propensity for taking WRs.

 

[mgteich]

I would suggest that you stop the crap. Obviously the patriots draft for value. The patriots don't force a pick because of need. HOWEVER, need is an important component of determining value.

If you believe that the position of the players named did not GREATLY increase the VALUE to the patriots, you are free to have that view.

If you believe that the NEED at OLB does NOT greatly increase the VALUE of OLB's to the patriots in this draft, you are entitled to that opinion also.

It's always amazing how people twist things to fit their ideas and just ignore what the coach says..

The Patriots draft for VALUE. That value is a combination of NEED and BPA. It's not just one or the other.

As a seasoned poster, MG, you should know this better than anyone. And I am very surprised that you would say otherwise.

As for wasting picks to move up, you have to put it into perspective. Will the players you are talking about acquiring bring the value of 2 picks as you are suggesting???

 

[patchick]

I think the title of this thread has thrown people off. If you read mgteich's actual post, he's very clearly NOT advocating a pure need approach that ignores value. On the contrary:

Of course, the "problem" occurs when a team pays much too much becaue the there is not a match of player and value.

Here's my understanding of his point (correct me if I'm wrong, OP):

Every team takes need into consideration in the draft. That's fine and necessary, but it can lure you into mistakes when there's a mismatch between need and value -- e.g., there's no RB worth a 1st-round pick, but you're so desperate for an RB that you pass over a bunch of impact players at other positions to take a RB with 3rd-round talent.

In this draft, though, there's no such mismatch. Several prospects at OLB/DE, the Pats' top need, are graded right in the range where the Pats are picking. Therefore, the team can go ahead and fill that need without worrying about sacrificing value.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

 

[gomezcat]

I think the title of this thread has thrown people off. If you read mgteich's actual post, he's very clearly NOT advocating a pure need approach that ignores value. On the contrary:



Here's my understanding of his point (correct me if I'm wrong, OP):

Every team takes need into consideration in the draft. That's fine and necessary, but it can lure you into mistakes when there's a mismatch between need and value -- e.g., there's no RB worth a 1st-round pick, but you're so desperate for an RB that you pass over a bunch of impact players at other positions to take a RB with 3rd-round talent.

In this draft, though, there's no such mismatch. Several prospects at OLB/DE, the Pats' top need, are graded right in the range where the Pats are picking. Therefore, the team can go ahead and fill that need without worrying about sacrificing value.

That makes sense. It was what I was trying to say, although I was having problems trying to get the point across.

 

[Metaphors]

No matter who they pick, it fills a need (unless it's a QB). They aren't set at any position.

Don't agree with you, but your point is worth exploring. When you have a uniquely deep draft and 4 top 50 picks, don't you need to have a handful of spots available for them to fit into? Add to that Tate and McKenzie hopefully coming online and expanding roles for Edelman, Butler, Chung and Brace...and this seems like a year where you need to have some open space.

 

[patchick]

Don't agree with you, but your point is worth exploring. When you have a uniquely deep draft and 4 top 50 picks, don't you need to have a handful of spots available for them to fit into? Add to that Tate and McKenzie hopefully coming online and expanding roles for Edelman, Butler, Chung and Brace...and this seems like a year where you need to have some open space.

I think there's a certain element of truth. While there are some needs they MUST address, they also have enough picks to allow a "luxury" selection at any point--including #22--if they think a true impact player is available.