bb does indeed draft for need

[mgteich]

I judge this draft an "A".

MARONEY backup RB and short-down RB
JACKSON wide receiver
THOMAS tight end

incumbants
RB Charles
WR choose your pratice player
TE no one

Do you think we drafted for need?
We also need a top corner. Now, it's Law or no one.
We still need help at linebacker. We would have gotten this help, if we could have found a free agent wide receiver.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

I judge this draft an "A".

MARONEY backup RB and short-down RB
JACKSON wide receiver
THOMAS tight end

incumbants
RB Charles
WR choose your pratice player
TE no one

Do you think we drafted for need?
We also need a top corner. Now, it's Law or no one.
We still need help at linebacker. We would have gotten this help, if we could have found a free agent wide receiver.

Interesting about Law. I think Reiss mentioned today that with Seattle taking a CB in Rd. 1 it takes them out of the Law sweepstakes.

 

[TB12]

well we didnt really NEED a RB, but i really like the choice. We needed a WR but trading up for Jackson was an obvious choice. Thomas idk

 

[mgteich]

We didn't NEED a RB if you are happy with Pass starting if Dillon were to be injured. Or do you prefer Evans? And on third down, we go with Dillon because we have no one else, shortening his career. No, I think we NEEDED a RB. Besides, need isn't defined as just 2006 need. 2007 need is also need.

well we didnt really NEED a RB, but i really like the choice. We needed a WR but trading up for Jackson was an obvious choice. Thomas idk

 

[spacecrime]

Do you think we drafted for need?

No, I think as always BB drafted for the player that would have the most impact on the team. This is not always by need, or by best player available, but a combo of the two.

If the Pats drafted by need, they woukld take the player they needed next.

Had Maroney not been available, would they have taken the next best RB?

Were they trading up to get Chad Jackson (Best Player Available) or to get a WR. If jackson had gone to th Redskins at Pick #35, would the Pats still have traded up to pick the next best WR at #36?

No, of course not. Nor were they locked into a TE with pick #86. Thomas was simply the player who would have the biggest impact on the team.

If instead of picking RB-WR-TE, had we picked ILB-CB-OLB, you might still be saying BB picked for need.

Whatever he picked you could say he picked for need.

But he picked, as he has said repeatedly, the player that would help the team the most.

 

[Ahriman]

His primary focus is on player value across all positions. Need, BPA, stockpiling, etc all play a role. Value is still the main thing BB is looking for though.

 

[DaBruinz]

I judge this draft an "A".

MARONEY backup RB and short-down RB
JACKSON wide receiver
THOMAS tight end

incumbants
RB Charles
WR choose your pratice player
TE no one

Do you think we drafted for need?
We also need a top corner. Now, it's Law or no one.
We still need help at linebacker. We would have gotten this help, if we could have found a free agent wide receiver.

Gotta disagree with you, MG. BB drafted for VALUE based on the Pats value board. Part of that value equation does INCLUDE need, but value ALSO includes a players tangibles and intangibles.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Gotta disagree with you, MG. BB drafted for VALUE based on the Pats value board. Part of that value equation does INCLUDE need, but value ALSO includes a players tangibles and intangibles.

Agreed, but there are some who seem to think that you NEVER let need enter into the equation - considering only the fabled "best player available" which itself is completely subjective

I suppose if any GM did that they might have a draft full of Long Snappers and backup QBs

 

[dryheat44]

Intersection of value vs. need. If there was a first round caliber NT or OLB or CB available where they took Jackson, they would have taken him instead.

 

[kierkegaard]

I don't think he drafts based stictly on need nor strictly on value. I think he and all the teams that say they pick based on value pick do pick on how valuable a player would be to that team. Its a little of both actually :singing:

 

[the taildragger]

that was also my first thought.

I think it's a mix that evolved with the maturity of the team. In BB's first few drafts, the team was in a "growth phase" and we seemed to draft more for value. Now we're in more of a maintenance mode and draft more for need.

The equation also changes based on the round (value is probably more important in early rounds).

But need was obviously the predominant factor in the last couple drafts, and should continue to be in the future.

 

[stcjones]

I respectfully disagree

well we didnt really NEED a RB, but i really like the choice. We needed a WR but trading up for Jackson was an obvious choice. Thomas idk

I most certainly think that we DO need a RB...and that is why BB went RB with number 1........Dillon is a question mark at this point....who knows what his status is right now.....he was injured last year....seems to have lost a gear as well.....Faulk....can not carry the rock every down.....he has proven it over and over again....He is GREAT coming off the bench every once in awhile to spark the O however (just please keep him out of the playoff games because he is more fumble prone!!)..........Pass is another guy that can fill in but not an every down back IMHO..........Evans....will be used as a blocker, short yardage guy mostly........anyways.....great pick in Maroney I think.......

 

[stcjones]

well.....

No, I think as always BB drafted for the player that would have the most impact on the team. This is not always by need, or by best player available, but a combo of the two.

If the Pats drafted by need, they woukld take the player they needed next.

Had Maroney not been available, would they have taken the next best RB?

Were they trading up to get Chad Jackson (Best Player Available) or to get a WR. If jackson had gone to th Redskins at Pick #35, would the Pats still have traded up to pick the next best WR at #36?

No, of course not. Nor were they locked into a TE with pick #86. Thomas was simply the player who would have the biggest impact on the team.

If instead of picking RB-WR-TE, had we picked ILB-CB-OLB, you might still be saying BB picked for need.

Whatever he picked you could say he picked for need.

But he picked, as he has said repeatedly, the player that would help the team the most.

"Had Maroney not been available, would they have taken the next best RB?"

Using this logic Tom, why didn't we draft Steven Jackson several years ago when he fell into our lap????? BECAUSE we draft for need by taking the best value available for that PARTICULAR position!!!!!

Appreciate the post .....