Harold Landry Update

Ring 6 said:

It never is a choice between a guaranteed better player and a guaranteed worse player.

Click to expand...

jimnance said:

Never? Lol, Andy how wrong can you be? There are many many examples of a team taking a guaranteed worse player over a guaranteed better player because they were so focused on trying to fill a need.
Just off the top of head, Blake Bortles, a terrible player, was drafted 10 spots ahead of Aaron Donald. Thats one of the all-time greatest defensive players in NFL history.
Not only that, the Jags also passed on Khalil Mack.
This is what teams like the Jete do year after year.

Click to expand...

Ring 6 said:

A wrong decision doesn’t mean you intentionally chose a worse player, it means you evaluated them wrong.

Click to expand...

jimnance said:

I agree but the end result is the same - you chose a much worse player over a much better player who would've improved your team. In the end, what else matters?

Click to expand...

Ring 6 said:

The discussion wasn’t about proper evaluation it was about choosing a clearly (guaranteed) worse player for need over a clearly (guaranteed) better player.

Click to expand...

40yrpatsfan said:

You're saying to not reach for a position of need when there are better players available at other positions, should pivot to another position even if it's not as great a need. But if the BPA is a LT and we already have a stud LT, we're more likely to trade down than pick another one or to reach for the mediocre DT. We're a team with MANY needs so it shouldn't be hard to find a good value at a position of need.

Another factor is how many guys at the same position & quality are left? e.g., in the mid rounds of this draft I think there's gonna still be many LB's that are pretty good, but not many good safeties. That could influence us to pick the safety over a more highly rated LB, thinking we can get the LB later.

Click to expand...