The Best Drafts Is When There Are NO Must Haves (either players or positions)

[mgteich]

The goal is to have a complete team before the draft, hoping to improve in the draft and then sign minor level free agents to fill holes.

Vrabel has taken one of the very worst 2024 teams and has gotten us so that we can pay attention to value. Last year, we absolutely NEEDED players at QB, WR and OL. So, the staff delivered 2 in each group. This year, we want to add valuable players for the future. HOWEVER, they can be at almost any position.
======
DEFENSE
Sure, if the BPA is there, many positions can be upgraded. We could use help at DT, ED, and CB.
But the key is that we could play effectively with what we have perhaps plus a couple of minor free agent additions (corner stands out). Our DL is better. Our LB corps is better. Our secondary is better. And NOW, we are being greedy and want more.

OFFENSE
Let's be clear. Vrabel took our worst areas and made them almost reasonable. We have 3 new starters on the OL, including Strange who didn't play much last year (plus Andrews and Wallace should be back healthy)

We have 2 new starting WR's considerably better than what we had.

Our TE's, RB's and QB's are about what we had. As an aside, RB's can easily be signed in free agency as well as in the mid-level picks in this draft.

Sure, we need more in every group.
===========
Our only HOLE is at LT. And even there, if we say sign someone who isn't ready in Year One (often the case), Vrabel will sign Humphreys or one of the other free agents as transition, perhaps a good idea unless we draft two OT's.

 

[Clonamery]

The goal is to have a complete team before the draft, hoping to improve in the draft and then sign minor level free agents to fill holes.

Vrabel has taken one of the very worst 2024 teams and has gotten us so that we can pay attention to value. Last year, we absolutely NEEDED players at QB, WR and OL. So, the staff delivered 2 in each group. This year, we want to add valuable players for the future. HOWEVER, they can be at almost any position.
======
DEFENSE
Sure, if the BPA is there, many positions can be upgraded. We could use help at DT, ED, and CB.
But the key is that we could play effectively with what we have perhaps plus a couple of minor free agent additions (corner stands out). Our DL is better. Our LB corps is better. Our secondary is better. And NOW, we are being greedy and want more.

OFFENSE
Let's be clear. Vrabel took our worst areas and made them almost reasonable. We have 3 new starters on the OL, including Strange who didn't play much last year (plus Andrews and Wallace should be back healthy)

We have 2 new starting WR's considerably better than what we had.

Our TE's, RB's and QB's are about what we had. As an aside, RB's can easily be signed in free agency as well as in the mid-level picks in this draft.

Sure, we need more in every group.
===========
Our only HOLE is at LT. And even there, if we say sign someone who isn't ready in Year One (often the case), Vrabel will sign Humphreys or one of the other free agents as transition, perhaps a good idea unless we draft two OT's.

So what you're saying is there is A HOLE. Just A HOLE.

 

[Thelonious]

As I posted earlier, I think we simply must - after years of foolish dereliction - address LT/OL with our top pick, for the reasons we've been discussing for ...ever?? After that, given we lack talent at virtually every position certainly on offense, I would choose the best player available thereafter, with the offensive side being giving quite heavy preference. We can't afford a lot of draft-day wizardry snatching at shiny objects to please the impatient. You build a team from the inside out, starting with the fat guys who create the situations which allow the dazzlers to dazzle.

 

[hornetfb85]

So what you're saying is there is A HOLE. Just A HOLE.

 

[signbabybrady]

 

[patchick]

For some reason I was thinking wayyy back to 2004, when they had one must have position, NT, at which there was one must have player, Vince Wilfork. This board was going out of its mind screaming for Bill to trade up until Wilfork fell into their laps. Then all was well.

This year there’s one must have position again…but no must have player. We’re not collectively screaming for anybody because since the moment Josh Simmons’ knee went out, there has not been a blue chip LT in this draft. Not one. We’re left with magical thinking, in which natural guards and RTs can slip right into the starting LT job or Simmons will be ready and the same player day one.

Must haves are bad. Can’t haves are worse.

 

[borg]

"The Best Drafts Is ....."​

 

[JoeSixPat]

For some reason I was thinking wayyy back to 2004, when they had one must have position, NT, at which there was one must have player, Vince Wilfork. This board was going out of its mind screaming for Bill to trade up until Wilfork fell into their laps. Then all was well.

This year there’s one must have position again…but no must have player. We’re not collectively screaming for anybody because since the moment Josh Simmons’ knee went out, there has not been a blue chip LT in this draft. Not one. We’re left with magical thinking, in which natural guards and RTs can slip right into the starting LT job or Simmons will be ready and the same player day one.

Must haves are bad. Can’t haves are worse.

We are dating ourselves as I remember that draft very well! And if I'm not mistaken Vince was the ONLY Nose Tackle in that draft class in the end - so yeah, I think we were justified!

Count me among those calling out for an LT capable of protecting the QB on the first day of the season

That being said, if there's a trade back with an Ashton Jeanty-hungry team, there's a LOT of intriguing LTs available in this draft.

Historically (the graph below is 1980-2014 although I'd doubt it's changed much in the last decade) there's also a lot of value to be found at OT later in the draft with a near 70% productivity rate in the 2nd round if this supposed data from 2014 is correct - which at first glance that all seems about right to me, even if OT is shockingly high.

At the end of the day, for most positions, it's a crap shoot which is why I'm open to trading back with a "more is more" approach to drafting, making smaller moves to grab the guys you really want.

In some ways if you want to go the "Best Available Player" route at all times, you can just focus on OL, DB, and LB!

 

[TheRainMaker]

Our only HOLE is at LT. And even there, if we say sign someone who isn't ready in Year One (often the case), Vrabel will sign Humphreys or one of the other free agents as transition, perhaps a good idea unless we draft two OT's.

They have a hole along the entire OL. RB could use an upgrade. WR is still not good enough. No FS.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

The Best Drafts Is When There Are NO Must Haves (either players or positions)​

Every team, including the Super Bowl winner, has needs due to free agent defections or retirements.

 

[Water Boy]

When you have depth across the board it allows for a BPA draft in consideration of positional value. The good treams have been able to do this. The Lions come to mind.

That's what sucked with what BB did in trading Shaq Mason. More or less tried to reach for a starting guard in Round 1 to fill a hole he willfully created.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

Drafting for need is such a silly concept really for a rebuilding/bad team. Even if you draft a good player, most guys as rookies are less than what they ultimately end up as so you may "hit" on the pick but not really address the need in year 1 anyway. And roster turnover is so high that by year 2, 3, or 4 of his rookie deal your needs list probably includes several positions you didn't view as needs on that draft day where you passed on someone you like better for need.

If you're a pretty solid or even great team with one or two glaring holes it can make sense to reach if you see someone who can be competent right away in your evaluation where locking that spot down makes a difference for you. But overall, drafting a player you're going to sign for 4-5 years on the basis of what the year 1 roster looks like in a league with so much turnover is preposterous.