I think these are brilliant. Some comments. #1 is why I'm skeptical of the BPA strategy. The guy everyone thinks is the best player probably won't be the best player. #2 Thanks Dave Gettleman. #4 Why if Darnold becomes a franchise QB, Mac did the right thing trading up for him. #7 Applies to later rounds too. As in possibly us. Right now. Gulp.
These rules really illustrate just how far down the role of RBs and the running game in general has fallen in football. Makes me exceedingly sad. While I don't long for the days of overcompensated but fragile RBs with inevitably short careers, I'm not enamored with the even more overcompensated QBs around which the game revolves now. Football should be a game of balance built around great teams. These changes have made me far less interested in the game. Hopefully it will change back one day, but I'm not holding my breath....
Some comments back at ya : ) #1: The interpretation of the Jets' (BPA) pick as an "I'm smarter than everybody else" mindset is somewhat of a non sequitur imho. If anything it would suggest the opposite. #2: Forget the Giants & Gettleman: instead, it's one of the reasons why the Jets nabbed Le'Veon Bell. #3: "Run-stuffer" (i.e. "he's essentially a one trick pony or will be forced into playing the role as one") is hardly an apt description of Q.Williams (or Gregg Williams for that matter) and more likely the residual 'sob' Josh Allen..edge rusher 'sob' hangover? #4: See: Sam Darnold (maybe hold off on the sam avatar if he's just an "if" to you). #5: n/a #6: FO admittedly has whiffed on WRs. Devin Smith looked good in college and was TD productive. Too bad he had Milliner's (and Maye's?) glass bones. #7: They looked to do so (for Bradbury per NFLN).
I'm taking #1 a step further than Kapadia. He's saying that if you have a conviction on a player that others don't have, you're probably wrong. I'm saying even the consensus is less accurate than people like to think. For #3 I didn't say Q Williams is a run-stuffer, most of the praise I've heard of him is about the passing game. And for #4 I usually have the face of the team as my avatar regardless of whether I'm sold on him.
#1: that's what I'm saying; an example: the Kyle Brady-over-Warren Sapp fiasco (even though Sapp was one of those *shudder* interior DL-men).
The Brady over Sapp pick was extreme, Sapp was seen as much better than Brady. And I don't mind too much when Mac goes BPA in the first round, he does well there. Though I'm not convinced Q Williams will end up being a better player than say Josh Allen. The grades on those two are much closer than Brady and Sapp. The more annoying part is when Mac ignores team needs in later rounds because of BPA, even though the difference in grades between the guy he takes and the guy he passes on is minuscule.
Yep, but at the same time did you not see the slew of people seeing "DL" next to Jacqui Polite's name and immediately going off the deep end as it he was some stick-in-the-mud run stopping plug? You, myself and others knew him for what he was at Florida: a pass rushing specialist best suited as a 3-4 OLB. But again, blinded by their own whiny tears, the "Josh" peanut gallery blindly went full-SOJF, not even realizing what they were trashing.
This is as enlightening as hell, especially number six. Who would have thought that a wide receiver should be productive to be considered?
Nice list. I see Macc only applying maybe 2. But in reality, his whole draft strategy is BPA. Look how that has worked.
I agree -- not much here to write home about. The most interesting bit was the last sentence: ID and target the self-serving GM's who are feeling extra pressure to win now or get fired. That's smart.
In general, I like these. I don't believe in hard and fast "rules" for the draft, but there are guidelines that one should tend to follow. Each draft is different however, and I think a GM should be flexible and willing to change/adapt when situations/opportunities arise. #1 is particularly important to keep in mind, and can't be overstated. I don't like #2. It sounds more like a hard and fast "rule," and I don't think that one should blindly follow any "rule" in the draft. In general, yes, one often can find a very good RB in a middle round, but if one has a playoff team and is looking for an edge to help one get over the hump, taking a RB higher is not a bad way to go about it. Also, if one has a young QB and doesn't have a quality RB, one of the best ways one can help one's QB develop is to have a great RB. That's why the Jets signed Bell (to help Sam develop). Similarly, #3 sounds like a hard and fast "rule." One's D might be very good in pass coverage and might struggle stopping the run and the weakest spot in one's D vs the run might be at one's LB or DT position. In that scenario, one should at least strongly consider taking that LB/DT, if not actually doing it. Similarly, #4 also sounds like a hard and fast "rule." While I don't generally like trading up at all, there are times where it can make total sense that aren't just for getting a FQB. There are 3 positions that are considered the most important on every team: FQB, LT and Edge Rusher. The best prospects at all three positions generally go early in the 1st round. If one has a big need at either LT or Edge Rusher and is set to draft in the mid-first round area or lower, the only chance of getting an elite prospect at either position may be to trade up, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to trade up in those situations. Another situation where one could trade up is if one's team is already very good, has been to the playoffs several years, but can't get over the hump and there is one position where one hasn't been able to find an upgrade either in FA or the draft. In that scenario, if there is a player at that position that one really likes in the draft, then I think that one should trade up and get him, not just keep hoping that somehow one will magically get the player one needs at that position or somehow get over the hump without a better player at that position. One should also keep in mind that trading up in the middle or lower rounds won't cost one as much as trading up in the 1st or 2nd round, so one can be a little more aggressive or flexible in those rounds. That said, draft picks are as precious as platinum, gold, diamonds and should be treated accordingly. They shouldn't be given away willy nilly for older, over-the-hill players. One can get great deals this way at times and can get players that can help one's team or provide a needed stop gap. This should be done sparingly however, and not be the first impulse one has or the one's first way of addressing a need. A guideline that I think should go hand-in-hand with #4, and does approach rule status for me is that when one trades up in a draft, one should seek to trade down in at least a couple of subsequent drafts to make up for the picks one gave up to move up, so that one can keep adding talent. I hasten to add that it isn't just about the number of picks, either. If one trades up in the first, trading down in even the 3rd round doesn't make up for it. If one trades up in the first, one should trade down in the 1st so the pick or picks that one recoops is as close as possible to the pick or picks one gave up to move up in the draft. I really like #s 5-7. I would add a few other guidelines. The first would go to the top or near the top of the guidelines in importance: One should balance BPA with need. Blind adherence to either can get one into trouble. Obsessively taking only BPA can leave holes on the roster, and one can wind up taking prospects on only one side of the roster or one position group (see Mac's drafting of D and DL). Looking only at need can cause one to panic and reach for players at the position of need. When one has a big hole or need, why should one only seek to fill it via FA? In FA there may only be JAGs available at that position or there may be a player who is one of the best at that position in the NFL, but signing him would upset one's team salary structure or that player may not fit one's system. The best way to address need can be via the draft when value, BPA and need can all coincide. The second would be that in general, only seek to trade down in the first 3 rounds where the talent is best. The further one goes in the draft, the shallower the talent pool. I don't think it helps to add more less talented players who have a lesser chance of making the team over adding more talented players. In general, in the last 3 rounds, take the best available player regardless of position unless one has several prospects with roughly equal grades and one has a need at one of the positions. An exception might be if a draft is exceptionally deep and the talent level goes through the lower rounds or if one needs more and better STs players, then one might trade down to acquire extra lower round picks. The third is more complex and has several components. It would be to don't get too hung up on "value," but don't make a habit of "reaching." Being always hung up on "value" can cause one to miss a player that one really likes and can really help your team. If there is a player that one really likes who would be a great fit for your system is there at your pick, and you can't trade down, or fear that waiting to take him later could cause you to miss him, go ahead and take him. That said, try not to "fall in love" with players. This can cause one to reach or to miss opportunities to trade down. Always seek to identity multiple players at a position that one likes and could help one's team. The fourth is seek to be as balanced as one can with one's drafting. Don't neglect any one side of the ball or any one position group. Spread the love, but with the NFL being an offensive league, first priority should go to having as strong an offense as possible, and because games are won and lost in the trenches, the offensive line should always be a top priority. The fifth is to seek to draft players who love the game of football, who are team-oriented (unselfish), hard-working, high character types and perhaps leaders who want to be the best they can be. Seek to avoid workout warriors, those whose love for and commitment to the game is questionable, those who have lots of talent but aren't coachable or who don't have a good work ethic, and those with lots of off-field or injury issues. The sixth is it doesn't matter how good one's team is, without a FQB, one isn't going to have a very good chance of getting to and winning a SB or being really competitive year in and year out. If one doesn't have a FQB, do whatever is necessary to get one.
Very nice commentary I particularly liked points 4-6 which spell out modern day NFL reality: Dont neglect one side of the ball or position group BUT understand its now an Offensive League; game one in trenches Dont hire unteachable players or with lots of off field or injury issues..makes sense Get a FQB or your team is Toast What I am completely astounded by how a very high salaried GM working for us could not have come to these easy conclusions especially since he has been on the job 5 years Also , (and Ive said this before) the fact that so many armchair GMs on TGG (not just who I trade likes with) have a very good working knowledge of the game that far exceeds our GM is pretty scary
