Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
I'd say this is very much black-and-white thinking. You seem to hone in on two possible courses of action: draft best player available vs draft for need.
Couldn't (and shouldn't) teams be using a hybrid formula?
If the goal is to get better as a whole, teams should be drafting players for the value they provide over the player currently on the roster who will be displaced. So the possible Sam Bradford selection should be evaluated in light of the quality QB he's replacing, Jason Campbell. A Russell Okung selection should be evaluated in light of the T he's replacing, Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones (assuming Samuels retires). But further compounding matters is whether or not another player is available later in the draft who also represents an equal upgrade over the current roster.
And really, the crux of your argument is risk. You're saying that QBs are so hit and miss while Ts are more likely to pan out. Fair point. But I'd counter by noting that I'm not interested in getting better, I'm interested in getting great. It doesn't do much for me to see a great LT come on, protect a mediocre QB for years, and watch us fade in and out of mediocrity.
I'm interested in a player we can build around, who covers for the deficiencies of others, who makes the team a more attractive destination for free agents, and who makes his teammates better rather than playing at a level commensurate to his teammates.
Granted the risk is there, but so is the reward. I'm in the camp that feels Campbell is not championship material, in my mind no offensive line (save the Hogs) could make Campbell a SB winning QB. IF Shanny sees something in Bradford or Clausen, that elite potential, I say go for it. I get what you're saying, you need to be right.
But still, sack up and put the chips on the table, I'm tired of being a fringe playoff team every single year. Nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB.
|
I'll say this: if the Redskins draft board ends up looking anything like mine, neither BPA nor draft for need nor a hybrid philosophy would result in taking a Quarterback.
And I think all teams should use a hybrid of the two. But it's worth pointing out that taking a quarterback at No. 4 probably isn't a hybrid of any sort, it's quite strictly BPA. It can't really be justified if one of the quarterbacks doesn't come out to #1 or #2 on the overall board. Which, by definition, we'd be picking the best player available.
The other thing that has to factor into the risk-reward matrix is the finance structure of the NFL draft. Prudence is dictated by the top ten picks in a way that the rest of the draft simply doesn't force one to return anything. When you pick in the 20-25 range, you can take a player who has a high bust potential if the athleticism can offer you a potential superstar, because he's easy to get away from if he sucks.
But taking a QB in the top five, the risk pretty much has to be non-existent. Maybe you shoot for Peyton Manning and end up with Eli. That's a miss, but it's financially excusable. But you can't afford to shoot for Peyton Manning and end up with Ryan Leaf. That's financially inexcusable.
As it still is with all positions that aren't quarterback. There's too many options at the top of the draft to settle for a mediocre prospect at a premium position in a sea of excellent talents. There's systematic risk in the NFL draft, even at the top, but most bust picks at the top five are just gianormous reaches as opposed to poor development cases. Later on in the round and the rest of draft, it's all about the development. What you can do with the player as opposed to what he is.
In the top five, what he already has been is a lot of the evaluation. Primarily because of dollars.
We can afford to pay anyone we draft. We just can't afford to miss, because instead of measuring in wins over replacement, you could easily be measuring in losses.