![]() |
|
|||||||
| Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
| View Poll Results: Next year the Redskins will... | |||
| Be back in the playoffs |
|
83 | 87.37% |
| Come crashing back down to earth |
|
12 | 12.63% |
| Voters: 95. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#17 | |
|
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,323
|
Re: Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)
Quote:
Needs based drafting means you can potentially pass on higher rated/graded prospect to draft a player that fits a need; in the manner punch it in outlined. That is nothing like how I think a GM with a BPA would approach a draft. A BPA GM would always take the higher rated prospect. Needs based, as outlined by punch the higher rated prospect may be passed over in favor of addressing a need. Another and really the key area where we disagree is I don't think GMs that are BPA advocates ignore their own team and I think they have longer focus then a 1 year snapshot of their team. So when a GM espouses a BPA philosophy its not gonna result in drafting 7 WRs or 7 QBs. In my view they're gonna ask themselves is this prospect the BPA on my team? For example the Vikings when they had Chester Taylor, he was a 1,000 yard RB but Adrian Peterson was still a better prospect. Or when it was rumored that Scott would have taken Gurley even though we had Alfred. I have no idea what Matt Millen's draft philosophy was; all I know is he wasn't good at drafting players regardless of his strategy. And when it comes to pass rushers I think any GM regardless of BPA or need based will agree that you can never have enough. And depending on scheme you could potentially have anywhere from 4-7 positions where you could have a pass rusher from DL to LB to DBs. To each there own, when I look at drafting history for GM's that I know espouse BPA (Scott, Casserly, Wolf, Thompson,Schneider) I think it bears out that they take into account whether the BPA prospect is also the BPA on their own team. |
|
|
|
|
|
|