Vinny's Draft Strategy: Best Player or Predetermined Agenda?

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I say grab a kicker

I think two kickers were actually taken in the 5th round this year. LOL.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think two kickers were actually taken in the 5th round this year. LOL.

Yeah, dallas took one even though they have a good one in Folk.

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

It's both BPA and need.

You can't have a plan set in stone. Each year is different and each draft class determines the plan of action you can take. Many teams focus on BPA but you also have to consider need as well.

I tend to agree with this. Although we can site the 2008 draft as evidence that the FO went after "need" first. We can also look at the 2007 draft (Landry= BPA vs. Okoye=Need) or the fact that, by Vinny's own admission, that plan A was to draft J Mayo last year and plan B was to trade down versus taking DE's Calais Campbell or Phillip Merling who also filled need positions.

I have to say that I approve of alot of what the FO has been doing for the past 3 years.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

It's both BPA and need.

You can't have a plan set in stone. Each year is different and each draft class determines the plan of action you can take. Many teams focus on BPA but you also have to consider need as well.

Matty again is spot-on. The subject of this thread creates a false either/or.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

Yeah, dallas took one even though they have a good one in Folk.

Well maybe they knew something about this....

Dallas Cowboys kicker Nick Folk undergoes surgery to repair torn hip cartilage - ESPN

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Matty again is spot-on. The subject of this thread creates a false either/or.

For the record, I hate most either/or questions simply because there are usually more choices. Maybe based on the thread title you're right, but read my explanation of the thread - I think they have a plan, and from that plan they may choose BPA, e.g. best LBs available (09), best safeties available (08), best wr's available (08).

If anyone has created a "false either/or" it's Vinny, who has said publicly that they simply pick BPA. My point is that there seems too much of a pattern here w/regards to positions to say that it is as much BPA as Vinny publicly states.

Not a criticism of the approach, just an attempt to identify the FO plan.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

It pretty clear to me that in the higher rounds (1-2), we draft BPA period. While we are mindful of needs, we absoultely will not REACH more than a slot or two to take a player just because he fills a need. We may try to trade up or down to fill a need with a player "at the right slot," but if we were unable to do so, we would take the BPA that doesnt fit a need as opposed to "reaching" and taking a player 10 spots too early, just to fill a need. Consider two examples:

Example 1: 2008 Draft. Last year, whoever we had as the best available on our board when we when our 1st round pick came up, was probably someone that didnt fill a position of need. the Best available players that did fit needs were not worth taking at our natural position. So, we tried like hell to trade down - and we succeeded. Unfortunately (depending on your POV), according to vinny, after each spot we got after we traded down, another team selected the player we wanted right before us (probably , Merling, Laws, and Campbell). Thus, we ended up filling one need (WR Devin Thomas) and taking two players we really didnt need at that point (Fred Davis and Malcom Kelly) because they were far and away the best players on our board.

Example 2: 2009 Draft. This year, it was our goal to take the BPA and fill a (perceived) need - QB - and to do this, we tried like hell to trade up but it just didnt work out. At that point, we moved to plan B - fill a need with one of the top 5 players on our board - and to do this, we also tried to trade up. Fortunately, Orakpo fell to us. If he hadnt, we would have tried to trade down. If we were unsuccessful, we probably would have drafted Cushing - I don't think we would have REACHED for Oher - while us fans and the majority of mocks seemed to have him valued very high, the sentiment was obviously not shared by about 2/3 of NFL teams.

So thats how we handle the 1st and 2nd rounds in the draft. Once we get to the lower rounds, i think we would tend to be more balanced with taking BPA with need. While we wont reach more than a spot or two in the 1st round, we may reach a 10-15 spots (according to our board) to fill a need. In the lower rounds, talent level becomes so similar (i.e. the difference in talent between a 1st and 2nd rounder is MUCH more dramatic than the difference between a 3rd and a 7th)

[Dirtbag59]

If it's a first round pick then I think Vinny genuinely takes the BPA. However after that I think it's honestly think it's a predetermined agenda which ironically has worked well for them with their late round picks, but the fact of the matter is they've taken two safeties, two linebackers (twice), two receivers, two d-tackles, and two OT's (2004) in years where they were considered positions of need. The part I don't like is that Vinny makes it seem like thats how their board shaped up when really they're just taking what they want most of the time.

[NM Redskin]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

It pretty clear to me that in the higher rounds (1-2), we draft BPA period. While we are mindful of needs, we absoultely will not REACH more than a slot or two to take a player just because he fills a need. We may try to trade up or down to fill a need with a player "at the right slot," but if we were unable to do so, we would take the BPA that doesnt fit a need as opposed to "reaching" and taking a player 10 spots too early, just to fill a need. Consider two examples:

Example 1: 2008 Draft. Last year, whoever we had as the best available on our board when we when our 1st round pick came up, was probably someone that didnt fill a position of need. the Best available players that did fit needs were not worth taking at our natural position. So, we tried like hell to trade down - and we succeeded. Unfortunately (depending on your POV), according to vinny, after each spot we got after we traded down, another team selected the player we wanted right before us (probably , Merling, Laws, and Campbell). Thus, we ended up filling one need (WR Devin Thomas) and taking two players we really didnt need at that point (Fred Davis and Malcom Kelly) because they were far and away the best players on our board.

Example 2: 2009 Draft. This year, it was our goal to take the BPA and fill a (perceived) need - QB - and to do this, we tried like hell to trade up but it just didnt work out. At that point, we moved to plan B - fill a need with one of the top 5 players on our board - and to do this, we also tried to trade up. Fortunately, Orakpo fell to us. If he hadnt, we would have tried to trade down. If we were unsuccessful, we probably would have drafted Cushing - I don't think we would have REACHED for Oher - while us fans and the majority of mocks seemed to have him valued very high, the sentiment was obviously not shared by about 2/3 of NFL teams.

So thats how we handle the 1st and 2nd rounds in the draft. Once we get to the lower rounds, i think we would tend to be more balanced with taking BPA with need. While we wont reach more than a spot or two in the 1st round, we may reach a 10-15 spots (according to our board) to fill a need. In the lower rounds, talent level becomes so similar (i.e. the difference in talent between a 1st and 2nd rounder is MUCH more dramatic than the difference between a 3rd and a 7th)

Well put!

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

Please try to post one message where you don't criticize or outright insult another poster. The superior tone of your posts has become annoying.

Don't read my posts then.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

It pretty clear to me that in the higher rounds (1-2), we draft BPA period. While we are mindful of needs, we absoultely will not REACH more than a slot or two to take a player just because he fills a need. We may try to trade up or down to fill a need with a player "at the right slot," but if we were unable to do so, we would take the BPA that doesnt fit a need as opposed to "reaching" and taking a player 10 spots too early, just to fill a need. Consider two examples:

Example 1: 2008 Draft. Last year, whoever we had as the best available on our board when we when our 1st round pick came up, was probably someone that didnt fill a position of need. the Best available players that did fit needs were not worth taking at our natural position. So, we tried like hell to trade down - and we succeeded. Unfortunately (depending on your POV), according to vinny, after each spot we got after we traded down, another team selected the player we wanted right before us (probably , Merling, Laws, and Campbell). Thus, we ended up filling one need (WR Devin Thomas) and taking two players we really didnt need at that point (Fred Davis and Malcom Kelly) because they were far and away the best players on our board.

Example 2: 2009 Draft. This year, it was our goal to take the BPA and fill a (perceived) need - QB - and to do this, we tried like hell to trade up but it just didnt work out. At that point, we moved to plan B - fill a need with one of the top 5 players on our board - and to do this, we also tried to trade up. Fortunately, Orakpo fell to us. If he hadnt, we would have tried to trade down. If we were unsuccessful, we probably would have drafted Cushing - I don't think we would have REACHED for Oher - while us fans and the majority of mocks seemed to have him valued very high, the sentiment was obviously not shared by about 2/3 of NFL teams.

So thats how we handle the 1st and 2nd rounds in the draft. Once we get to the lower rounds, i think we would tend to be more balanced with taking BPA with need. While we wont reach more than a spot or two in the 1st round, we may reach a 10-15 spots (according to our board) to fill a need. In the lower rounds, talent level becomes so similar (i.e. the difference in talent between a 1st and 2nd rounder is MUCH more dramatic than the difference between a 3rd and a 7th)

good summary