Draft: Need vs. Best Player

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Matter of minutes

You are a dedicated and respectable fan, but you have no life. I mean that in the nicest way though.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by angryssg

You are a dedicated and respectable fan, but you have no life. I mean that in the nicest way though.

Wow. What?

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Wow. What?

Oh crap I just got banned!

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by GiantsSuck703

Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne helped to bring a superbowl to Indy, and there defense sucked

they didnt win the superbowl until they learned how to stop someone.

[Oakland Red]

The point I wanted to make is that I think you want to draft for the most value - then you have the most value to work with, and can adjust your roster through free agency and trades later. To draft for need, you miss the much higher wattage player available when you make your pick if he isn't at your position of "need."

So, yes, last year the Texans could have drafted Reggie Bush. Most would say Reggie Bush was the higher wattage player than Mario Williams, who got 4 and a half sacks last year. The Texans would have had more overall team wattage if they had. They could have then engaged in trades and used free agency to balance their roster.

No, I am not saying that Reggie Bush had 100 times more talent wattage than M. Williams - I wasn't being specific about any players, and was using a metaphor to make a point.

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Wattage. Interesting.

Well, if my choices are 1000 "watts" vs 10 "watts", what you're really telling me is one guy is 100 times better than the other. Well yeah, duh, I'll take the 1000 watt guy. But there are no prospects on the board who are 100 times better than the others. Not even close. Calvin Johnson included. Of course, Calvin is a moot point for us, he'll be gone by the time we pick.

With that in mind, I'd stick to need. Our biggest need is depth at multiple spots, DT being the biggest need IMO. I'd trade down if possible. Otherwise, stick at 6 and pick DT.

[Beemnseven]

It's been said before, but the Lions ignored need, and drafted the "best player available" with Charles Rogers, Roy Williams and Mike Williams.

You cannot ignore your needs.

[vaoutlaws2006]

drafting a player based on a need works well in a perfect world....i say you draft the best player available when you pick. Regardless of position.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by vaoutlaws2006

drafting a player based on a need works well in a perfect world....i say you draft the best player available when you pick. Regardless of position.

So you'd take Brady Quinn if he fell?

Kinda useless when you have Campbell there. They are both going to be good QBs in a year or two, but you can only play one.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by vaoutlaws2006

drafting a player based on a need works well in a perfect world....i say you draft the best player available when you pick. Regardless of position.

That makes no sense. Why would we spend the 6th overall pick on a QB or RB for example?

[warriorzpath]

After reading some of these posts, I think what it comes down to is that it depends what situation the team is in and what is available. To me, this year's decision wasn't so obvious. There appeared to be some big concerns that needed to be addressed. One of these concerns would hopefully be resolved by the sixth overall draft pick.

I think there was an agreement that the biggest need for the redskins was defensive end (pash rush). But there wasn't an agreement for a draft prospect that clearly was the best, which to me meant that there wasn't an elite, sure-fire impact player at de.

At wr (Calvin Johnson) and safety (Landry and maybe a couple of others), there are elite players that appear to have the talent to make an immediate impact.

I think what matters the most is what you think would give you the most wins for the up and coming season (unless you were looking for a qb or olineman, which I think takes more time and investment).

Even considering all of this, since the redskins have so much going on, I think that they should just try to simplify things as much as they can - which is picking the best defensive end in the draft.

But that would be my approach to the draft, it is not basing everything on need and not basing everything on the best available player (regardless of position) - but to look at everything involved and pick based on what would give the team the most wins next season.

[EEich]

A good GM will generally put his team in the position that he can select based on the best available player rather than team need. There are exceptions to this rule, of course. We don't have a good GM and have not had that luxury for a long while. Lucky (?) for the Skins, they have alot of needs and therefore have alot of options.

[bigSkinsfan61]

best available players thinking is what a lot of teams do. The redskins did that with campbell and i believe he will evolve into a great QB. As far as need i firmly believe we have a great need for a de/dt . Okoye for me is the best available and need all rolled into one pick. He has the biggest upside to him. He's only going to get bigger and better ,considering is only 19! So for all its worth that is what i believe we should do.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

That makes no sense. Why would we spend the 6th overall pick on a QB or RB for example?

For our team QB and RB are off limits. We are set at those spots. Everything else is fair game.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

It's been said before, but the Lions ignored need, and drafted the "best player available" with Charles Rogers, Roy Williams and Mike Williams.

You cannot ignore your needs.

Det is stupid. Matt M. is the worst GM in the history of the NFL. Williams sat out a year. Sat on his ass for a whole year. No way he was the best player when they picked. Roy Williams was a good pick. Carlos didn't work out. 1/3 isn't too good when you pick that high.

[Longtimefan]

The purpose of the draft IMO is to make a conscious effort to improve your team in area's of need, therefor I believe that drafting accordingly is imperative.

I think the Redskins have identified their needs on the DL but have not targeted a particular player whom they feel is really worth what it will cost to sign at #6. Knowing their propensity to be driven by the ideology of FA's & veteran players, any player that suites our need on the DL whether it be DT/DE is unproven and therefore a reach.

We obviously recognize the need for defense, thus the consideration of the potential Briggs trade though it would not surfice our needs up front.

Because of the Redskins philosophy in reference to aquiring players, I am always skeptical when it comes to young players, that's why it's difficult for me to embrace the concept of trading down. They haven't demonstrated that they will utilize the young players they draft that are not top ten selections.