Drafting the Trenches First is Not Smart

[JetSkins]

If we were picking #13 every year in the 20 year period from 1983 to 2002, we might have taken an all-pro lineman 50% of the time. That's 10 linemen in 20 years.

that's your argument? no pro-bowl so the the guy is worthless to you?

[jflow78]

Seems to me that the Lions are in a hole because Millen was a poor judge of talent.

Matt Millen is definitely a poor judge of talent, but I've already backed up my statement in a previous post in this thread. There were lots of people that thought they did exactly what you're saying, bpa regardless of position.

Not if you draft well and can eventually trade a couple of those players for greater value than a #1 pick as the current FO did with Roy Williams.

I agree with you, but, again in my previous post, Roy Williams was, ironically, the only WR they picked up that wasn't called the, "best player in the draft" at some point by several scouts. He was the BPA for a position they could use, and had a need in.

I won't pass up a grade A player to take a grade B player at a position of need. Mine is a long-term strategy more concerned with breaking out of the mediocre middle and less concerned with filling a hole for next season.

I agreed with you here. I said if the difference between players is picking a solid starter to picking a backup, go with the starter, every time. But, more than likely the choice isn't that clear. Since the players don't have A or B stamped on their foreheads we all rely on speculation. If your choice is picking between one of the OTs in this draft (Jason Smith or Eugene Monroe) at #1, or picking Matthew Stafford, or picking Michael Crabtree, who would you take then? And if we're sitting at 13 and we have our pick between Andre Smith or Michael Oher, or Bryan Orakpo or Aaron Maybin, or Ray Mauluga, or the top rated CB in the draft, who do you think we should take?

Even if the CB was the second coming of D. Sanders, to me you'd waste your pick by taking him.

[Oldfan]

that's your argument? no pro-bowl so the the guy is worthless to you?

No, the argument is that you don't use #13 to take a mediocre grade B pick to fill a need if you have to pass up a grade A player at any position to do it.

Mediocre players are available in free agency to fill gaps. Why give up a #1 pick for one?

[Oldfan]

jflow78: I agree with you, but, again in my previous post, Roy Williams was, ironically, the only WR they picked up that wasn't called the, "best player in the draft" at some point by several scouts. He was the BPA for a position they could use, and had a need in.

Using mock drafts as your evidence, while not knowing how Millen rated the player, makes for a weak argument.

I agreed with you here. I said if the difference between players is picking a solid starter to picking a backup, go with the starter, every time. But, more than likely the choice isn't that clear.

If the choice isn't that clear, then fill the need.

Since the players don't have A or B stamped on their foreheads we all rely on speculation.

NFL general managers aren't speculating. They select based on the reports of their scouts. There isn't another intelligent choice for them.

If your choice is picking between one of the OTs in this draft (Jason Smith or Eugene Monroe) at #1, or picking Matthew Stafford, or picking Michael Crabtree, who would you take then? And if we're sitting at 13 and we have our pick between Andre Smith or Michael Oher, or Bryan Orakpo or Aaron Maybin, or Ray Mauluga, or the top rated CB in the draft, who do you think we should take?

Even if the CB was the second coming of D. Sanders, to me you'd waste your pick by taking him.

I am only casually interested in the players you mentioned becuse I don't have a high regard for the amateur scouts that provide the information. In Vinny's shoes, if my scouts rate a CB as the next Deion, the BPA, I take him.

[jflow78]

Using mock drafts as your evidence, while not knowing how Millen rated the player, makes for a weak argument.

I didn't just look at mock drafts. If you aren't satisfied with my sources then, as I said before, please provide some of your own. I'm open to better sources, but saying my sources aren't good enough when you don't give any is pretty much like saying, "I'm right because I say so."

If the choice isn't that clear, then fill the need.

Then we agree here. I think that's the case most of the time.

NFL general managers aren't speculating. They select based on the reports of their scouts. There isn't another intelligent choice for them.

Well, since neither of us have scouts, I'm looking at sources by scouting magazines, and yes Mel Kiper, Todd McShay, and those types, they do, after all, do this for a living. If general managers aren't speculating, then they should be hitting on every pick, every time. Or, the talent at #1 should translate into a HoF every time with a gradual decline over the entire career of a pick. That doesn't happen, so these guys can only speculate, that's what they get paid for, to speculate, analyze, and be right most of the time, but it's still speculation.

I am only casually interested in the players you mentioned becuse I don't have a high regard for the amateur scouts that provide the information. In Vinny's shoes, if my scouts rate a CB as the next Deion, the BPA, I take him.

Then you're as bad as Matt Millen, which brings us full circle, "I didn't know Matt Millen posts on this board." Now I do.

[Oldfan]

jflow78: I didn't just look at mock drafts. If you aren't satisfied with my sources then, as I said before, please provide some of your own. I'm open to better sources, but saying my sources aren't good enough when you don't give any is pretty much like saying, "I'm right because I say so."

Debate doesn't work that way. It's up to you to support your Matt Millen argument with good logic and reliable evidence. It's not required that I prove you wrong.

Well, since neither of us have scouts, I'm looking at sources by scouting magazines, and yes Mel Kiper, Todd McShay, and those types, they do, after all, do this for a living. If general managers aren't speculating, then they should be hitting on every pick, every time. Or, the talent at #1 should translate into a HoF every time with a gradual decline over the entire career of a pick. That doesn't happen, so these guys can only speculate, that's what they get paid for, to speculate, analyze, and be right most of the time, but it's still speculation.

You are creating your own custom definition of the word "speculation" when you say that " If general managers aren't speculating, then they should be hitting on every pick, every time. " Lack of certainty in the selection process does not mean that the process can be labeled 'speculation.'

Here's a dictionary definition of the word.:

a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); "speculations about the outcome of the election"; "he dismissed it as mere conjecture"

When one jumps to conclusion based on little evidence, we might say he is "just speculating."

The NFL teams spend more money and hire people with more experience and expertise than Mel Kiper and others like him can afford. They accumulate the hard evidence to make more intelligent selections based on probability. They do a far better job of a very complex and difficult task.

Then you're as bad as Matt Millen, which brings us full circle, "I didn't know Matt Millen posts on this board." Now I do.

Whatever.

[Pwyl]

Whatever.

Did you flip your hair and roll your eyes while you were typing this? :hysterical: