Ryman of the North Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 i truly believe that you take the most talented plater regardless of position other than kicker types and quarterbacks the talented players will always be solid picks i believe you draft on a combination of production and potential with a strong mix of intangible like heart and intelligence.right now the safety from miami or the qb from oregon (again dont like to take qb so high!)would be tough to argue against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 it depends on what type of team you have and where your strengths and weaknesses are. for a 13-3 team that say has lost a player at DT to injury and needs to shore up their run defense, the idea of drafting a player a couple of slots ahead to solidify that spot makes sense. also for a team that already has young talent at a particular spot, it is not unreasonable to draft a comparable player and take a pass on say a second safety or a second strongside linebacker. what teams should NOT do is what Jerry Jones does. Jones takes players 150 picks ahead of where they are slated to go and in the process doesn't get full value for his draft. Using sound logic, if a player is pegged to go in round 5 and you like him there is nothing wrong with snapping up in round 4 and taking him. But to take him in round 1 or 2 is a travesty. And it leads to a depleted roster, which is what Dallas has at the moment. [ by bulldog on January 03, 2002.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 Ryan, this must be the safety you refer to : Many people feel the best of the bunch could be Ed Reed of Miami (Fla.), a two-time All-American and four-year starter who has picked off 17 passes in the past two years. That is, unless Oklahoma junior Roy Williams comes out early. The thing that really stands out about Reed is his great knack for making big plays at big times in big games. He also is so athletic, some teams feel he could play as a jam corner on the next level. Reed can pedal and burst to the ball and flip his hips. He is smooth in his backpedal and much more sudden than most safeties. He is a leader on and off the field and has an excellent work ethic. He has also competed in track and field and threw the javelin for the Miami track team 217 feet, seven inches in 1999. While there are no huge knocks against Reed, scouts would prefer if he were a little taller. His tackling seems to have fallen off a little this year, but that may be because he played part of the year with a bad shoulder. In coverage, he is much better when the play is in front of him. At times he has let receivers get behind him because he was guilty of peeking or biting on play-action fakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 well, the conventional wisdom is that you don't take a safety with your #1 pick. There are enough decent players at the position in free agency and in the later rounds that unless you are one player away you take a pass for positions that are harder to fill. I go along with this to a point. If I am a middle of the pack team without definite title hopes for the upcoming season I am not going to draft a safety, tight end, kicker, fullback or punter with my top selection. It just doesn't make sense. The reason? A top of the line safety or tight end is not worth as much to a football team as a top of the line defensive lineman or cornerback. Or running back. And of course we all know about Marty's favorite position, quarterback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 Taking the most talented player regardless of position is fine in and of itself, even with the caveats that Bulldog mentioned. But I don't think you have to be rigid about it because I don't think that the talent available slots itself in a neatly descending heirarchy, or that you can readily guage the relative talent between two players at different positions. When your turn to pick comes up, it's not always apparent who the next 'best' player is, or what that even means to you as opposed to someone else. Especially after the first handful or so of readily identifiable blue chip prospects, or after the middle of the first round, you're likely to find that the options available to you are contained in a pool of a half dozen or more players at different positions that could be considered appropriate for your slot. In that situation, you can now look at overall need, rather than be forced to accept a player because you believe in a rigid BAA approach. Ocasionally, someone descends through the draft that you can't ignore if if you find him available at your slot (Fred Smoot). But usually, you have a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 I wasn't implying that we should take Reed with the first pick. I mentioned his name, because he would fill a need, and is one of the best prospects at that position. Therefore, we should draft him if he's available in the 2nd or 3rd round Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 I wouldn't take a safety until the 3rd round. Ideally, I would fill the SS slot if Shade is released in free agency. The top two selections should be for defensive line and offensive line or quarterback, depending on whom we acquire after March 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 I have now totally made up my mind that we should draft Reed or Williams, whichever is available. We'll have one of the most dominant secondaries in the leauge for years to come. Bailey and Smoot at the corners...Reed or Williams at strong safety. A decent free agent pickup at free safety should shore up that position. We must take Williams or Reed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 "we must take Williams or Reed." ???????? I don't think so. Maybe Ohalete has a shot at the strong safety spot next year. Is Safety as big a weakness as QB? as DT/DE considering the age factor? or OL at guard or center? or even Wr or TE with the potential losses of Westbrook, Alexander and Flemister? Or what if we lose kijana? maybe a back-up RB must get taken. What if we lose Barber, Jones and either Mitchell/Mason? Then LB becomes an immediate issue. I don't think so. Fact is even the skins do not know who or what position they will be drafting. Because they do not know what weak positions will get filled in free agency and what weaknesses will be created due to free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indyskinsfan Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 Bill Polian selects for the Indianapolis Colts... Ed Reed, of the University of Miami Announcer who did Santana Moss' introduction last year at the Draft: "Ed Reed is the truth, and the truth is he's got the skills, moves and brains to handle opposing QB's, receivers, and take on the run". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 In terms of general outlook (the only part of the draft I think I'm qualified to discuss: I don't know how to evaluate individual players) I think we're in "best available athlete" mode. I think the only positions we've got where a rookie can't start next year are CB and OT. (LB could also be on that list, if we hang on to our FAs). (And I don't see a rookie RB starting, but if one's available, some depth wouldn't hurt. Depends on if we hang on to Carter). By the same reasoning, I'm almost always a fan of trading down. I want lots of new faces in training camp. I think of the draft as a lottery: the more tickets you have, the better your odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 Ryan, I don't think you are wrong here. I think depending on where we pick, this is a likely strategy. It's nice when the best player available when you pick dovetails with a need, as has been the case for us the last couple of years but, we won't be married to the sixth best defensive tackle in the draft if the top corner drops. Yes. We'd take the top corner in the draft if that is the guy that fell. Ed Reed is Deon Grant, don't you think Kevin? I LOVED Grant. I like Reed. I love Williams from Oklahoma. I wouldn't be upset with a pick of either. On draft day though, we are probably going to pick the best player available. It's just very likely we are going to have certain positions with a much higher weight and that might boost some of the calculations for some positions. To me, you have to target a strong defensive lineman. If there's a run, that means strength elsewhere is there and you go that way. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 You take the best football player available at a position that you need. If the best player available when we pick is an offensive left tackle, I think we pass on him. Note: this not the same as the most talented player. Sometimes talent does not always translate to the football field. Ricky Dudley or Mike Mamula come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 I agree with bulldog, it depends on the team you're talking about. If you're the Carolina Panthers, you're d*mn right you take the best available, and you're very thankful about what you end up with. If you're a good to excellent team, you then pay more attention to filling needs. Given that I believe our team's needs are relatively limited (at least in terms of the positions that need to be filled) I think we fall into the latter category and can afford to pay more attention to team need than "value". Of course, we shouldn't be stupid and ignore opportunities to trade down if we can fill our needs a few spots lower in the draft. But I also believe that certain types of positions, most notably QB, require longer term views. Obviously if a franchise QB is available, then you draft him unless you have Brett Favre or some other comparable talent on your roster. QB's (who are successful) tend to stay on rosters longer than players in other positions. Other positions that require similarly close scrutiny include top DE, and LT prospects. Short of those types of players (who are typically snapped up in the top 5 spots in the draft anyway) or of remarkably talented prospects in other positions like Lavar Arrington at LB or Champ Bailey at CB, you look more to need. In short, if you're in the top-5 of the first round (meaning your team is one of the worst teams and has the opportunity to pick up the elite draft prospects) or maybe the top 10 in a deep draft year, then draft for value, i.e. the best prospect available; later on in the first round, pick up the best prospects in the positions that you need. In later rounds of the draft, go back to drafting for value. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.