Printable View
Matthews was drafting for want!
The drafting for need versus BPA debate cracks me up. Good teams combine both strategies. Consider the absurd example - say you had players rated and every time your selection came up the BPA was a WR - you wouldn't draft 9 WRs - you have your team needs and maybe you pick the position you need who is rated slightly less than the BPA WR because, well because you aren't Mike Ditka or Matt Millen.
IN 2008, the Packers needed (at least) a backup QB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guiness
Also for those not aware Shazier ran a 4.36 40 time. When we play SF again we could have Shazier spy Kap, hes not out running him.
Draft Blackhawk!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon494
I don't know this for a fact, but I get the sense that many GMs rank players in groups of comparable ability (high R2, mid R2, etc.) vs. a pure force ranking (e.g., #38, #39), and if there are two players with comparable ability but one plays at a position of greater need they take that player. A player who drops far enough where they are ranked better than others would be the pick (or you trade down if you really don't need/want them) -- I would assume that's how they ended up with Rodgers and Lacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
GMs that absolutely love someone at a position of need and trade up for that player (CM3) would logically only do so because they think there's value in doing so. I think that's different from drafting purely on need when you're on the clock because you're actively making a trade to get a specific player who you think will fit vs. letting fate decide who's the best 3-4 OLB left on the board.
Maybe that's a long way of saying that I agree that teams combine both strategies. There's no way TT drafts 9WRs. TT tilted towards need on his picks a bit too much on 2012 (the infamous all-D draft) and he's been rightly roasted for it.
Good post. I think this is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by run pMc
Matt Millen picked based on Mike&Mike in the Morning interviews
The draft boards I have seen (most of them Cowboy boards pictured in the background, but not all) have players listed by a round grade. I am sure the values and scores might differentiate further, but I am not sure those are used on draft day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by run pMc
I would be fine with Beckam round one....he's a sneaky pick. I would throw up on myself if we took Nix. I know everybody keeps noting Shazier as a ILB....which he can play...but the dude can also play OLB...and the dude can rush the passer...........he's the opposite of Nick Perry....he's an ideal 3-4 fit
He can blitz rrom the inside at the pro level and not be exposed for being underweight. He would also be involved in more plays, theoretically, due to being in the middle of the field. That would be a plus if he actually performs to his first round draft slot.
He is too small to play OLB in a 3-4, thats why we would move him to ILB but he would still be a play maker. Peppers and Clay on the outside with Shazier rushing from the inside on zone blitz...I wouldn't mind seeing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bretsky
Can't set an edge at 234 versus the run game at 234. He would have to run around the Tackle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bretsky
If he can cover the Vernon Davis types and the Colin Kaep types then hes definitely worth a look... we have a major hole that those two exploit so that would help a lot... it seems like the TE position has been a thorn in our side for quite some time... maybe he solves that problem...
Shazier has all the measurables - what could possibly go wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon494
LT was only 3 pounds more. Shazier just doesn't have the same recklessness (but who does?). Who knows? Maybe Blackhawk will be better inside than outside, but obviously I'm not that impressed from what I saw of him at OSU.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
Perhaps, but LT arrived 35 years ago. And the 310 lbs., 6' 5" left tackle was developed to prevent him from doing what he did in the first part of his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
sure, but free agency and Marshmallow Outhouse were developed to restore balance to the Force.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
I'd put Shazier at ILB and keep the behemoths like Neal and Perry at OLB to set the edge vs. the run or maul the RT on the way to the QB. If I needed a backer to cover a RB or a TE, I'd want someone like Shazier over Neal/Perry though.
LOL Marshmellow Outhouse. Poor guy -- he's like the Star Trek Redshirt of OT's. Glad he got paid to play for Cincy. We'lll see how that works out.
Exactly. "Marshamallow, you go check out that howitzer-shaped blue plant thingy with razor thorns over there, and I'll go talk to the hot female alien babe over here" - James Tiberius Rodgers KirkQuote:
Originally Posted by run pMc
As much as I complain about Hawk at least hes no Aaron Curry. Goes from safety pick in the draft to bust in only a matter of years.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
http://ultimateseahawksfan.com/wp-co...aaroncurry.jpg
Good point. It could be much much worse. I need to lay off hawk bashing a little. After all, I'm the guy who always says if he were drafted in the 3rd round he'd have been considered "great value." He's a very solid but not spectacular starter. Obviously if the Packers pick Blackhawk, I hope his ceiling is higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon494