2014 Green Bay Packers 7 Round Mock Draft 2.0

[mraynrand]

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.

[run pMc]

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.

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.

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.

[mraynrand]

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...

Good post. I think this is true.

Matt Millen picked based on Mike&Mike in the Morning interviews