Here we go again...Trading down and recouping value is ezpz

You don't think I don't know the difficulty of trading down, especially from the 1st spot? ZoMg!!!! I have a specific draft belief and stick to it!!!! I Should be hung!!!!!!

You are a prisoner of a specific and extreme draft belief. You are also quite matter of fact when you post about it and shouldn't cry when people question your far too authoritative in nature posts on the subject.

I'll be a prisoner when I believe that its by far the most correct thing to do in the crystal ball business that is the draft. You do so much work putting together a draft board then on draft day throw it away because of this idea of "need" drafting, no team is ever one player a away. Stick to your work and take that best player.

What's your alternative to BPA or trading out?

b

Drafting by need.

How is BPA and trade down if you can get value ever not good? It's obviously not always possible to trade down but if you can and gain equity by doing so, you do.
Determination of BPA is the hard part ldo (and anticipating what the other franchises think in that regard)

However I'll say that need figures into the strategies of others a lot more than it would into my (in my opinion optimal) strategy which just means that it creates extra edges where I can exploit need drafters. You can also exploit the entire BPA angle by designing a system that excells with certain player types that are low on everyone elses BPA lists due to certain issues. Now one could argue that this is based more on need-analysis than BPA-analysis but I think it's a BPA angle because you simply see the skill bundle of certain players in a different light

So how do you curve for position importance and/or scarcity? If Carolina thinks Patrick Peterson is the best player in the draft, yet rate Luck very highly and feel he will be a top QB, they should take Patrick Peterson?

lol no you know that isn't my stance on the subject. ffs it really is like a politics argument with you on this subject.

When you put together your final draft board you, positions that are premium positions get ranked higher. So left tackle, quarterback, pass rusher, and cornerback gets a bonus when getting ranked. Its built into the system.

You may reach in 1 situation, and really only 1 situation imo, and that is when drafting a QB. Its importance outweighs all so if a trade is impossible and the QB is 3rd or 4th on your board, you may reach to take him due to its importance.

Maybe if you didn't always post with a chip on your shoulder I would be more civil in this. But its constantly attacking so I really have no desire to change my tone.

I was asking Franchise 60. But, since you answered...

Wouldn't that coincide with BPA and trading out? Especially the latter? Or maybe I'm not sure what you mean by trading out. Why waste a high pick on a player you will likely get with a lower pick?

b

Because all positions are not equal. A lesser player can be more valuable to your team and have higher trade value than a better player at another position.

Trading down and recouping is hard. If those two options are the only two you have allowed yourself in the corner you have put yourself in then you are doing yourself a disservice.

Look at the Jaguars situation last year. The consensus was that had Clausen dropped to 10 they would be able to trade out with a team that wanted a QB. They were unable. So they had to pick at 10(ideally you could potentially sit on the pick and let time expire and just pick the player where you see him fit, but at the risk of seeing sanctions from Goodell and it being frowned upon you don't).

Jaguars selected Alualu which everyone "lol'd" at, including myself. The pick was clearly BAP on their board and it has worked out masterfully. Its just part of the crystal ball business. And it wasn't that much of a shock to the NFL teams either, seeing as Bill Polian commended the pick as the safest of the 1st round(or something along those lines).

The options aren't the same as in Needle world. They aren't between "BPA (regardless of position, value, scarcity, fit, or roster) or trade" and "look at the position of highest need on your roster and draft the best guy there, regardless of whoever else is available."

There is a grey area. It exists. Needle views things to the extreme of one spectrum and wants to paint the opposing argument as the extreme of the other end of the spectrum, when in fact the opposing argument has a lot of elements of BPA but also leaves itself room take into consideration other important factors.

Well, of course it's also subject to another team wanting your pick, if noone offers then you revert to BPA(as long as your 'need' player is still projected to be available). As I said, I think those 3 can be used together.

I think letting time expire would be about the most idiotic thing to do.

b

Of course, 'need' could also be filled through free agency or trades with players likely already proven in the league instead of a prospect.

b

Need is one one of many factors, why do we only concentrate on that? It's like talking points at this point. Need! BPA! I think BPA is much sounder Drafting completely on value. But hey guess what, your two choices aren't the two extremes of the spectrum! There are better ones.

By far my biggest problem with strict BPA is that not all positions are created equal and there are many instances where a slightly worse prospect is a much better and more valuable pick because of things like position importance and scarcity.

This is especially evident when dealing with the Quarterback position and I have never seen a strict BPA argument do even a mediocre job of dealing with the fact that QB >>>> All other positions. Because of this, strict BPA does not do what it wants to do and is clearly flawed.

Okay so what should the Redskins do? Their biggest needs (that can reasonably be addressed with what is projected to be the 13th pick) are QB, WR and a front seven player. We already have a left tackle so O-Line is not the way to go in the first round.

All four of the QBs (Luck, Newton, Mallett and Locker) may be gone when we pick and after we pick in the 2nd round we don't have another selection until the 5th round. I hate the idea of trading the 2012 first round pick in order to move up but I guess it might have to be done. Or maybe we trade for Kyle Orton.

Gah, we should never have traded for Donovan McNabb. Jason Campbell should still be on our roster. With all the lack of continuity he had to endure, I can't help but think we gave up on him too soon. At the very least we'd still have the 2nd round pick from last April's draft and the 4th rounder in 2011.

I guess our big board will look something like:

1. Andrew Luck
2. A.J. Green
3. Patrick Peterson
4. Marcel Dareus
5. Cam Newton
6. Prince Amukamara
7. Nick Fairley
8. Ryan Mallett
9. Robert Quinn
10. Da'Quan Bowers
11. Jake Locker
12. Julio Jones

Huh? This obviously figures into BPA. The GOAT kicker will never be BPA. I guess that's the slight misunderstanding we have, positional scarcity figures into BPA imo and need is solely "are we already stacked at the position"

Not really. If you can't trade down no matter what and figure noone wants your guy in the next X picks ideally you'd just let yourself be skipped that many picks and take the guy for a cheaper contract.

Taking out the semantics of kickers, what you are describing isn't what Needle describes or stumps for. His version of BPA is much stricter than what you are describing and we have had this QB conversation in the past.

I'd be surprised if Locker was gone by 13.

b

Why not take someone else that's valued high instead of just letting the pick go by? If anything, you may be stopping someone in your division from getting him and improving their team, OR you could trade him later on to someone, thereby, still getting some value out of the draft spot.

b

i think hed go for a third to the right team. mebbe arizona. charlie whitehurst went for a 3rd. campbell and mcnabb went for 4ths but there contract situation was different.

panthers should know his potential tho. if he develops over the next couple years they could shop him for a 2nd or more. look at schaub.

GM's lie through their teeth when it comes to anything relating to the draft. Not saying it wasn't a safe pick, but I automatically dismiss anything a GM says about the draft.