Drafting for need Vs. the best available player

IowaSkinsFan · #1 08-05-2003, 09:57 AM

I posted this argument in an earlier thread, but I want to open it for discussion to a broad group, so here it goes.

I am a self confessed draft junkie. I have been watching it religously since '94 when the Skins took Shuler. I was surrounded by Cowboy fans and was tired of hearing Aikman this and Aikman that. I wanted a franchise QB for our Skins that would sell jerseys and silence the Cowboy fans. Talk about blowing up in your face. Anyway. While a lot of teams would have drafted Shuler in that position, we can say in retrospect that he was a bust and should not have been drafted there. But, the Skins had a need and they drafted for it. This was followed up by busts in '95 with Westbrook and '96 with Andre Johnson (remember him). '97 was a serviceable pick with Kenard Lang at the 17th position. No first in '98 (Stephen Alexander in the 2nd), and then jackpot in '99 (Champ in the 1st and Jansen in the 2nd). Everyone should be up to date after that.

So anyway, my point is that when you draft for need, you have a tendency to reach, meaning the player you are taking could be availble later on. History shows that if you take the best available player, over the long haul, you will have a better team. That's why this years draft, while it was only 3 players, showed good discipline. Our team stuck to its board and took what they viewed as the best available player.

I feel that these picks will make the team stronger down the road, more so than if we had taken Doss in the 2nd.

RedskinRyan · #2 08-06-2003, 06:48 AM

i dunno. last year's draft pissed me off, but then i settled down. i believe it was in a michael wilbon article in the post, but he said "would you rather have a quarterback you dont need or need a quarterback you dont have". that made me like the pick of ramsey, especially at 32. i just think you should take what you need, and trade down helps too, because you can get him cheaper.

CarMike · #3 08-06-2003, 11:04 AM

robert, very well said. You are right on. When you draft for a need, you do tend to reach sometimes.

Back in Feb or March PennSkinsFan interviewed Ron Nay, the prior scouting director for the Skins. He pretty much said the same thing.

Excellent point.

#4 09-08-2003, 11:58 AM

Check this out Kinda sums up what you all are saying

http://thehuddlereport.com/DraftPhilosophy.htm

IowaSkinsFan · #5 09-09-2003, 09:20 AM

There is another article that I found on the net back in March that puts a numberical formula on the strength of your team over the years if you draft for need vs. best available player. I have been looking for it but have been unable to find it. It was very interesting. If I find it I will post it here.

#6 09-09-2003, 03:47 PM

Here it is from great blue north. I think GBN and Huddle Report are about the best draft sites.

http://www.gbnreport.com/drafttheories.htm

Brett

BigCountry · #7 09-09-2003, 04:12 PM

NFLdraftblitz is also a great site but back to the topic, it depends how big your need is and the Skins are a great example. D-line is such a great need for us, and the rest of the positions are in good enough shape that we have no choice but to draft for need.

Usually reaching doesn't end up being a good idea but if your need is so glaring, you don't have a choice.

hail2skins · #8 09-09-2003, 05:52 PM

I think there are times when you have to draft for need as BC mentions above. I wasn't a big fan of drafting players at positions we didn't need. I haven't read the articles yet but does your position in the draft determine which way you go? I'm not big on draft. I watch mainly to see what we do but I'd love to learn more about it. Glad we have you here BC.

BigCountry · #9 09-09-2003, 06:27 PM

It's coming up but it mainly talks about who we can take on the d-line on the first day.

IowaSkinsFan · #10 09-10-2003, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brett A
Here it is from great blue north. I think GBN and Huddle Report are about the best draft sites.

http://www.gbnreport.com/drafttheories.htm

Brett

That's it! I thought that was a great article.

#11 10-03-2003, 08:59 PM

Draft best athlete of best position.

I still think the most laughable picks I've seen is the Jets drafting a tight end in the top ten; Mike Ditka drafting a guard in the top ten; and Jerry Jones drafting a safety in the top ten. These guys all used "the best atlete defense" (though poorly because not by the best position). None of those guys went bust & it was still laughable.

Draft to your strength (so the rookies are put in a position to suceed) and FA to you weaknesses (vetrans have the best shot to be difference makers).