|
|
Post by frozendisc on Apr 12, 2019 10:02:37 GMT -7
In theory, that's great. But what about tiers... and specific needs...? Example: The safety class. IMO, there are 6 or 7 safeties that can adequately be starting free safeties. IMO, they're all equally talented (same relative tier). Why would I take one in the first round when I could get an equally talented one in the 2nd round...? I think it does show that a team that wants a starting free safety shouldn't gamble and wait until the third round, though. And then there is OL. Whereas, IOL are very different than OT's. The DL position is the same. Are we talking 1-tech, 3-tech, 5-tech...? Same goes for the LB group... I doubt any team would use that breakdown. It is all about each teams' player rankings, first and foremost, then needs in a way. For instance, if you are getting ready to make your 4th rd pick, and have already chosen ROT/WR/CB.....as you get close to your being on the clock (3-4 picks away), there are discussions going on about the players at the top of your board. Say the top six are QB, WR, DT, OT, CB and TE.....in that order.....in most cases you are crossing off QB, WR, OT and CB due to already picking those positions, or just not needing as in QB. (yes there are moments where a team might double up on WR or CB) The discussions are going hard....and they are not about 'there are 25 DT's left, we can get one later'.....they are about this DT is projected to become a solid starter for many years, versus this TE we think will become one of the best ever. GM's are keen to hear the discussion, while keeping in mind roster build and current needs. Once a team is on the clock, discussion is limited to only two or three people, at least that is how it has been in my experiences in Ice Hockey.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonorajim on Apr 12, 2019 10:19:42 GMT -7
I doubt any team would use that breakdown. It is all about each teams' player rankings, first and foremost, then needs in a way. For instance, if you are getting ready to make your 4th rd pick, and have already chosen ROT/WR/CB.....as you get close to your being on the clock (3-4 picks away), there are discussions going on about the players at the top of your board. Say the top six are QB, WR, DT, OT, CB and TE.....in that order.....in most cases you are crossing off QB, WR, OT and CB due to already picking those positions, or just not needing as in QB. (yes there are moments where a team might double up on WR or CB) The discussions are going hard....and they are not about 'there are 25 DT's left, we can get one later'.... .they are about this DT is projected to become a solid starter for many years, versus this TE we think will become one of the best ever. GM's are keen to hear the discussion, while keeping in mind roster build and current needs. Once a team is on the clock, discussion is limited to only two or three people, at least that is how it has been in my experiences in Ice Hockey. That's how I have imagined it should be. Talent evals will vary. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....But, Elite talent is always elite. If you see it, take it.
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on Apr 12, 2019 10:21:30 GMT -7
I doubt any team would use that breakdown. It is all about each teams' player rankings, first and foremost, then needs in a way. For instance, if you are getting ready to make your 4th rd pick, and have already chosen ROT/WR/CB.....as you get close to your being on the clock (3-4 picks away), there are discussions going on about the players at the top of your board. Say the top six are QB, WR, DT, OT, CB and TE.....in that order.....in most cases you are crossing off QB, WR, OT and CB due to already picking those positions, or just not needing as in QB. (yes there are moments where a team might double up on WR or CB) The discussions are going hard....and they are not about 'there are 25 DT's left, we can get one later'.... .they are about this DT is projected to become a solid starter for many years, versus this TE we think will become one of the best ever. GM's are keen to hear the discussion, while keeping in mind roster build and current needs. Once a team is on the clock, discussion is limited to only two or three people, at least that is how it has been in my experiences in Ice Hockey. That's how I have imagined it should be. Talent evals will vary. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....But, Elite talent is always elite. If you see it, take it. Yep.....makes one wonder how Derwin James fell that far.....
|
|
|
|
Post by NoMoreChillies on Apr 13, 2019 1:25:11 GMT -7
That's how I have imagined it should be. Talent evals will vary. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....But, Elite talent is always elite. If you see it, take it. Yep.....makes one wonder how Derwin James fell that far..... was there any bad press around James? He was so far off my radar i didnt even bother checking on him
|
|
|
|
Post by chargerfreak on Apr 13, 2019 2:55:40 GMT -7
That's how I have imagined it should be. Talent evals will vary. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder....But, Elite talent is always elite. If you see it, take it. Yep.....makes one wonder how Derwin James fell that far..... I was just having that conversation with someone this week. It happens, there are a variety of reasons. Some of the common reasons don't apply to James, which makes his draft story special in my mind. Maybe the top 10 were so locked in they just robotic picked down the line. The next six had their needs, mixed it up a little, and stuck to it. The best guess I can come up with is that Safeties always fall in the draft. It's just not as valued as other positions. I'm telling you, Guards and Safeties, guards and safeties, guards and safeties. They fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by chargerfreak on Apr 13, 2019 3:05:40 GMT -7
In theory, that's great. But what about tiers... and specific needs...? Example: The safety class. IMO, there are 6 or 7 safeties that can adequately be starting free safeties. IMO, they're all equally talented (same relative tier). Why would I take one in the first round when I could get an equally talented one in the 2nd round...? I think it does show that a team that wants a starting free safety shouldn't gamble and wait until the third round, though. And then there is OL. Whereas, IOL are very different than OT's. The DL position is the same. Are we talking 1-tech, 3-tech, 5-tech...? Same goes for the LB group... I doubt any team would use that breakdown. It is all about each teams' player rankings, first and foremost, then needs in a way. For instance, if you are getting ready to make your 4th rd pick, and have already chosen ROT/WR/CB.....as you get close to your being on the clock (3-4 picks away), there are discussions going on about the players at the top of your board. Say the top six are QB, WR, DT, OT, CB and TE.....in that order.....in most cases you are crossing off QB, WR, OT and CB due to already picking those positions, or just not needing as in QB. (yes there are moments where a team might double up on WR or CB) The discussions are going hard.... and they are not about 'there are 25 DT's left, we can get one later'.....they are about this DT is projected to become a solid starter for many years, versus this TE we think will become one of the best ever. GM's are keen to hear the discussion, while keeping in mind roster build and current needs. Once a team is on the clock, discussion is limited to only two or three people, at least that is how it has been in my experiences in Ice Hockey. Um.....No. They are either saying there are 25 DT's and we can get one later, or the fact is so written in stone they don't need to go over it again. You can fully believe a loaded populated position in a draft can cause a "we'll get one later" strategy. As for your scenario at the end, most people will tell you to take the TE. I'm a PON guy, so the scenario is a lot tighter for me. You weighted it really hard. Even I would take the TE.
|
|
|
|
Post by chargerfreak on Apr 13, 2019 3:08:57 GMT -7
I have been thinking about Greedy Williams lately..............just thinking..........First, that is a GREAT name for a Cornerback !!!! Then.............you know...............he sure would replace what they wanted out of Jason Verrett, now wouldn't he.....................................................
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on Apr 13, 2019 6:57:17 GMT -7
Yep.....makes one wonder how Derwin James fell that far..... I was just having that conversation with someone this week. It happens, there are a variety of reasons. Some of the common reasons don't apply to James, which makes his draft story special in my mind. Maybe the top 10 were so locked in they just robotic picked down the line. The next six had their needs, mixed it up a little, and stuck to it. The best guess I can come up with is that Safeties always fall in the draft. It's just not as valued as other positions. I'm telling you, Guards and Safeties, guards and safeties, guards and safeties. They fall. I suspect the biggest reason is they just didn't see it....... sonorajim has it right "Elite talent is always elite. If you see it, take it.".......
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on Apr 13, 2019 7:00:25 GMT -7
I have been thinking about Greedy Williams lately..............just thinking..........First, that is a GREAT name for a Cornerback !!!! Then.............you know...............he sure would replace what they wanted out of Jason Verrett, now wouldn't he..................................................... If Wilkins falls, easy decision.....yet I am now doubting he falls enough. That said, CB, WR and TE (if either Iowa TE falls) would not shock me one bit.....
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on Apr 13, 2019 7:12:58 GMT -7
I doubt any team would use that breakdown. It is all about each teams' player rankings, first and foremost, then needs in a way. For instance, if you are getting ready to make your 4th rd pick, and have already chosen ROT/WR/CB.....as you get close to your being on the clock (3-4 picks away), there are discussions going on about the players at the top of your board. Say the top six are QB, WR, DT, OT, CB and TE.....in that order.....in most cases you are crossing off QB, WR, OT and CB due to already picking those positions, or just not needing as in QB. (yes there are moments where a team might double up on WR or CB) The discussions are going hard.... and they are not about 'there are 25 DT's left, we can get one later'.....they are about this DT is projected to become a solid starter for many years, versus this TE we think will become one of the best ever. GM's are keen to hear the discussion, while keeping in mind roster build and current needs. Once a team is on the clock, discussion is limited to only two or three people, at least that is how it has been in my experiences in Ice Hockey.Um.....No. They are either saying there are 25 DT's and we can get one later, or the fact is so written in stone they don't need to go over it again. You can fully believe a loaded populated position in a draft can cause a "we'll get one later" strategy. As for your scenario at the end, most people will tell you to take the TE. I'm a PON guy, so the scenario is a lot tighter for me. You weighted it really hard. Even I would take the TE. My comment on what is said leading up to 'on the clock' is more a generalized example of things that a DC/OC, positions coaches, or scouts might be saying as they advocate for the particular player they want chosen. When you are on the clock, it would be shocking for a team to be considering any player more than 5-8 down on their big board rankings. It is all about trusting the work that was put in to create that big board of your beliefs on these players. A classic example would be looking at 6th rd picks that seem to be all over the place when compared to a published big board list. Teams trust their work.....and roll with it at crunch time.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonorajim on Apr 13, 2019 11:18:10 GMT -7
Um.....No. They are either saying there are 25 DT's and we can get one later, or the fact is so written in stone they don't need to go over it again. You can fully believe a loaded populated position in a draft can cause a "we'll get one later" strategy. As for your scenario at the end, most people will tell you to take the TE. I'm a PON guy, so the scenario is a lot tighter for me. You weighted it really hard. Even I would take the TE. My comment on what is said leading up to 'on the clock' is more a generalized example of things that a DC/OC, positions coaches, or scouts might be saying as they advocate for the particular player they want chosen. When you are on the clock, it would be shocking for a team to be considering any player more than 5-8 down on their big board rankings. It is all about trusting the work that was put in to create that big board of your beliefs on these players. A classic example would be looking at 6th rd picks that seem to be all over the place when compared to a published big board list. Teams trust their work.....and roll with it at crunch time.If you don't believe in the work you've done, you should consider an alternate vocation. Reaching the moment you have prepared months for specifically and a lifetime for generally, it's no time to turn to voodoo.
|
|
|
|
Post by chargerfreak on Apr 14, 2019 2:40:25 GMT -7
My comment on what is said leading up to 'on the clock' is more a generalized example of things that a DC/OC, positions coaches, or scouts might be saying as they advocate for the particular player they want chosen. When you are on the clock, it would be shocking for a team to be considering any player more than 5-8 down on their big board rankings. It is all about trusting the work that was put in to create that big board of your beliefs on these players. A classic example would be looking at 6th rd picks that seem to be all over the place when compared to a published big board list. Teams trust their work.....and roll with it at crunch time.If you don't believe in the work you've done, you should consider an alternate vocation. Reaching the moment you have prepared months for specifically and a lifetime for generally, it's no time to turn to voodoo. What's wrong with voodoo ?
|
|
|
|
Post by chargerfreak on Apr 14, 2019 2:52:31 GMT -7
Um.....No. They are either saying there are 25 DT's and we can get one later, or the fact is so written in stone they don't need to go over it again. You can fully believe a loaded populated position in a draft can cause a "we'll get one later" strategy. As for your scenario at the end, most people will tell you to take the TE. I'm a PON guy, so the scenario is a lot tighter for me. You weighted it really hard. Even I would take the TE. My comment on what is said leading up to 'on the clock' is more a generalized example of things that a DC/OC, positions coaches, or scouts might be saying as they advocate for the particular player they want chosen. When you are on the clock, it would be shocking for a team to be considering any player more than 5-8 down on their big board rankings. It is all about trusting the work that was put in to create that big board of your beliefs on these players. A classic example would be looking at 6th rd picks that seem to be all over the place when compared to a published big board list. Teams trust their work.....and roll with it at crunch time. The Draft Geeks are here for my amusement. You guys get so wrapped up tight on your "Big Board calculus crossover double check blah blah." I laugh so hard. I have heard stories over and over and over again of GM's saying "Ok. Owner Pete, this pick is all yours. No debate, no talky, its wide open for your selection." "DC, the first 3 picks were offense, the 4th round is all up to you. Anyone you want." "Ok guys, I want the 5th round. No conversation and forget the list," Etc etc etc. I am amused. I love it. Goes on all the time. Dominant post of destruction by the King of Draft Geeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on Apr 14, 2019 6:32:40 GMT -7
My comment on what is said leading up to 'on the clock' is more a generalized example of things that a DC/OC, positions coaches, or scouts might be saying as they advocate for the particular player they want chosen. When you are on the clock, it would be shocking for a team to be considering any player more than 5-8 down on their big board rankings. It is all about trusting the work that was put in to create that big board of your beliefs on these players. A classic example would be looking at 6th rd picks that seem to be all over the place when compared to a published big board list. Teams trust their work.....and roll with it at crunch time. The Draft Geeks are here for my amusement. You guys get so wrapped up tight on your "Big Board calculus crossover double check blah blah." I laugh so hard. I have heard stories over and over and over again of GM's saying "Ok. Owner Pete, this pick is all yours. No debate, no talky, its wide open for your selection." "DC, the first 3 picks were offense, the 4th round is all up to you. Anyone you want." "Ok guys, I want the 5th round. No conversation and forget the list," Etc etc etc. I am amused. I love it. Goes on all the time. Dominant post of destruction by the King of Draft Geeks. A flippant approach to drafting is probably not the wisest system to employ for an organization, but I am certain some do just the same. Successful organizations do not employ such a laissez faire attitude to things so important, as their success is based in doing all things as correctly as possible at every moment. * Your post is dominant in only the delusion it portrays.
|
|
|
|
Post by totallybolted on Apr 14, 2019 8:06:02 GMT -7
Flippant? That's only if you think the owners or the person with the choice are ignorant of the talent and rankings. They are not just going to pull a name out of their arse. To me it would more about the GM's style. I figure most make all the calls. But I can surely see one tell his DC "These three defensive players are the ones I like, you make the call."
|
|
