|
|
Post by chargerfreak on May 2, 2019 3:41:56 GMT -7
Yep......except for QB. So I would have looked at my board and probably taken top of the board if top wasn't a QB. So if QB was on the top of your board, you'd instead reach for a lesser talent? I'm more worried that he wouldn't take the Best QB Available when it was his turn !!!! Dear Heavens, we'd have Geno Smith for 11 years with that approach !
|
|
|
|
Post by chargerfreak on May 2, 2019 3:54:38 GMT -7
They get a little pass for going 5th round QB here. The guy is the heir to Carson Wentz, and was successful doing it.
Analysts have him labeled as a career backup, but then you go what if............................
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on May 2, 2019 5:56:48 GMT -7
Yep......except for QB. So I would have looked at my board and probably taken top of the board if top wasn't a QB. So if QB was on the top of your board, you'd instead reach for a lesser talent? So to answer your question, if the universally held view was the top ranked player was a QB, yes I would be taking a 'lesser' ranked player based off of that universally held view or ranking.
|
|
|
|
Post by cthommes on May 2, 2019 7:20:45 GMT -7
So if QB was on the top of your board, you'd instead reach for a lesser talent? So to answer your question, if the universally held view was the top ranked player was a QB, yes I would be taking a 'lesser' ranked player based off of that universally held view or ranking. Not the universally held view. Your view. Like Pipkins. It's just weird because some of your draft process takes seem to be in conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by sdc on May 2, 2019 7:45:06 GMT -7
They get a little pass for going 5th round QB here. The guy is the heir to Carson Wentz, and was successful doing it. Analysts have him labeled as a career backup, but then you go what if............................ Not many projected starting QB's that late in the draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdc on May 2, 2019 7:46:52 GMT -7
So to answer your question, if the universally held view was the top ranked player was a QB, yes I would be taking a 'lesser' ranked player based off of that universally held view or ranking. Not the universally held view. Your view. Like Pipkins. It's just weird because some of your draft process takes seem to be in conflict. He's a contrarian. Ergo, being in conflict with yourself and others is foundational.
|
|
|
|
Post by chargerfreak on May 2, 2019 8:12:13 GMT -7
They get a little pass for going 5th round QB here. The guy is the heir to Carson Wentz, and was successful doing it. Analysts have him labeled as a career backup, but then you go what if............................ Not many projected starting QB's that late in the draft. When you get in that area of the draft, you just pick a guy that you think can help your team, and hope he pans out. Really, that can start as early as the 4th round. So they take a shot at QB in the fifth. Worse that can happen is he doesn't pan out. Trade him for a 5th and get your pick back.
If you strike gold, you look like a hero for getting your QB in the fifth.
|
|
|
|
Post by chargerfreak on May 2, 2019 8:14:49 GMT -7
So to answer your question, if the universally held view was the top ranked player was a QB, yes I would be taking a 'lesser' ranked player based off of that universally held view or ranking. Not the universally held view. Your view. Like Pipkins. It's just weird because some of your draft process takes seem to be in conflict. Conflict ?? The goalie's process is like chasing a rabid squirrel that has your car keys.
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on May 2, 2019 8:19:24 GMT -7
So to answer your question, if the universally held view was the top ranked player was a QB, yes I would be taking a 'lesser' ranked player based off of that universally held view or ranking. Not the universally held view. Your view. Like Pipkins. It's just weird because some of your draft process takes seem to be in conflict. QB is the singular position that trumps all draft philosophies in my view. A club simply must have a franchise QB to be effective long term. So if you have one, we do in Rivers, then QB is not in the mix to draft (unless there was a trade opportunity), regardless of a QB being BPA. That said, if I have the top three WR's in the NFL, and really solid reserves at WR, and BPA was a WR, would I take him....maybe. Other aspects or considerations would come into the equation, such as contracts on the WR's I do have, trade possibilities, other options to draft and the talent drop between the top of board WR and 2nd on my ranking board, etc etc etc....There simply isn't a fixed 'you do this' book, but there is a strong leaning for me in the 'BPA' approach, as adding talent is rarely a mistake. This is all fun on a message board, but trust me, I am no GM. I see one up close each day, and I would not take that job for any amount of money. It is a daily case of herding cats, and there is just a bunch of cats.....it never stays good. I love to throw out ideas/thoughts, but I am doing so from the cheap seats on here.
|
|
|
|
Post by swand on May 2, 2019 15:06:18 GMT -7
I would have been ok if they didn't take a QB, but in hindsight I'm pretty excited that they found somebody like Easton to invest in. Would have been disappointing if at some point in Rivers final few years they didn't find somebody for him to mentor as a potential successor. We'll see if Stick can take advantage of the opportunity, but from what little I've seen of him I can see why the staff is excited.
|
|
|
|
Post by totallybolted on May 3, 2019 5:59:13 GMT -7
Not the universally held view. Your view. Like Pipkins. It's just weird because some of your draft process takes seem to be in conflict. QB is the singular position that trumps all draft philosophies in my view. A club simply must have a franchise QB to be effective long term. So if you have one, we do in Rivers, then QB is not in the mix to draft (unless there was a trade opportunity), regardless of a QB being BPA. That said, if I have the top three WR's in the NFL, and really solid reserves at WR, and BPA was a WR, would I take him....maybe. Other aspects or considerations would come into the equation, such as contracts on the WR's I do have, trade possibilities, other options to draft and the talent drop between the top of board WR and 2nd on my ranking board, etc etc etc....There simply isn't a fixed 'you do this' book, but there is a strong leaning for me in the 'BPA' approach, as adding talent is rarely a mistake. This is all fun on a message board, but trust me, I am no GM. I see one up close each day, and I would not take that job for any amount of money. It is a daily case of herding cats, and there is just a bunch of cats.....it never stays good. I love to throw out ideas/thoughts, but I am doing so from the cheap seats on here. The couch is a much better place. You have way deeper perspective from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on May 3, 2019 7:49:03 GMT -7
QB is the singular position that trumps all draft philosophies in my view. A club simply must have a franchise QB to be effective long term. So if you have one, we do in Rivers, then QB is not in the mix to draft (unless there was a trade opportunity), regardless of a QB being BPA. That said, if I have the top three WR's in the NFL, and really solid reserves at WR, and BPA was a WR, would I take him....maybe. Other aspects or considerations would come into the equation, such as contracts on the WR's I do have, trade possibilities, other options to draft and the talent drop between the top of board WR and 2nd on my ranking board, etc etc etc....There simply isn't a fixed 'you do this' book, but there is a strong leaning for me in the 'BPA' approach, as adding talent is rarely a mistake. This is all fun on a message board, but trust me, I am no GM. I see one up close each day, and I would not take that job for any amount of money. It is a daily case of herding cats, and there is just a bunch of cats.....it never stays good. I love to throw out ideas/thoughts, but I am doing so from the cheap seats on here. The couch is a much better place. You have way deeper perspective from there. Wait......are you saying my perspective is 'shallow' ? no love around here, I tell ya....
|
|
|
|
Post by totallybolted on May 3, 2019 13:52:17 GMT -7
The couch is a much better place. You have way deeper perspective from there. Wait......are you saying my perspective is 'shallow' ? no love around here, I tell ya.... hmm....interpret it as you seem fit. I'm not sure how Canadians think. But my intentions were more drawn toward the "thought" process of those who sit there.
|
|
|
|
Post by boltnut on May 3, 2019 16:47:15 GMT -7
The intention of this thread was meant to allow people to try their hand at GM. Build a team every year... using your own picks. See what your team looks like in several years. I guess we could argue about process and draft philosophy or which round a QB should/could be drafted... but then the thread begins to look like all the other threads. I was hoping this thread would be a little different.
For example: I can now show the team's depth chart using my picks...
QB: Rivers, Taylor
RB: Gordon, Ekeler, Jackson, Rodney Anderson
FB: Watt
WR: KA, MW, Hakeem Butler, TB, Cantrell
TE: Henry, Green, Culkin
OT: Okung, Greg Little, Tevi
OG: Feeney, Lamp, Schofield
OC: Pouncey, Quissenbury
CB: Hayward, King, Davis, Williams, Facyson
FS: Juan Thornhill, Watkins
SS: James, Phillips, Jenkins
OTTO: Nwosu, Terrill Hanks
MIKE: Perryman, Brown
WILL: T. Davis, White
LEO: Ingram, D'andre Walker
DE: Bosa, Rochelle
1-tech: Daylon Mack, Mebane
3-tech: Jones, McGill, Lanier
I don't get to use TT's selections in my depth chart. But I can compare to his depth chart... or anyone else's depth chart should they chose players.
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on May 3, 2019 17:43:33 GMT -7
28th....Jawaan Taylor OT/ROT T
60th....D.K. Metcalf WR T
91st....Oshane Ximines Edge T
130th....John Cominsky DL5T T
166th....Lamont Gaillard OC T
200th....Ulysees Gilbert III ILB T
....Demarcus Christmas DL3T
242nd....Chris Slayton DL1T T
....Javon Patterson OG
Ok....here is what I would have done. The 'T' at the end of a pick means top of my board. Where I have two players listed, 6th and 7th picks, I would have had some serious internal discussions, but top of board was there, so I listed him first, and probably would have been the pick.
Be nice......
|
|
