A Different Way to Draft...

JeffGollin · February 17th, 2012, 07:26 AM

Pondering the outcomes of the playoffs and Super Bowl, I was struck by the number of times big plays were made by a handful of individual "game breakers":

Therefore - position-needs aside - we might want to set the following Draft objectives:

1. Add 2 game-breakers to our roster to go along with Fitz, Calais, Dockett, DWash, PP21 and A-Dub.

2. Maintain our current level of talent from our #11th-rated player all the way down to #53.

Logically, our best shot at achieving this would be to: (1) grab one game-breaker at #13 and (2) roll the dice on a sleeper (with more raw athletic ability than football skill) somewhere from rounds #3 to #7.

Which begs the question - "When you stock the board from #1 to #13, are there 13 game-breakers there; or does the talent-plateau break off earlier?" (If it does, we might be better off trading out of #13, picking up a 2nd rounder or an extra 3rd and rolling the dice that we can draft a couple of athletic freaks later in round 1 and with our new 2nd or our 3rd round pick ).

This would place a heavy burden on Steve Keim and his scouts (who'd have to be really, really good at uncovering lesser known but athletically "special" prospects further down the food chain (like he has Schofield and Toler to name a couple).

Note - the difference between BPA and "Game Breaker" is that - like Peterson or Harvin or Cruz - game-breakers are capable of winning a game for you on the basis of a single play. BPA's may be more consistent/solid from play to play, neutralize potential mismatches and contirbute to the reliability of their respective units.

As to whether or not there are 13 "game breakers" - my early read would include (by position): (1) Luck, (2) RG III, (3) Richardson, (4) Blackmon, (5) K Wright, (6) DeCastro, (7) Ingram, (8) Upshaw, (9) Clairborne, (10) Jenkins, (11) Dennard.

Conclusion - Depending on how we feel about a few other guys - like Reiff OT, Kalil OT, Coples DE, Floyd WR or Kuechly LB - we might want to trade down.

RugbyMuffin · February 17th, 2012, 08:14 AM

I am with you on that thinking Jeff.

Hypothetically, if there were 10 great players in this drafts and then a huge dropoff then why not trade back ?

WildBB · February 17th, 2012, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffGollin

Logically, our best shot at achieving this would be to: (1) grab one game-breaker at #13 and (2) roll the dice on a sleeper (with more raw athletic ability than football skill) somewhere from rounds #3 to #7.

As to whether or not there are 13 "game breakers" - my early read would include (by position): (1) Luck, (2) RG III, (3) Richardson, (4) Blackmon, (5) K Wright, (6) DeCastro, (7) Ingram, (8) Upshaw, (9) Clairborne, (10) Jenkins, (11) Dennard.

Conclusion - Depending on how we feel about a few other guys - like Reiff OT, Kalil OT, Coples DE, Floyd WR or Kuechly LB - we might want to trade down.

If your looking for a pure game breaker where we're drafting, you can look no further than Kendall Wright. He's going to be a hot commodity, esp. if he's running a 4.35 in the combine, which is expected. The FO will have to consider him long and hard, to evaluate whether he'd be a bigger addition than an OLman.

On the other part, in rounds 3 and 4 especially, you want the raw talent AND on the field skills. After that you can look for more upside raw talent. But there are usually hidden gems, sometimes right under your nose, on your present roster - (LIN).

Crazy Canuck · February 17th, 2012, 08:35 AM

If we trade back from #13 it probably means that some other team sees a "game breaker" or someone they project as a serious contributor from game one at that spot. Begs the question why we'd move?

RugbyMuffin · February 17th, 2012, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Canuck

If we trade back from #13 it probably means that some other team sees a "game breaker" available at that spot. Begs the question why we'd move?

Maybe the team we trade with has a HUGE need at the time of the draft, and needs to get something done.

Lots of reasons.

Also, does a OG count as a game breaker ? If he can open up holes for our RB to take 10 or 20 yards is that a game breaker ?

Crazy Canuck · February 17th, 2012, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RugbyMuffin

Maybe the team we trade with has a HUGE need at the time of the draft, and needs to get something done.

Lots of reasons.

Also, does a OG count as a game breaker ? If he can open up holes for our RB to take 10 or 20 yards is that a game breaker ?

Yes...

Duckjake · February 17th, 2012, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffGollin

Pondering the outcomes of the playoffs and Super Bowl, I was struck by the number of times big plays were made by a handful of individual "game breakers":

Therefore - position-needs aside - we might want to set the following Draft objectives:

1. Add 2 game-breakers to our roster to go along with Fitz, Calais, Dockett, DWash, PP21 and A-Dub.

2. Maintain our current level of talent from our #11th-rated player all the way down to #53.

Logically, our best shot at achieving this would be to: (1) grab one game-breaker at #13 and (2) roll the dice on a sleeper (with more raw athletic ability than football skill) somewhere from rounds #3 to #7.

Which begs the question - "When you stock the board from #1 to #13, are there 13 game-breakers there; or does the talent-plateau break off earlier?" (If it does, we might be better off trading out of #13, picking up a 2nd rounder or an extra 3rd and rolling the dice that we can draft a couple of athletic freaks later in round 1 and with our new 2nd or our 3rd round pick ).

This would place a heavy burden on Steve Keim and his scouts (who'd have to be really, really good at uncovering lesser known but athletically "special" prospects further down the food chain (like he has Schofield and Toler to name a couple).

Note - the difference between BPA and "Game Breaker" is that - like Peterson or Harvin or Cruz - game-breakers are capable of winning a game for you on the basis of a single play. BPA's may be more consistent/solid from play to play, neutralize potential mismatches and contirbute to the reliability of their respective units.

As to whether or not there are 13 "game breakers" - my early read would include (by position): (1) Luck, (2) RG III, (3) Richardson, (4) Blackmon, (5) K Wright, (6) DeCastro, (7) Ingram, (8) Upshaw, (9) Clairborne, (10) Jenkins, (11) Dennard.

Conclusion - Depending on how we feel about a few other guys - like Reiff OT, Kalil OT, Coples DE, Floyd WR or Kuechly LB - we might want to trade down.

This has been the biggest difference in the draft results for Arizona the last few seasons. The Cards are getting real value with their later round selections. 3-7th.

Both the first round and 2nd round picks have been boom or bust.

LeVar Fisher then Anquan Boldin, Karlos Dansby then JJ Arrington, Lutui then Branch, Campbell then Cody Brown then DWash then Ryan Williams blows a knee.

Meanwhile we get guys like Acho, Toler, and Schofield in the 4th. LSH in the 7th. Dockett, Roberts and Doucet in the 3rd. Hightower,Breaston, Sherman and Double Duece in the 5th.

Go back and look at the drafts from early 2000's and 1990's and the 4-7th round picks usually produced little or nothing.

And its been a mix of BPA and need. PP21, Williams, and Housler BPA yet almost our entire 2010 selections were in areas we really needed help. Oddly enough it looks like they'll all turn out to be solid picks.

Dr. Jones · February 17th, 2012, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RugbyMuffin

Maybe the team we trade with has a HUGE need at the time of the draft, and needs to get something done.

Lots of reasons.

Also, does a OG count as a game breaker ? If he can open up holes for our RB to take 10 or 20 yards is that a game breaker ?

Maybe a team two spots behind us that has the exact same needs as their division rival who drafts right behind us.

I am really rooting for the Eagles to be open to giving us back our 2nd rounder in order to jump in front of the Cowboys. They both have the exact same needs on defense and might want to get their pick of the available talent.

If it goes the way I hope it might, we could still get Decastro, & recover the pick we lost.

JeffGollin · February 17th, 2012, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Canuck

If we trade back from #13 it probably means that some other team sees a "game breaker" or someone they project as a serious contributor from game one at that spot. Begs the question why we'd move?

Other teams may not draft the way we do and may have different priorities (like drafting to fill a position-need or favoring a steady-Eddie "lunch pail" player or huge DT over a Harvin or Reggie Bush type skill player.

Or a 3rd- rated QB like Tanahill if they need a QB badly enough).

juza76 · February 17th, 2012, 10:11 AM

i guess if one between richardson kirkpatrick tannehill kendall wright drop to 13..they will find a partner for sure

Seandonic · February 17th, 2012, 10:40 AM

DeCastro please.

john h · February 17th, 2012, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffGollin

Pondering the outcomes of the playoffs and Super Bowl, I was struck by the number of times big plays were made by a handful of individual "game breakers":

Therefore - position-needs aside - we might want to set the following Draft objectives:

1. Add 2 game-breakers to our roster to go along with Fitz, Calais, Dockett, DWash, PP21 and A-Dub.

2. Maintain our current level of talent from our #11th-rated player all the way down to #53.

Logically, our best shot at achieving this would be to: (1) grab one game-breaker at #13 and (2) roll the dice on a sleeper (with more raw athletic ability than football skill) somewhere from rounds #3 to #7.

Which begs the question - "When you stock the board from #1 to #13, are there 13 game-breakers there; or does the talent-plateau break off earlier?" (If it does, we might be better off trading out of #13, picking up a 2nd rounder or an extra 3rd and rolling the dice that we can draft a couple of athletic freaks later in round 1 and with our new 2nd or our 3rd round pick ).

This would place a heavy burden on Steve Keim and his scouts (who'd have to be really, really good at uncovering lesser known but athletically "special" prospects further down the food chain (like he has Schofield and Toler to name a couple).

Note - the difference between BPA and "Game Breaker" is that - like Peterson or Harvin or Cruz - game-breakers are capable of winning a game for you on the basis of a single play. BPA's may be more consistent/solid from play to play, neutralize potential mismatches and contirbute to the reliability of their respective units.

As to whether or not there are 13 "game breakers" - my early read would include (by position): (1) Luck, (2) RG III, (3) Richardson, (4) Blackmon, (5) K Wright, (6) DeCastro, (7) Ingram, (8) Upshaw, (9) Clairborne, (10) Jenkins, (11) Dennard.

Conclusion - Depending on how we feel about a few other guys - like Reiff OT, Kalil OT, Coples DE, Floyd WR or Kuechly LB - we might want to trade down.

Are you trying to become the Billy Bean of the NFL Jeff?

I am of the opinion that scouts are much more important than most recognize. There is a lot of buried treasure out there in small schools and even in big schools that go unnoticed by lesser scouts. If you have a group of scouts who can look through all the hype and smoke to find a hidden treasure and your GM and staff recognize your talent for doing this then you will be way ahead of your competition. How does a Tom Brady drop to a 7th round draft pick? I would think a good scout must be willing to put in 18 hour days watching games and film, talking to players and coaches, etc. I do not know what these guys get paid or even how a team chooses them or how much value they put on their input. Certainly the combine provides a lot of information but by no means should be the final answer. Neither should one big bowl game. I wonder how many scouts the Cards have vs some of the good teams? The scouts are where the rubber meets the road. The GM has a lot less knowledge of a particular player than a scout who has watched him in person over a few years.

Is there a Billy Beane method of evaluating talent? Can you recognize guys who are likely to be stars in a few years vs the ones who appear obvious winners at the college level and in the combine. A lot of variables out there as you cannot measure what is in a mans heart and soul.

BEERZ · February 17th, 2012, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildBB

If your looking for a pure game breaker where we're drafting, you can look no further than Kendall Wright. He's going to be a hot commodity, esp. if he's running a 4.35 in the combine, which is expected. The FO will have to consider him long and hard, to evaluate whether he'd be a bigger addition than an OLman.

On the other part, in rounds 3 and 4 especially, you want the raw talent AND on the field skills. After that you can look for more upside raw talent. But there are usually hidden gems, sometimes right under your nose, on your present roster - (LIN).

I agree on Kendall Wright. I dont want to draft a WR in the first, but I think this guy is a game breaker that would open all kinds of things up for Fitz.

Duckjake · February 17th, 2012, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BEERZ

I agree on Kendall Wright. I dont want to draft a WR in the first, but I think this guy is a game breaker that would open all kinds of things up for Fitz.

This year it doesn't matter who the Cards take in the first round as long as he's the best available player at his position. There are only two glaring weaknesses on the team and they are LT and QB. They aren't drafting a QB at 13 after what they paid for Kolb and lets hope that they don't reach for a Tackle because that position can be filled later in the draft or in free agency, see Mike Gandy and Super Bowl XLIII.

Note that if the best player available at #13 is an offensive tackle taking him is ok.

JeffGollin · February 17th, 2012, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john h

Are you trying to become the Billy Bean of the NFL Jeff?

I am of the opinion that scouts are much more important than most recognize. There is a lot of buried treasure out there in small schools and even in big schools that go unnoticed by lesser scouts. If you have a group of scouts who can look through all the hype and smoke to find a hidden treasure and your GM and staff recognize your talent for doing this then you will be way ahead of your competition.

Is there a Billy Beane method of evaluating talent? Can you recognize guys who are likely to be stars in a few years vs the ones who appear obvious winners at the college level and in the combine. A lot of variables out there as you cannot measure what is in a mans heart and soul.

No, John. I don't profess to be a Billie Bean (whoever he is) but I do hope Keim and Co. are good at "diamond mining" and their track record suggests they are. (That's why we pay them the big bucks - Like you, I'm just an interested fan).