Try this and see if logic hold up

[lobo]

For those of us who believe that the greatest need is the offensive line...give that a rating of 10. Based on that rate the next three needs...for example if you think that NT is next rate it relative to the OL...you might give it a 7 compared to OL...your third need might be DB which you might give a 6...after doing this you will have logically rated how in your opinion the top three cardinal picks should go...you could have ties or you might go "10-10-10" which would be the OL in the first three rounds...

The lower your second and third needs the less chance they will take that position player

I go as follows

10 (OL)
07 (FS)
06 (NT)
10 (OL)

 

[kerouac9]

Wanna know who you get when you draft for need? Wendell Bryant, Bryant Johnson, and Calvin Pace. Stop it.

 

[Doc Cardinal]

You probably do better when the BPA's are from areas of need.

This year we may luck out as on day one after the first round the BPA's may be offensive linemen and tight ends.

 

[lobo]

Wanna know who you get when you draft for need? Wendell Bryant, Bryant Johnson, and Calvin Pace. Stop it.

wanna' know what you get when you have the worst scouts in the league.....see above plus a boatload of others...it's a dirty little secret that i can share with a level of knowledge that we wouldn't spend for the proper scouting organization for many many years..not now tho'. the best organizations that have withstood the test of time (those teams that go 8-8 during years of rebuilding) ALWAYS spent for scouts...WE DIDN"T but that is not true now....no more details on the subject but take it to the bank.

 

[Pariah]

Calvin Pace and Bryant Johnson I'll give you, but Wendall Bryant was in there all pre-season in that crop of first-round DTs. Novody thought he was the best of the bunch by any stretch, but he was projected to go in the top-half of the first round.

At the time that pick wasn't bad. Neither was the Thomas Jones pick.

 

[SuperSpck]

Calvin Pace and Bryant Johnson I'll give you, but Wendall Bryant was in there all pre-season in that crop of first-round DTs. Novody thought he was the best of the bunch by any stretch, but he was projected to go in the top-half of the first round.

At the time that pick wasn't bad. Neither was the Thomas Jones pick.

Agreed, there's a critical difference between a good pick and a good player.

Jones was a good pick because he represented phenominal talent combined with the Cardinals choosing at the perfect spot for his selection based on what we knew of him at the time.

Hindsight is a great way of saying: Oh we should have. But if a team ever gets the idea to ditch a scout for a soothsayer then they'll be the ones who have the best drafts.

 

[football karma]

2004 -- second round

Linebacker isnt necessarily a need at all, but Karlos Dansby has slipped and is sitting there

does anybody care, or can even list, what the "needs" were at that time

 

[SuperSpck]

2004 -- second round

Linebacker isnt necessarily a need at all, but Karlos Dansby has slipped and is sitting there

does anybody care, or can even list, what the "needs" were at that time

So needs from 2003's roster?

Everything not named Anquan I guess. Or Leonard. Or Adrian. Props to anyone I forget.

 

[BACH]

For those of us who believe that the greatest need is the offensive line...give that a rating of 10. Based on that rate the next three needs...for example if you think that NT is next rate it relative to the OL...you might give it a 7 compared to OL...your third need might be DB which you might give a 6...after doing this you will have logically rated how in your opinion the top three cardinal picks should go...you could have ties or you might go "10-10-10" which would be the OL in the first three rounds...

The lower your second and third needs the less chance they will take that position player

I go as follows

10 (OL)
07 (FS)
06 (NT)
10 (OL)

I get the system and I'm sure that the front office have rated the needs, but I do not get your point in this post.

Do you want the team to go after need at every pick or?

Graves takes need positions into account when setting up the board and then takes BAP from final board.

That means, ceteris paribus, that OT Winston will be rated higher than DE Hali if they are there at #41 (same rating), but that DE Mario Williams would be rated higher than OT Justice if both were there at #10.

 

[lobo]

bach

thanks for the thoughtful post..appreciate it...if one looks at without emotion most teams can always use a good player...and there are some spots where "need" realtive to other positions isn't there...do we need another wide receiver...hardly...would RB be near the top of our list...i don't think so...everything is relative...we have been something less than stellar over the past 50 years or so...aside from WR we have "needs" all over, the question is relative to other positions what are the greatest needs and in my opinion I would put all my resources...scouting, money etc into the offensive line followed by DL...because to me the primary need has been stopping the run and running...if a team can't to that it TOTALLY upsets game planning...the years we were able to do both where the closest years we had to being a team that had a shot at wiinning a game....bach...just trying to dope out the draft...which certainly is not a science....again i repeat isn't it interesting how OVER THE YEARS with or without FA...teams like miami, pitt, dallas have during rebuilding years were always go 8-8 7-9....those have been our high water marks!!!!

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Wanna know who you get when you draft for need? Wendell Bryant, Bryant Johnson, and Calvin Pace. Stop it.

He's right.

You plug holes in FA.

The percentage of players in the draft that will be productive is small. So you've got to go BPA to increase your odds of getting good players.

 

[kerouac9]

Calvin Pace and Bryant Johnson I'll give you, but Wendall Bryant was in there all pre-season in that crop of first-round DTs. Novody thought he was the best of the bunch by any stretch, but he was projected to go in the top-half of the first round.

At the time that pick wasn't bad. Neither was the Thomas Jones pick.

We should have taken Albert Haynesworth if we "needed" a DT more than anything else, but Jeremy Shockey, Phillip Buchanon, heck, T.J. Duckett would have been better picks than Wendall Bryant would have been. If you're not going to play a one-gap defense, why on earth would you take a tweener DT who you're not going to use right? It made no sense from any angle.

 

[lobo]

We should have taken Albert Haynesworth if we "needed" a DT more than anything else, but Jeremy Shockey, Phillip Buchanon, heck, T.J. Duckett would have been better picks than Wendall Bryant would have been. If you're not going to play a one-gap defense, why on earth would you take a tweener DT who you're not going to use right? It made no sense from any angle.

obviously there were other issues with wendall as no one even gave him a shot....regardless

 

[WildBB]

2004 -- second round

Linebacker isnt necessarily a need at all, but Karlos Dansby has slipped and is sitting there

does anybody care, or can even list, what the "needs" were at that time

Pretty much, almost everything. Yeah , Dansby was a great pick. We were fortunate to have that 1st pick of that round.

 

[JeffGollin]

Nuance Counts

There's a subtle difference between (a) drafting for need and (b) building need into the drafting the best available player - that I'd define as "available player who can best help our football team."

In the first case, you reach for a Tommy Knight or a Wendall Bryant because you need a CB or DT.

In the second case, you give weight to "fits our needs-profile" into your rating for each player. Which means that Reggie Bush might still be rated #1 (despite our having James) because his skill-set is so off-the-charts that he's still worth picking regardless.

But if, say Lawson and Mangold would otherwise be rated equally, Mangold might be given a few more points because he could help us more at center (where we have Step and Leckey) than Lawson could help at DE (where we have Berry, Okeafor, Pace and A Smith).

Maybe a better example would be considering Ferguson potentially more valuable to the team than Mario Williams despite both being otherwise rated pretty even overall.

But that's a far cry from simply pulling the highest remaining rated player at a given position out of your butt and ignoring more talented players who can help your team more just because you need to fill a hole.

Be wary of replacing nuance with pure numbers.

 

[lobo]

I get the system and I'm sure that the front office have rated the needs, but I do not get your point in this post.

Do you want the team to go after need at every pick or?

Graves takes need positions into account when setting up the board and then takes BAP from final board.

That means, ceteris paribus, that OT Winston will be rated higher than DE Hali if they are there at #41 (same rating), but that DE Mario Williams would be rated higher than OT Justice if both were there at #10.[/quote

thanks...my point is that it is easier to identify need than best player available...if a particular draft is deep in a particular division i believe a team is better off going after the bpa instead of taking the fifth or sixth player at a position IF there is a run on that position...say like DB's. A team is more apt to take BPA the lower they pick in the draft...and logically that makes sense because the better teams SHOULD have less holes and realtively LESS need than those picking in the top 10 let's say...we have obvious need that require immediate addressing if we are going to be better than 6-10/5-11 type team....i would imagine that the james team must have gotten some type of commitment that we were going to bolster the OL aside from k brown (who is in fact a very good run blocker)...we need more than that...

jeff g made a very good point vis a vis the differnece between BPA and drafting for need..it's tough...by the way ceterus if i remember means "other" it is a work but also seen in the workd etc. i forgot what paribus means...

 

[BACH]

I get the system and I'm sure that the front office have rated the needs, but I do not get your point in this post.

Do you want the team to go after need at every pick or?

Graves takes need positions into account when setting up the board and then takes BAP from final board.

That means, ceteris paribus, that OT Winston will be rated higher than DE Hali if they are there at #41 (same rating), but that DE Mario Williams would be rated higher than OT Justice if both were there at #10.[/quote

thanks...my point is that it is easier to identify need than best player available...if a particular draft is deep in a particular division i believe a team is better off going after the bpa instead of taking the fifth or sixth player at a position IF there is a run on that position...say like DB's. A team is more apt to take BPA the lower they pick in the draft...and logically that makes sense because the better teams SHOULD have less holes and realtively LESS need than those picking in the top 10 let's say...we have obvious need that require immediate addressing if we are going to be better than 6-10/5-11 type team....i would imagine that the james team must have gotten some type of commitment that we were going to bolster the OL aside from k brown (who is in fact a very good run blocker)...we need more than that...

jeff g made a very good point vis a vis the differnece between BPA and drafting for need..it's tough...by the way ceterus if i remember means "other" it is a work but also seen in the workd etc. i forgot what paribus means...

ceteris paribus means "all things being equal" and I used it in this content to prove my point based on the general ranking of the players being equal in both cases.

Teams generally put all players into brackets. The rule in the BPA approach is that you always take a player from the highest bracket - never drafting a need player if there's a player from a higher bracket available. But if you have a need and a non-need in the same bracket, then it's okay to take the need player even if he's slightly lower rated.

In this draft the general consensus is that the first bracket consists of 10 players: Bush, Leinart, Young, Cutler, Davis, Ngata, Williams, Hawk, Huff and Ferguson. So if this team truly follows the BPA strategy, then we must take Cutler over Justice (assuming the team rates the players the same way)

 

[lobo]

thanks bach...

cogito ergo sum to you!!!