Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 64 of 64
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Down Yonder
    Posts
    11,989
    Im honestly happy with the Broncos. I have a strong feeling we are not done. I see a big name coming over to fill our QB need.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

    Me and my Boys.
    Thank you PSD for your support and prayers.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,602
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    Yeah that's an interesting conversation to have actually. My thing though is was it Sony Michel that was instrumental or was it the run game? They had a dominant run blocking OL with a motivated Trent Brown at LT, Thuney at LG, David Andrews at C, Shaq Mason at RG and a younger Marcus Cannon at RT. James Develin played a lot for a FB in the modern game and was a crushing blocker. Gronkowski was past his prime as a receiver but still a crushing blocker. Dwayne Allen was an awesome blocking TE as well. They kept feeding Michel the ball but I don't think he was really individually spectacular. Hard to argue that Nick Chubb, drafted a few spots later, wouldn't have been able to replicate that for example. With the low free agent prices for RBs could they have gotten that spot addressed with a Michel level talent at a low enough cost and use the 1st rounder elsewhere? Probably.

    Things happened how they did and a super bowl is a super bowl. Michel played a big role. So yeah, if the football gods came down and asked me if we could change the Michel pick and take our chances that we still win a super bowl, I probably just take the one in the hand over the two in the bush. But in terms of general draft approach and process, that pick is an example of one you don't want. He's just not worth that pick. Again, even if you do go for the need at that position Nick Chubb went right after him.

    I also would call out that I've been talking about drafting for need on day 3. That equation changes some when you're talking higher picks. My point is on day 3 that it's defying the odds for any of these guys to even be good enough to play so you can't get greedy trying to narrow it down to a specific position on top of that. In the 1st round you can draft for need and reasonably expect that you'll get production at that spot. So I think it's something you do consider more heavily that high.
    I get what youíre saying about teams drafting BPA and not for need. As a general rule, yes, 100% agree. I do think that idea changes though when your talking about about a team that is top 3 and pretty much a SB contender at the draft before the season starts. When youíre talking about the Patriots with Brady or this year a KC or TB, where the rosters pretty much set outside 1-2 spots and thereís a significant need - I think you have to fill that need. Especially considering these team are picking late in rounds and really the end of round 1 to round 3 thereís a lot of players that could potentially go in any of those rounds.

    If the Patriots of 18 biggest need was a RB, you got to go RB and give your team the chance to go all the way. KC this year it was OL. They traded their first to fill that need. But it would be criminal for KC to draft say a TE or a QB just because they were the BPA.

    For long term team building - 100% BPA is a rule. But championship teams donít come around every year. So if youíre in that position I think itís ok to forget that rule and go for the championship, fill that need. Even if it means passing on some better players to fill a specific role. Because these teams generally have limited roster space, limited draft capital.
    Last edited by Oakmont_4; 05-02-2021 at 11:58 AM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    35,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakmont_4 View Post
    I get what youíre saying about teams drafting BPA and not for need. As a general rule, yes, 100% agree. I do think that idea changes though when your talking about about a team that is top 3 and pretty much a SB contender at the draft before the season starts. When youíre talking about the Patriots with Brady or this year a KC or TB, where the rosters pretty much set outside 1-2 spots and thereís a significant need - I think you have to fill that need. Especially considering these team are picking late in rounds and really the end of round 1 to round 3 thereís a lot of players that could potentially go in any of those rounds.

    If the Patriots of 18 biggest need was a RB, you got to go RB and give your team the chance to go all the way. KC this year it was OL. They traded their first to fill that need. But it would be criminal for KC to draft say a TE or a QB just because they were the BPA.

    For long term team building - 100% BPA is a rule. But championship teams donít come around every year. So if youíre in that position I think itís ok to forget that rule and go for the championship, fill that need. Even if it means passing on some better players to fill a specific role. Because these teams generally have limited roster space, limited draft capital.
    This all makes sense. I want to point out the goal posts of what I was saying kind of got moved when Cat started talking Sony Michel. My point was originally made specific to day 3. I was talking about how it's silly to grade teams on if they filled needs or not on day 3. I read a graphic showing how 37% of 4th rounders and 12% of 7th rounders even sign second deals (rounds 5 and 6 were in between that on a sliding scale, forget exacts). Anywhere from two-thirds to three-fourths of day 3 picks aren't good enough to even stick on rosters so I was just arguing that it's pretty silly to, on top of beating the odds that a guy can even play, further reducing your odds by limiting yourself to a specific position. Obviously every player's evaluation is different and for some guys it may be the case, but IN GENERAL, the idea that you "fill a need" by drafting someone at a certain position on day 3 is likely unreasonably optimistic. It doesn't fill a need unless the guy can actually play and most of the guys on day 3 can't. So you really need to focus on just identifying the guys who can actually play, regardless of position. Again, not saying you totally ignore need and roster situation but you get what I mean.

    When you're talking about higher picks, like the conversation has moved to, that changes the dynamics. Because when you're talking 1st, 2nd even 3rd round picks, the talent level is just different. It's reasonable at that point to expect that if you draft a player at a position of need that you're going to get some level of production from him at that spot. Even if it isn't the best long term pick, there is that need-BPA balance to consider here because it's actually reasonable to think you've filled a need when you draft a guy up that high. So what you're saying is very much in play there.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    8,082
    I would say my Patriots we stacked up on defense

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •