Drafting Best Player Available "rule"
- Thread starter RamsFan14
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
bluecollarram
Starter
Hey man, ain't looking to pick a fight. The Quinn was a reach thing "set the hook" on me. Went and looked, after the tumor he was mocked all over round one, but early he was highly rated. once I learn this computer I'll link to my findings. N E way I calmed down no blood no foul.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #26
Thanks for the responses guys! I generally agree, I think the philosophy needs to be both on talent and need. I just don't think it's always easy to get exactly that tho, so I would probably sway more to the talent of the player then need but it really depends. It all depends on what you think of Clowney, I guess right now I'm just going to pretend he is that top talented prospect in this draft just for the debate. It's interesting philosophy if teams really buy into it, teams stack up on talent as much as they can to produce a better team given you don't always reach. Funny thing is if there wasn't a player like Clowney in this draft, I'd probably be telling you guys we need to go with a position of need a lil more then talent, so I'm being a bit wacky with what I'm saying lol.
^ flv I partially understand what your saying, I think there were experts that claimed he could have been a top 5 (even 3) pick had he played his last year and didn't have his health concerns. Teams shied away from him a lil more based on the circumstances. Had he played and didn't have any of those problems, truly believe he would have been selected higher. The talent was there with Quinn.
^ flv I partially understand what your saying, I think there were experts that claimed he could have been a top 5 (even 3) pick had he played his last year and didn't have his health concerns. Teams shied away from him a lil more based on the circumstances. Had he played and didn't have any of those problems, truly believe he would have been selected higher. The talent was there with Quinn.
This whole "reach and value" logic is dumb and as a result players tend to get overanalyzed to no end.
You look at the tape, find the best players at positions you need and can transition and draft them. It's really that simple.
You look at the tape, find the best players at positions you need and can transition and draft them. It's really that simple.
I think you're basing your evaluation decisions based on limited information. I follow the draft very closely. EXTREMELY closely. And while you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Austin is the only guy should be remotely argued as a "reach". Which he wasn't because the Jets were going to take him at Pick #9.
Brockers was considered a top 15 pick and many thought he'd go top 10. Quinn was considered a top 10 lock with most people locking him into the 49ers at pick #6.
Prince Amukamara? Media created hype. That guy went where he should have gone. And that's not hindsight. I said back then that he wasn't a top 10 pick.
You seem to be basing your opinion on what the mainstream media has projected. And frankly, the flaw in that logic is that they're ALWAYS behind the 8-ball. They create their mock drafts based on what they hear from NFL teams and NFL teams don't start to give them good info until they get close to the draft.
The fact that many of the top "experts" actually believed Jimmy Clausen was a top 10 pick should speak volumes here.
From what I have seen, Clowney may very well be that once in a generation type player. If he can attack the pro game as a player that wants to be a HOFer then I would love to have him regardless of need. As much as I love Chris Long, he was nicked up last year and he is entering year 7. What a rotation that would be and you are now reloading just like the big boys.
Of course that is the same reason I don't mind the idea of taking a QB early.
I, like most think our biggest NEEDS are on the O-line and in the secondary. But great talent can't be overlooked.
Of course that is the same reason I don't mind the idea of taking a QB early.
I, like most think our biggest NEEDS are on the O-line and in the secondary. But great talent can't be overlooked.
Cullen Bryant
Rookie
The most common thing you hear on draft day is " He was the highest rated player on our board " or " we couldn't believe he was still there we had him rated much higher " so I think GM's would say they're drafting BPA always. I don't believe that, I think in general they draft BPA at the position they're trying to fill. However when drafting no. 2 overall " need " shouldn't even enter the conversation, you have to take the BPA at no. 2 unless it's a QB and you already have one which is the position I think the Rams are in. I think Clowney would be a great pick for the Rams for two reasons.
1. He's the best player in the draft. ( I know it's debatable but I believe he is )
2. With Chris Long due 10 mil. in 2015 and 12 mil. in 2016 and Quinn, if he has another year like this year looking at 15 + mil a year, that's 25+ mil devoted to our two starting DE's. I see this as a huge looming problem that Clowney would be a perfect solution to. We wouldn't have to cross this bridge until 2018.
1. He's the best player in the draft. ( I know it's debatable but I believe he is )
2. With Chris Long due 10 mil. in 2015 and 12 mil. in 2016 and Quinn, if he has another year like this year looking at 15 + mil a year, that's 25+ mil devoted to our two starting DE's. I see this as a huge looming problem that Clowney would be a perfect solution to. We wouldn't have to cross this bridge until 2018.
I have always hated the BPA theory because no one really knows who will end up performing the best in their NFL career. Maybe it is just the label and to think that anyone has a crystal ball and can actually guess who is best I think is a waste of time. Teams will make their best guesses and fans will never have any clue what was on each teams board at each pick. Need has got to be a factor for each pick, you can't have a team with 7 or 8 DE and a bunch of scrubs playing on the O line and expect to win by setting the sack record. Who cares how many sack a team gets? It is fun to watch but "you play to win the games!!!"
If the Rams took Clowney would he Quinn and Long all be on the field at the same time? There are still only 2 DE positions on any given play. Who goes inside? Are they effective from there?
Until this team is drafting for depth using a pick for a luxury like Clowney would be a waste IMO
If the Rams took Clowney would he Quinn and Long all be on the field at the same time? There are still only 2 DE positions on any given play. Who goes inside? Are they effective from there?
Until this team is drafting for depth using a pick for a luxury like Clowney would be a waste IMO
Ya know bein an old fart like I am I remember when this came into vogue,it was popularized by the Dallas Cowboys who went their first 6 seasons without a winning record under Tom Landry who in today's NFL would have been fired for having that record.
Again the BPA is no rule ,it's a theory and has never been proven or it would be a rule. It sounds great to people who never have to accept the consequences of their omniscience but when you are trying to keep your job and your team is going into your third season and you are sub .500 ,trying to rebuild a team BPA is as bart sez ,a luxury.Maybe Fish can afford it ,to be sure though he's the one who will pay another way if he can't. Not us message board GMs or the Mel Kipers,we go on to our next episode of omniscience.
But to make the comparison, it would be...for me:
Matthews
Talent - 55
Need - 16
Position - 14
Total - 85
Clowney
Talent - 60
Need - 2
Position - 18
Total - 80
So you're right, Matthews does come out ahead. It would still be difficult for me to pass on Clowney, though.
SaneRamsFan
Rookie
Spags took robert quinn and yes he was bpa and yes he Is bpot right now. But he started only one game his rookie year. I always felt like he contributed to spags demise.
Yamahopper
Hall of Fame
GM's, draft experts and mockers profess BPA. In reality it's only a theory. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Each team does it's own grading and board stacking so us fans never know if they go BPA or not.
Each team does it's own grading and board stacking so us fans never know if they go BPA or not.
laramsoriginal
Starter
Wow, im glad most of you guys are not real GM's, draft DE when our OL is average at best. Then when you consider that JL is returning from a big knee surgery and the issues at both Guard positions yet a rotational DE is a higher need than OL???
BPA does not apply when your team has 2 good players at the position and there are huge holes to fill elsewhere.
Go ahead and draft BPA and watch Sam and the rest of the offense suck it up for another year.
I am tired of seeing the rams play mediocre football. Fill the hole at cb, fs, and og with high draft picks then the rams can possibly contend for the nfcw.
BPA does not apply when your team has 2 good players at the position and there are huge holes to fill elsewhere.
Go ahead and draft BPA and watch Sam and the rest of the offense suck it up for another year.
I am tired of seeing the rams play mediocre football. Fill the hole at cb, fs, and og with high draft picks then the rams can possibly contend for the nfcw.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #38
Just talking about philosophy bud. I don't disagree with what your saying, just debating that "once in a generation player" some scouts are saying about Clowney and that drafting philosophy. I don't think it's as dumb a debate as you're implying it to be.
And for what its worth... Fisher hasn't drafted an OL in the first round in his whole career as a head coach (or was that just offensive tackle?! Think it was OL), so that's something to think over. The philosophy is so you draft the best possible player because your maximizing on picking the most talented player (according to your board). We do have Robert Quinn, can't complain that DL is a weakness at all, it's the strongest if anything. Just bringing up a debate about the philosophy and how it relates to Clowney.
I'm down for picking playmakers but wouldn't be disappointed if we ended up with someone like Clowney if the Rams thought they could make things work with him.
And if there isn't a CB, FS or OG worth drafting at that spot? Do we pick one anyways? Isn't that how we ended up passing on players like Darrelle Revis, Haloti Ngata and Troy Polamalu to draft the Jimmy Kennedys, Tye Hills and Adam Carrikers of the world?
I think the biggest thing to consider with the draft is that it's for the future. Not just 2014. A lot of rookies...even players that develop into top players at their position...don't contribute that much as rookies.
Which is the idea of drafting mainly for need just doesn't appeal to me. What happens if it takes the guy 2 or 3 years to develop? Who is to say we'll have the same needs at that point?
IMO, Free Agency should be used to plug holes. The draft should be used to collect as much young talent as possible. I also think it's worth pointing out that even if we don't go OL early...we can fill the guard spots just fine in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th round with good player evaluation. So lets say we do draft Clowney. We can still come away with a David Yankey in Round 2 and a Gabe Jackson or Brandon Thomas in Round 3 if we really want to. And those guys will probably be pretty darn good value at that point.
Don't get me wrong. I want to fix the OL. I am more than willing to use 2 of our first 3 picks on OLs if the value is right because I want us to have a dominant OL. I think it's absolutely imperative to our offense to have a dominant OL...if we do have one, we can be scary good. But I also don't believe you should force picks that just aren't there.
But you're absolutely entitled to believe that I am dead wrong. Maybe I am. It's just my personal philosophy.