So, how do you draft?

[Midnightangel]

There are a few ways of doing this:

1) Always take the best player available - regardless of position.

2) Draft for your needs

3) If you don't see a player really worth your pick, trade down.

Discuss.

 

[SonnyCID]

If I had to pick one option to commit to it would be to draft BPA.

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

BPA usually outweighs most decision making. Unless that position group is stacked on your team.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

1s round...depends on my roster and where I'm picking.

Top 10, I'm hoping to fill a need...top 15, same concept.

Top 20...chances are you have a legit starter at most positions...not drafting for a starter right away, BPA.

 

[TDs3nOut]

BPA usually outweighs most decision making. Unless that position group is stacked on your team.

Agreed. Could see an interesting example of that. If Houston doesn't take Clowney at one, what does St. Louis do with its first pick?

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

Agreed. Could see an interesting example of that. If Houston doesn't take Clowney at one, what does St. Louis do with its first pick?

Clowney could easily convert to OLB... So I'd definitely take him

 

[mcnabb7542]

My order:

player ranked that high that is a need position
then
I take best player available, but if I already have a log jam at his postion
then
I look to trade down.....

 

[night]

There are a few ways of doing this:

1) Always take the best player available - regardless of position.

2) Draft for your needs

3) If you don't see a player really worth your pick, trade down.

Discuss.

Depends on the situation you're in.

It's always going to be a combination of 1 and 2. 3 is only an option if the offer is strong enough, and that's not going to be the case most of the time.

In the early rounds I usually lean towards 2 most of the time but you have to make an exception sometimes to someone who is too stellar to pass up on. Once you get into the 4th rounds or later I start leaning towards best player available unless there are too many horses in the stable for that position.

I wouldn't be heartbroken if the Falcons missed out on Clowney because I know there will be quality OTs available. I still feel like we're so thin at a lot of positions that most of the time the best player available is going to fill a need after the first few rounds are over.

 

[Naughtymax]

I prefer a full-bodied ale, not pasteurized. I am perfeclty happy with a light pilsner on a hot day, or a properly-pulled Guinness in winter.

 

[Midnightangel]

I tend to lean toward drafting for what I need the most. I want to upgrade my weakest position.

 

[cdumler7]

Those saying BPA obviously that is a subjective opinion. Every year for the draft I make a big board with around 200 players. If say I was the Broncos GM and it came to my pick...If there is a player especially in the 1st round that was supposed to go in the teens who is still left then yes I am willing to draft them even if it isn't a position of need but if it is a difference of say one to two spots and one of them fits a need while the other would most likely be depth then I would go for the position of need at that point. The difference in skill level isn't enough to cause me to take the higher ranked player.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Agreed. Could see an interesting example of that. If Houston doesn't take Clowney at one, what does St. Louis do with its first pick?

Stranger things have happened, but unless HOU really covets Manziel, I don't see them leaving picks on the table for STL to reap. I think they would trade the pick or take Clowney.

STL...should that happen...I think Fisher has two guys he'd be comfortable taking...Watkins, or Matthews...I think he would be more apt to trade with ATL, & gamble one them will be on the board or a guy like Robinson being there, or Mack somehow slips. 6 is a good spot in this draft.

If he loses Watkins, he can always grab one of the 2nd rd WR early if he wanted to with another pick in the 1st.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Those saying BPA obviously that is a subjective opinion. Every year for the draft I make a big board with around 200 players. If say I was the Broncos GM and it came to my pick...If there is a player especially in the 1st round that was supposed to go in the teens who is still left then yes I am willing to draft them even if it isn't a position of need but if it is a difference of say one to two spots and one of them fits a need while the other would most likely be depth then I would go for the position of need at that point. The difference in skill level isn't enough to cause me to take the higher ranked player.

Agreed...but it can be difficult...case in point using the Steelers. Let's say Barr drops to 15...the top 3 WRs are gone, top 3 CBs are gone...do you take the 4th CB off the board, NT Nix, or Barr? None are likely to start next year.

In that case, I'd take Barr even though the need is greater @ NT & CB.

 

[packerzrule]

 

[cdumler7]

Agreed...but it can be difficult...case in point using the Steelers. Let's say Barr drops to 15...the top 3 WRs are gone, top 3 CBs are gone...do you take the 4th CB off the board, NT Nix, or Barr? None are likely to start next year.

In that case, I'd take Barr even though the need is greater @ NT & CB.

I agree with that. Barr is a guy if nothing else year one can be a pass rush specialist as he grows into the position but you can't pass on a guy who could be the best defensively player in 10 years to come out of this draft. I will say I do like Nix though and am surprised to see his name sometimes in the 2nd round. He was a top 10 pick before this last season and spent most of the year injured yet still played at a 1st round type player level. For me it would be between Nix and Barr. I think both will be 10 year starters in this league so wouldn't be upset to get either.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I agree with that. Barr is a guy if nothing else year one can be a pass rush specialist as he grows into the position but you can't pass on a guy who could be the best defensively player in 10 years to come out of this draft. I will say I do like Nix though and am surprised to see his name sometimes in the 2nd round. He was a top 10 pick before this last season and spent most of the year injured yet still played at a 1st round type player level. For me it would be between Nix and Barr. I think both will be 10 year starters in this league so wouldn't be upset to get either.

That's the thing with BPA...Barr is the higher rated athlete, but in this I think most people would take the need position (Nix) over the position they have 2 younger starters.

I'm not a huge Nix fan (I thought both he and Tuitt were manhandled by a good, but not NFL good, OL)...NT with knee surgery already bothers me in the 1st round, especially 15.

 

[flaraider]

If you have a top 10 pick chances are you wouldn't go wrong taking BPA, you likely need talent at many positions, OTOH, if you are picking later in the round you may have a particular area of need, and with a deep draft of this caliber you have any number of options.

Pretty sure there will be some surprises come Thursday, but I really am a BPA type of GM.

 

[Jikkle]

I would say you lean more too BPA but I would say it's a mix of BPA and need and under no circumstances do you take need for the sake of filling a need.

There are a lot of variables to consider as well and it doesn't just boil down to BPA vs Need.

For example when it comes to the draft in general people are overly focused on what is a need for a team in that particular year and teams are graded on how well they filled their needs. But what's rarely considered is even if it's not a need for that upcoming season it might become a need in the next season or the one after that.

Aside from having an elite QBs the teams that stay consistently good year in and year out are the teams that are thinking not just for that upcoming season but for the season beyond that and even the one after that. So when a player either hits FA and becomes too expensive or gets too long in the tooth you have a guy with already a season or two under his belt to step right in and play at a high level.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

If you have a top 10 pick chances are you wouldn't go wrong taking BPA, you likely need talent at many positions, OTOH, if you are picking later in the round you may have a particular area of need, and with a deep draft of this caliber you have any number of options.

Pretty sure there will be some surprises come Thursday, but I really am a BPA type of GM.

I would say you lean more too BPA but I would say it's a mix of BPA and need and under no circumstances do you take need for the sake of filling a need.

There are a lot of variables to consider as well and it doesn't just boil down to BPA vs Need.

For example when it comes to the draft in general people are overly focused on what is a need for a team in that particular year and teams are graded on how well they filled their needs. But what's rarely considered is even if it's not a need for that upcoming season it might become a need in the next season or the one after that.

Aside from having an elite QBs the teams that stay consistently good year in and year out are the teams that are thinking not just for that upcoming season but for the season beyond that and even the one after that. So when a player either hits FA and becomes too expensive or gets too long in the tooth you have a guy with already a season or two under his belt to step right in and play at a high level.

I agree with both posts. I'd like to add that strategy comes into play, if the BPA is someone you feel you can wait another round for because of some reason, such as, small school, undersized, injury etc. then perhaps you gamble and wait to pick that player. It's never as simple as the three options listed by the OP.

 

[SteelersPride]

its gotta be situational