Retroram52
Moderator
You might be right Ozarkram. He certainly has that Joe Willie brashness and an ego to boot. He does indeed play with a lot of fire and that would be a total change from our last-two emotionless, vanilla QBs.
kid keeps winning but his attitude isn't desirable. curious to see what would happen when things don't go his way
every1 wanted Austin I wanted Hopkins and lacy in the second and ogletree was also my other first round pick....like is said Austin is too small and lacy would have helped the run game bc we can run the ball to save our lives
and shotty isn't streaching the field with givens at all
True but you dont draft in the first round based on needsBut, as of right now, they still have more pressing needs than QB.
9 out of 10 times, teams really shouldn't draft for need and that 1 time is QB. QB is probably the 2nd most important position in all of sports behind only Center in the NBA and those dont seem to come along anymore.Exactly
If teams didn't draft for need over BPA, then the Rams wouldn't have got that huge trade from the Skins because RG3 was not the #2 BPA in that draft ( he was the #2 rated QB ). If the Skins were drafting BPA, they wouldn't have traded up to take Kalil.
Teams draft for need more so than BPA. Sometimes, teams get lucky when their need matches BPA ( like Indy with Luck ) or Jax with Blackmon ( they still thought Gabbert could be a franchise QB at the time- that is no longer the case ). They will probably luck out again this year when their need matches the BPA with one of the QB's coming out.
For starters, the 2009 draft just sucked. A lot of teams really whiffed on that draft.ff, based on your theories (which I disagree with) we would have not drafted Jason Smith in the 2009 NFL Draft and would have drafted an even BIGGER bust in Mark Sanchez. He was the 3rd highest rated overall player coming out of that draft and one of them was drafted #1 (Matthew Stafford) and the other was drafted at #4 (Aaron Curry). ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS draft for need unless the highest rated player at your position of need is not rated high enough.
Take the 2012 draft as an example. When Jacksonville traded up to draft Blackmon, the Rams traded down. Why? Because the players at the position of need were not rated in the top 6, but they were rated in the top 20. The targets were (in order..and this is fact as I talked to Les Snead about this exact subject just a few weeks ago) Fletcher Cox, Michael Brockers and Dontari Poe. He had them all rated fairly close together and when Cox and Poe got drafted, it made his decision easier. The only caviat to that is that, IMO, Safety was just as big a need as DT at the time and we could have easily grabbed Mark Barron at #6 and looked elsewhere for DT.
Nobody rated Sanchez as the 3rd highest rated overall player and nobody projected him as a top 3 pick. If you want to say otherwise then produce some evidence to back it up. Sanchez was seen as a raw talent who was projected up from his true talent level to #8 or #10 in most mocks purely because he was a QB. Suggesting that he has produced less than Jason Smith since the 2009 Draft is also wrong....ff, based on your theories (which I disagree with) we would have not drafted Jason Smith in the 2009 NFL Draft and would have drafted an even BIGGER bust in Mark Sanchez. He was the 3rd highest rated overall player coming out of that draft...
You are taking a dogmatic approach to a situation and I disagree with any such approach. Each decision should be based on the strengths and merits of your player analysis. If there are 5 good DTs and 1 good S available it would be foolish to end up with a good DT and a mediocre S when you could get a good S now and a good DT later on....ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS draft for need unless the highest rated player at your position of need is not rated high enough...
Both Fisher and Snead graded Brockers as a top 6 pick. The player they hoped for at #6 wasn't there....Take the 2012 draft as an example. When Jacksonville traded up to draft Blackmon, the Rams traded down. Why? Because the players at the position of need were not rated in the top 6, but they were rated in the top 20...
To say that S was as big of a need as DT at the time of the 2012 Draft doesn't match with true situation. After the 2011 season it was clear that both starting DTs were done. Both were released. We also needed a CB, even after signing Finnegan, because we lost 8 CBs to injury in 2011 and the only 1 expected to return as an NFL quality starter was Bartell, (who was a free agent). Even then we had a huge need at OT & OG. Mikell had played as well as could be expected at FS in 2011 given the lack of talent around him and he was guaranteed a franchise FS salary of $6M in 2012. Dahl was seen as a competent partner for Mikell despite his ties to the previous HC....IMO, Safety was just as big a need as DT at the time and we could have easily grabbed Mark Barron at #6 and looked elsewhere for DT...