Quote:
Originally Posted by FrenchSkin
Sometimes I feel (this is more of a feeling than an analyzed reasoning) like we over evaluate NFL pros' skills to predict what a college player will become in the NFL.
I mean, I understand the reasoning behind BPA drafting, but there's always a 50/50 chance the most promising guy will turn out to be a complete bust...
And then you end up not having filled up gaping holes in your team to draft an unneeded bad (or even average) player at a position you already have depth...
I say we have too many holes to fill on D to hope that'll be fix through FA only, filling those holes should be a priority in the offseason, including the draft.
And if you make another team's day by not drafting a really good WR, well good for them but we saw how far a GREAT offense could get us with a bad defense... Not very far.
|
But you have just as much of a chance of whiffing on the player who fills a need as you do on the best guy on your board regardless of position.
You're right, we see that if a GM hits on more than 50% of his picks then he's doing really well. But you can whiff on a lineman you need just as much as you can whiff on a WR that would be a depth guy. This thinking doesn't make an argument in favor of drafting for need.
You're going to miss on your share of guys. Just get the best guys you possibly can on those nice cheap rookie deals and let the chips fall where they may. Use free agency to fill needs - you have to pay through the nose but at least you have a better idea of what you're getting as opposed to the 50/50 crapshoot of the draft.