Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
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.
|
Agreed.
Honestly I don't have a strong argument against the BPA strategy, I just feel like you have to have an open mind, and if you can choose between a high ranked guy at a position you don't need and a guy ranked just a few spots behind the first one but playing a position you need, drafting the second guy seems smarter to me.
We also tend to forget that part of how these young players will develop depends on how they'll be coached, what team will be around them etc... It's not Madden where you can definitely say "this guy is an 84 overall while that one is only a 77 overall".
The point could also be made that considering you have a 50/50 chance of drafting a bust, if you use 2 of your first 4 picks on a position you need, you dramatically improve your chances of filling a hole on your team.