Draft: Need vs. Best Player

[vaoutlaws2006]

drafting a player based on a need works well in a perfect world....i say you draft the best player available when you pick. Regardless of position.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by vaoutlaws2006

drafting a player based on a need works well in a perfect world....i say you draft the best player available when you pick. Regardless of position.

So you'd take Brady Quinn if he fell?

Kinda useless when you have Campbell there. They are both going to be good QBs in a year or two, but you can only play one.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by vaoutlaws2006

drafting a player based on a need works well in a perfect world....i say you draft the best player available when you pick. Regardless of position.

That makes no sense. Why would we spend the 6th overall pick on a QB or RB for example?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

That makes no sense. Why would we spend the 6th overall pick on a QB or RB for example?

For our team QB and RB are off limits. We are set at those spots. Everything else is fair game.

[Oakland Red]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

That makes no sense. Why would we spend the 6th overall pick on a QB or RB for example?

If you have a player who is heads and tails above the others at a position of non need, of course you can trade out of that choice if anyone else sees that and get the value of that player that way. The point I want to make is that you want to maximize the value of the choices you make. Then you have more value overall on your team, and can adjust your roster accordingly afterward.

Let's say the new Dan Marino is available when we choose. Let's say this player is a 1000 watt player. If we can't trade with someone who wants that 1000 watt player, do we instead draft for need and take the 250 watt player, who plays at a position of need? Or do we show patience, draft this new Dan Marino, and wait for the opportunity to trade him to a team that recognizes his ability? And find another player, maybe a 100 watt player, to fill the need in the meantime?

I know that I would take the long term view and take the best player.

If the player at a position of need is only slightly less in wattage, then I might take the slightly less talented player.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Oakland Red

If you have a player who is heads and tails above the others at a position of non need, of course you can trade out of that choice if anyone else sees that and get the value of that player that way. The point I want to make is that you want to maximize the value of the choices you make. Then you have more value overall on your team, and can adjust your roster accordingly afterward.

Let's say the new Dan Marino is available when we choose. Let's say this player is a 1000 watt player. If we can't trade with someone who wants that 1000 watt player, do we instead draft for need and take the 250 watt player, who plays at a position of need? Or do we show patience, draft this new Dan Marino, and wait for the opportunity to trade him to a team that recognizes his ability? And find another player, maybe a 100 watt player, to fill the need in the meantime?

I know that I would take the long term view and take the best player.

If the player at a position of need is only slightly less in wattage, then I might take the slightly less talented player.

So then, if there were no suitors for trading down, you would still take Adrian Peterson or Brady Quinn, even though we have invested so much in Jason Campbell and Clinton Portis?

That makes absolutely no sense.

[Oakland Red]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

So then, if there were no suitors for trading down, you would still take Adrian Peterson or Brady Quinn, even though we have invested so much in Jason Campbell and Clinton Portis?

That makes absolutely no sense.

I would rely on judgment about the players value. The names you mention might not be rated by the team as being that different from other players available who are not as visible in media reports. If they were much better than the players otherwise available then I would draft them.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Oakland Red

If you have a player who is heads and tails above the others at a position of non need, of course you can trade out of that choice if anyone else sees that and get the value of that player that way. The point I want to make is that you want to maximize the value of the choices you make. Then you have more value overall on your team, and can adjust your roster accordingly afterward.

Let's say the new Dan Marino is available when we choose. Let's say this player is a 1000 watt player. If we can't trade with someone who wants that 1000 watt player, do we instead draft for need and take the 250 watt player, who plays at a position of need? Or do we show patience, draft this new Dan Marino, and wait for the opportunity to trade him to a team that recognizes his ability? And find another player, maybe a 100 watt player, to fill the need in the meantime?

I know that I would take the long term view and take the best player.

If the player at a position of need is only slightly less in wattage, then I might take the slightly less talented player.

But in our case, taking the next Dan Marino might only provide a minor upgrade to Campbell. Remember, Campbell is 2 years ahead of any QB we take this year in experience. Also, his college production suggests that, barring serious injury, he will be a top 10, maybe 5 QB in this league by 2008. Sure, if Brady Quinn was the next Dan Marino (he's not going to be as good Marino, but its a decent loose comparision considering hes the best thing in this draft), he's going to end up being better than Campbell when he gets close to his prime 4 years down the road, but we are talking about 2010 now. Generally, you don't make a top 10 selection at the QB position who doesn't project to be the best QB on your roster until 2010. Brady Quinn is going to be a great pickup for somebody, but for us he would essentially be a waste of a pick unless Campbell were to get critically injured.

And just because Brady Quinn or Laron Landry falls to us does not mean that Amobi Okoye is 1/4 the player. A more accurate comparision would be that Quinn or Landry are worth 1000 Watts, and Okoye is worth 850. And then when you factor in need and some of the special things about Okoye, it becomes very clear who the best pick for the Washington Redskins is.

I understand what you are saying about maximizing your value, but for us to take a quarterback would be about the farthest thing from maximizing our value. You have to look at needs down the road as the player you take hits his prime.

Will defensive line be a need down the road? Yes, an absolutely critical one? Will middle linebacker? Yes. Will outside linebacker? Not really.

Cornerback? Somewhat. A lot of that depends on Rogers taking his game to the next level.
Safety? Only if Sean Taylor continues to be a giant liability in coverage (to the point where we need to replace him to stop opponents).
Offensive Line? Yes.
Tight End? If we keep Cooley around, we won't need to use a day 1 pick on a TE for many years.
Wide Receiver? In a year or two, we might need to bring in another proven, competant body. This will not be a critical need until Moss gets too old to produce.
Running Back? Not in the forseeable future.

Using this method of discovering our true needs, Quarterback actually appears to be the most secure position for the forseeable future. Only a career threatening or development threatening injury to Campbell would make this a need. Since it's illogical to bank on something of that nature, picking a QB would be minimizing draft value.

The new Dan Marino/Brady Quinn example would not have any trade value until we let him play enough to prove he can play in this league. It's not reasonable to take him under these circumstances.

Trading down is the most logical option to deal with the value discrepency. Value is relative to team. This also makes trading down difficult. So sometimes, trading down is impossible, and you just have to let that "can't miss" prospect fall past you. We did this with Mike Williams in 2005 and while Carlos Rogers might not turn out to be a good pick, it still was a good decision to pass on Williams.

[Oakland Red]

Well I agree that you have to be practical. I would take a player with smaller wattage if he is not much smaller and he fit a position of need. I'm not talking about Brady Quinn right now; I don't get the sense he is standing out above the other players in a big way.

If there was a Dan Marino type there, and he was head and shoulders above other players available at that spot, I would try to trade out of that spot for a team that is willing to offer a fair deal to draft him. If there wasn't such a deal, I would consider drafting him anyway, knowing that he can be traded when the time is right later on. If I thought it wouldn't work out in the long run and we wouldn't get the value, then I wouldn't draft him.

It's not the most talented player necessarily, but to me it's the one who can give my team the most wattage in the long run by drafting him - whether he gets traded later, or other players do, etc.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But in our case, taking the next Dan Marino might only provide a minor upgrade to Campbell. Remember, Campbell is 2 years ahead of any QB we take this year in experience. Also, his college production suggests that, barring serious injury, he will be a top 10, maybe 5 QB in this league by 2008. Sure, if Brady Quinn was the next Dan Marino (he's not going to be as good Marino, but its a decent loose comparision considering hes the best thing in this draft), he's going to end up being better than Campbell when he gets close to his prime 4 years down the road, but we are talking about 2010 now. Generally, you don't make a top 10 selection at the QB position who doesn't project to be the best QB on your roster until 2010. Brady Quinn is going to be a great pickup for somebody, but for us he would essentially be a waste of a pick unless Campbell were to get critically injured.

And just because Brady Quinn or Laron Landry falls to us does not mean that Amobi Okoye is 1/4 the player. A more accurate comparision would be that Quinn or Landry are worth 1000 Watts, and Okoye is worth 850. And then when you factor in need and some of the special things about Okoye, it becomes very clear who the best pick for the Washington Redskins is.

I understand what you are saying about maximizing your value, but for us to take a quarterback would be about the farthest thing from maximizing our value. You have to look at needs down the road as the player you take hits his prime.

Will defensive line be a need down the road? Yes, an absolutely critical one? Will middle linebacker? Yes. Will outside linebacker? Not really.

Cornerback? Somewhat. A lot of that depends on Rogers taking his game to the next level.
Safety? Only if Sean Taylor continues to be a giant liability in coverage (to the point where we need to replace him to stop opponents).
Offensive Line? Yes.
Tight End? If we keep Cooley around, we won't need to use a day 1 pick on a TE for many years.
Wide Receiver? In a year or two, we might need to bring in another proven, competant body. This will not be a critical need until Moss gets too old to produce.
Running Back? Not in the forseeable future.

Using this method of discovering our true needs, Quarterback actually appears to be the most secure position for the forseeable future. Only a career threatening or development threatening injury to Campbell would make this a need. Since it's illogical to bank on something of that nature, picking a QB would be minimizing draft value.

The new Dan Marino/Brady Quinn example would not have any trade value until we let him play enough to prove he can play in this league. It's not reasonable to take him under these circumstances.

Trading down is the most logical option to deal with the value discrepency. Value is relative to team. This also makes trading down difficult. So sometimes, trading down is impossible, and you just have to let that "can't miss" prospect fall past you. We did this with Mike Williams in 2005 and while Carlos Rogers might not turn out to be a good pick, it still was a good decision to pass on Williams.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Oakland Red

Well I agree that you have to be practical. I would take a player with smaller wattage if he is not much smaller and he fit a position of need. I'm not talking about Brady Quinn right now; I don't get the sense he is standing out above the other players in a big way.

If there was a Dan Marino type there, and he was head and shoulders above other players available at that spot, I would try to trade out of that spot for a team that is willing to offer a fair deal to draft him. If there wasn't such a deal, I would consider drafting him anyway, knowing that he can be traded when the time is right later on. If I thought it wouldn't work out in the long run and we wouldn't get the value, then I wouldn't draft him.

It's not the most talented player necessarily, but to me it's the one who can give my team the most wattage in the long run by drafting him - whether he gets traded later, or other players do, etc.

Taking players with the idea of trading them later simply doesn't work solely because draft value does not correlate to NFL player value. Draft position loses its meaning after the draft. For a player to have trade value, he's going to have to show promise on the field.

I don't know how good Brady Quinn will be in a historical sense. Dan Marino was by all accounts one of the three best QBs ever to play. No statistical projection could possibly put Quinn or any other QB at that level. Peyton Manning, for example, had a wonderful statistical projection, but not significantly higher than Carson Palmer's or Philip Rivers' or Ben Roethlisbergers.

What I'm saying here is that it is absolutely impossible to predict a player to be as good as Dan Marino. Peyton Manning may very well retire as the greatest QB ever to play. But the Colts did not pick Manning with the expectation that he would be on Marino's level, much less potentially better.

The point is that "the next Dan Marino" is nothing if not an ideal. For draft purposes, such a player doesn't exist. Neither does the next Jerry Rice, or the next LaDainian Tomlinson. Pre draft research can seperate the good from the bad. It can NOT seperate the historically great from the very good.

On that defense, I think Quinn is as good of a comparision as you are reasonably going to get with your arguement. I think he does stand out above all the rest, at least in this draft. I mean, there will probably be a QB or two taken in the later rounds of this draft that will be very good NFL QBs, but there is no guarentee that they ever get their chance to play. With Russell expected to be somewhere between the levels of David Carr (low end) and Rex Grossman (high end), I don't see him being a starting QB in this league 6 years from now. Teams are too impatient to let guys like Russell completely develop.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by vaoutlaws2006

drafting a player based on a need works well in a perfect world....i say you draft the best player available when you pick. Regardless of position.

And as we know how this world is. Far from PERFECT.
Draft what you NEED, pick up WANTS if anything is left over. Which we all know there won't be much of anything left over in DC.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by vaoutlaws2006

drafting a player based on a need works well in a perfect world....i say you draft the best player available when you pick. Regardless of position.

I'd say it is the other way around.