Draft: Need vs. Best Player

[FRPLG]

How about this? Draft the guy who is going to improve you the most. If we draft Adrian Peterson then let's be honest he won't improve us that much because we have Portis and Betts. But we could draft one the DLs and they'd most likely improve us right away. So why take Peterson? Just because he is a better player doesn't mean we get to utilize all of that "betterness". I say take the guy who you think improves you the most. In this case I find it hard to see where anything but one of the DLs improves us that much right away. Maybe CJ but that is moot. Either he's gone when we pick or I have slit my wrists because we traded up to draft him.

[Oakland Red]

I can agree with that in the sense that you are wanting a player for a team. It isn't fantasy football. I would measure the value of the player that I ultimately get to play on my team as to how much he helps my team. A player like Rich Gannon didn't help the Redskins much but he sure helped the Oakland Raiders. So Gannon's value was much more for them than for us.

Still I would want to maximize the value of the spot I am trading at, then make adjustments until I got the best players - for our particular team, with its unique character.

Originally Posted by FRPLG

How about this? Draft the guy who is going to improve you the most. If we draft Adrian Peterson then let's be honest he won't improve us that much because we have Portis and Betts. But we could draft one the DLs and they'd most likely improve us right away. So why take Peterson? Just because he is a better player doesn't mean we get to utilize all of that "betterness". I say take the guy who you think improves you the most. In this case I find it hard to see where anything but one of the DLs improves us that much right away. Maybe CJ but that is moot. Either he's gone when we pick or I have slit my wrists because we traded up to draft him.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Oakland Red

I can agree with that in the sense that you are wanting a player for a team. It isn't fantasy football. I would measure the value of the player that I ultimately get to play on my team as to how much he helps my team. A player like Rich Gannon didn't help the Redskins much but he sure helped the Oakland Raiders. So Gannon's value was much more for them than for us.

Still I would want to maximize the value of the spot I am trading at, then make adjustments until I got the best players - for our particular team, with its unique character.

Remember to subtract the value of the player that is being replaced down the road by the draft pick. Replacing Joe Salevea is much different than replacing Jason Campbell or Clinton Portis.

Rich Gannon was one of the wackiest instances you possibly could have brought up. Personally, I love the guy. He was the sole reason I wore #12 in high school. But he was a really bizarre case.

First of all, theres only about 1-3 prospects in a modern draft that scouts unianimously agree that will be good NFL QBs (that doesn't always make them sure fire QBs, but there are ways to check scouting logic). After that there are about 30-40 college competant draftable QBs. Out of those 30-40, 1-2 will be better than competent NFL players if given the chance. It's realtively impossible to predict who those two are. Tom Brady was a good example. Gannon fell into this category.

Where Gannon was so unique is that statistically speaking, for the first 7 years of his career, he essentially played like a rookie. His numbers went up, they went down, they went up, they went down and they pretty much never improved signifcantly. It was in this era that he was a Redskin.

After sitting out a year, he was signed by Kansas City, and seemed to resume a predictible statistical career path of a GREAT quarterback (which is exactly what he became). He improved every year he was in Kansas City finally reaching the prime of his career at age 31. That was 1998, his tenth season in the NFL. He probably would have been a probowler that year, but he was unable to shake the starting role free from the incomprable Elvis Grbac (good call, Marty) and filed for Free Agency after the season.

His success in Oakland came instateously because: 1) despite his age (32) he was a great QB entering the prime of his career and 2) Jon Gruden's high completion QB friendly system gave him a decisive advantage that he had lacked in the past. He went to the pro bowl each of his first 4 years in Oakland and won the MVP in 2002.

His career ended did not end because he couldn't play anymore. If he was still playing, he would still be the best QB on the Raiders at age 41. His career ended because his age meant that his body would heal much slower from injuries then it would have if he was 31. He likely would have taken Oakland to the playoffs in 2004 had he stayed healthy, but alas, Kerry Collins sucks balls.

The point of this anecdote is that we had Rich Gannon 5 years before he reached the prime of his career. Usually, that is enough time for a rookie to develop. In Gannon's case, he was already a 5 year vet when he got here. He just, for whatever reason, took a substancially long time to begin his devolopment. Had he begun earlier, he likely would have won the job here and went on to have a hall of fame career. We just got unlikely that we let him go, because he was a great talent who developed late. The Raiders' just happened to buy low and got great output.

Rich Gannon was a mutation in the generally predictable gene pool of NFL QBs.