PDA

View Full Version : Your opinion on reaching for need vs. taking the BPA


montrose
03-24-2010, 11:02 AM
I was thinking about this last night after reading a post from Taco that he wants Xanders to take Iupati with the #11 pick. I'm a strong proponent of taking the best player available in the draft. I do however, see the logic in taking a player who might be able to fill an immediate need even if he's selected higher than his perceived value.

Looking at the Broncos, I believe their biggest weakness (by far) is the interior OL. It's my belief that an improved interior OL will maximize the value of our 2009 1st round RB and allow us to keep the defense off the field and improve the entire team. As of right now, our projected starting interior OL would be an unknown (Olsen), journeyman (Hochstein) and one solid starter (Kuper). So with that #11 pick, do the Broncos "reach" on Iupati, the draft's best guard, or Pouncey, the draft's best center? Most mock draft's have the two players going in the #15-#25 range, lower than the Broncos pick at #11.

Now I know everyone loves to suggest trading down, but in a deep draft that's easier said than done and for the sake of this discussion - I want to get your opinions on reaching for need vs. taking the best player available. Some teams have taken a guy before his perceived value and it's worked out (Donte Whitner to the Bills comes to my mind) but many times it hasnt and often times squads have been burned for reaching.

In the Broncos case, if they can't move down, they could select Iupati or Pouncey at #11 and help fill an immediate need at a very important position. However, it would be argued that McClain and D.Williams are more appropriate values at #11 and they could come in and compete for playing time and very important positions of value as well. It could also be argued that a sexy, skilled position pick like Bryant or Spiller could be more worthy of the money given to the #11 pick.

With that #11 does seem very high to take a C or G even though I think both could be great pros. For me personally, I value the OL so much that even if it wasn't an area of need, I'd like to take either guy. With that, Williams, McClain and Bryant seem to be more "appropriate" picks at #11 and I think any of the three guys could make a big impact. So what do you guys think? I don't think I'd be upset if the Broncos took any of the players (Iupati, Pouncey, McClain, Williams, Bryant or even Spiller) I mentioned at #11 but I'm curious as to your take.

meangene
03-24-2010, 11:22 AM
I think you go with the BPA at a position of some need unless the straight-up BPA is rated significantly higher. For example, I would be cool with Spiller at #11 even though we have more pressing needs at OL if we have him rated significantly higher than Iupati or Pouncey. If they are rated close to equal, then I think you go OL. I also think you have to factor in the relative strength of positions in the draft. For example, some feel like J.D. Walton with a second or third is close in value to Pouncey in the first. Maybe then you can go with a player you have rated close to Pouncey at another position where there may not be as much depth. So, I guess I would say you take BPA as your starting point and then consider all the other factors to determine whether they justify picking another player. I would never reach for a player I did not have rated very closely to the BPA just to fill a position of need. Particularly early in the draft because of the long-term effects of missing with an early pick.

Requiem
03-24-2010, 11:29 AM
I'd take the best player available. If that means taking a top flight OT who can move inside to guard, then so be it. I would rather Trent Williams or Anthony Davis at #11 than Iupati or Pouncey. Personally, I think C.J. Spiller is the best player who will be available at our spot and would take him without hesitation.

The Broncos have a lot of holes on the team. I think we can upgrade at every position we have. Iupati or Pouncey at #11 would be catastrophic mistakes value wise in my opinion. Iupati is a mid-to-late first-round selection, and Pouncey barely registers as that.

There is no need to reach on players when there are more than likely better fits for our offense elsewhere in the draft, and if you want to get the most value out of your picks, you don't take a turd like Pouncey that high or Iupati.

Ray Finkle
03-24-2010, 11:46 AM
I wouldn't be upset if they draft any of the following:
Iupati
Dan Williams
Trent Williams
McClain


I think 11 for a C is wayyyy overpayment.

underrated29
03-24-2010, 11:49 AM
I would be very upset. I do not think their value is close. our only real chance is to trade back with Pitts- so they can select haden...

But if we can not trade back then:

Graham
bryant
spiller
mclain
williams
haden
thomas


Would all be MUCH better selections. (in order for me)

gyldenlove
03-24-2010, 12:15 PM
BPA is great in theory, but I just think it too often doesn't improve your team as much as it should and defining who the best player is is very difficult - Dez Bryant might very well be more talented than all but 3 or 4 players in this draft, but does that make him BPA in the top 10?

If you are a team like Dallas or Indy or New Orleans you can go BPA, they have so few dire needs that they just have to ensure that they stay on top and you do that by getting the best players you can. If you are a team like us, we have some very clear and pretty dire needs like interior OL, youth at DL, CB, to some extend WR and certainly ILB, you just don't have to luxury to get players for a position who won't improve your team early on.

Right now my short list for the 11 spot is:

Rolando Mcclain, to me he is good value and fits a need
Sergio Kindle, can play OLB or ILB and is moving up boards
Mike Iupati, to me this is only a slight reach and LG might be our number 1 need
Dan Williams, has been moving up boards, but may be a bit overhyped because of his position

NFLBRONCO
03-24-2010, 12:34 PM
BPA at 11 imo is always the best way to go regardless of need. I agree even though I want to move down Montrose is right it might be hard with the quality of round 1 this year. I do think our best chance to move down is if Spiller and Dez are on the board. This is the first organized draft ( I hope) of this regime we'll see what they do this time.

Drek
03-24-2010, 12:43 PM
Every former and current FO type I've heard with any real success has said you've got to take BPA. Picking a positional need/desire leads to over picking, which results in busts and underachievers. You take BPA as long as there is legitimate long term potential for the guy to contribute.

Positional needs serve as a good tie breaker, but ultimately you got to take the best talent. Iupati is very talented, just because OG is an under-drafted position doesn't mean he might not be the best football talent at #11.

Take guys you know are very talented and fit your system, they'll show you a lot of ways that you can have them contribute after the fact.

Broncoman13
03-24-2010, 01:50 PM
I'd take the best player available. If that means taking a top flight OT who can move inside to guard, then so be it. I would rather Trent Williams or Anthony Davis at #11 than Iupati or Pouncey. Personally, I think C.J. Spiller is the best player who will be available at our spot and would take him without hesitation.

The Broncos have a lot of holes on the team. I think we can upgrade at every position we have. Iupati or Pouncey at #11 would be catastrophic mistakes value wise in my opinion. Iupati is a mid-to-late first-round selection, and Pouncey barely registers as that.

There is no need to reach on players when there are more than likely better fits for our offense elsewhere in the draft, and if you want to get the most value out of your picks, you don't take a turd like Pouncey that high or Iupati.


Bingo and this is exactly what will happen. If Baluga, Okung, Davis, Williams, or any other OT that works his way into the "top flight" category is available at #11, that will be the pick. As for transitioning to OG from the OT position, I think Baluga and Williams are the perfect candidates. Shorter arms for Baluga and the fact that Trent Williams struggled with LT his Sr. year lead me to this conclusion.

The reason I keep going down this path is two fold. One, we need an upgrade at OG (obviously). Two, Ryan Harris is oft injured and our game went down hill in a hurry when he went out last year. I know that everyone thinks that the interior line was our biggest problem, but Hochstein did fine until about week 8 or 9... We were able to mask his weaknesses with solid play around him. But when Harris went down, it was too much to mask both Polumbus and Hochstein. Clady suffered as a result and Weigmann looked old and slow.

Finally, when you look at McD's comments regarding the draft and pointing out the depth at the tackle position (both offense and defense), I think you can expect to see a few draft picks at those positions. My belief now is that we will go with Williams (Dan or Trent ;D) with #11 and then OT or DT (Ducasse, Cody, Thomas, etc) with #45. In the 3rd we'll take the best remaining OC, most likely Tennant but hopeful for Walton.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 01:53 PM
If we're talking about the difference between the #11 and the #15, I don't see it as a reach. For my part, I don't believe that there is a player within this range that will impact our team this season more (at least in the short term, probably even the long) than Iupati would. Who are we going to take that is going to make a bigger impact on making the playoffs this season than Iupati would?

Of course, I'm a Vandal, and will admit that I'm seeing things through Silver and Gold lenses. The idea of Iupati and Clady next to eachother - hailing from schools that hate eachother - thrills me. I can see these guys anchoring our line for the next 10 years. The thought sends me to the moon.

But trying to keep my feet on the ground, I just don't see it as too much of a reach given our tremendous weakness there. We need to fill that spot, and what better way to do that than to take the guy we need at #11.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 01:56 PM
Bingo and this is exactly what will happen. If Baluga, Okung, Davis, Williams, or any other OT that works his way into the "top flight" category is available at #11, that will be the pick.


And as proof that I'm not being a complete homer about this, I very much like this idea too. Filling this gap is crucial for us, because without a solid answer here, we're going to have a difficult time evaluating the rest of our skill positions. I'm a big believer that it all starts up front. Talent at the skill position will buy you a lot of things, but offensive linemen buy you time.

DBroncos4life
03-24-2010, 02:11 PM
I don't believe players have a certain pick grade. Spiller had a first round grade on him. There are lots of reason's why he has a first round grade I just don't think he should grade out as high as everyone here is claiming. Mike Iupati also has a first round grade. Most people see him as a late first rounder but a first round grade either way. I don't think draft Iupati would be a HUGE reach because of the fact that he grades out as a first rounder. Now if you are ignoring obviously better players to draft a player that doesn't even grade out for that round you are drafting him then it's a huge reach.

Someone already pointed out the cost of having both Spiller and Moreno. Huge amounts of money tied up in one position. Not only that the shortest lasting position where players are regarded as dime a dozen.

Spiller would be a role player in our system. A return man and a change of pace back. He isn't regarded as a very good blocker so third downs would be out of the question for him. To me that wouldn't be a very good use of a first round pick. At least Iupati would be on the field for all four downs. Also if he is as good as they claim at run blocking we should open up large running lanes for Moreno which will help the running game.

Mediator12
03-24-2010, 02:33 PM
The thing about BPA is that there are tiers in every draft and even with in rounds. The difference between the 1st overall BPA and the 4th in this draft is HUGE! Then you go to the next tier that goes from 4-9. Then 9-16, and 16-27 or so on my board. All the players in those ranges are too narrow to differentiate on positional talent alone.

What teams look for within those ranges are some mixture of players that fit their scheme, prototype, have growth potential, and are solid character guys. Those help differentiate the talent grades for individual teams when their pick comes. And every pick changes the entire landscape of the board and therefore affects the type of player available to the next tier.

It is also why a guy a with top 5 talent grade drops to another team that has a higher value placed on him in the teens or even 20's some years. The player does not fit the next teams criteria as BPA as each selection is made. Certain Positions also get overall draft premiums put on them like OT and QB. The opposite also holds true. Certain positions like OC, OG, S are disregarded becasue they are much easier to obtain in later rounds.

I think the reaches come when you get players like Tyson Jackson and Darius Heyward-Bey that jump whole tiers like last year. The teams selecting after those reaches benefit immensely from the overselection. The Broncos 11th pick should find an outstanding level player still on the board, but I do not have any Interior OL graded in the tier. In fact, I do not have one until the late first 27-45 tier. That means taking anyone that high from another tier just helps other teams have another shot a better player than you just picked.

However, my board has zero impact on the other 32 teams boards ;D That is just how my overall rankings look at this point.

Taco John
03-24-2010, 02:57 PM
Hey Med, you ducker! You didn't tell us whether you would be ok with taking Iupati at #11!

Choose your words carefully! My ban finger is feeling heavy today!

elsid13
03-24-2010, 03:03 PM
Hey Med, you ducker! You didn't tell us whether you would be ok with taking Iupati at #11!

Choose your words carefully! My ban finger is feeling heavy today!

Hotrod would have already ban his ass. Suck when you are not as manly as our Internet Redneck. ;D

cmhargrove
03-24-2010, 03:38 PM
I want the line help more than anyone, but i still wouldn't complain about Spiller at #11. There is just too much recent evidence that a guy like Spiller can help an offense turn the corner.

The Titans were **** with just LenDale White. Adding Chris Johnson looked like a luxury, but he even helped Vince Young win some games (and Vince isn't really very good...). The Panthers had it going for a while with the same situation, and even the Vikings benefitted last year from a "luxury" skill player pick.

I want the line first (Offense or Defense), but I wouldn't have a problem at all with Spiller. Just no more midget corners and i'm ok...

Broncoman13
03-24-2010, 03:59 PM
The thing about BPA is that there are tiers in every draft and even with in rounds. The difference between the 1st overall BPA and the 4th in this draft is HUGE! Then you go to the next tier that goes from 4-9. Then 9-16, and 16-27 or so on my board. All the players in those ranges are too narrow to differentiate on positional talent alone.

What teams look for within those ranges are some mixture of players that fit their scheme, prototype, have growth potential, and are solid character guys. Those help differentiate the talent grades for individual teams when their pick comes. And every pick changes the entire landscape of the board and therefore affects the type of player available to the next tier.

It is also why a guy a with top 5 talent grade drops to another team that has a higher value placed on him in the teens or even 20's some years. The player does not fit the next teams criteria as BPA as each selection is made. Certain Positions also get overall draft premiums put on them like OT and QB. The opposite also holds true. Certain positions like OC, OG, S are disregarded becasue they are much easier to obtain in later rounds.

I think the reaches come when you get players like Tyson Jackson and Darius Heyward-Bey that jump whole tiers like last year. The teams selecting after those reaches benefit immensely from the overselection. The Broncos 11th pick should find an outstanding level player still on the board, but I do not have any Interior OL graded in the tier. In fact, I do not have one until the late first 27-45 tier. That means taking anyone that high from another tier just helps other teams have another shot a better player than you just picked.

However, my board has zero impact on the other 32 teams boards ;D That is just how my overall rankings look at this point.

Wait, so you don't have guys like Okung, Baluga, Davis, Williams, or Iupati rated higher than 27-45??? Where is that BS Flag Smiley? ;D

GoBroncos84
03-24-2010, 04:39 PM
Man its a tough call, I don't envy the front office at all. Even if something crazy happens like Eric Berry falls to 11 because no one wants to take a safety that high. He would clearly be the BPA, but our safeties are among the strongest units we have. I'd still want us to take him, even if McClain and Williams are there. But just sticking to your premise, (Williams, McClain, Spiller, Bryant, Pouncey, Iupati) I think Pouncey fills the biggest need but I'd want the team to take the top player on their draft board. For a first round pick, especially an 11, you might as well get the most talented guy. Then in the following rounds when less money is on the line you can focus more on need. But that first rounder can set you back if they aren't a hit. Reaching for need is a more likely bust than taking the best player

illbroncsfn
03-24-2010, 05:43 PM
Outstanding thread w/great contributions by all involved- reminds me of the 'Mane 3 years ago.....

I think the bottom line is that there is traditionally a "slider" that may be top 5 worthy that will be there at 11- will probably be an OT when looking at the depth of this draft...

Requiem
03-24-2010, 10:41 PM
Wait, so you don't have guys like Okung, Baluga, Davis, Williams, or Iupati rated higher than 27-45??? Where is that BS Flag Smiley? ;D

He said interior OL.

TheReverend
03-25-2010, 12:49 AM
There's a very important distinction to be made here.

The best teams in the league select on BPA (Indy, Pitt, NE, Philly, etc) but they do this BECAUSE they can. Solid teams with solid depth can afford to select BPA. Inversely, horrid teams with glaring holes everywhere, can ALSO afford to draft BPA.

The 2010 Denver Broncos can not. We have some positions nailed down tightly. We have others that are solid and have promising youth behind them. We have others that are questionable. And we have others that are downright bad that need to be addressed immediately and couldn't be in FA so that falls squarely on the draft process or it IS a FO failure.

BowlenBall
03-25-2010, 01:54 AM
1st and 2nd rounds -- fill your most glaring needs. If the best player(s) available on the board don't match your needs, trade down if possible to a more favorable position. Denver is currently in this situation, with their only glaring need at the guard and center positions. We'd be better off dropping down 5-10 spots, picking up an extra 2 or 3, then taking Iupati or Pouncey at #20 or so.

3rd round onwards -- always, always, ALWAYS take BPA. Do this for several years, and you'll have a very deep roster. Teams (like the Shanahan-led Broncos) can get themselves into trouble by wasting their mid-round picks year after year on reaches for positions of need.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
03-25-2010, 04:25 AM
The thing about BPA is that there are tiers in every draft and even with in rounds. The difference between the 1st overall BPA and the 4th in this draft is HUGE! Then you go to the next tier that goes from 4-9. Then 9-16, and 16-27 or so on my board. All the players in those ranges are too narrow to differentiate on positional talent alone.

What teams look for within those ranges are some mixture of players that fit their scheme, prototype, have growth potential, and are solid character guys. Those help differentiate the talent grades for individual teams when their pick comes. And every pick changes the entire landscape of the board and therefore affects the type of player available to the next tier.

It is also why a guy a with top 5 talent grade drops to another team that has a higher value placed on him in the teens or even 20's some years. The player does not fit the next teams criteria as BPA as each selection is made. Certain Positions also get overall draft premiums put on them like OT and QB. The opposite also holds true. Certain positions like OC, OG, S are disregarded becasue they are much easier to obtain in later rounds.

I think the reaches come when you get players like Tyson Jackson and Darius Heyward-Bey that jump whole tiers like last year. The teams selecting after those reaches benefit immensely from the overselection. The Broncos 11th pick should find an outstanding level player still on the board, but I do not have any Interior OL graded in the tier. In fact, I do not have one until the late first 27-45 tier. That means taking anyone that high from another tier just helps other teams have another shot a better player than you just picked.

However, my board has zero impact on the other 32 teams boards ;D That is just how my overall rankings look at this point.


I agree with this. Good post. Before the draft, maybe we can post opposing boards and see how they compare. I'm mostly set up through the 5th Round area now, I'm not sure how deep you run yours. I'm sure other draftniks would love to offer theirs too. It would probably make a very interesting thread and would give us some good debate if we did it a week or two before the draft.

Broncoman13
03-25-2010, 06:38 AM
He said interior OL.

Whoa... thanks Req, I could have sworn I read OT in there. Very good point and with that notion, I would agree. Pouncey and Iupati may be a little higher, but not much.

Now, what about moving one of those big massive tackles with short arms, inside?

Broncoman13
03-25-2010, 06:52 AM
There's a very important distinction to be made here.

The best teams in the league select on BPA (Indy, Pitt, NE, Philly, etc) but they do this BECAUSE they can. Solid teams with solid depth can afford to select BPA. Inversely, horrid teams with glaring holes everywhere, can ALSO afford to draft BPA.

The 2010 Denver Broncos can not. We have some positions nailed down tightly. We have others that are solid and have promising youth behind them. We have others that are questionable. And we have others that are downright bad that need to be addressed immediately and couldn't be in FA so that falls squarely on the draft process or it IS a FO failure.

I agree with this. That is why a team like the Vikings can select players like Adrian Peterson and Percy Harvin. They certainly find roles for them, and they have had a lot of success taking BPA regardless of risk.

Which brings me to my question regarding BPA AND Risk. Seems like every year there are guys that fall b/c of risk. This year you are hearing names like Sam Bradford (Injury), Dez Bryant (Character) and Trent Williams (Work Ethic). Last year the player that immediately comes to mind is Percy Harvin (Character). In past years you had guys like Adrian Peterson (Injury) as well as Ryan Clady (competition). There are also plenty of guys that have busted or turned out to not do too well, mainly b/c of the risks originally identified by scouts. Brandon Marshall comes to mind.

So, how do you weigh in those risks when they are in fact the BPA? For example, if Dez Bryant filled an immediate need and was the BPA, what do you have to do or have as a franchise to take on that risk?

Mediator12
03-25-2010, 08:05 AM
Whoa... thanks Req, I could have sworn I read OT in there. Very good point and with that notion, I would agree. Pouncey and Iupati may be a little higher, but not much.

Now, what about moving one of those big massive tackles with short arms, inside?

It's about value and premium positions. You could draft one of those guys to play inside for a year immediately, but eventually you would want to kick a player like that outside. It's the same argument with the 2 down LB or 2 down Lineman. They could be very talented, but you get limited production from a pick that needs to be special player for your franchise. They become better values in the early second round, rather than the early first where you might pick a player based on sheer talent. Its the added value of the premium positions that makes them more valuable than comparable talented players.

Plus, as Rev said Good teams like Indy have the luxury of always being able to go BPA because they keep reloading solid scheme players every year. However, even they go BPA within their scheme and design. They will not select a BPA in the 20's and change what they do because of their talent like another team could if you selected one of the 2 outstanding DT's in this draft.

And, NO I would not even think about drafting Iupati before the mid twenties. He is not a plug and play OG right now IMHO. Any OG drafted in the first round should be an immediate starter grade player. Iupati has too many holes in his game to rely on him being that kind of guy right away. He struggled against just marginally rated DT's in Mobile. Not the Elite DT's mind you, he struggled against 4th round graded draft picks in practice and in the game. He was not very clean technically either. If he was getting beat just due to not facing elite talent but showing the ability to adapt quickly and with good technique doing so, then I would rate him much higher.

Broncoman13
03-25-2010, 09:09 AM
I don't disagree with you at all Med. I thought Iupati looked very poor (technically), especially in PassPro. I think he'll be good enough to start from day one but he's not going to be a huge upgrade for most teams.

So what about a guy like Trent Williams. Good enough to play RT from the start... but probably not better than Ryan Harris. Could you take a guy like that and slide him to OG all the while having a strong back up for the oft injured Ryan Harris?

meangene
03-25-2010, 09:20 AM
I don't disagree with you at all Med. I thought Iupati looked very poor (technically), especially in PassPro. I think he'll be good enough to start from day one but he's not going to be a huge upgrade for most teams.

So what about a guy like Trent Williams. Good enough to play RT from the start... but probably not better than Ryan Harris. Could you take a guy like that and slide him to OG all the while having a strong back up for the oft injured Ryan Harris?

Why not take a guy like Ducasse in the second who seems to be a natural OG but capable of backing up at RT? Then draft a player at #11 to play his natural position?

montrose
03-25-2010, 09:49 AM
Outstanding thread w/great contributions by all involved- reminds me of the 'Mane 3 years ago.....

I was thinking the same thing.

Broncoman13
03-25-2010, 10:26 AM
Why not take a guy like Ducasse in the second who seems to be a natural OG but capable of backing up at RT? Then draft a player at #11 to play his natural position?

Also a good idea, but Ducasse is in no way the caliber player/athlete that Trent Williams is.

elsid13
03-26-2010, 01:15 PM
Also a good idea, but Ducasse is in no way the caliber player/athlete that Trent Williams is.

Today you right. But I would counter Ducasse has higher ceiling once he get techniques down.

As for the thread I kinda broke it down this way

Round 1 - Best player at position of need that can play all 3 downs
Round 2/3 - Player of need that upgrade a current position
Round 4 and beyond BPA with greatest upside and ability to play ST

TheReverend
03-26-2010, 01:35 PM
I agree with this. That is why a team like the Vikings can select players like Adrian Peterson and Percy Harvin. They certainly find roles for them, and they have had a lot of success taking BPA regardless of risk.

Which brings me to my question regarding BPA AND Risk. Seems like every year there are guys that fall b/c of risk. This year you are hearing names like Sam Bradford (Injury), Dez Bryant (Character) and Trent Williams (Work Ethic). Last year the player that immediately comes to mind is Percy Harvin (Character). In past years you had guys like Adrian Peterson (Injury) as well as Ryan Clady (competition). There are also plenty of guys that have busted or turned out to not do too well, mainly b/c of the risks originally identified by scouts. Brandon Marshall comes to mind.

So, how do you weigh in those risks when they are in fact the BPA? For example, if Dez Bryant filled an immediate need and was the BPA, what do you have to do or have as a franchise to take on that risk?

Honestly, history bears it out that the risk only factors in when there's comparable talent on the board that doesn't share questionable backgrounds, future, injuries, etc. These guys swear up and down in their interviews that they've matured, feel great, and that whatever issue it is it's behind them, and coaches/GMs always feel confident in their own support system, resources etc. Unless it's a glaring concern (injury still not healed, PuP list, major character concerns through repeat offenses) the talented player with question marks will come of the board fairly immediately after comparable talent without character concerns are unavailable.

TheReverend
03-26-2010, 01:42 PM
One other note since there seems to be a lot of Iupati love.

RG is more difficult than left. In the majority of blocking schemes RG is doing the solo blocking on the three technique while the LG is usually helping a double team with the C or LT. In Clady's third year, he should be even more dominant, so really our left guard needs are going to be more along the lines of someone who can lay a quick hit and place a nice block on a LB at the 2nd level in the run game and someone who can slide protection and pick up a blitzer in pass pro.

No more, no less, no Iupati, imo.

gyldenlove
03-26-2010, 02:07 PM
One other note since there seems to be a lot of Iupati love.

RG is more difficult than left. In the majority of blocking schemes RG is doing the solo blocking on the three technique while the LG is usually helping a double team with the C or LT. In Clady's third year, he should be even more dominant, so really our left guard needs are going to be more along the lines of someone who can lay a quick hit and place a nice block on a LB at the 2nd level in the run game and someone who can slide protection and pick up a blitzer in pass pro.

No more, no less, no Iupati, imo.

That is true when playing against 4-3 defenses (well most of them anyway) but against 3-4 (which is becoming more popular) it is actually a bit opposite. The LG is often tasked with having to stop the RDE alone or with minimal help from the LT since the ROLB will often blitz and the LT is often tasked with matching up directly on the wide rushing LB.

Against the 3-4 it is the RG who helps handle the NT in many situations since many 30 fronts tend to try to cheat towards the strong side to shore up against the power run on that side. The RT then has to deal with the LDE and the OLB if blitzing will be handled by the TE or RB or the QB will have to step up to avoid the wide rush.

The reason I like Iupati is to help our interior run game which is pretty anemic, Iupati is a dude who is good at moving people around, I do agree that he is not as polished a pass blocker as he should be, but next to Clady that is something he will learn quickly.

gyldenlove
03-26-2010, 02:12 PM
Today you right. But I would counter Ducasse has higher ceiling once he get techniques down.

As for the thread I kinda broke it down this way

Round 1 - Best player at position of need that can play all 3 downs
Round 2/3 - Player of need that upgrade a current position
Round 4 and beyond BPA with greatest upside and ability to play ST

I would modify that:

Top 16: Every down player is a must, should either be a position of need or a position of future need (is old starter or impending free agent)
17-32: Best player regardless of 2 or 3 down potential
Day 2: Best player for non-prime position or filling up positions of need
Day 3: Players who fit system and ST potential

I wouldn't want a Chris Johnson or CJ Spiller in the top 16, you just don't get enough value, but in the lower half of the 1st round they can be excellent picks.

Mediator12
03-26-2010, 02:27 PM
One other note since there seems to be a lot of Iupati love.

RG is more difficult than left. In the majority of blocking schemes RG is doing the solo blocking on the three technique while the LG is usually helping a double team with the C or LT. In Clady's third year, he should be even more dominant, so really our left guard needs are going to be more along the lines of someone who can lay a quick hit and place a nice block on a LB at the 2nd level in the run game and someone who can slide protection and pick up a blitzer in pass pro.

No more, no less, no Iupati, imo.

That all depends on what fronts that 4-3 plays. If they are playing an under front then the LG and RG responsibilities will be switched from above. Seeing that more and more of the 4-3 teams are getting more exotic in their fronts as well that might just be oversimplified.

To me, Iupati is more raw than Clady was coming out. He has all the physical characteristics, but I saw him struggle too much in Mobile against better competition. I really think his learning curve is going to be steep at the next level and he might take more time to develop than most people here are predicting.

Drek
03-26-2010, 02:50 PM
That all depends on what fronts that 4-3 plays. If they are playing an under front then the LG and RG responsibilities will be switched from above. Seeing that more and more of the 4-3 teams are getting more exotic in their fronts as well that might just be oversimplified.

To me, Iupati is more raw than Clady was coming out. He has all the physical characteristics, but I saw him struggle too much in Mobile against better competition. I really think his learning curve is going to be steep at the next level and he might take more time to develop than most people here are predicting.

I'd largely agree on Iupati, he looked like a beast until he faced some big school competition and started giving out the bear hugs.

Any pick as high as #11 needs to go BPA if at all possible, and for us I think that is very possible. Ducasse should be at least as NFL ready as Iupati, and we could get him in the 2nd round if OG is such a big concern. I'd have a closer eye on JD Walton or Matt Tennant though. Center is the real big need on the OL. I'd feel fine having Olsen and Hochstein battle it out with a young guy we draft on Saturday (John Jerry is a personal favorite of mine). We need a center, and Iupati isn't going to fix that.

Use #11 on BPA, if we can trade our 2nd and 4th to get up and grab Pouncey then do it, but I'd just as soon wait on Tennant who strikes me as more NFL ready. Fill the one big glaring need left with him, and go BPA the rest of the way.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
03-27-2010, 12:05 AM
I would modify that:

Top 16: Every down player is a must, should either be a position of need or a position of future need (is old starter or impending free agent)
17-32: Best player regardless of 2 or 3 down potential
Day 2: Best player for non-prime position or filling up positions of need
Day 3: Players who fit system and ST potential

I wouldn't want a Chris Johnson or CJ Spiller in the top 16, you just don't get enough value, but in the lower half of the 1st round they can be excellent picks.


I agree with this for the most part. I'd probably further fine-tune it a bit:


Top 20: Every down potential is a must, should be either a position of immediate need or a position of a future immediate need. Does not have to be the best player, just needs to be an extremely talented player that fills a massive hole that can't be filled elsewhere.

21-50: Best Player at a Position of significant Need.

51-100: Best Player at a Position of need or a position that can be upgraded, either in the field or through the cutting of an overpriced contract.

100+: Depth and Developmental Upside selections.



So, lets look at selection #11 for fun.

Do we have any immediate holes? Yes, we need a starting OC, a starting RDE, a starting FB, a starting LG, a Punter, and possibly a starting WR.

At selection #11, which prospects fit these needs? OC Maurkice Pouncey, DE Jared Odrick, OG Mike Iupati, and WR Dez Bryant.

Out of those prospects, whom has the highest positional value due to rarity of prototype prospects? All of them are rare prototypes. Arguably WR and 5 technique have the most positional value at #11 Overall.

Which is a greater need of WR and 5 Tech? As of this time, 5 Tech.

Which position has greater youth and long term depth? WR, due to Royal, McKinley, and Gaffney. 5 Tech has zero long term depth or youth.


Conclusion:

The selection is Jared Odrick. He can start at RDE from Day 1. This moves Jarvis Green back to the nickel rush position that he excelled at during his New England tenure, before bombing as a starter last season. Jarvis Green's contract is really a 2 Year, 7 Million deal, which is in line with a Nickel rusher. On passing downs, Jamal Williams is removed, and Green either goes to LDE with Bannan moving to NT, or simply slides inside himself. Jared Odrick never leaves the field, playing 3 technique in 4 man fronts. This gives us a prototype at DE, some youth on an aging line, and provides us with a complete and high upside front, from the starting 3, through the nickel rushers, through the back end depth.

NFLBRONCO
03-27-2010, 12:12 AM
I watched total access and they did the state of the Broncos.

They mentioned three names BPA for 11

Spiller
Bryant
Earl Thomas

Mike Iupati loved him too but, felt 11 was too high

NFLBRONCO
03-27-2010, 12:16 AM
I agree with this for the most part. I'd probably further fine-tune it a bit:


Top 20: Every down potential is a must, should be either a position of immediate need or a position of a future immediate need. Does not have to be the best player, just needs to be an extremely talented player that fills a massive hole that can't be filled elsewhere.

21-50: Best Player at a Position of significant Need.

51-100: Best Player at a Position of need or a position that can be upgraded, either in the field or through the cutting of an overpriced contract.

100+: Depth and Developmental Upside selections.



So, lets look at selection #11 for fun.

Do we have any immediate holes? Yes, we need a starting OC, a starting RDE, a starting FB, a starting LG, a Punter, and possibly a starting WR.

At selection #11, which prospects fit these needs? OC Maurkice Pouncey, DE Jared Odrick, OG Mike Iupati, and WR Dez Bryant.

Out of those prospects, whom has the highest positional value due to rarity of prototype prospects? All of them are rare prototypes. Arguably WR and 5 technique have the most positional value at #11 Overall.

Which is a greater need of WR and 5 Tech? As of this time, 5 Tech.

Which position has greater youth and long term depth? WR, due to Royal, McKinley, and Gaffney. 5 Tech has zero long term depth or youth.


Conclusion:

The selection is Jared Odrick. He can start at RDE from Day 1. This moves Jarvis Green back to the nickel rush position that he excelled at during his New England tenure, before bombing as a starter last season. Jarvis Green's contract is really a 2 Year, 7 Million deal, which is in line with a Nickel rusher. On passing downs, Jamal Williams is removed, and Green either goes to LDE with Bannan moving to NT, or simply slides inside himself. Jared Odrick never leaves the field, playing 3 technique in 4 man fronts. This gives us a prototype at DE, some youth on an aging line, and provides us with a complete and high upside front, from the starting 3, through the nickel rushers, through the back end depth.

When I saw Total Access I expected them to think we should go DL or McClain at 11 but, they chose RB WR S.

meangene
03-27-2010, 04:12 AM
When I saw Total Access I expected them to think we should go DL or McClain at 11 but, they chose RB WR S.

Yeah, Mayock said we should be flexible and just go BPA. Mentioned Earl Thomas, Spiller and White. He felt we could look at Asamoah in Round 2 to fill the need at OG. I tend to agree - though I prefer Ducasse if he is available then because of his experience at OT.

Broncoman13
03-27-2010, 09:15 AM
Kind of how I look at the #11 spot as well. Though I think with the number of young safeties on the team that we may not look at Thomas, Berry, Mays, etc.

Here is a dark horse though... Haden. I think McD would still like to have another young CB developing. I think he would look to move Champ to safety rather than drafting a young safety. So my list would be Spiller, Bryant, Haden, and Trent Williams.

meangene
03-27-2010, 09:19 AM
Kind of how I look at the #11 spot as well. Though I think with the number of young safeties on the team that we may not look at Thomas, Berry, Mays, etc.

Here is a dark horse though... Haden. I think McD would still like to have another young CB developing. I think he would look to move Champ to safety rather than drafting a young safety. So my list would be Spiller, Bryant, Haden, and Trent Williams.

I'm not so sure I don't prefer Kyle Wilson to Haden. I agree on safety - it is one position where we have solid vets and some young potential. My dark horse - Weatherspoon.

illbroncsfn
03-27-2010, 10:33 AM
Kind of how I look at the #11 spot as well. Though I think with the number of young safeties on the team that we may not look at Thomas, Berry, Mays, etc.

Here is a dark horse though... Haden. I think McD would still like to have another young CB developing. I think he would look to move Champ to safety rather than drafting a young safety. So my list would be Spiller, Bryant, Haden, and Trent Williams.

The McDaniels regime seems to value versatility especially on the defensive side of the ball- which leads me to believe Earl Thomas may be the pick at #11 as his ability as a true FS w/ballhawking skills while being able to play a smidge of CB would bode well mixing coverages in the near future...

Haden would not be a pick IMHO at #11- seems to be very willing in run support which is nice to see at CB.

If McDaniels stick w/his NE draft DL philosophical roots- expect the pick to be Odrick or Dan Williams

Dedhed
03-27-2010, 11:05 AM
If we're talking about the difference between the #11 and the #15, I don't see it as a reach.

That would be my point as well. I wouldn't really define a pick as a reach unless he could have been taken a whole round later.

This notion of "we should trade back 6 spots and take Iupati" is just Madden generation fallacy.

Saying it's a reach to take Iupati at #11 when he's only rated as the #15 prospect is silly.

Of course if you're absolutely convinced he'll last another 10 picks, you can try to trade back, but that's far more difficult than people would imagine.

Tombstone RJ
03-27-2010, 11:44 AM
I was thinking about this last night after reading a post from Taco that he wants Xanders to take Iupati with the #11 pick. I'm a strong proponent of taking the best player available in the draft. I do however, see the logic in taking a player who might be able to fill an immediate need even if he's selected higher than his perceived value.

Looking at the Broncos, I believe their biggest weakness (by far) is the interior OL. It's my belief that an improved interior OL will maximize the value of our 2009 1st round RB and allow us to keep the defense off the field and improve the entire team. As of right now, our projected starting interior OL would be an unknown (Olsen), journeyman (Hochstein) and one solid starter (Kuper). So with that #11 pick, do the Broncos "reach" on Iupati, the draft's best guard, or Pouncey, the draft's best center? Most mock draft's have the two players going in the #15-#25 range, lower than the Broncos pick at #11.

Now I know everyone loves to suggest trading down, but in a deep draft that's easier said than done and for the sake of this discussion - I want to get your opinions on reaching for need vs. taking the best player available. Some teams have taken a guy before his perceived value and it's worked out (Donte Whitner to the Bills comes to my mind) but many times it hasnt and often times squads have been burned for reaching.

In the Broncos case, if they can't move down, they could select Iupati or Pouncey at #11 and help fill an immediate need at a very important position. However, it would be argued that McClain and D.Williams are more appropriate values at #11 and they could come in and compete for playing time and very important positions of value as well. It could also be argued that a sexy, skilled position pick like Bryant or Spiller could be more worthy of the money given to the #11 pick.

With that #11 does seem very high to take a C or G even though I think both could be great pros. For me personally, I value the OL so much that even if it wasn't an area of need, I'd like to take either guy. With that, Williams, McClain and Bryant seem to be more "appropriate" picks at #11 and I think any of the three guys could make a big impact. So what do you guys think? I don't think I'd be upset if the Broncos took any of the players (Iupati, Pouncey, McClain, Williams, Bryant or even Spiller) I mentioned at #11 but I'm curious as to your take.

The thing about olinemen is you can find some great guys in the middle rounds. Yah, taking a blue chip interior oline guy at #11 would fill an immediate need and shore up an already talented young oline. That being said, if you can accomplish this later in the draft then that is what you do.

I'm for taking an immediate impact player at #11 whatever the postion. If Dez Bryant is sitting there at #11 I take him regardless of whether Bmarsh is in house or not.

Why, because he's got the possibility of being a difference maker.

I also have no problem with the Broncos taking a guy like Berry or Spiller or Haden or McClain or whoever if they feel that player can come in and make an immediate impact.

Dedhed
03-27-2010, 11:48 AM
The thing about olinemen is you can find some great guys in the middle rounds. Yah, taking a blue chip interior oline guy at #11 would fill an immediate need and shore up an already talented young oline. That being said, if you can accomplish this later in the draft then that is what you do.

I'm for taking an immediate impact player at #11 whatever the postion. If Dez Bryant is sitting there at #11 I take him regardless of whether Bmarsh is in house or not.

Why, because he's got the possibility of being a difference maker.

I also have no problem with the Broncos taking a guy like Berry or Spiller or Haden or McClain or whoever if they feel that player can come in and make an immediate impact.
You can say the same thing about every position on the field. Iupati is an immediate impact player.

Tombstone RJ
03-27-2010, 11:51 AM
Kind of how I look at the #11 spot as well. Though I think with the number of young safeties on the team that we may not look at Thomas, Berry, Mays, etc.

Here is a dark horse though... Haden. I think McD would still like to have another young CB developing. I think he would look to move Champ to safety rather than drafting a young safety. So my list would be Spiller, Bryant, Haden, and Trent Williams.

That would be an absolutely fantastic move by McD. Take Haden, move Champ to Free Safety and let him patrol the middle of the field. Dude, I'd be soooooo down with this move.

Tombstone RJ
03-27-2010, 11:54 AM
You can say the same thing about every position on the field. Iupati is an immediate impact player.

I love the oline as much as anyone and I agree that a solid oline gives McD a lot of security moving forward with his spread offense. That being said, I don't think you pass on a guy who can score you TDs or get INTs or return kicks for TDs. I'm talking about impacting the scoreboard. As much as I agree Iupati is a great talent, I don't know if I pass on Spiller or Haden.

illbroncsfn
03-27-2010, 01:20 PM
That would be an absolutely fantastic move by McD. Take Haden, move Champ to Free Safety and let him patrol the middle of the field. Dude, I'd be soooooo down with this move.

Only a great move if Champ's salary is cut in half after the 2010-11 season.

Drek
03-27-2010, 03:12 PM
You can say the same thing about every position on the field. Iupati is an immediate impact player.

Victor Ducasse is more of an immediate impact player.

Iupati has all the physical skills but when put against elite competition he showed serious flaws in his fundamentals. He's very possibly going to be the best OG in the NFL in several years, but in 2010? He'll be a below average starter short of a coaching miracle through camp and pre-season.

elsid13
03-27-2010, 03:34 PM
Victor Ducasse is more of an immediate impact player.

Iupati has all the physical skills but when put against elite competition he showed serious flaws in his fundamentals. He's very possibly going to be the best OG in the NFL in several years, but in 2010? He'll be a below average starter short of a coaching miracle through camp and pre-season.

Drek

I think Ducasse is going to struggle to right off the bat. Both Iupati and Ducasse are going to need some time learn how to be pros. Someone like Mike Johnson (ALA) or John Jerry (Old Miss) will have more of chance stepping right in and competing their rookie years. Question is would we rather have production right out off the bath or wait on better talent?

Broncoman13
03-27-2010, 04:25 PM
That would be an absolutely fantastic move by McD. Take Haden, move Champ to Free Safety and let him patrol the middle of the field. Dude, I'd be soooooo down with this move.

Not my idea, Champ talked about it during the offseason (the move to safety part that is).

Dedhed
03-27-2010, 10:40 PM
Victor Ducasse is more of an immediate impact player.

Iupati has all the physical skills but when put against elite competition he showed serious flaws in his fundamentals. He's very possibly going to be the best OG in the NFL in several years, but in 2010? He'll be a below average starter short of a coaching miracle through camp and pre-season.

Meh, Iupati was playing out of position throughout the Senior Bowl. Trying to show scouts he can play tackle at the next level, probably due to his agent, and then playing on the right side during the game.

As a LG he'll be a beast from day one.

And it's Vladimir Ducasse, not Victor, who I would love to see the Broncos get in round 2 to play RT in place of Ryan Harris who I think, sadly, is going to have a very short career due to injury.

TheReverend
03-27-2010, 11:08 PM
That all depends on what fronts that 4-3 plays. If they are playing an under front then the LG and RG responsibilities will be switched from above. Seeing that more and more of the 4-3 teams are getting more exotic in their fronts as well that might just be oversimplified.

To me, Iupati is more raw than Clady was coming out. He has all the physical characteristics, but I saw him struggle too much in Mobile against better competition. I really think his learning curve is going to be steep at the next level and he might take more time to develop than most people here are predicting.

You're absolutely right, and naturally my post also doesn't take slant fronts into account either which can make certain that the LG is going to be solo blocking the NT in a base or an over.

That being said, I'll bet if you looked at % of snaps and blocking assignments, you'd see the LG is playing an assist/2nd level role probably close to 70% of offensive snaps. I'm not sure and don't have any hard numbers on this, but that's where I'd guess it would be around.

Cito Pelon
03-28-2010, 12:51 AM
Seems to me, in general, BPA in a range of say 3-5 positions is the way to go.

The draft, trades, and FA are tied together, so if you happen to be overstocked at several positions a couple years down the road you can turn the surplus players over a la NE trading Seymour, or you get a compensatory pick for an FA loss.

I don't like reaching for needs, seems like it hurts you in the long run.

Cito Pelon
03-28-2010, 01:09 AM
Kind of how I look at the #11 spot as well. Though I think with the number of young safeties on the team that we may not look at Thomas, Berry, Mays, etc.

Here is a dark horse though... Haden. I think McD would still like to have another young CB developing. I think he would look to move Champ to safety rather than drafting a young safety. So my list would be Spiller, Bryant, Haden, and Trent Williams.

I was looking at some updated boards by the media wallas, and Haden is moving up lately. A couple weeks ago he was down in the 15-20 range, now he's top-ten.

I agree with you, but man he's moving up.

gyldenlove
03-28-2010, 10:39 AM
So I looked at 4 different draft sites I use and compared rankings to find a good approximation of who will be gone and who can be considered consensus BPA at number 11.

Here are the players who were rated in the top 10 in all lists:

Suh, Mccoy, Berry, Okung, Bulaga, Bradford.
So it is safe to consider all of those out of reach.

From the remaining players, the ranking looks like this:

1. Dez Bryant
2. CJ Spiller
3. Trent Williams
4. Joe Haden
5. Pierre-Paul
5. Jimmy Clausen
6. Derrick Morgan
7. Rolando Mcclain
8. Anthony Davis

Currently I do believe that Trent Williams will be drafted in the top 10, quite a few teams have needs at OT, I am also quite sold on the Clausen to Buffalo pick. Haden I see as a player who will drop out of the top 15, so that leaves:

Bryant, Spiller, Paul, Morgan, Mcclain and Davis.

Two of those will be drafted in the top 10, meaning we will end up drafting either WR, RB og OLB.

This if of course a pseudoanalysis, it almost certain that the top 10 won't look quite like this, but I think it does to some degree illuminate the problem of drafting BPA regardless, who is to say that the player we consider to be the best is the player that someone else considers to be the best, also do you rank non-playing factors such as off-field issues, not every down potential, boom-bust potential in when you consider who is best and how much weight do you give this?

I certainly agree that you shouldn't be so blinded by having to draft a CB in the 1st round that you end up with Willie Middlebrooks, but on the other hand there is no reason to be so blinded by getting the "best" player that you pass up a chance at improving your team. Besides that defining the best player is practically impossible and therefore BPA is purely in the eye of the beholder.

Drek
03-28-2010, 04:25 PM
Meh, Iupati was playing out of position throughout the Senior Bowl. Trying to show scouts he can play tackle at the next level, probably due to his agent, and then playing on the right side during the game.

As a LG he'll be a beast from day one.

And it's Vladimir Ducasse, not Victor, who I would love to see the Broncos get in round 2 to play RT in place of Ryan Harris who I think, sadly, is going to have a very short career due to injury.

Being out of position isn't an excuse for his first instinct when beat to grab onto someone. He's got technique issues.

I think he could step in and play a pretty good OG, but not immediate pro-bowl like you'd expect from an OG taken with a top 15 pick. I think he'd be at most marginally better than Ducasse from day one.

Drek

I think Ducasse is going to struggle to right off the bat. Both Iupati and Ducasse are going to need some time learn how to be pros. Someone like Mike Johnson (ALA) or John Jerry (Old Miss) will have more of chance stepping right in and competing their rookie years. Question is would we rather have production right out off the bath or wait on better talent?

I could agree with that. Ducasse won't be perfect off the bat, but offers similar long range potential to Iupati and I don't think he'll be penalized as much, in exchange for getting beat a little more often.

I really like John Jerry and Jon Asamoah myself. I think either one would be a great long term OG option for us if we could get one in the 3rd round. I like Mike Johnson too, but a round later.

We don't need a day one starter out of the draft at OG though. Hochstein was solid when healthy in '09 and is back for '10. Olsen has a year under his belt and can now compete for a starting job. All we need is a young guy to add to that competition.

Center is the real need on the OL. We need to bring home Walton or Tennant, baring that Eric Olsen from ND. One of those three needs to be a Bronco come the end of the draft. If we head into the season having Olsen and Hochstein competing out of position with Fry as the only true center we're going to be in trouble.

elsid13
03-28-2010, 04:40 PM
Because this appears to be weak draft in the interior offense position, player are going to be selected higher then should be. If Denver wants someone they better be prepared to pull the trigger early.

meangene
03-28-2010, 05:55 PM
Because this appears to be weak draft in the interior offense position, player are going to be selected higher then should be. If Denver wants someone they better be prepared to pull the trigger early.

I agree. I don't think we get a starter at center after the second. We may be able to get a guard in the third. But, we need to draft both positions in the first three rounds.

elsid13
03-28-2010, 06:14 PM
Bringing it back to the subject on hand, as team you need to go with the strength of the draft and that means no matter if you take the BPA or position of need approach. Last season the strength was interior offense line, this season it CB, WR and DL.

tsiguy96
03-28-2010, 06:20 PM
you HAVE to address your needs at some point. you cannot go into the season with the only center on the team being dustin fry, you will end up like the packers last year. ideally you take BPA, but you cannot just ignore the needs your team has because a really good TE falls to us in the second.

FireFly
03-28-2010, 06:46 PM
1st and 2nd rounds -- fill your most glaring needs. If the best player(s) available on the board don't match your needs, trade down if possible to a more favorable position. Denver is currently in this situation, with their only glaring need at the guard and center positions. We'd be better off dropping down 5-10 spots, picking up an extra 2 or 3, then taking Iupati or Pouncey at #20 or so.

3rd round onwards -- always, always, ALWAYS take BPA. Do this for several years, and you'll have a very deep roster. Teams (like the Shanahan-led Broncos) can get themselves into trouble by wasting their mid-round picks year after year on reaches for positions of need.


I mostly agree with this, expect that I don't think we'll be able to trade back - I honestly don't think teams are going to want to trade up in this draft unless there is someone who slides for NO reason other than the needs of the teams who already picked.

FireFly
03-28-2010, 06:52 PM
The other thing that I would add is that while I am an advocate of always drafting the BPA - this doesn't apply in the 1st 2 rounds to teams who already have franchise QB's. Every other position should be BPA.

I suppose also you have to look at if there are 2 players who are rated very closely, but one slightly ahead of the other. But the better player at a position you already (at least on paper) have locked down. In this case, I could understand taking the slightly lower rated player.

I wouldn't be particularly thrilled with another 1st round RB but it wouldn't be the end of the world. The thing with RB is that if you have one good, top tier talent at RB you can often compliment them with a runner of a different style that could be obtained after the 1st round of the draft.

As a side note, this is the first year (for quite a few) I wouldn't be annoyed with a CB - but the 1st where there aren't really any that would rate around 11.

tsiguy96
03-28-2010, 07:34 PM
The other thing that I would add is that while I am an advocate of always drafting the BPA - this doesn't apply in the 1st 2 rounds to teams who already have franchise QB's. Every other position should be BPA.

I suppose also you have to look at if there are 2 players who are rated very closely, but one slightly ahead of the other. But the better player at a position you already (at least on paper) have locked down. In this case, I could understand taking the slightly lower rated player.

I wouldn't be particularly thrilled with another 1st round RB but it wouldn't be the end of the world. The thing with RB is that if you have one good, top tier talent at RB you can often compliment them with a runner of a different style that could be obtained after the 1st round of the draft.

As a side note, this is the first year (for quite a few) I wouldn't be annoyed with a CB - but the 1st where there aren't really any that would rate around 11.

with goodman and champ, we dont need a CB early. OL, LB (not in 1st), OL again, then go for depth at WR, CB, DL. thats the good thing about mcdaniels not being afraid to sign veterans, they allow you to fill the holes you need and help draft BPA early and often. we couldnt get G or C though so expect him to draft those early, he wouldnt leave such a glaring need untouched going into 10 season.

Broncoman13
03-28-2010, 08:00 PM
with goodman and champ, we dont need a CB early. OL, LB (not in 1st), OL again, then go for depth at WR, CB, DL. thats the good thing about mcdaniels not being afraid to sign veterans, they allow you to fill the holes you need and help draft BPA early and often. we couldnt get G or C though so expect him to draft those early, he wouldnt leave such a glaring need untouched going into 10 season.

Well with that logic we didn't need to trade a first for #37 and Alphonso Smith last year.

Durango
03-28-2010, 10:15 PM
I'd be ok with iupati at 11, although I do think it's a waste of draft position. I also understand that if teams know you want to trade down, they're not going to offer up much to switch positions. The one wild-card in my little draft scenerio would be if QB Jimmy Clausen were to fall to Denver at 11. I think we could find a buyer in that situation. My personal choice is McClain, but I don't know enough about everyone else to make a good argument for that. Regardless, selecting a RB would really tick me off, best available athlete or not.

FireFly
03-28-2010, 11:31 PM
with goodman and champ, we dont need a CB early.

If you want to pin your hopes on Smith as our CB of the future ok - I don't agree, but I'm not going to argue either.

With regards to Champ and Goodman, I wouldn't be suprised if we lost Champ with a season or 2. And Goodman isn't exactly a spring chicken. I'm not saying that it's a pressing need this season, not at all. I just don't think that its locked down for the next 5 either.

ELEVATION
03-29-2010, 03:39 AM
mcclain isnt a top 15 pick...Weatherspoon yes, mcclain?? no

eddie mac
03-29-2010, 04:27 AM
Why go for Haden at 11??? CB is probably one of the deepest positions in this draft and there could well be CB's with 1st rd grades available at 45 and even as low as 80.

Cito Pelon
03-30-2010, 05:51 PM
So I looked at 4 different draft sites I use and compared rankings to find a good approximation of who will be gone and who can be considered consensus BPA at number 11.

Here are the players who were rated in the top 10 in all lists:

Suh, Mccoy, Berry, Okung, Bulaga, Bradford.
So it is safe to consider all of those out of reach.

From the remaining players, the ranking looks like this:

1. Dez Bryant
2. CJ Spiller
3. Trent Williams
4. Joe Haden
5. Pierre-Paul
5. Jimmy Clausen
6. Derrick Morgan
7. Rolando Mcclain
8. Anthony Davis

Currently I do believe that Trent Williams will be drafted in the top 10, quite a few teams have needs at OT, I am also quite sold on the Clausen to Buffalo pick. Haden I see as a player who will drop out of the top 15, so that leaves:

Bryant, Spiller, Paul, Morgan, Mcclain and Davis.

Two of those will be drafted in the top 10, meaning we will end up drafting either WR, RB og OLB.

This if of course a pseudoanalysis, it almost certain that the top 10 won't look quite like this, but I think it does to some degree illuminate the problem of drafting BPA regardless, who is to say that the player we consider to be the best is the player that someone else considers to be the best, also do you rank non-playing factors such as off-field issues, not every down potential, boom-bust potential in when you consider who is best and how much weight do you give this?

I certainly agree that you shouldn't be so blinded by having to draft a CB in the 1st round that you end up with Willie Middlebrooks, but on the other hand there is no reason to be so blinded by getting the "best" player that you pass up a chance at improving your team. Besides that defining the best player is practically impossible and therefore BPA is purely in the eye of the beholder.

Where's Dan Williams?

Cito Pelon
03-30-2010, 05:57 PM
Why go for Haden at 11??? CB is probably one of the deepest positions in this draft and there could well be CB's with 1st rd grades available at 45 and even as low as 80.

Haden might be the BPA at 11. Seems like it would be hard to pass on a talent like Haden.

Mediator12
03-30-2010, 06:45 PM
Why go for Haden at 11??? CB is probably one of the deepest positions in this draft and there could well be CB's with 1st rd grades available at 45 and even as low as 80.

I think there will be 2 big runs on the top 12 CB's out there. There should not be a top CB available by DEN's turn in round 3. Way too many holes to fill in the NFL especially in the nickle CB position that is slowly replacing the ILB in nickle sub packages. These CB's play more than the teams third LB more often than not.

gyldenlove
03-30-2010, 06:59 PM
Where's Dan Williams?

I see him out of the top 15 in most mock drafts, and I worry he is too hyped because he plays such a premium position. I am not sure he is really worth a top 15 pick, I just don't see him as being disruptive enough, sure he is great against the run, but if he can't collapse the pocket he won't be getting double teamed against the pass, which is the problem we have now with Fields.

Mediator12
03-30-2010, 07:31 PM
I see him out of the top 15 in most mock drafts, and I worry he is too hyped because he plays such a premium position. I am not sure he is really worth a top 15 pick, I just don't see him as being disruptive enough, sure he is great against the run, but if he can't collapse the pocket he won't be getting double teamed against the pass, which is the problem we have now with Fields.

Williams does command a double team against the pass as he is just too strong for one person to block. He lead TEN in Pass Pressures last year with nine and that was being doubled almost the entire second half of the year. I'll grant he is not the most explosive NT off the snap, but he does do a fine job of pushing the pocket and not allowing QB's the ability to step up on quick passing plays. He also does a good job getting his hands up on quick drops and screens.

I think he is a legit third tier first round guy which would put him in the 11-22 pick range for me. It might be a slight overall grade reach, but not a whole tier reach.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
03-31-2010, 05:46 AM
I think there will be 2 big runs on the top 12 CB's out there. There should not be a top CB available by DEN's turn in round 3. Way too many holes to fill in the NFL especially in the nickle CB position that is slowly replacing the ILB in nickle sub packages. These CB's play more than the teams third LB more often than not.


Definitely agree with this thought.


I think the first run occurs in the 25-42 pick range, where Wilson, McCourty, Robinson, Jackson, and maybe Cook come off the board. Denver picks at 45.

I think the second run occurs in the 53-80 range, where Cook, Franks, Ansah, Ghee, Spievey, and probably Murphy all go. Denver picks at 83.


I think we will have an option to take the #11 or #12 ranked CB if we want to. Not really sure whom that is. We just worked out Alterraun Verner, and he just blew up his Pro Day as well, he's probably in that mix. If there's ever a McD "guy" in this draft, it's him. Kevin Thomas, A.J. Jefferson, Javier Arenas, Donovan Warren are probably the other guys in that 11-12 mix.


Personally, I don't see us taking a CB in this draft unless we can grab Verner in the 4th, but with his recent hype, I'm not sure he's going to be there now. We really only have a roster spot for a 5th or 6th CB.

Mat'hir Uth Gan
03-31-2010, 05:52 AM
I see him out of the top 15 in most mock drafts, and I worry he is too hyped because he plays such a premium position. I am not sure he is really worth a top 15 pick, I just don't see him as being disruptive enough, sure he is great against the run, but if he can't collapse the pocket he won't be getting double teamed against the pass, which is the problem we have now with Fields.


Yeah, I think you're going to be wrong on this. Both Williams and Odrick will break the Top 15. They are too talented, have had excellent production, are great people, excellent work ethics, and are the prototype builds seeping with potential at two the rarest positions to find elite talent outside of QB.

Positional value will result in both skyrocketing until draft day. Dan Williams is relatively common for a Top 10 pick now in most mocks. At worst, he goes to Miami at #12. Odrick hasn't quite caught fire yet, but he will, most mocks still have him to the Pats at #22.

In the end, I think Williams is a lock to KC at #6. Haley announced Albert will be his left tackle a week or so ago. They've shored up their interior line. Atlanta's GM ousted Pioli as saying he won't take a Safety that high when the two friends were discussing Eric Berry. Dez Bryant is out of the Top 10 now. Meanwhile, they have not addressed Nose Tackle in Free Agency at all, and they still don't have one. They are like us with Center.

So, Dan Williams seems like a lock to them.


As for Odrick, we're going to pick him. We've spent a lot of time with him this offseason, we've brought him in, we have a massive hole at starting RDE. With Dan Williams going before we pick, and Dez Bryant now out of the possibility at #11, Odrick is the only option remaining that makes sense barring a trade down.

TheChamp24
03-31-2010, 07:56 AM
Yeah, I think you're going to be wrong on this. Both Williams and Odrick will break the Top 15. They are too talented, have had excellent production, are great people, excellent work ethics, and are the prototype builds seeping with potential at two the rarest positions to find elite talent outside of QB.

Positional value will result in both skyrocketing until draft day. Dan Williams is relatively common for a Top 10 pick now in most mocks. At worst, he goes to Miami at #12. Odrick hasn't quite caught fire yet, but he will, most mocks still have him to the Pats at #22.

In the end, I think Williams is a lock to KC at #6. Haley announced Albert will be his left tackle a week or so ago. They've shored up their interior line. Atlanta's GM ousted Pioli as saying he won't take a Safety that high when the two friends were discussing Eric Berry. Dez Bryant is out of the Top 10 now. Meanwhile, they have not addressed Nose Tackle in Free Agency at all, and they still don't have one. They are like us with Center.

So, Dan Williams seems like a lock to them.


As for Odrick, we're going to pick him. We've spent a lot of time with him this offseason, we've brought him in, we have a massive hole at starting RDE. With Dan Williams going before we pick, and Dez Bryant now out of the possibility at #11, Odrick is the only option remaining that makes sense barring a trade down.

1, I think its ridiculous to think Dan Williams going to KC. Although they did take Tyson Jackson at #3 last year...
Odrick at 11 would piss me off. He's a late 1st rounder who isn't worth that high.

montrose
03-31-2010, 08:54 AM
Taco, how do we get more threads like this one?

gyldenlove
03-31-2010, 08:58 AM
Yeah, I think you're going to be wrong on this. Both Williams and Odrick will break the Top 15. They are too talented, have had excellent production, are great people, excellent work ethics, and are the prototype builds seeping with potential at two the rarest positions to find elite talent outside of QB.

Positional value will result in both skyrocketing until draft day. Dan Williams is relatively common for a Top 10 pick now in most mocks. At worst, he goes to Miami at #12. Odrick hasn't quite caught fire yet, but he will, most mocks still have him to the Pats at #22.

In the end, I think Williams is a lock to KC at #6. Haley announced Albert will be his left tackle a week or so ago. They've shored up their interior line. Atlanta's GM ousted Pioli as saying he won't take a Safety that high when the two friends were discussing Eric Berry. Dez Bryant is out of the Top 10 now. Meanwhile, they have not addressed Nose Tackle in Free Agency at all, and they still don't have one. They are like us with Center.

So, Dan Williams seems like a lock to them.


As for Odrick, we're going to pick him. We've spent a lot of time with him this offseason, we've brought him in, we have a massive hole at starting RDE. With Dan Williams going before we pick, and Dez Bryant now out of the possibility at #11, Odrick is the only option remaining that makes sense barring a trade down.

I agree on Odrick, I think he will go higher than he is valued currently and I could see us or any of the teams right around 11-14 pick him up.

Williams could get drafted by the Chiefs, but as with Jackson last year Pioli has shown he is not afraid to reach for need, I could see the Chiefs alternatively go for a RT or if they fall in love with Mcclain they could pick him, they are very thin at ILB.

ELEVATION
03-31-2010, 09:07 AM
i can not tell you the number of people that insisted tyson jackson wouldnt go top ten last no matter what....the dude went 3 overall, and pioli isnt a bad drafter....odrick is twice the prospect jackson is.....like it or not odrick will be drafted top 15 and williams will be gone before we pick just like raji was last year, even though GB's top need was OT....

Mat'hir Uth Gan
03-31-2010, 11:28 AM
i can not tell you the number of people that insisted tyson jackson wouldnt go top ten last no matter what....the dude went 3 overall, and pioli isnt a bad drafter....odrick is twice the prospect jackson is.....like it or not odrick will be drafted top 15 and williams will be gone before we pick just like raji was last year, even though GB's top need was OT....

I was one of them. I completely whiffed on the value of 3 down impact 5 techs in the current NFL draft landscape. These guys are like NTs now. It is so rare to find the perfect prospect for a relatively unique position that teams are reaching for them. The thing is, there is only one or two of them each draft. Last draft had Raji and Jackson, that was it.

Now, the Jags found a potential stud in Terrance Knighton in the 3rd Round, but the diamond in the rough scenario is difficult to locate at best.

As for 5 Techs, similar to this draft, there just weren't a lot of options after Tyson Jackson. The Steelers took Ziggy Hood, whom is very similar to Tyson Alualu, at the end of the 1st, but he didn't really contribute much in Year 1. The next 5 tech prospect was Fili Moala whom was snatched by a 4-3 team late in the 2nd. You could call him Lamarr Houston. Then another one really didn't go until Dorrell Scott got snatched by a 4-3 team in the 4th.

And it just makes sense in retrospect. So many teams are switching to the 3-4 now, but yet, the 4-3 teams still want these same guys to play inside in their schemes. It takes a rare athlete to be able to possess all the needed qualities to play DE in a 3-4 now, especially a one gap system. Athleticism and well-roundedness is key, and not many prospects have that.

That's what makes Odrick so special this draft. He can do everything asked of a 3-4 DE. He's already developed physically, so there isn't an adjustment period to try and get him to grow into the position. He's plug and play from Day 1. And after a year or two, should become a true difference maker at a position where difference makers don't typically exist.

CEH
03-31-2010, 11:52 AM
I was one of them. I completely whiffed on the value of 3 down impact 5 techs in the current NFL draft landscape. These guys are like NTs now. It is so rare to find the perfect prospect for a relatively unique position that teams are reaching for them. The thing is, there is only one or two of them each draft. Last draft had Raji and Jackson, that was it.

Now, the Jags found a potential stud in Terrance Knighton in the 3rd Round, but the diamond in the rough scenario is difficult to locate at best.

As for 5 Techs, similar to this draft, there just weren't a lot of options after Tyson Jackson. The Steelers took Ziggy Hood, whom is very similar to Tyson Alualu, at the end of the 1st, but he didn't really contribute much in Year 1. The next 5 tech prospect was Fili Moala whom was snatched by a 4-3 team late in the 2nd. You could call him Lamarr Houston. Then another one really didn't go until Dorrell Scott got snatched by a 4-3 team in the 4th.

And it just makes sense in retrospect. So many teams are switching to the 3-4 now, but yet, the 4-3 teams still want these same guys to play inside in their schemes. It takes a rare athlete to be able to possess all the needed qualities to play DE in a 3-4 now, especially a one gap system. Athleticism and well-roundedness is key, and not many prospects have that.

That's what makes Odrick so special this draft. He can do everything asked of a 3-4 DE. He's already developed physically, so there isn't an adjustment period to try and get him to grow into the position. He's plug and play from Day 1. And after a year or two, should become a true difference maker at a position where difference makers don't typically exist.


I agree. Odrick will sky up the board by draft day. He is a real possiblity for Denver at #11. The Pats are said to be in love with him and one rumor has them as the team that offer a 2nd and a '11 1st to OAK for the #8 spot.
Makes sense since they have OAK #1 in '11 and a couple #2s this year

mhgaffney
04-01-2010, 05:36 PM
The upcoming trade frenzy could make an "F"ing mockery of all the mock boards.

gyldenlove
04-01-2010, 06:56 PM
I was one of them. I completely whiffed on the value of 3 down impact 5 techs in the current NFL draft landscape. These guys are like NTs now. It is so rare to find the perfect prospect for a relatively unique position that teams are reaching for them. The thing is, there is only one or two of them each draft. Last draft had Raji and Jackson, that was it.

Now, the Jags found a potential stud in Terrance Knighton in the 3rd Round, but the diamond in the rough scenario is difficult to locate at best.

As for 5 Techs, similar to this draft, there just weren't a lot of options after Tyson Jackson. The Steelers took Ziggy Hood, whom is very similar to Tyson Alualu, at the end of the 1st, but he didn't really contribute much in Year 1. The next 5 tech prospect was Fili Moala whom was snatched by a 4-3 team late in the 2nd. You could call him Lamarr Houston. Then another one really didn't go until Dorrell Scott got snatched by a 4-3 team in the 4th.

And it just makes sense in retrospect. So many teams are switching to the 3-4 now, but yet, the 4-3 teams still want these same guys to play inside in their schemes. It takes a rare athlete to be able to possess all the needed qualities to play DE in a 3-4 now, especially a one gap system. Athleticism and well-roundedness is key, and not many prospects have that.

That's what makes Odrick so special this draft. He can do everything asked of a 3-4 DE. He's already developed physically, so there isn't an adjustment period to try and get him to grow into the position. He's plug and play from Day 1. And after a year or two, should become a true difference maker at a position where difference makers don't typically exist.

The value of 3-4 DLs has greatly increased for two reasons:

1) the number of teams playing 3-4 has trippled over the last few years, it used to be a rare system which allowed the 3-4 teams to draft DLs low because nobody else wanted them, Pittsburgh especially really capitalized on that.

2) the number of teams picking up the 3-4 or hybrid who need ready to play 3-4 DL players, so it is not enough to get development prospects you need players who can go on the field now.

3 years ago Tyson Jackson would have been a borderline 1st rounder, last year he was top 3 because so many teams needed play ready 5-techs.

ELEVATION
04-02-2010, 04:02 AM
as long as we dont select pouncey or iputati at 11....i will still be able to breathe after rd 1 of the draft

for some reason kiper/mcshay/mayock are being retarded this year with iputati and pouncey as possibilites for us....the last time a guard went top 15 was Chris Naeoloe to the saints at ten in 1997....

the highest before that was albert at 15, but he was drafted to be a LT...guys like Vernon Carey, Davin joseph, hutchinson, alen faneca, logan mankins, ben grubs, kendall simmons, andy levitre.... none went before 17..lets be real here i like ipuati but for a guy that has some pass protection issues...11 is so stupid value wise and finacially wise....its not BPA or even worth the reach for need.....thats how bad it is....maybe these guys like kiper should look at past drafts and see where guys like hutchinson went......im 100% sure iputati isnt at the level hutchinson was coming out of college

See this site:

http://www.drafthistory.com/positions/g.html (http://www.drafthistory.com/positions/g.html)

its a great site check it out gives you a gyst of the history on prospects and where they went in the past....look up center to see how stupid taking a center like pouncey, who is raw at 11 is....i mean the top center right now nick mangold went at 29...pouncey's better????? hell no he aint....fyi hasnt been a top 15 center since 1993

the top 4 positional values right now are QB/LT/NT and 3-4 DE period!!!! you dont reach for a center or guard that bad...thats what got shanny in huge trouble with his wack drafts.... <!-- / message -->

Dedhed
04-02-2010, 07:36 AM
Williams does command a double team against the pass as he is just too strong for one person to block. He lead TEN in Pass Pressures last year with nine and that was being doubled almost the entire second half of the year. I'll grant he is not the most explosive NT off the snap, but he does do a fine job of pushing the pocket and not allowing QB's the ability to step up on quick passing plays. He also does a good job getting his hands up on quick drops and screens.

I think he is a legit third tier first round guy which would put him in the 11-22 pick range for me. It might be a slight overall grade reach, but not a whole tier reach.

I'm not sold on Williams, though I agree with your take here. I think there is better value in Cam Thomas or even Mount Cody in the 2nd. First round DLs scare me as much as any position.

A guy like Williams scares me even more than normal because I think he's over valued due to a lack of quality NTs in a 3-4 happy league. I think there will be better options, from a value perspective at NT in later rounds, and also from an impact perspective at #11.

My personal favorite is Weatherspoon. I think he's an extremely versatile player who brings the kind of leadership and fire that you get from a guy like Dawkins or Al Wilson. I think this defense has been lacking that guy for years. We found it in Dawk, but we all know he's not a long term option.

meangene
04-02-2010, 08:19 AM
as long as we dont select pouncey or iputati at 11....i will still be able to breathe after rd 1 of the draft

for some reason kiper/mcshay/mayock are being retarded this year with iputati and pouncey as possibilites for us....the last time a guard went top 15 was Chris Naeoloe to the saints at ten in 1997....

the highest before that was albert at 15, but he was drafted to be a LT...guys like Vernon Carey, Davin joseph, hutchinson, alen faneca, logan mankins, ben grubs, kendall simmons, andy levitre.... none went before 17..lets be real here i like ipuati but for a guy that has some pass protection issues...11 is so stupid value wise and finacially wise....its not BPA or even worth the reach for need.....thats how bad it is....maybe these guys like kiper should look at past drafts and see where guys like hutchinson went......im 100% sure iputati isnt at the level hutchinson was coming out of college

See this site:

http://www.drafthistory.com/positions/g.html (http://www.drafthistory.com/positions/g.html)

its a great site check it out gives you a gyst of the history on prospects and where they went in the past....look up center to see how stupid taking a center like pouncey, who is raw at 11 is....i mean the top center right now nick mangold went at 29...pouncey's better????? hell no he aint....fyi hasnt been a top 15 center since 1993

the top 4 positional values right now are QB/LT/NT and 3-4 DE period!!!! you dont reach for a center or guard that bad...thats what got shanny in huge trouble with his wack drafts.... <!-- / message -->

How would you feel about a guy like Bulaga if he fell to us and we took him with the idea of playing him at G but also as depth at T because of his versatility? He is generally rated a top 10 pick but there are questions about him at LT. If we end up with #14 from Seattle, how would you feel about Pouncey there? I don't see him getting past Pittsburgh at #18.

ELEVATION
04-02-2010, 12:54 PM
How would you feel about a guy like Bulaga if he fell to us and we took him with the idea of playing him at G but also as depth at T because of his versatility? He is generally rated a top 10 pick but there are questions about him at LT. If we end up with #14 from Seattle, how would you feel about Pouncey there? I don't see him getting past Pittsburgh at #18.

i would take buluga or trent williams at 11 before even considering pouncey or iputati.....

meangene
04-02-2010, 01:05 PM
i would take buluga or trent williams at 11 before even considering pouncey or iputati.....

I agree with you there - I think Iupati is a little over-rated as well. But, you would be cool with Buluga or Williams even if we were going to play them at guard? So, it would seem your argument would be more based on talent than necessarily position. That is more where I am coming from on this. If it is a position of need for us and there is a player worthy of a top ten pick then I would not pass on them simply because of position. That's why I would also be willing to take Pouncey at, say #14, because I think he has value there.

Triplelefthook
04-02-2010, 01:09 PM
I agree with you there - I think Iupati is a little over-rated as well. But, you would be cool with Buluga or Williams even if we were going to play them at guard? So, it would seem your argument would be more based on talent than necessarily position. That is more where I am coming from on this. If it is a position of need for us and there is a player worthy of a top ten pick then I would not pass on them simply because of position. That's why I would also be willing to take Pouncey at, say #14, because I think he has value there.


What about Tennant in the 2nd round? Then we could use our first rounder to take the BPA or Dan Williams to groom our NT of the future

meangene
04-02-2010, 01:23 PM
What about Tennant in the 2nd round? Then we could use our first rounder to take the BPA or Dan Williams to groom our NT of the future

I prefer Walton over Tennant (if we are really looking to get bigger) but I agree we could get a center in the second. I'm all for BPA in the first round. Of guys who may be there at #11, I would rank them Bulaga, Spiller, Thomas, and Weatherspoon. I do think we need to draft a starter at both LG and C, however, and don't think we can go beyond Round 2 for a C or beyond Round 3 for a G. A lot depends on what happens with Marshall. If we got another first for him, I would put Pouncey in the mix for that pick. If BPA in the first also happens to fill one of those two glaring needs, that would be great.

ELEVATION
04-03-2010, 12:37 AM
I agree with you there - I think Iupati is a little over-rated as well. But, you would be cool with Buluga or Williams even if we were going to play them at guard? So, it would seem your argument would be more based on talent than necessarily position. That is more where I am coming from on this. If it is a position of need for us and there is a player worthy of a top ten pick then I would not pass on them simply because of position. That's why I would also be willing to take Pouncey at, say #14, because I think he has value there.

both buluga and williams could not only play the role of guard but could also play tackle.....as we saw with harris going down thats a big need as well on this team there versatility puts them far and away above iputati or pouncey, not to mention there elite prospects while iputati and pouncey are not....you take elite prospects at 11....i dont belive either iputati or pouncey is elite enough for 11 depsite what kiper and mayock would have everyone belive....


i also dont belive pounceys value should be anywhere in the top 15....

NFLBRONCO
04-03-2010, 12:55 AM
both buluga and williams could not only play the role of guard but could also play tackle.....as we saw with harris going down thats a big need as well on this team there versatility puts them far and away above iputati or pouncey, not to mention there elite prospects while iputati and pouncey are not....you take elite prospects at 11....i dont belive either iputati or pouncey is elite enough for 11 depsite what kiper and mayock would have everyone belive....


i also dont belive pounceys value should be anywhere in the top 15....

I thought I heard Mayock say while he liked Ipotty :) 11 was too high for him. A top rated T I could handle but, G C no even though they are huge needs. I'd be cool with a NT but, doubt Denver would invest 11th pick on one.

s0phr0syne
04-05-2010, 05:43 PM
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2010/04/cleveland_browns_new_possible.html

The predicted rise of Odrick's stock is happening.

meangene
04-05-2010, 06:27 PM
both buluga and williams could not only play the role of guard but could also play tackle.....as we saw with harris going down thats a big need as well on this team there versatility puts them far and away above iputati or pouncey, not to mention there elite prospects while iputati and pouncey are not....you take elite prospects at 11....i dont belive either iputati or pouncey is elite enough for 11 depsite what kiper and mayock would have everyone belive....


i also dont belive pounceys value should be anywhere in the top 15....

I agree the versatility to play T or G could be important to us with Harris' injury concerns. I wouldn't take Iupati or Pouncey at #11 but would consider Pouncey at #15. Depending on how things fall, I think we could move back in a trade with the Giants who really covet McClain.

ZONA
04-06-2010, 12:18 AM
I think you go with the BPA at a position of some need unless the straight-up BPA is rated significantly higher. For example, I would be cool with Spiller at #11 even though we have more pressing needs at OL if we have him rated significantly higher than Iupati or Pouncey. If they are rated close to equal, then I think you go OL. I also think you have to factor in the relative strength of positions in the draft. For example, some feel like J.D. Walton with a second or third is close in value to Pouncey in the first. Maybe then you can go with a player you have rated close to Pouncey at another position where there may not be as much depth. So, I guess I would say you take BPA as your starting point and then consider all the other factors to determine whether they justify picking another player. I would never reach for a player I did not have rated very closely to the BPA just to fill a position of need. Particularly early in the draft because of the long-term effects of missing with an early pick.

I get your point, but you have to remember one thing, you just spend your 1st round pick the prior year on a RB. No coach is going to use his 1st round pick the following year on the same exact position, especially when there are not 2 or more positions on the field at the same time (such as OT, OG, TE or WR). You don't draft Moreno with your 1st round pick and then the following year take Spiller. That makes no frickin sense what so ever.

Play2win
04-06-2010, 02:19 AM
At this point, I would take Spiller, Dan Williams, or Weatherspoon.

meangene
04-06-2010, 03:54 AM
I get your point, but you have to remember one thing, you just spend your 1st round pick the prior year on a RB. No coach is going to use his 1st round pick the following year on the same exact position, especially when there are not 2 or more positions on the field at the same time (such as OT, OG, TE or WR). You don't draft Moreno with your 1st round pick and then the following year take Spiller. That makes no frickin sense what so ever.

I understand that argument but don't buy it at a position like RB where most good running teams have two good ones who both get carries. Plus, Spiller is a very versatile guy who could be a big contributor as a returner. And, limiting the carries of both probably extends their careers thereby protecting our investment. I believe Carolina went with Williams and Stewart in the first pretty close together. While we have bigger needs, it all depends on how the board falls and what happens with Marshall (are we able to address other needs with compensation we get for him).

Play2win
04-06-2010, 05:02 AM
Whenever you can put pressure on a defense, its a good thing. Spiller would do just that.