What does best player regardless of position mean?

[cardsunsfan]

If Green is going to truely take the best player, it would be Sean Taylor. I don't agree with it because I think we could find a bigger impact player with another choice but he is the best at any position though.

 

[SECTION 11]

This saying is so bogus.

 

[Rivercard]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
This saying is so bogus.

And entirely subjective.

 

[AZCB34]

Originally posted by Rivercard
And entirely subjective.

Same thing with "reach". It is all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[MadCardDisease]

It means the best player left on that persons draft board.

 

[Mrospi]

So, each time you pick, the best player on the board is a WR.... do we take 3 WR's in this draft????

 

[MadCardDisease]

Originally posted by Mrospi
So, each time you pick, the best player on the board is a WR.... do we take 3 WR's in this draft????

No, you don't have to. If you already have 2 players at a position then you go to the next guy on the list. It's really not that complicated.

 

[BACH]

Originally posted by Mrospi
So, each time you pick, the best player on the board is a WR.... do we take 3 WR's in this draft????

Best Available is more relevant in the higher rounds, since the difference in talent level between the players becomes smaller the lower you draft.

If a player you have rated as a mid 1st round prospect drops to you in the 3rd, you do take take player regardless of position. Nothing new there, since Graves has used this tactic in the lower rounds (Johnson, McCown, Hayes, King) at times.

 

[conraddobler]

I'd say it's a good idea especially in round one to just take whoever is the BPA.

We have drafted for need in the first round forever and Mr. Rice was about the last time that really worked out and he's gone.

My personal view is that most playoff caliber teams have about 4 playmakers. You can have all 4 on one side of the ball and it's still better than having only one.

Whatever it takes to get playmakers you do because without them you go 4-12 a lot.

 

[vikesfan]

Well BPA is always balanced by need. Sometimes more sometimes less.


If you have an all-pro RB you don't take a RB round one even if he is BPA. RBs need to get 25 30 carries a game there is no way to get the ball to all pro type RBs that much.

On the other hand if you have 2 all-pro type WRs and a Moss drops to you - you do take him. DG did cause he was just too good to pass up. Hey use 3 WR sets.

Some postions WR OL DL you can move guys around. When you get to RB or lets say you have a young good QB drafting another doesn't make sense.

 

[JeffGollin]

It used to be "Best Athlete Regardless of Position." But then it turned out that so-called "workout warriors" were being picked high, and while they could "do good shuttle", they couldn't play a lick.

This was adjusted by some coaches to "Best Player Regardless of Position" (i.e. can the dude play football?) - which means nothing more than - "If you had zero men on your roster and had to build from the ground up (and didn't place a premium on any one position - like QB), who'd you pick first, second, third etc.?"

"Drafting for Need" is just that. You feel your greatest need is at safety, you draft the best available safety.

Denny Green has gone out of his way to state that "need" will be a taboo word around the Cardinal organization before draft time. Assuming he's not blowing smoke - what he seems to be driving at is - teams that continue to chase "need" must consciously ignore really good players (because they don't need them to fill a position) and thereby don't maximize the over all quality of talent on the roster. (Note - This begins to really become apparent over a period of years).

I've said in the past that I too believe in balancing need with athleticism by creating a modified board ranking "Best Player Available Among Several Positions of Need."

I say this because I believe there are few things more frustrating than a team with, say, 4 Pro Bowl running backs but really sucky offensive tackles. Best Athlete proponents would, no doubt argue that later on you can always trade your surplus players for guys who can fill needs. But, based on team history, I don't think the Cardinals always get maximum value for the players they have to let go.