01-04-2021, 02:11 AM
I don't necessarily believe in any one type of approach to drafting whether it's need or BPA. Usually BPA is the better bet, because you're getting a higher graded player at his position, but there are some times where need will trump BPA for me. I would approach every draft based on team needs and let them drive my draft approach along with the draftable talent itself.
So some things I would look for:
If two players are very similarly graded, i might go for need even if the grade on the player of need is very slightly less (within a range of two to five). Otherwise, grade wins out.
Of course, some positions will not be considered in the first four rounds (STs players, depth etc.).
I might take a qb in the second (very rare, but he would have to be a borderline starter) or the third round or lower (developmental player), even if I had a starter - one reason is to shore up backup spot, the other is to potentially trade either the depth or starter in a year or two depending on how either progresses in the future.
Need will drive some other decisions - number of spots at that position in a starting lineup, overall how good that spot is on the team etc.. But I would use a general (a bit hard to quantify) concept like overall value to a team might drive a draft even at the expense of needs. Like for WR or DB, you can have multiple spots. Depending on my current team composition in these spots, I might still draft one in the first round here. For example, if you already have a couple solid to good WRs on the team (as we do), I'd still take a Chase, if I thought he would end up as one of the all time great receivers. and perhaps leave a glaring hole in my defensive line (maybe because I think Chase can help the offense put up more points that overall the team will benefit with more wins even with a weaker defense). Not saying that I believe Chase to be that good or not, but just a hypothetical. Or vice versa, if I think Rousseau could be the missing link in the defense going from being ranked in the 20s vs becoming top 10, I might pick him over Chase (if I thought that Chase wouldn't make nearly as much difference, and I could easily get by with Boyd and Higgins). Similarly, while I generally think OT, edge, and CB are premium positions, if I thought there is a once in a generation safety, perhaps I might draft him over a pretty good OT. Although I would have to think about this more. For example, say Polamalu or Ed Reed came out in the same draft as Levi Jones. Maybe I take Ed Reed over Levi. Basically it comes down to what will help the team the most. If I have bad safeties on my team and don't have great FAs available at the position, do I really want to get an average safety in the draft (say in the first two rounds) or do I get an edge rusher even if I already have decent ones like Lawson and Hubbard? I might choose to get the DE (especially if I have him rated as a Pro Bowler or better) even over a good safety (say an All Pro) if I thought the DE might get me more wins. Or maybe if the safety really was worth more wins in my opinion, perhaps I would get the safety over the edge rusher and just get by with Lawson and Hubbard.
Or if I had a weakness at guard, but there's a great tackle available in the top 10, maybe I take the tackle anyway and move my current tackle over to guard. And wait until next year to draft a really good guard. Or address it already in FA in the same year.
Or if I thought Parsons was the next Ray Lewis, maybe I take him wherever we are in the top 10 and pass up Chase and Devonta Smith ( assuming in this case that adding one of these WRs is like adding Chad Johnson to our already solid WR corps, but adding Parsons is like adding Ray Lewis) or even a "decent" OT like Slater. To me if I could add Chad or Ray or a decent OT to this team, maybe adding Ray helps the team overall much more, and therefore I would choose that option. Again, I'm not saying what order Slater, Chase, Smith, Parsons etc, deserve to be rated, but just that hypothetically if they were rated this way, then I might take Parsons over all of the rest because it helps the team out more.
I feel like I've been rambling here a bit so I will end with this: Everything I've said depends on how you hypothetically rated players, but of course the key thing is ultimately being able to rate players accurately. This is very difficult even for the best drafting teams, and no matter what all teams miss quite a bit, but the best run ones somehow figure out how to rate their players better on average. This is where the Bengals need to invest their efforts to get better scouting and pro personnel management in place.
Edit:
P.S. : I'm no draft guru, but I want Sewell or Chase ,Smith or Pitts if Sewell isn't available.
So some things I would look for:
If two players are very similarly graded, i might go for need even if the grade on the player of need is very slightly less (within a range of two to five). Otherwise, grade wins out.
Of course, some positions will not be considered in the first four rounds (STs players, depth etc.).
I might take a qb in the second (very rare, but he would have to be a borderline starter) or the third round or lower (developmental player), even if I had a starter - one reason is to shore up backup spot, the other is to potentially trade either the depth or starter in a year or two depending on how either progresses in the future.
Need will drive some other decisions - number of spots at that position in a starting lineup, overall how good that spot is on the team etc.. But I would use a general (a bit hard to quantify) concept like overall value to a team might drive a draft even at the expense of needs. Like for WR or DB, you can have multiple spots. Depending on my current team composition in these spots, I might still draft one in the first round here. For example, if you already have a couple solid to good WRs on the team (as we do), I'd still take a Chase, if I thought he would end up as one of the all time great receivers. and perhaps leave a glaring hole in my defensive line (maybe because I think Chase can help the offense put up more points that overall the team will benefit with more wins even with a weaker defense). Not saying that I believe Chase to be that good or not, but just a hypothetical. Or vice versa, if I think Rousseau could be the missing link in the defense going from being ranked in the 20s vs becoming top 10, I might pick him over Chase (if I thought that Chase wouldn't make nearly as much difference, and I could easily get by with Boyd and Higgins). Similarly, while I generally think OT, edge, and CB are premium positions, if I thought there is a once in a generation safety, perhaps I might draft him over a pretty good OT. Although I would have to think about this more. For example, say Polamalu or Ed Reed came out in the same draft as Levi Jones. Maybe I take Ed Reed over Levi. Basically it comes down to what will help the team the most. If I have bad safeties on my team and don't have great FAs available at the position, do I really want to get an average safety in the draft (say in the first two rounds) or do I get an edge rusher even if I already have decent ones like Lawson and Hubbard? I might choose to get the DE (especially if I have him rated as a Pro Bowler or better) even over a good safety (say an All Pro) if I thought the DE might get me more wins. Or maybe if the safety really was worth more wins in my opinion, perhaps I would get the safety over the edge rusher and just get by with Lawson and Hubbard.
Or if I had a weakness at guard, but there's a great tackle available in the top 10, maybe I take the tackle anyway and move my current tackle over to guard. And wait until next year to draft a really good guard. Or address it already in FA in the same year.
Or if I thought Parsons was the next Ray Lewis, maybe I take him wherever we are in the top 10 and pass up Chase and Devonta Smith ( assuming in this case that adding one of these WRs is like adding Chad Johnson to our already solid WR corps, but adding Parsons is like adding Ray Lewis) or even a "decent" OT like Slater. To me if I could add Chad or Ray or a decent OT to this team, maybe adding Ray helps the team overall much more, and therefore I would choose that option. Again, I'm not saying what order Slater, Chase, Smith, Parsons etc, deserve to be rated, but just that hypothetically if they were rated this way, then I might take Parsons over all of the rest because it helps the team out more.
I feel like I've been rambling here a bit so I will end with this: Everything I've said depends on how you hypothetically rated players, but of course the key thing is ultimately being able to rate players accurately. This is very difficult even for the best drafting teams, and no matter what all teams miss quite a bit, but the best run ones somehow figure out how to rate their players better on average. This is where the Bengals need to invest their efforts to get better scouting and pro personnel management in place.
Edit:
P.S. : I'm no draft guru, but I want Sewell or Chase ,Smith or Pitts if Sewell isn't available.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
