But then.... Link Seems to me the article says he drafts need but he doesn't necessarily see it that way.
To me he's saying it's more complicated than just taking the best player available, which would be his preferred method on every pick if allowed the opportunity.
The title of this thread and the linked article are misleading. He doesn't say he drafts for need. He says he takes into account the teams needs, which is true of everyone. And I don't think it is fair to say that Pouncey and Tannehill were drafted "for need." Yes, they fit needs, but it can also be argued that Ireland believed they were the best players available regardless of position.
There's no definitive answer until you know what's at your disposal.. I'm more of a filling a need guy than doubling up on a position that I already have a good player at. However, if I believe the player could be transcendent, I throw the previous strategy out the window.
I think it is sliding scale for everyone. IMO you want to have as many needs as possible addressed before the draft so that you don't feel like you have such a pressing need at any position that you can't afford not to draft a guy at that position. The goal should always be adding the most value possible, keeping in mind that there are other ways of addressing needs as well.
The two schools of thought are not "I draft the best player available no matter what" versus "I draft for need". While the BPA school does have a fundamentalist look to it as far as their adherence to taking the best player no matter what, the need pickers are not the same. The need pickers are not need pickers at all, they all admit they want the best player available. They all admit they're not going to pass on a pro bowler at one position for "just a guy" at another based purely on need. They all admit it because it's common sense. So functionally speaking if there's a school of though that opposes the BPA fundamentalist school, it is Jeff Ireland's version of "I pick the best available player...at a position of need" which is what he's described himself as being in the past. So really I don't think Fin D was wrong at all in saying that Ireland picks for need. It's just an admission that he's not one of those BPA fundamentalists. I think the dirty secret of the NFL is that those BPA fundamentalists are actually few and far between and they usually only survive because of their willingness to manipulate their draft position (through trading) in order to ensure that they're picking at the right spot so that they can take the best player available and he happens to be at a need position.
Problem with drafting for "need" is you wind up using premium assets to acquire players who fill a need, but don't produce scores or turnovers. You can "need" a RT, but that does not mean you use a #1 pick on a RT even if he is probably the best fit at the position of "need".
I still say the strategy is going to change as more time goes on with the rookie scale. Gambling on picks is going to increase because the penalty is considerably less severe.
I think what Ireland is saying is, he drafts the best player... relative to his team's needs... available. In other words, the best player available for the Dolphins. That may not necessarily be the best player available for another team.
IMO, just simply draft the best play MAKER available. Make the moves you need to make to draft player you know will make a difference on this team and you know will win us games. Do you think the Falcons NEEDED a WR when they gave 5 draft picks to move up and grab Julio? No. They saw a prospect in Julio (or AJ) that they knew was rare. One that comes around maybe every 5 years. They knew he was going to join their team, make a huge impact, help win them games, and live on to be a star player for that team for years to come. Despite already having one the leagues best receivers, Roddy White, a decent number two in Harry Douglass and Tony G. Thats the best way to draft IMO. So for us if that means trying to trade up to grab Ansah or Milliner so be it. Make BIG and unexpected moves rather than settling for what we have and hoping that Rhodes, Patterson, or Allen end up being good. Im not saying that staying at 12 and taking any of those three would be a bad thing, but there are great players that separate themselves from good ones. We shouldnt pass up on a chance to draft a great player for a good one because of a "need."
As the article indicates, it's about what you need moreso than pure BPA....to me that means "yes, we need a RT, but I'm not gonna take a RT at #12 in this draft...maybe I can do that at 2a or 2b and still get a good player... Also, I think it's pretty easy for any of us to look back at a particular draft 3 yrs later and say, Gee...we should have taken X instead of Y in our second round pick... You can't always look at a draft later and determine all of it's value and make a blanket statement that this GM made these bad picks... Even if you have a situation where Matty Ice could have been taken instead of Long. Does that mean that we'd be better now ?? Don't really know...it's way too subjective to say it was or was not the best choice at that time... As it is now, we look at 2 or 3 players in this draft that fit our needs and happen to be very good players so we should take one of them...but if we pick at #12 and guys like say Patterson, Werner and Eiffert...all positions of need, and none of those guys are there, you have to then look at other guys that may or may not be a position of need. Just because we don't come out with one of those 3 guys, doesn't mean that Ireland picked the wrong guy....the guy just wasn't there... Maybe he tries to move up and can't find a dance partner that reasonable ?? (something we likely will never really know, anyway).... The bottom line is that at this point, we don't really have much of a choice but to pick for need...assuming as most draftniks have said that this draft from 5 to 25 is about the same...and of course, what we do or don't do in FA will drive those picks as well...
Of course you draft by need. I'm sorry but if you have a guy graded one or two points higher than a guy in a position you have a need in your going to give up those one or two points to get that position of need. People would be ticked if we took the best center in the draft because he was the best player available when a good WR is still on the board. You draft off need.
This BPA vs Need discussion is so tiring. It's both. IT's always both and it'd be stupid if it wasn't both. If you have a group of 4 players ranked pretty close to each other and one or two fill a need, you take those two even if the other players are ranked slightly higher. If you have a player that is head and shoulders above everyone else, in a position you don't have a need, you take him. If you have Brett Favre and then Aaron Rodgers on the bench you don't take a QB in the first round, unless he's so absolutely better than the next player on your board.
selecting strictly BPA could hypothetically get you 7 Guards in one draft. I think mostly every GM adheres to the BPA at a position of relative need theory.
Glad to see you're onto Lacy now too DJ. I still think if your boy Stepfan Taylor is there in late round 3 or early 4, he might be a consideration as well.
