Do we draft specifially by need or do we take the best player available when our pick is called? We may not need a specific position but its hard to ignore if the best player at any given position falls in our lap. Its going to be an interesting draft to say the least.

 

IMO drafting by need is one of the poorest drafting strategies. If you consistently by-pass the best players for needs you end up with a roster full of lesser players.

That's why I don't get all those people clamoring for a B at #25. Most of the CBs in this draft are reaches there or just bad fits for us.

I also thought it was interesting that Sparano said "he doesn't know that there are any lockdown corners anymore". Parcells had voiced a similar sentiment earlier. Of the three Ireland is the only one who keeps saying that CB is a core position. I wonder if he disagrees with the others or if he's just blowing smoke.

 

Maybe Ireland only feels that CB is a "core" position only if that particular corner is actually an impact player.... since a playmaking CB increases turnover margin, and turnover margin wins games. :dunno:

 

You gotta mix need and BPA.

Look for BPA first, but don't completely ignore the need too.
Let's say you're on the clock and you have 5 players from your board available at the round,, if one of them clearly stoods out of the pack then fine, no doubt, pick him...
but if the grade between them is not a relevant disparity, why not go with the need?

 

if no CBs are there at 25, we'll go BPA IMO.

 

Well sure if there are no best players you have to use another method, but even then i'd prioritize impact positions. I'm not going to take a punter at #25 just b/c it's the greatest need. (I'm not saying it is, that's an example).

So if Sparano and Parcells believe that shut down corners no longer exist it would be foolish to use a 1st round pick on a CB when you're going to get roughly the same production from a CB taken in the 2nd or 3rd.

Most people don't see many (or any) stand out CBs in this draft. The value is clearly in the 2nd or 3rd round. Why should we reach for a 1st round CB if the talent is equivalent in the 2nd or 3rd?

 

The corners in this draft don't bring as much value to the outside as their offensive counterpart, Hakeem Nicks does. IMO. So in that regard, I'd rather have Nicks.

 

That's how I see it as well. Now if they see Nicks as just a possession type then maybe you pass. Those types are available throughout the draft. But if they see Nicks as a potential #1 and believe as Sparano says there are no shut down CBs anymore, then Nicks has more value than any of the CBs at #25.

 

Amen! I'd like to add to that..... IMO a quality #2 is also just as important as a #1... when you are basically working with a group full of #3s. LOL.

 

To add to this boomers mock draft is posted and I have to say I think he is the only one that has us taking Pettigrew (or a TE in general). As boomer mentions in his post Parcells-type teams like 2 TE sets. Now, either boomer is correct or he is certifiably crazy... or some grey area in between. We're all picking CB, OLB, WR, NT because those are the obvious needs..

Fasano is a good TE and Martin is 30 years old. I think it was at very least a very original call at 25 to pick a TE and maybe he's right. If not I could see us going one of the more obvious ones mentioned above. Oh, we do have haynos who has a TD catch at least but other than that he was the 3rd string TE for a reason...

 

I don't see why we go TE in the 1st when the draft is deep at the position and we still have many other needs.

I'd rather have a playmaking TE like Casey at 2b who can stretch the field. We need a physical receiver who can take some stress away from our undersized receiving core....plus he doubles as our Wildcat QB if Ronnie leaves next year, or when we need the tough short yard ala Time Tebow.

I'd even take Bear Pascoe late in the draft if I want a slower TE with great hands who can block and is a BP type player. LOL.