Im beginning to think that if Young and Bush are gone, then we should draft Ferguson.nigel said:
I wouldnt mind trading down if Bush was there(and someone offered a killer of a deal for Bush-someone will)
I've heard Reese expound on his draft philosophy last year. He believes in taking the BPA in the first round only. After that it is his philosophy to draft strictly for need. In addition to that, he selects a couple positions of need and drafts several players at that position. Last year the 2 positions he deemed positions of need were OL and WR, hence he drafted 3 WRs and 3 OLs, hoping to hit on at least one or more. By picking so many at each position, he feels he protects himself from striking out and coming up empty handed at the need positions. Two years ago the position of need was DE and hence the selection of 3 DEs (Laboy, Odom, and Schobel). When he drafted Nickey, he stated that he needed a safety and Nickey was the only draftable safety left on his board, hence the fateful trade up to get him. This year his positions of need have already been stated by him--LB and Safety. I would not be surprised to see at least 4 picks coming from those 2 positions. The question I have is whether this is a necessary way to go in the era of the salary cap. I think that when you draft for need instead of BPA, you run the risk of missing out on a lot of great players, and the overall talent level of your roster suffers. I think our record is starting to reflect the results of drafting for need and reaching for players like Gardner, Nickey, Echols, etc.
Regardless of McNair's renegotiation (or lack there of)....WE HAVE TO GET A QUARTERBACK and they are crazy if they pass on Young OR Leinart. "Brick", "Hawk", etc... are going to be great players, but we have to worry about a QB of the future before a left tackle, or a linebacker, etc...
I agree. We drafted 3 OTs last year and this year looks really strong with O-lineman, especially OTs on the first day. There will be some real steals this year on them, but I'll feel we wasted at least one pick last year if we take anymore O-lineman this year. I know Munchak is a real strong position coach and we can depend on him coaching up our draftpicks, thus allowing us to get sleeper type players in mid rounds and later in draft, but we need better production from the line in the future. I assume we will lose Olson and probably Hopkins as well. Possibly Hartwig also. Mangold looks like a great Center and Gilles, a bulldozer Guard. I guess you could justify taking an O-lineman under the right circumstances. (Losses of at least 2 or 3 current lineman and BPA in draft.) D'Brick will be awesome, but I definately want Young, Leinart or Bush in that order, so I'd only want D'Brick or Hawk if we trade down. Cutler is another option if we trade down to at least 9 or 10. We definitely need speed upgrades at linebacker and safety combined with intelligence and instinctiveness, like a Polamalu and Lofa Tatupu types. I hope for a Howard, D'Qwell, Ko Simpson or Allen in the second round. I would like to see us trade out of our 2nd round spot, moving down in the round and picking up a 3rd round pick. Would like Daniel Bullocks from Nebraska also. He always managed to have the ball in his hands at the Senior Bowl, got something like 5 or 6 ints. in practices and picked up the fumble for TD in game. Looks like a real playmaker and solid player. Just a bunch of my thoughts. Curious if anyone agrees or disagrees.h4t said:
Loved the WRs we got last year in draft. Hopefully they will continue to improve and not regress like Calico did (after injury, in his defense of course, which is what worries me about Jones and Roydell). Calico was looking like a stud in preseason his second year when Roy Williams blew both of Calico's knees out. I think the Calico injury more than any other catapulted our decline the last 2 years. Completely changed what we were capable of doing on offense IMO. Hopefully he will be 100% back to where he was this year and we'll have mismatches all over the field. He's huge and no one seemed to be able to keep up with him going downfield, ala Randy Moss like. Also hope Tank can play like his rookie year again or better.
TitanJeff said:
And that BPA at a skilled postion might be a QB which is why we will probally go that route (because we NEED one). My point is if we didn't need a QB but needed a DE we should take the DE even if the QB was technically the BPA. You said yourself you wouldn't just take guys you didn't need, especially with the early first round pick. Besides, there are a bunch of quality guys who could one day be pro-bowl players available when you pick #3 or #6. WOUld we all hyped up to get one of the RBs last year if we had EG in his prime or if Chris Brown had stayed healthy and ruhn for 1500 yards? However, in the 5th round if a great value RB is available under those conditions you might grab the guy instead of a dud S just because you need one. Isn't the strategy Reese has been using proving itself?
My point on Bob Sanders is we were so focused on getting DEs we passed on a guy we desperately need right now. Apparently the Colts knew Sanders was goign to be good. I guess Reese either has a bad strategy or simply doesn't do as well at seeing talent.
I agree. If this was 2001 and you knew McNair was certain to be the QB for the next few years, it would be nuts to draft Young or Leinart.Soxcat said:
I think Reese has been forced to look more at position in the last few years because, without free agency, that is how he had to fill holes. He'd take 2-3 DEs, WRs, OTs hoping one or more pans out. I don't think it meant they were a reach. For all we knew, Reese had them graded out the same as anyone else available.
We need him right now but did we then? How could Reese know Tank would be injured? Tank should have been ready to begin a solid stretch of seasons. If Tank would have played to expectations, Sanders would have been a special teamer (or at the nickel) and the Titans would not be any closer to replacing the talent they lost in Kearse.
As they say, hindsight is 20/20.
Sanders would have been what Bulluck was before he moved into the starting lineup. Having Sanders instead of LaBoy would not have hurt us that badly. The guy that ultimately replaced Kearse is KVB, in other words the DE picks haven't really been all that special anyway. Certainly Odom was worth the pick where we got him so I have no problem with that pick just like I have no problem with where we picked Starks. This whole idea of grabbing a handfull of players at one postion hoping one of them pans out is the easy way out. If Reese was truly good at evaluating talent he could just take the guy he has the most confidence in and use the other picks at other positions. Are you saying Garner and Nickey were not reaches? I might be wrong (I don't know what GMS were thinking) but based on just what I was reading Laboy was literally off the radar for DEs.
In hindsight. At the time, who looked to be the better option? Your second-round safety who is ready to take his game up to the next level or a 5-8", 200 lb rookie? Do you draft a safety with a major hole at DE?Soxcat said:
And Reese knew KVB would be available how? And he knew he'd have 12 1/2 sacks how? C'mon, you sound like Reese has the ability to look into the future.
And if that choice bombs out, where does that leave you? BTW, LaBoy outplayed just about everyone else on the DL at the close of the season last year. If anyone has underachieved, it's been Odom. So why is Odom a value and LaBoy not?
Based on their play, I do. But both looked to be good prospects when they were drafted. It's not like Reese gave up a lot to get Nickey. Gardner has been a disappointment from day one.
LaBoy was a second-round prospect on most mocks (best I can remember) and was ranked close to Babin.
Not Best Athlete, Best Player!
I think some of you guys have this all wrong. The term "best athlete" is not literal as in the player who most likely would win a decathalon. It means drafting the best prospect at his position. It's a value play.
For example you ask yourself if reggie bush is a better RB prospect than young or lienart are QB prospects. The answer to that question is yes! Bush is a better prospect at his position than anyone in this draft. Period! One poster suggested that bush was the best athlete but not the best RB. That is absolute insane nonsense. Did you see him play? He makes deangelo williams look like he is carrying a 50 lb weight by comparison. You have to go back to guys like barry sanders or bo jackson to find a prospect like that.
That's my understanding of the best athlete concept. You might need a corner back more but if you see a budding lawrence taylor or reggie white you go that route because they are better prospects. It's the best player, ie prospect.
The problem reese has drafting third is that he might not see those 2 QBs as equals. What if he believes that one or the other is superior? If he thinks that lienart is a superior prospect why would he want to settle for young? And vice versa. That situation would compel us to trade down or even up. We all post as of it is an either or situation. Whoever is on the board that's fine. But reese might not see it that way. Remember that there is a 50% chance that one of these guys will be a failure. We have seen that so many times. Players like ryan leaf, heath schuler, rick mirer, akili smith are just as common as the manning's and mcnabbs.
Look at the 1999 draft. Couch, mcnabb, smith. Those were the top three picks. Scary huh? Not good odds there. You can't just sit back and let the draft come to you. You have to decide who is the better prospect and go after him.
I think some of you guys have this all wrong. The term "best athlete" is not literal as in the player who most likely would win a decathalon. It means drafting the best prospect at his position. It's a value play.
For example you ask yourself if reggie bush is a better RB prospect than young or lienart are QB prospects. The answer to that question is yes! Bush is a better prospect at his position than anyone in this draft. Period! One poster suggested that bush was the best athlete but not the best RB. That is absolute insane nonsense. Did you see him play? He makes deangelo williams look like he is carrying a 50 lb weight by comparison. You have to go back to guys like barry sanders or bo jackson to find a prospect like that.
That's my understanding of the best athlete concept. You might need a corner back more but if you see a budding lawrence taylor or reggie white you go that route because they are better prospects. It's the best player, ie prospect.
The problem reese has drafting third is that he might not see those 2 QBs as equals. What if he believes that one or the other is superior? If he thinks that lienart is a superior prospect why would he want to settle for young? And vice versa. That situation would compel us to trade down or even up. We all post as of it is an either or situation. Whoever is on the board that's fine. But reese might not see it that way. Remember that there is a 50% chance that one of these guys will be a failure. We have seen that so many times. Players like ryan leaf, heath schuler, rick mirer, akili smith are just as common as the manning's and mcnabbs.
Look at the 1999 draft. Couch, mcnabb, smith. Those were the top three picks. Scary huh? Not good odds there. You can't just sit back and let the draft come to you. You have to decide who is the better prospect and go after him.
TitanJeff said:
I guess all these guys look to be good prospects until we really get to see them play. The bottom line is we need to get more gems like Hill in the later rounds and alot fewer rocks like Nickey and Gardner if we want to get back to the SB anytime soon. Think of how much better we would be now if a few of those guys turned out to be as good for real as they looked to be.
I agree. But how often does a seventh-round guy even make the team? How often does a free agent you bring in at the minimum salary make the Pro Bowl? Reese deserves some credit here for a few gems. It helps offset the misses he's made.Soxcat said:
I wish someone would create a formula where each draft pick is evaluated after their third year. I'd like to see how Reese really stacks up vs the NFL.
Drafting for need only....you can't!
You can never draft for need 100% of the time. You simply cannot. You can't be reaching 10-15 spots in a rd just because a guy plays a position of need. You have to stick to the integrity of your rating system. Every team has a big board where they rate the top 1-100 players. You can't be sitting there with the 35th pick grabbing a guy who is 49th on your board simply because he plays a position of need. That would be suicide.
Obviously if the 2 best players on your board are a safety and defensive tackle you grab the safety if that is where the need is. Floyd reese has 11 drafts he can go back and look at and see what mistakes he made, what good players he passed up and the bad picks. He needs to draw on that experience.
You can never draft for need 100% of the time. You simply cannot. You can't be reaching 10-15 spots in a rd just because a guy plays a position of need. You have to stick to the integrity of your rating system. Every team has a big board where they rate the top 1-100 players. You can't be sitting there with the 35th pick grabbing a guy who is 49th on your board simply because he plays a position of need. That would be suicide.
Obviously if the 2 best players on your board are a safety and defensive tackle you grab the safety if that is where the need is. Floyd reese has 11 drafts he can go back and look at and see what mistakes he made, what good players he passed up and the bad picks. He needs to draw on that experience.
Still want a QB with that 3rd pick?
QBs taken in the top 5 picks 1990-2003
1990-jeff george
1991-none
1992-none,David klingler taken with 6th pick
1993-Bledsoe, rick mirer
1994-Heath shuler(Best UT QB ever!:ha: )
1995-Mcnair, kerry collins
1996-none
1997-None, jim drunkenmiller top QB taken
1998-manning, leaf
1999-Couch, mcnabb, akili smith,,,culpepper taken 6th
2000-none
2001-mike vick
2002-David carr, joey harrington
2003-Carson palmer
I'm counting 15 in all taken in the first 5 picks. Only 5 are what i would call first rate. 5 more are decent to good. 5 are bonafide busts! Those are the odds we are up against.
QBs taken in the top 5 picks 1990-2003
1990-jeff george
1991-none
1992-none,David klingler taken with 6th pick
1993-Bledsoe, rick mirer
1994-Heath shuler(Best UT QB ever!:ha: )
1995-Mcnair, kerry collins
1996-none
1997-None, jim drunkenmiller top QB taken
1998-manning, leaf
1999-Couch, mcnabb, akili smith,,,culpepper taken 6th
2000-none
2001-mike vick
2002-David carr, joey harrington
2003-Carson palmer
I'm counting 15 in all taken in the first 5 picks. Only 5 are what i would call first rate. 5 more are decent to good. 5 are bonafide busts! Those are the odds we are up against.
This is not a good year for us to start the 3-year draft analysis.TitanJeff said:
:boom:
Brian said:
Sly, Very Sly, but improvement... Can't ask for more when it took an awful lot to be subtle... graciously passing by
)Brian said:
Sly, Very Sly, but improvement... Can't ask for more when it took an awful lot to be subtle... graciously passing by
Good grief...
Agreed. But you also can't use a top pick on a position if the team is set with for the next few seasons. For example, you won't see the Titans use a high pick to draft someone to play behind Bulluck. There ar just too many holes elsewhere.RollTide said:
And we need to keep in mind that Reese's "formula" may be impacted by scheme and other factors we don't know about such as some decisions he may be considering with personnel already on the team. For example, say the Titans really like Marcus Randall enough to think he can move up to the #2 SS position. That might deter taking a safety late in the draft and using it on an equal talent at another position.
TitanJeff said:
First it is "Reese will take the BPA" and now it is you can't use a top pick on a postion the team is set with. The first player we pick in this draft needs to be a guy who is both a critical need for this team AND one of the BPA. If McNair wasn't near the end of his career and we didn't feel good about Roos at LT guess who we take? Also your example of Bulluck is interesting because we drafted Bulluck less out of need (the guy didn't start for two years) but he was obviously a BPA where we drafted him.
Later in the draft you have to focus on BPA as much or more because you don't take a S that is lucky to be a special teamer (and trade up at that) while passing on a guy at a position you need less but is far more talented. A guy better than a Nickey or Garner could have been found in the UDFA group or a cheap vet. Sure we didn't spend alot for Nickey, he was only a 5th round pick but to actually trade up for the guy shows they really thought he was a player. Now he will be out of a job and Marcus Randall, an UDFA QB, will be taking his spot on the roster.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
