2003Contenders Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Your "better value" may fly the coop in a few years. If your foundation is cracked or your roof leaks, that takes priority before a spiffy new deck or snazzy windows. I don't see where scouting comes into it. One could argue that the Bills took the "best player available" the last few years. Results were disappointing... 658902[/snapback] The flip side of the coin is that a position of need may not necessarily be the same a year -- or even a few months -- from now. Thus, if you've taken a mediocre player at a real need position you are more likely to have to address that position yet again in the not-so-distant future, whereas, you could draft a future stud at a position that may not be one of need now -- but could be one of need in the future. Obviously, in the best of all possible worlds you can draft the best value at a position of need. Teams with good scouting departments are well aware that maybe a crop of players at a specific position may not be so great in this class -- but may be exceptional the following year. They are also well aware of their own future needs and not just there here and now. In fact, the draft is usually a better place to find depth and future needs than it is to find current needs, considering how few rookies start right away. Free agency is the better place to address immediate needs. TD's sin was that he was too busy trying to make waves in the draft, rather than trying to build a quality team. I would hardly, say, for example that Roscoe Parrish was the best available player when we took him last season. In fact, given that TD likely suspected that Moulds' days were numbered, he probably viewed him as a "need" pick. Our drastic needs at DT and OL are because TD spent too many years simply overlooking these positions, when there were quality players that he could have drafted over the years. His fetish for "skill" players and refusal to invest day one picks (outside of Mike Williams) in the less glamorous OL positions is why we're in the situation we are in now.
Bill from NYC Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 because when they rank players, they are not only comparing those players to other players at their positons. Ferguson may be slightly better than justice. but you have to think about all the other 1st round prospects. so they are not going to say ferguson is a #2 overall pick and justice is a #3. thre are RBs, TEs, QBs, DBs, LBs, DEs, that are all fighting for that spot. if we take a player listed as a #15 overall pick with our #8 pick, they look at it like you passed on 7 better players, even if Justice was the next best OT. 658872[/snapback] Yeah, but it doesn't often work out that way. When the Bengals took Levi Jones at #9 to play LT, this was called a reach. Donahoe had already used the 4th on an over-weight, injured slob of a RT. People are still excusing this idiocy because Fat Mike was "rated higher." Imo, it is the job of the Bills front office to find and draft talented players. What difference do the ratings make 5 years after the fact when Levi Jones is excellent and Mike Williams sucks?
JAMIEBUF12 Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 But if those 7 supposedly better players are not needed by your team, why take them? We have 9 WRs right now, should we draft a WR just because he grades out at a certain position? 658876[/snapback] well for one reason if you take the same player you wanted say..............11th you would also pay that player alot less then you would if you drafted that player8th overall in the draft........go bills"06
Recommended Posts