PDA

View Full Version : Draftnicks and the Future


bored of education
09-14-2010, 07:03 PM
I just want to address something I have seen on blogs and also heard on sports talk radio over the last few months. It is one damn issue. I will start off with the story of this guy I heard on the radio a few months ago around draft time.

As a Rams fan, he said the Rams should have no drafted Bradford because next years qb class is going to be better and they can address a different need now.

I have some sources and some very reliable people I know that say as a GM and his brigade of regional scouts they don't take that in to consideration going into a draft. But they do take that into consideration and take mental notes about sophmores/juniors etc but don't think next year's TE class is going to be stacked so lets wait til next year.

I am 1000000% against this idea. Who is to say Jake Locker will not **** the bed and may fall to the 10-19 range and not be a top 3-6 pick. Who is the say the Rams will not be 10-6 with Bradford and in a position mid to late 1st to grab a WR.


Too many who is to say AB or C.

Thoughts?

thanks.

tjsunstein
09-14-2010, 07:08 PM
You have to get your franchise QB when you can to start the rebuilding process as soon as possible. Same goes for LT.

Position players such as WR, RB, CB, LB, etc may be different but if you have an elite prospect at QB and LT on the board when you pick, you don't pass them up for a chance at a guy next year who may or may not be there. They're too vital to today's game.

BeerBaron
09-14-2010, 07:11 PM
There is just waaay too much unpredictability from year to year to think that way. You have to take what is available this year and plan accordingly. The Rams were a garbage team 3 straight years and the best way to get things turned around is to bring in what you hope will be your franchise QB.

Now, I wasn't a big Bradford fan, but he was the best available and the Rams had to take him. You gotta get a QB with franchise potential into the fold when you have the opportunity.

bored of education
09-14-2010, 07:11 PM
I think you may be on too something. I may be wrong about any position and being against that idea. But their are positions that its so hit or miss like you said with RBs/WRs etc.

bored of education
09-14-2010, 07:12 PM
QB's on the other hand may be a different scenario fo shiz

P-L
09-14-2010, 07:24 PM
Lions fans were saying this before we took Stafford. Take Aaron Curry or Jason Smith, next year's quarterback class is better. Then 2010 comes around and we are picking 2nd. The Rams took Bradford #1 overall and there wasn't another a quarterback worth a top ten pick. Had the Lions "waited until next year," we still wouldn't have a quarterback.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
09-14-2010, 07:28 PM
A team could play themselves out of a draft pick. If a few balls go there way and have luck on their side could go from 1-3 to 4-6 and miss out on an elite QB.

TitanHope
09-14-2010, 07:36 PM
I don't think GM's think about future draft classes when they're deciding who and who not to pick. A quick way to lose your job, if you ask me.

The draft process is entirely too strenuous, complicated, and fluent for that. Expanding it over two years only compunds that and increases the chance of looking like an incompetant idiot.

princefielder28
09-14-2010, 08:38 PM
It's stupid to bank on the future when considering what to do with your picks now. You need to go with the information you have about that current year's prospects and try to assemble the best class possible without considering what the future may hold.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-14-2010, 08:49 PM
Forget the concept of whether waiting for next year is smart or not. Every team is constantly battling to not be in a position where they have a high draft pick. I know that from our position, as fans, it's easier to be pessimistic and look ahead and whatever, but positivity is a pervasive part of every NFL organization. It has to be.

I'm not suggesting that some GM's aren't shrewd or realistic at times, but you get the players you can get when you know you can get them, not bank on your team laying an egg and having the shot at some player down the line who may or may not be worth it. Hell, as things are today in the NFL, you banking on your team winding up in the top 10 doesn't make sense simply because you might not be around to make the pick.

So, no, the idea that the Rams should have waited for Locker or Mallett or Luck is not legitimate.

Scott Wright
09-14-2010, 09:12 PM
As far as I know teams don't usually take the following years talent into account. There are just too many variables. For example, if the Rams win one game this year that could put them out of the Jake Locker sweepstakes. Of if they like Andrew Luck what if he doesn't come out. Or what if a player gets hurt or regresses? What if a team had passed on a quarterback in 2009 because they were waiting for Jevan Snead? :o) There may be exceptions but by and large teams don't factor future classes into their final decisions on Draft Day.

Rosebud
09-15-2010, 02:47 AM
I have some sources and some very reliable people I know that say as a GM and his brigade of regional scouts they don't take that in to consideration going into a draft. But they do take that into consideration and take mental notes about sophmores/juniors etc but don't think next year's TE class is going to be stacked so lets wait til next year.

I wish I knew what the **** it was you were so riled up about... :-(

Rosebud
09-15-2010, 02:54 AM
As far as I know teams don't usually take the following years talent into account. There are just too many variables. For example, if the Rams win one game this year that could put them out of the Jake Locker sweepstakes. Of if they like Andrew Luck what if he doesn't come out. Or what if a player gets hurt or regresses? What if a team had passed on a quarterback in 2009 because they were waiting for Jevan Snead? :o) There may be exceptions but by and large teams don't factor future classes into their final decisions on Draft Day.

I think there are some exceptions to that. Teams like Buffalo just aren't going to be very good this year no matter what they did. And given where they were picking there wasn't a franchise QB left that they could take, or more precisely wanted to take since many people consider Clausen a franchise QB, although I'm very eh about his potential. So they had to look at next year and determine whether they thought there was going to be some guys in next year's draft that they think have franchise QB potential. They're going to be so terrible this year that they'll need lucky bounces just to not get blown out of most of their games because of their absolutely incompetent passing game.

wicket
09-15-2010, 02:56 AM
I personally didnt think bradford was a great prospect but if they believed he was a possible franchise qb prospect he was the only right choice given the situation

Saints-Tigers
09-15-2010, 05:59 AM
The problem really is that I think teams take QBs just to make the "right call" when they really don't believe him to be an elite prospect.

Take them if you see an elite prospect at QB, don't just take the best QB available because you need one.

Poz51
09-15-2010, 07:33 AM
You have to get your franchise QB when you can to start the rebuilding process as soon as possible. Same goes for LT.
if you have an elite prospect at QB and LT on the board when you pick, you don't pass them up for a chance at a guy next year who may or may not be there. They're too vital to today's game.

Teams like Buffalo just aren't going to be very good this year no matter what they did. And given where they were picking there wasn't a franchise QB left that they could take, or more precisely wanted to take since many people consider Clausen a franchise QB, although I'm very eh about his potential. So they had to look at next year and determine whether they thought there was going to be some guys in next year's draft that they think have franchise QB potential. They're going to be so terrible this year that they'll need lucky bounces just to not get blown out of most of their games because of their absolutely incompetent passing game.

The problem really is that I think teams take QBs just to make the "right call" when they really don't believe him to be an elite prospect.Take them if you see an elite prospect at QB, don't just take the best QB available because you need one.

This is a great discussion, nice job B.O.E.
tj: I could not agree with you more, in the NFL today, your offense is dead meat without a QB, or LT/T's to protect him. This point is illustrated by my Buffalo Bills and the point made by Rose: Maybe they did not believe that Clausen was franchise QB material, or A. Davis or B. Baluga was a franchise LT, but in previous years they also passed on Jay Cutler, Marcus McNeil, Ryan Clady, Jeff Otah, and Michael Oher to name a couple that come to mind, in favor of guys like Donte Whitner, and Aaron Maybin. Hence forth an incompetent passing game. Lets say that they take Cutler instead of Whitner, and Oher instead of Maybin... We might turn the ball over just as much as Edwards would if the opposition could catch the ball, and have a LT that still needs a little refinement, but (IMO) we would not be in the running for the top pick in the 2011 draft, nor would we have two first round picks essentially coming off the bench. Despite losing 4 super bowls, the Bills got there with a pro-bowl/hall of fame QB, a competent o-line and pro-bowl LT. Pieces that have been missing for a decade (Jason Peters brief stint in Buffalo excluded.). As S.T. says making the right call is not always the right thing to do, but it gets to the point where if you do not try at all, you are failing yourself, and your tired will continue to spin in the mud unless you try something different, the Rams did the right thing last year, and should Buffalo end up in the same situation, they must follow suit, or else they run a greater risk of another decade of futility... As for looking forward to next year, I personnally believe you need to keep it in mind looking at the bigger picture do your due diligence and advanced scouting, but do so with a grain of salt, as Mr. Wright says you cant count on it (Jevan Snead).

AntoinCD
09-15-2010, 07:42 AM
I think there are some exceptions to that. Teams like Buffalo just aren't going to be very good this year no matter what they did. And given where they were picking there wasn't a franchise QB left that they could take, or more precisely wanted to take since many people consider Clausen a franchise QB, although I'm very eh about his potential. So they had to look at next year and determine whether they thought there was going to be some guys in next year's draft that they think have franchise QB potential. They're going to be so terrible this year that they'll need lucky bounces just to not get blown out of most of their games because of their absolutely incompetent passing game.

True but hypothetically if the Bills win say 3 games, which isn't out of the question, they could be picking 3rd or lower. If Cleveland finishes above them they could take Locker/Mallett etc. If another team finishes above Buffalo or another team tries to trade in front to get the other QB and Luck doesnt declare, do the Bills then take Ponder even if they don't feel he is a franchise QB. It is a risky thing to do assuming that a franchise passer will be there next year.

They have winnable games against KC, Oakland, Denver, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Detroit, Chicago etc. Plus if they pull of an upset or two they could be well out of the race for the #1 spot

yourfavestoner
09-15-2010, 10:32 AM
Every single ******* year people say that next year's draft class is SOOOO much better than the current year.

irishbucsfan
09-15-2010, 11:19 AM
Scott, I'd like to talk to you about your use of a nose in your smiley faces.

BeerBaron
09-15-2010, 11:50 AM
Take them if you see an elite prospect at QB, don't just take the best QB available because you need one.

See, there isn't much of a difference. The two most recent instances of a non-franchise caliber (in my opinion) QB where Bradford and Matt Ryan, but they were the best QB in their respective classes. And when you have teams that have just gone through hell like the Rams and Falcons those years, you almost have to take a QB to show you're getting back on track.

P-L
09-15-2010, 11:51 AM
Every single ******* year people say that next year's draft class is SOOOO much better than the current year.
With the exception of a few positions, I think the 2011 class is going to be much worse than the 2010 class.

ElectricEye
09-15-2010, 11:57 AM
With the exception of a few positions, I think the 2011 class is going to be much worse than the 2010 class.

Agree completely. This year is a fairly weak draft at this point, where as last years was fairly strong.

BeerBaron
09-15-2010, 11:59 AM
With the exception of a few positions, I think the 2011 class is going to be much worse than the 2010 class.

QB and WR are definitely stronger.....there's some quality interior o-linemen too.

But at a lot of other positions, OT being the most notable I think, it's weaker. The last two classes really spoiled us with the quality of their offensive lineman.

Rosebud
09-15-2010, 12:00 PM
This is a great discussion, nice job B.O.E.
tj: I could not agree with you more, in the NFL today, your offense is dead meat without a QB, or LT/T's to protect him. This point is illustrated by my Buffalo Bills and the point made by Rose: Maybe they did not believe that Clausen was franchise QB material, or A. Davis or B. Baluga was a franchise LT, but in previous years they also passed on Jay Cutler, Marcus McNeil, Ryan Clady, Jeff Otah, and Michael Oher to name a couple that come to mind, in favor of guys like Donte Whitner, and Aaron Maybin. Hence forth an incompetent passing game. Lets say that they take Cutler instead of Whitner, and Oher instead of Maybin... We might turn the ball over just as much as Edwards would if the opposition could catch the ball, and have a LT that still needs a little refinement, but (IMO) we would not be in the running for the top pick in the 2011 draft, nor would we have two first round picks essentially coming off the bench. Despite losing 4 super bowls, the Bills got there with a pro-bowl/hall of fame QB, a competent o-line and pro-bowl LT. Pieces that have been missing for a decade (Jason Peters brief stint in Buffalo excluded.). As S.T. says making the right call is not always the right thing to do, but it gets to the point where if you do not try at all, you are failing yourself, and your tired will continue to spin in the mud unless you try something different, the Rams did the right thing last year, and should Buffalo end up in the same situation, they must follow suit, or else they run a greater risk of another decade of futility... As for looking forward to next year, I personnally believe you need to keep it in mind looking at the bigger picture do your due diligence and advanced scouting, but do so with a grain of salt, as Mr. Wright says you cant count on it (Jevan Snead).

Didn't they still have hope in Losman when JC came out? Not sure on that one but you can't really blame them too badly for the Maybin pick, Trent Edwards looked very promising before that concussion and groin injury that he's still scared of. They had reason to believe they had their franchise QB and didn't yet know that he had turned into a scared little ***** while having no quality young pass rusher and Maybin had and still has exceptional potential with his disgusting first step.

I agree with most of the other stuff you said, Clausen was very iffy, Bulaga not worthy of a top ten pick and Davis had those work ethic problems that would've given me Jason Peters vibes in Buffalo. THis year they need to pull the trigger and trade up if a legit franchise QB won't be available at your pick, although as a big fan of this QB class I don't think that'll be a problem when you also add in just how bad the Bills are this year.

Shane P. Hallam
09-15-2010, 12:01 PM
With the possibility of little to no underclassmen, this draft class could be one of the worst in a long time...

Rosebud
09-15-2010, 12:07 PM
True but hypothetically if the Bills win say 3 games, which isn't out of the question, they could be picking 3rd or lower. If Cleveland finishes above them they could take Locker/Mallett etc. If another team finishes above Buffalo or another team tries to trade in front to get the other QB and Luck doesnt declare, do the Bills then take Ponder even if they don't feel he is a franchise QB. It is a risky thing to do assuming that a franchise passer will be there next year.

They have winnable games against KC, Oakland, Denver, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Detroit, Chicago etc. Plus if they pull of an upset or two they could be well out of the race for the #1 spot

If that were to happen that'd mean that the Bills D came together really well and the interior OL stepped up and become beastly, which it can. In that case the can afford to lose some picks in a trade up for whichever QB Cleveland doesn't take, assuming Cleveland pick first and Buffalo third or later. With a franchise QB they'd still be looking for some more weapons, an LT and some more pass rushers, but with Locker, those RBs, a strong interior OL, a good DL, a good solid LB corps and a very deep secondary that's a team that's suddenly got direction and is just a couple more drafts away from having a sweet set up.

As for those winnable games Jacksonville, Detroit and Chicago are much better teams than Buffalo and I'd feel very comfortable betting on the Broncos and Chiefs to beat them as well. Oakland and Cleveland are games that I feel they can win, but the Bills really are due for a terrible year and they're set up perfectly to secure that #1 pick.

jnew76
09-15-2010, 02:04 PM
I think the best GM's have an understanding of how the prospect compares to previous prospects that they have evaluated and where they were selected and valued in previous drafts based on the talent at the position and overall in each draft. While I believe GM's can guess as to how good future draft classes will be, I believe they are more apt to look at prospects they have previously evaluated rather than try and predict the future. Basically, I think if the Rams thought Sam Bradford was a better or equal prospect to Matthew Stafford/Mark Sanchez/Matt Ryan/Joe Flacco then they needed to pull the trigger. I thought that Bradford was the best prospect out of all those players, so I would have drafted him with the #1 pick (although in hindsight I think Flacco might be the best). I think the Rams came to a similar decision and went with Bradford. I don't think Jake Locker and Andrew Luck really came into the evaluation process.

Poz51
09-16-2010, 10:42 AM
Didn't they still have hope in Losman when JC came out? Not sure on that one but you can't really blame them too badly for the Maybin pick, Trent Edwards looked very promising before that concussion and groin injury that he's still scared of. They had reason to believe they had their franchise QB and didn't yet know that he had turned into a scared little ***** while having no quality young pass rusher and Maybin had and still has exceptional potential with his disgusting first step.

I agree with most of the other stuff you said, Clausen was very iffy, Bulaga not worthy of a top ten pick and Davis had those work ethic problems that would've given me Jason Peters vibes in Buffalo. THis year they need to pull the trigger and trade up if a legit franchise QB won't be available at your pick, although as a big fan of this QB class I don't think that'll be a problem when you also add in just how bad the Bills are this year.

They did have hope for Losman when Cutler came out and is probably part of the reason they passed on him, this despite his accuracy and confidence issues resulting in him splitting time with Holcomb... IMO at the time an upgrade at QB was still needed, although as usual with Buffalo the offensive line was an issue, and Losman had a good run the second half of that following season if I remember. Losman IMO was a project, he needed years of seasoning, and I think could have been a poor mans Aaron Rodgers given time, or similar to Rich Gannon in career development, given time. I think part of it is a time table issue, Cutler is a guy to me with a shorter time table and was more talented giving the Bills a better chance to win, IMO. Maybin had a great first step, best in the draft hands down, but that was at 230 pounds, (I played corner back and safety in college (1AA) at 225), and as a situational (one down) passrusher, Orakpo for instance was a 3 down player who can do it all, so for me in that situation its still the wrong pick, also we go into 2009 season with a project (long term again) in Bell, and RT playing LT in Walker at LT... For me if you want the defensive player its Orakpo, but more importantly you want your QB Edwards, Losman, Cutler whomever standing upright, especially after trading away a Pro-Bowl LT in Peters away, and Oher is the hands down pick. The draft was set up perfectly for Buffalo once the Jets traded up to land Sanchez, the Bengals took Smith, Raiders D.H.B, Jaguars Monroe, Packer take Raji, and the 9ers take Crabtree that leaves 3 top ten talents left, Oher, Orakpo and Cushing all three fit a need and in my mocks at that time I had Maybin as a fringe first rounder, and wanted to vomit when they passed on all three for him. As for Edwards he was never the same after that injury, he's had the deer in headlights look ever since, and its been obvious. I will respectfully disagree that Maybin is a quality pass rusher, although he did get to Henne once last week, right after he threw the ball. The potential is there, but he's becoming an after thought quickly, with a short 15 game audition left. I guess my real problem is that they as a franchise have continually neglected two key positions, and when given the opportunity to address them you do so, and they have not. I can understand passing on Clausen in the first, but in the second? Passing on a top ten talent (Oher at LT in particular) for a situational pass rusher is mind numbing to me. The front office deserved to be canned for that. I agree that Davis and Bulaga would be a bit of a reach, but at least they would have been attempts at fixing the real problems on this team... I can lose with some promise at those positions, but there is not much promise there currently and that is why this team is considered horrible, no QB of consquence and no one to protect set QB... The rest of the team is not nearly as horrible as most make them out to be. I agree completely, if they have to trade up (which they shouldnt) then this is the year they must for a QB, and then go Tackle in the second... Some sign of intelligent concious effort must be made, or else we are back at the same old conversation next year with this team.

zachsaints52
09-16-2010, 10:48 AM
I think there are some exceptions to that. Teams like Buffalo just aren't going to be very good this year no matter what they did. And given where they were picking there wasn't a franchise QB left that they could take, or more precisely wanted to take since many people consider Clausen a franchise QB, although I'm very eh about his potential. So they had to look at next year and determine whether they thought there was going to be some guys in next year's draft that they think have franchise QB potential. They're going to be so terrible this year that they'll need lucky bounces just to not get blown out of most of their games because of their absolutely incompetent passing game.

They coudla atleast got a LT outta this year though. Let him go through rookie mistakes and be ready to block tha franchise next year.

San Diego Chicken
09-16-2010, 10:24 PM
I support the Ravens model, drafting BPA instead of reaching for need. The market right now for veteran QB's is soft. When Donovan McNabb caliber QB's are going for 2nd round draft choices, I think you can pass on iffy QB prospects until you find someone you're absolutely sold on.

Value comes in to play too. At this point, I think Baltimore is happy paying Flacco 8.75 guaranteed as opposed to the 35 million in guarantees coming to Matt Ryan.