Chawker":qot27b7m said:
chris chris chris. 5 out of your first 6 picks are offensive players, Lets say we need some defensive help and try to at least pick'em a little more fair and balanced. K!
I'm entirely convinced this is how you end up starving your team of talent over time.
No draft is equal in quality. Every one is different. Just taking a 1st round defensive player doesn't mean you get first round value from them. If it's lousy for defense, then you're essentially getting bad return on your pick.
And that over time manifests itself into low overall team quality as well as creating future holes on your roster that needs filling. One, for the player you picked that didn't measure up, and more for the other players that move on or decline that you should have picked in advance but didn't.
I have no problem following the talent where it lies in the draft. If we get two quality interior OL, that means we aren't paying cast off veterans 3-4M a year. That's cap space that can fill other holes. Or be used to absorb mid season trades for quality vets elsewhere (Diggs, Clowney, Coleman etc.).
Ultimately, using the draft to fill needs is logically stupid. Because talent isn't ever linear. In fact it's horribly variable. Teams that do so, intentionally get less quality players out of the draft because one is almost guaranteed to take a lesser quality player early in the draft relative to what's still available if they do so based on what they have on the roster instead of what's on the board.
This is how you get replacement level journeyman talent early in the draft. It's a central component to how one drafts busts year after year.
I would add, that on day 3, that's where it's useful to add for need. Because the delta in talent between players tends to rapidly smooth out. Virtually every player in this range ends up being valuable based on development and fit. Not necessarily by their inherent talent. Teams are *supposed* to gather replacement level players in this range.