The philosophy of finding an NFL QB.

[Pappy13]

So if you understand the choice to pick Jake Long over Matt Ryan (or Joe Thomas over Brady Quinn), you should understand the concept of best available upgrade quite easily.

I understand the concept just fine.  I'm taking Jake Long because he's ranked higher than Matt Ryan, not because he's a bigger upgrade.  He's ranked higher because he doesn't have any downside, he's a can't miss.  I'm not quite sure about Ryan, so even though he plays QB instead of LT, I have Long rated higher, he's the "better" player.  It has NOTHING to do with who he's replacing.  Who he's replacing would only factor in if I have Matt Ryan and Jake Long ranked exactly the same.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Pappy.

Let me ask you a question.  Which would improve the NEP more...adding Drew Brees to the roster or adding Brandon Fields?

I think we can agree Drew Brees plays a more important position than Fields.  I think we can agree that although Fields is a very good punter, Brees is a better QB than Fields is as a punter.

But still Fields would help the NEP more than Brees.  Fields would be a significant upgrade at punter.  Brees would sit on the bench.  

  

[Spider-Dan]

Nice point, Hoodie.

[Pappy13]

Pappy.

Let me ask you a question.  Which would improve the NEP more...adding Drew Brees to the roster or adding Brandon Fields?

Which would improve the NEP more?  Drew Brees.  No question.  He's FAR more valuable than Brandon Fields.

Would it happen next week?  Probably not.  But let me ask you this.  Which one helps the Patriots more if Tom Brady breaks a leg and is out for a year?  The long term potential gain outweighs the short term immediate gain over the long haul.

This is exactly why teams get into trouble.  They don't plan for the unexpected.  They only look 1 game down the road.  They put too much emphasis on immediate needs and not enough emphasis on planning for the future.

There's absolutely no question in my mind if I can have either player in the draft I'm taking Drew Brees.  That's not even a tough decision.  Franchise QB's are one in a million.  Decent punters are a dime a dozen.  If you 2 don't see that, you're not as smart as I thought.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Brees would be an upgrade at back up QB.  Brees>Hoyer. 

But would do nothing to improve the team, unless Brady got injured.   Fields would immediately improve the team. 

I do think it is important to upgrade the backup QB when you have an opportunity.  And have stated so in another thread.  But not at the expense of upgrading one of your 25 starters (I include LS, Punter, and Kicker in the 25).  However, I would put upgrading the QB as more important than upgrading some other back up/rotational/ST players.

But once again, my draft philosophy is "best available upgrade".  Your draft philosophy is "best available player".  So under my approach I would go with Fields, under your approach you would go with Brees. 

[Pappy13]

^^ What you 2 are forgetting is this is the draft we are talking about, not a trade, not a free agent signing.  The draft is how you improve your team over time.  It's what makes or breaks a franchise.  It's what takes a franchise from the bottom of the league to the upper echelon.  It's the single most important thing you can point to toward improving your team year in and year out.  But it doesn't happen overnight, it's a long term process.  It takes several years of good drafts to see the payoff.

You don't treat that like it's a band aid.  It's not there to fix a boo-boo.  It's there to cure cancer.  You have a problem at punter, pick a decent punter in the 3rd round, but don't pass up a blue-chip player in the 1st round just because you need a punter.  That's insane.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Even under my philosophy the NEP would not draft a punter in the first round. 

But lets pretend for a moment NE didn't have Carolina's 2nd round pick, but their first round pick, #1 overall.  Lets also assume Luck enters the draft. 

Luck is the best available player.  Should NEP draft him? Under your philosophy yes.  Under mine no.  Because either Fairley or Quinn would upgrade the pass rushing of NEP and that would help the team more than upgrading the backup QB.

Now in the 3rd or 4th round I might be debating whether to upgrade the punter or upgrade the backup QB or the 5th WR, but NE shouldn't upgrade the back up QB in round 1. 

[Pappy13]

But lets pretend for a moment NE didn't have Carolina's 2nd round pick, but their first round pick, #1 overall.  Lets also assume Luck enters the draft. 

Luck is the best available player.

You're mis-applying my system.  First of all you will NEVER ever have just 1 selection in a group.  Step 1 is making groups of players.  This is not a step you can just skip to invalidate my system.  In Step 1 I would have Luck along with several other players as the top players in the draft.  Perhaps I think Luck is the absolute best player, but there are still going to be several others that are right there with him.  Then from that group of players I would choose the one that I thought "fit" the best for my team needs.  That most likely would not be Luck in your scenario, so I would take one of the other players.  I still consider that taking the best available player because you're not ranking the players 1-100 (which is not really realistic), you're putting them into groups and picking from the top group of players first.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You're mis-applying my system.  First of all you will NEVER ever have just 1 selection in a group.  Step 1 is making groups of players.  This is not a step you can just skip to invalidate my system.  In Step 1 I would have Luck along with several other players as the top players in the draft.  Perhaps I think Luck is the absolute best player, but there are still going to be several others that are right there with him, maybe just a point or 2 behind.  Then from that group of players I would chose the one that I thought "fit" the best for my team needs.  That most likely would not be Luck in your scenario, so I would take one of the other players.

That is not Best Available Player.  In BAP you take the best player regardless of team needs. 

Edit:  I just went back and realized you are not a proponent of BAP, but a convoluted BAP.  So under your system you won't take Luck either for the NEP. 

[Spider-Dan]

Pappy, Luck is the best player at the most important position.  How can you have anyone rated equal to him?

By your logic, you should be locked into picking him.

[Pappy13]

That is not Best Available Player.  In BAP you take the best player regardless of team needs. 

I stated the exact way I would handle the draft from the beginning.  I stated that need has a bearing, but only AFTER you have first came up with a group of best available players, because I don't believe anyone can come up with a matter of fact "best available player" ranking from 1-100.  It's simply impossible to unequivocally state this guy is 1, this one is 2, this one is 3 etc.  So you don't try.  You group them together and say these 4 or 5 guys are in the  #1 group, these next 4 or 5 are in the #2 group etc.  As long as you stay within the group you are getting the "best available".  How can any one person, let alone several people which is normally what you have determining "best available" come to a consensus of absolute best player available at any time.  It's impossible.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Pappy13]

Pappy, Luck is the best player at the most important position.  How can you have anyone rated equal to him?

By your logic, you should be locked into picking him.

Go back and read my plan for picking players again.  My plan never locks you into 1 player, it locks you into a small group of players.  I stated that from the beginning.

If you don't like my plan or think it's not really a best available plan, that's fine, but don't try to invalidate my plan by not following it.

[Pappy13]

Edit:  I just went back and realized you are not a proponent of BAP, but a convoluted BAP.  So under your system you won't take Luck either for the NEP. 

Thank you.  I don't think my system is convoluted though, just more complex.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I would do the grouping as well.  But each player would be rated not on their own skill in a vacuum, but how they compare to the players I already have.  

The other thing grouping would do is tell me when to trade up and when to grade down.  

Let say I have 8 guys I rate equally.  And it is my turn to pick.  And another team offers me a pick in next years draft to trade down six spots.  Well, absolutely I take the trade.  Worst case two of them will still be there when it is my turn to pick again.  And as I view all of them as equal I don't care which one of the 8 I wind up with.

OTOH, lets say it is the situation where there is one guy left in my current top group and I have the 85th pick and we are currently on  80th pick.  Also assume a decent fall off between my current group and my next group and nobody in my next group is worthy of a 85th pick.   Now I am going to try to trade up.  

[Pappy13]

I would do the grouping as well.  But each player would be rated not on their own skill in a vacuum, but how they compare to the players I already have.

I think this is where we disagree.  My problem with doing that is that you could end up taking a player that is less valuable to the team in the long run simply because you have a bigger need for that player.  I don't think that's smart in the long run.  You never know when someone will be injured and have to be replaced.  You never know when a free agent will come available that would fill the need.  You never know when a player will simply outperform your expectations that will fill the need.  There's too many unknowns, so rather than try get the best starting 25, you try to get the best 53.  Once you have the best 53, a good coach will figure out the best way to utilize those 53.

My system doesn't necessarily give you the best 25, but it should give you the best 53.  That's what I'm shooting for.