Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

1st round CB


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#46 Woodie

Woodie

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,137 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 02:23 PM

You see, this is where I disagree with you.

 

In the situation that you describe, IMO you *still* choose Andrew Luck.  Why?  Because he was FAR AND AWAY the best and most valuable player in that draft.  And you do not pass on him just because you don't "need" him.

 

And why do you not pass on him?  Because as soon as you select him, teams are beating down your door asking you what it would take to get him.  Or (in this same case) Cam.

 

IOW, selecting a guy like Luck in the hypothetical you describe adds value to your team because of what you will MOST ASSUREDLY get in return for one or the other of Luck or Cam.

 

I don't care if you have a 26 year old Tom Brady or Peyton Manning on your team, if a player like Luck is sitting their when you are drafting, you take him.

 

But in your scenario, he isn't the BPA.  Yes, he is a valuable commodity, but not the best player that is available for the Panthers.  And I don't believe you take him with Cam already on the roster...it's a wasted pick for a player that you don't envision getting on the field for you.  You don't pick him to trade unless you already have a deal in place, otherwise you could get stuck with a talented guy that won't see the field for you, after passing on someone that could be an impact player for your team, or if you do find a partner, very possibly not getting as much value in return as you gave up.  

 

As far as his value, it's how much value other teams place on him as a player.  If they see him as a starter, then he is BPA for them and you can make a trade before the pick.  The idea is to find opportunities to improve your team.  But talking strictly about BPA, a player can only be that if he improves your team on the field.  No matter how talented he is, if he's sitting on your bench, he's not helping your team like someone who will see the field.  Now as the draft goes on, those players do start to fill needs...as backups and potential future fill-ins.   
 



#47 iamhubby1

iamhubby1

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,543 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 30 March 2014 - 02:44 PM

I don't think our system calls for 1st round CBs.


And it appears that we feel the same way about 1st round WR as well.

#48 Jackofalltrades

Jackofalltrades

    OWN the Line of Scrimmage

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,735 posts
  • LocationNC

Posted 30 March 2014 - 02:44 PM

I want one of the top 3 TEs


Same here.

#49 tiger7_88

tiger7_88

    old skool SWAG

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,885 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 03:03 PM

But in your scenario, he isn't the BPA.  

 

 

 

Oh, but he is/was.

 

Andrew Luck was THE BEST PLAYER in the draft, no matter what position, no matter what team, no matter what "need".

 

You don't "pass" on that kind of talent just because you don't NEED him.



#50 Woodie

Woodie

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,137 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 04:09 PM

Oh, but he is/was.

 

Andrew Luck was THE BEST PLAYER in the draft, no matter what position, no matter what team, no matter what "need".

 

You don't "pass" on that kind of talent just because you don't NEED him.

 

But that's the point, he was for most other teams, but he wouldn't have been for the Panthers, unless you advocate benching/trading Cam in favor of Luck, which I don't think the Panthers would have done.  How can he be the best player available to them if he wouldn't even play?  I think people mislabel most talented as BPA, they are not one and the same, even though that's how many fans tend to think of it. 

 

The idea behind BPA is to take the best player that is available for your team, It doesn't matter how talented a guy is.  There are many factors that come into play for identifying BPA (see MHS's post for some examples), whereas most talented only includes individual physical and mental traits.  It doesn't take into consideration fit, scheme, what they want the player to do, etc.  No successful team will ever draft a player in the first couple of rounds simply off of being the most talented, they include many of those other factors when making up their big board.  That doesn't mean that they will not take the most talented player, just not unless they see a logical role for them...such as Kalil and Luke.  If a player is not expected to ever see the field for your team (which is the case if we had hypothetically taken Luck), then his value is lowered, knocking him down your big board...meaning he wouldn't have been BPA.  

 

I also want to make sure that I am clear on the point of most talented.  If a team has a pick, and there is a player that is far and away the most talented, or plays a high demand position like QB, but doesn't fit any current or projected needs, then he offers value as a commodity.  So while the Panthers would not have viewed Luck as the BPA for them, they would have known he was for many other teams, so the pick would have had real value as trade bait.  So, we would have sold high to maximize the value of the pick.  But the value would have been in the other picks we would have received, not Luck himself. 



#51 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,948 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 04:23 PM

Hasn't Rivera even spoken about CBs coming out of college lacking the tools initially fit his D

CBs are plug n play in our D

#52 tiger7_88

tiger7_88

    old skool SWAG

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,885 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 05:27 PM

But that's the point, he was for most other teams, but he wouldn't have been for the Panthers, unless you advocate benching/trading Cam in favor of Luck, which I don't think the Panthers would have done. 

 

 

OK, since I haven't made myself clear the first two times, let me say it again:

 

If you have Cam Newton or if you have a 26 year old Tom Brady or if you have a 26 year old Peyton Manning or any of the QB greats at their prime *AND* if you have the 1st pick in the draft and Andrew Luck is available...

 

You STILL pick Andrew Luck.

 

Every.

 

Damn.

 

Time.

 

You do not pass up drafting one of the BEST young QB prospects in the history of the draft because "you already have a QB".

 

If "you already have a QB" then someone will make you one HELLUVA deal for Luck.

 

OR they will make you a helluva deal for your current Cam/Tom/Peyton/etc. starting QB.

 

Either way, you get MORE value drafting Luck and making the deal to trade either him or one of your QBs than you do if you *don't* draft Luck and (instead) draft a Matt Kalil or a Justin Blackmon or a Morris Claiborne or a Mark Barron in that draft.

 

Draft Kalil/Blackmon/Claiborne/Barron?  Fine... you've just successfully drafted a good player for ONE position.

 

Draft Luck (even if you don't need him)?  *Somebody* is gonna give you enough for him (either more draft picks, existing players or BOTH) to help you at multiple positions.

 

I am far from an Andrew Luck fan.  But I know what he was considered around the league entering his draft... a "once in a lifetime prospect".

 

You don't pass on "once in a lifetime prospects" because, gosh, he's not an offensive tackle or a wide receiver and we really, really need offensive tackles and wide receivers.  You just don't.



#53 Woodie

Woodie

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,137 posts

Posted 30 March 2014 - 09:00 PM

OK, since I haven't made myself clear the first two times, let me say it again:

 

If you have Cam Newton or if you have a 26 year old Tom Brady or if you have a 26 year old Peyton Manning or any of the QB greats at their prime *AND* if you have the 1st pick in the draft and Andrew Luck is available...

 

You STILL pick Andrew Luck.

 

Every.

 

Damn.

 

Time.

 

You do not pass up drafting one of the BEST young QB prospects in the history of the draft because "you already have a QB".

 

If "you already have a QB" then someone will make you one HELLUVA deal for Luck.

 

OR they will make you a helluva deal for your current Cam/Tom/Peyton/etc. starting QB.

 

Either way, you get MORE value drafting Luck and making the deal to trade either him or one of your QBs than you do if you *don't* draft Luck and (instead) draft a Matt Kalil or a Justin Blackmon or a Morris Claiborne or a Mark Barron in that draft.

 

Draft Kalil/Blackmon/Claiborne/Barron?  Fine... you've just successfully drafted a good player for ONE position.

 

Draft Luck (even if you don't need him)?  *Somebody* is gonna give you enough for him (either more draft picks, existing players or BOTH) to help you at multiple positions.

 

I am far from an Andrew Luck fan.  But I know what he was considered around the league entering his draft... a "once in a lifetime prospect".

 

You don't pass on "once in a lifetime prospects" because, gosh, he's not an offensive tackle or a wide receiver and we really, really need offensive tackles and wide receivers.  You just don't.

 

You've made yourself perfectly clear, you're just wrong...at least in relation to my actual point (which never had anything to do with the option of trading Luck, or any trade for that matter.  It is totally irrelevant to what I'm saying).  My point is that when deciding on who to pick (it can be any pick, Luck was just an extreme example because we already have someone who would keep him on the bench), people tend to throw around the term BPA, but in reality BPA doesn't exist as a black and white choice or idea.  If a team is going to pick a player to keep, there are many, many factors that go into the decision beyond who has the most talent. 

 

No doubt that sometimes there are clear most talented options, but that's not the same thing as BPA.  If a team recognizes the talent of a player, but for whatever reason don't want to take him (duplicates what they already have, bad fit, character issues, etc.), they can cash in on his value by making a trade...but that's not what we're talking about...or at least I'm not. 

 

Well, we can go back and forth on this all day (and I think we have), but sleep and work beckons, so I guess we'll jut have to agree to disagree on this issue (although I think we might have been arguing slightly different points).

 

       
 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com