We gotta get Huff !

[HUbison]

The Redskins.

touche', sir.

[harrydog]

For a couple of reasons:

It's easy to look back on past drafts and see guys taken later who turned out to be studs. However, if someone could do that with future drafts, and guarantee that a player projected as a later pick would turn out to be a stud and be right about it, they'd be working for an NFL team and not posting on a message board.

The primary reason why teams don't just take whoever they want and actually do have to look at value is because of the additional compensation they could be missing out on.

Look at this example, which I recently used elsewhere in a discussion about why the Rams shouldn't take Bobby Carpenter at 11th overall. If you're at 11th overall and want a guy whom you don't think will go before 21st overall at the earliest, then you trade down to that spot or somewhere close to it and acquire an additional first day pick in the process.

Now providing your grade on this player is similar to those of other teams in the league, you'll likely still get the player you want (if you don't, there are other good players at that spot still), but you'll also get an additional prospect you wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Ideal situation!

It's one thing to take a guy at 11 who projects to go in the 15-17 range. It's another thing to take a guy at 11 who is a late first round maybe even second round prospect. Furthermore, it would be a mistake to reach for a player with a lower grade simply because he fills a need. If the Rams graded tight end as their biggest need, should they take Leonard Pope at 11? I don't think so.

Also, you struck on a very good point. The NFL is in many ways a crap shoot. Which is why you want to also consider not just need but the grades of the players you're looking at. A reach can be justified if that player turns out to be an All Pro. But people can lose their jobs if that reach turns out to be a bust. It's not a sure thing that a guy projected later will be worth the reach, which leads back to the initial point I brought up - it's easy to look back and see that later prospects have done well, but it's harder to prognosticate which ones will fit that bill.

I'm not saying we should just take whoever we want and not look at value. But the difference between a #11 rated talent and a #15-17 rated talent is not so huge that we should pass over someone who really fills our needs better than someone we have rated slightly higher. I can see having players grouped as first-third, second-third, and last-third talent (first round) and so on, but rating players is not such an exact science that we should stress over selecting a #16 rated player at the #11 spot if that's where our need lies. I think you need to have some flexibility and not be so rigidly married to the value concept that you can't "reach" a little bit.
And remember I did say that at #11 we're in an area where the true blue chippers will probably be gone but plenty of the next level of players will still be available if we trade down.
Oh, and I think a little too much emphasis is placed on combine numbers. Players who were highly productive in college like Greenway and Ryans moved down on the value charts - probably too much - based on measurables, while players like Davis moved up too much. Lot's of people will probably disagree with that, but I really think that's the case.
And no, I don't think they should take Pope at #11 even if TE was their biggest need because he's projected as a late 1st round talent. But you know what? It really wouldn't surprise me at all that a few years from now, Pope or Lewis turn out to be the stud TE and Davis is a mild disappointment. It's not all that unlikely.

[Nick]

But the difference between a #11 rated talent and a #15-17 rated talent is not so huge that we should pass over someone who really fills our needs better than someone we have rated slightly higher.

Right, and I agreed with this by saying, "It's one thing to take a guy at 11 who projects to go in the 15-17 range. It's another thing to take a guy at 11 who is a late first round maybe even second round prospect."

If we're reaching for a guy rated just a couple notches lower, I don't have a problem with that. It's when you start taking guys in the high first that project to be late first round guys where it gets fishy.

And I would also contend that when you grade out the first round of this draft and look at the guys who are rated in that 12-17 range, you would probably see that there isn't really a stand-out player that fills a need perfectly.

[RamsFan16]

We don't "gotta" get Huff. There is talent out there that can measure up to his potential.

[harrydog]

We don't "gotta" get Huff. There is talent out there that can measure up to his potential.

I'm not sure what that means.
Sure there are plenty of other potential 1st round picks that I'd be okay with, but Huff, Hawk and Mario are the three that I'd most love to see wear the horns, and Huff is the only one of those three that we could possibly get without giving up too much. Otherwise, I'd rather see us trade down.

[rampete]

...The primary reason why teams don't just take whoever they want and actually do have to look at value is because of the additional compensation they could be missing out on...

no offense, but this is an administrators point of view...

...Why pass up a player you really like at a position you need just because he is projected to go a little later in the round than your spot...

no offense, but this is a coaches point of view...