Jump to content

Positional importance and team building/drafting philosophy discussion


Recommended Posts

I get the BPA theory. We also know that certain positions are way more important than others. But imo it's inherently flawed.

So where is the line for people with respect to BPA vs positional importance vs need?  Most would agree go BPA over need, but what about weighting the positions and adjusting scores for it? Think of it like assets. You don't stockpile beanie babies and create wealth.

So here's my ideology for it. As best I can explain it. I tend to look at it as what you would focus on while building a team from scratch and had to do it over 3 years.  For me I place the emphasis on what I call NFL critical positions. I am excluding QB, because that's quite obviously the most critical piece in the game and trumps everything else. Without one, nothing else matters anymore with how the game has devolved.  We can also debate when to add the QB which is another dead horse. So beyond that which has been beaten to death, for me the critical positions are pretty much all passing related across the board: And that is the area to focus on phase 1 of a build. I look at this as your skeleton for your team.

Offense - LT, WR1-2, TE, RT
Defense - SEdge, WEdge, CB 1-3

These positions carry a huge premium around the league and are always in demand and are the guys pushing the ball downfield for the win or stopping the other team if they have the ball last. So when you are looking at a player who ranks within 5-10 spots, you essentially should see it as a tie. Meaning an early 2nd round pass rusher is on par with a late 1st round guard. That guard may make the HOF one day. But he's not going to impact the game and translate that impact to wins as often as a guy knocking down opposing QBs. So OF COURSE position, need always come into play even for the most strict BPA disciple. 

I'd look at the next tier of importance as pass heavy defenders. FS, SS, 4-3 WOLB, 3-4 coverage LB, Interior DL pass rushers (3-4 DEs and 4-3 3tech DTs)

These are the guys who round out your team and make you a complete team and can create competetive balance against opponents players they are counting on to create mismatches. IMO here is where champions are built or destroyed. But that is assuming the foundation or skeleton is in tact.

Finally you can then focus on the readily accessible players like  G, C, NT, ILB, 4-3 MLB, RB, Slot WR which are found with relative ease in ANY draft. These are your redraft players that you cycle through and rarely bother signing to a 2nd contract. They are disposable and replaceable for the most part.

Now this is all in a vaccuum and doesn't take into account elite play so save the what about player X.  That's where you have to make some hard decisions about what to do when you have a superstar at one of those positions....Mangold, Keuchly, etc...

But I'm more curious as to how other people see the value of positions as it relates to drafting/building.

For me it's always positional relevance as a primary concern, then I'd consider BPA within a reasonable range. (Meaning if I have a LT who I ranked 20 overall and a RB I ranked 1 overall, I'll take the RB...) then finally I consider need.

What about you guys?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would like to see is the Jets take this draft and concentrate on fixing one part of the team . Since this is a  draft loaded with edge rushers and defensive backs, I think it probably would be best to use early round picks to cement the defensive side of the team .

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

Offense wins games yet once again I'm hearing about how the draft is stacked on defense and that we should draft defense.  Good grief! 

Yeah, I'd prefer to get a Mike Williams or Corey Davis or OJ Howard in rd 1 to help the offense too.  Maybe even nab a guy like Antonio Garcia in rd 2.  But he is right, the strength of this draft is heavily on the defensive side. Edge, CB would be ideal.  And if we can get multiples that's a very good thing as we are weak in those critical areas on defense. The LT class is weak and Garcia may not even last. I'd love K.King or Basham in rd 3 (or both) but it's looking like they are now trending higher. At FS we can probably wait on guys like Bama's Eddie Jackson or BC's Johnson.

Strength of the offense is RB and TE. If the board falls the right way, I'd take TE over RB.  (RB can be addressed next draft, or the following...we can get by with there w JAGs for now.)  Though if we get a shot at Elfien to replace Mangold in 3 (maybe w. Dallas 3rd for Sheldon?)....that would be tempting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

Offense wins games yet once again I'm hearing about how the draft is stacked on defense and that we should draft defense.  Good grief! 

Let me correct this...

Offense wins games.

DEFENSE wins Championships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before I'll say it again. 

This team has a disconnect between the Gm and the coach who are on equal footing i the the org. 

Our head coach who is also in charge of the defense much like the buy before him is more interested in his 'system' rather than the players he is being provided.

The result is the Gm has drafted guys like Lee fora  specific roll and has drafted two other 3-4 olbs in mauldin and jenkins.  We also have 3 dlineman that we are trying to wedge into two spots if we play a 3-4.  These hybird systems stink in my mind and you just have to look at a team like the Seahawks who have a solid base system and draft guys into that one system.

We don't know whether to draft 3-4 or 4-3 players on defense, last year we constantly had guys playing in bad spots last year.

As far as offense goes, the team almost made the playoffs with a mediocre guy in ftiz two years ago becasue we had superior receiving weapons.

In the end there is no grand formula other than to draft good players over a number of years.  The jets imo are 1-4 in the 1st two rounds under mac.  It's nice to get guys mid and late who are helping out but if he does not 100% nail the 1st two picks this year he is on notice.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

This team has a disconnect between the Gm and the coach who are on equal footing i the the org.

This is the critical failure of the Jets. It starts with the hapless little nerd who owns the team and runs it despite having zero business acumen or organizational intelligence or experience building anything. Kid got handed a trust fund by his mommy.  And his mommy earned it by marrying into the J&J fortune.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RutgersJetFan said:

First I look at religion. Then I assess how the members of that religion within the fanbase would feel about drafting him. Then I take things from there.

Different discussion. Try to stay on track bud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

Offense wins games yet once again I'm hearing about how the draft is stacked on defense and that we should draft defense.  Good grief! 

Well, I think this draft is stacked at a lot of offensive positions as well. In any case, it may be wiser to take a position there is less depth in early on and get good value at lets say the secondary later on. If you can still find a starting CB in round 3 then why not wait till round 3 to pick one? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LIJetsFan said:

Offense wins games yet once again I'm hearing about how the draft is stacked on defense and that we should draft defense.  Good grief! 

You can get by with a defense of some talent and spackle and bubblegum filling it out.It's way easier to coach up defense. And even the best defenses are gonna fail several times every game because that is the rules in 2017. But you aren't winning anything without a good QB,a  decent passing attack and a strong OL and skill guys. Yet this franchise pretends it has  some great secret defense-first plan to win every game 13-10. Woody Johnson gets in a room with Herman Edwards or Rex Ryan or Todd Bowles and eats up that tough guy  defense BS like it's buttered and sugared. I don't get it. It's been failure after failure and they keep doing the same things. 

I dunno how you see a talented winner like Watson there at 6 how you pass on him over...a safety? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lil Woody said:

Different discussion. Try to stay on track bud.

It will take about 3 months for all shts & giggles from the usual suspects about the Jewish QB thread to thin out.  Welcome to JN.  You are now famous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dcat said:

It will take about 3 months for all shts & giggles from the usual suspects about the Jewish QB thread to thin out.  Welcome to JN.  You are now famous.

LOL. I really don't mind, just some guys breaking my balls. Hopefully they can take it just as well as they give it. I don't hold grudges. Not even for the guy who was having a heavy flow day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Welcome to the internet old man. You don't get to live some dumb sh*t like that down.

Are you going to follow me around in every thread? Cause if so I'm gonna need to carry a mop so people don't slip on all your tears.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lil Woody said:

I get the BPA theory. We also know that certain positions are way more important than others. But imo it's inherently flawed.

So where is the line for people with respect to BPA vs positional importance vs need?  Most would agree go BPA over need, but what about weighting the positions and adjusting scores for it? Think of it like assets. You don't stockpile beanie babies and create wealth.

So here's my ideology for it. As best I can explain it. I tend to look at it as what you would focus on while building a team from scratch and had to do it over 3 years.  For me I place the emphasis on what I call NFL critical positions. I am excluding QB, because that's quite obviously the most critical piece in the game and trumps everything else. Without one, nothing else matters anymore with how the game has devolved.  We can also debate when to add the QB which is another dead horse. So beyond that which has been beaten to death, for me the critical positions are pretty much all passing related across the board: And that is the area to focus on phase 1 of a build. I look at this as your skeleton for your team.

Offense - LT, WR1-2, TE, RT
Defense - SEdge, WEdge, CB 1-3

These positions carry a huge premium around the league and are always in demand and are the guys pushing the ball downfield for the win or stopping the other team if they have the ball last. So when you are looking at a player who ranks within 5-10 spots, you essentially should see it as a tie. Meaning an early 2nd round pass rusher is on par with a late 1st round guard. That guard may make the HOF one day. But he's not going to impact the game and translate that impact to wins as often as a guy knocking down opposing QBs. So OF COURSE position, need always come into play even for the most strict BPA disciple. 

I'd look at the next tier of importance as pass heavy defenders. FS, SS, 4-3 WOLB, 3-4 coverage LB, Interior DL pass rushers (3-4 DEs and 4-3 3tech DTs)

These are the guys who round out your team and make you a complete team and can create competetive balance against opponents players they are counting on to create mismatches. IMO here is where champions are built or destroyed. But that is assuming the foundation or skeleton is in tact.

Finally you can then focus on the readily accessible players like  G, C, NT, ILB, 4-3 MLB, RB, Slot WR which are found with relative ease in ANY draft. These are your redraft players that you cycle through and rarely bother signing to a 2nd contract. They are disposable and replaceable for the most part.

Now this is all in a vaccuum and doesn't take into account elite play so save the what about player X.  That's where you have to make some hard decisions about what to do when you have a superstar at one of those positions....Mangold, Keuchly, etc...

But I'm more curious as to how other people see the value of positions as it relates to drafting/building.

For me it's always positional relevance as a primary concern, then I'd consider BPA within a reasonable range. (Meaning if I have a LT who I ranked 20 overall and a RB I ranked 1 overall, I'll take the RB...) then finally I consider need.

What about you guys?

Totally agree.  Prior to FA you could draft pure BPA because you had 12 rounds in a draft and you could keep guys forever.  But FA changed all that.  You need to continually backfill and replace players who leave after 4 years.  I totally agree with your positional analysis.  I hated taking Pryor because he played a position that to be frank is being phased out.  I didnt hate Lee (even though I think 3-4 ILB is not a first round position) because he seemed versatile enough to cover and blitz also.

My new theory on drafting is "consider need but never reach for need" and try to use premium picks on the impact positions you mentioned.  In other words I would never have drafted Pryor because a) despite the "need", he doesnt play a premium position (guy couldn't cover me and is not a playmaker) and b. if there was another player at a premium position of need that graded out close enough to him to justify taking him (ie- in that draft...Brandon Cooks).

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Neither offense or defense wins, it changes every year or two.

What wins is this, a good Qb most of the time, be really  good in some areas and have no weak spots.

 

I agree with this premise, and the relation back to the original topic which is about how we as individuals view the process of building a team.

A decent opposing coach will work out what your weak spots are and develop a plan to exploit them. He will also work out what your strengths are and plan how to limit them. (A very good opposing coach will also be planning based on his own strengths and weaknesses, but that's not overly relevant to the discussion here).

To create a team that has no weak spots (or at least, as few as possible) you need decent players at most / all of your positions. The best way to maximise this, in my opinion, is to approach the draft from a value perspective. You only have a limited number of picks, how do you get the best value from these. That might mean sacrificing a higher pick (chance to create a strength) in order to pick up two lower picks (chance to reduce two weaknesses). So if a draft is deep in areas that you have weaknesses, it would be wiser to use the lower picks to fill out these weak areas. A good example here would be us picking a CB in the 2nd / 3rd and another in the 4th / 5th, rather than in the 1st round. CB is a weakness, even with our recent acquisitions, and we need to solidify and build at multiple spots rather than create a strength at one spot and make do at the other. The depth of the draft should mean that you maximise your value here ... this year's 2nd round CB could be as good as a 1st rounder in another year, and a 4th or 5th could be the same as a 2nd or 3rd in another year. In the same way, you have to not overdraft based on need - I know it's not a view everyone shares, but IMHO we should not draft a QB at #6 unless we KNOW that he has a better than average chance of being "the guy". And by that I mean a better than average chance of being the next Matt Ryan or similar level of player. If you are truly building a team over a number of years, patience is indeed a virtue.

The hope is that - if you do your homework and your coaches are good enough (two big assumptions) at least a few of these "decent" guys - who are there to "not be weaknesses" - actually turn out to be "pretty good" and start to become "strengths". So long as you're getting more of these guys than you get JAGs, you're on the right path.

After a while you start to look at what strengths you have found / developed, what weaknesses remain, and hopefully by now you have a reasonably good team. When you reach the point where your weaknesses are manageable (e.g. via lower picks and FA) you can then devote more resources to finding real strengths at areas you want to improve on. This is where positional value really comes to the fore, and you can draft more for impact rather than BPA. E.g. the BPA may be a WR, but your WRs are doing enough and the difference between what you have and what you can get becomes less. Then you might want to take the guy who will upgrade a secondary position by a greater margin - e.g. a really good safety, or TE.

Where this year's draft is vexing is that the strength at the top - the highly rated guys that we have a chance at drafting - are mostly at those secondary positions. There's no home-run QB, no real edge rush prospect (that we'll get a shot at) to make our pick a "no brainer". The obvious preference based on the above is trade down, but that only works if someone is willing to trade up for fair value. If you assume you can't ... what do you do? Take the best player that matches a premium position of need, who comes with some red flags (e.g. QB, CB in this draft) or go for a more "sure thing" prospect at a secondary position, a guy with fewer red flags? I don't have the answer to that, but my own preference would be to go the latter route and create one strength with reasonable certainty of hitting on that pick. In this draft that would translate to picking one of the top safeties, or the top TE, or a guy who you believe will be a stud at his position (maybe even RB). My personal preference right now is OJ Howard - yes, most will say it's drafting him too high, but I'd rather get a possible stud a few picks too high than roll the dice on a more premium position with some concerns (e.g. Lattimore). Give me a 2nd round CB who'll be decent rather than a guy with upside but plenty risk too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jets1214 said:

Totally agree.  Prior to FA you could draft pure BPA because you had 12 rounds in a draft and you could keep guys forever.  But FA changed all that.  You need to continually backfill and replace players who leave after 4 years.  I totally agree with your positional analysis.  I hated taking Pryor because he played a position that to be frank is being phased out.  I didnt hate Lee (even though I think 3-4 ILB is not a first round position) because he seemed versatile enough to cover and blitz also.

My new theory on drafting is "consider need but never reach for need" and try to use premium picks on the impact positions you mentioned.  In other words I would never have drafted Pryor because a) despite the "need", he doesnt play a premium position (guy couldn't cover me and is not a playmaker) and b. if there was another player at a premium position of need that graded out close enough to him to justify taking him (ie- in that draft...Brandon Cooks).

I almost broke my tv that draft.  Pryor instead of Cooks/Benjamin/Matthews. Amaro instead of Adams/Landry. McDougle instead of Montcrief.  We had 12 picks in that draft and we couldn't use more than a couple of late round picks on WR and the first guy was Jalin Saunders? Don't get me wrong I love Enunwa but nobody expected him to ever be anything if we are being honest with ourselves. What a sh*tshow draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lil Woody said:

I almost broke my tv that draft.  Pryor instead of Cooks/Benjamin/Matthews. Amaro instead of Adams/Landry. McDougle instead of Montcrief.  We had 12 picks in that draft and we couldn't use more than a couple of late round picks on WR and the first guy was Jalin Saunders? Don't get me wrong I love Enunwa but nobody expected him to ever be anything if we are being honest with ourselves. What a sh*tshow draft.

LOL...you and I are clearly on the same page on that draft.  I hated pryor.  I recall Idzik saying he could be a "centerfield type".  Yeah...right.  And I still cant believe we passed on Moncrief in rd 3 for a CB no one had ever heard of.  It was the best WR class in 20 years and we had a dire need at WR...and he waits until rd 4 to take two and its a 165 pound midget and an oft injured possession guy who ran a 4.6.  Idzik set us back 5 years with his horrid drafting which is why the rebuild really should have started in 2015.  He drafted something like 21 players over 2 drafts and 85% were off the team by their 2nd year.  Enunwa was the blind squirrel finding a nut.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BPA is 50% true and 50% horsesh*t... there comes a point when adding talent becomes redundant and doesn't translate to any measureable improvement. It's an obvious equation when you're looking at QBs and RBs.... a little less with TEs and WRs... and more complicated at other positions... but there's definitely a saturation point where BPA achieves nothing.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Lil Woody said:

I almost broke my tv that draft.  Pryor instead of Cooks/Benjamin/Matthews. Amaro instead of Adams/Landry. McDougle instead of Montcrief.  We had 12 picks in that draft and we couldn't use more than a couple of late round picks on WR and the first guy was Jalin Saunders? Don't get me wrong I love Enunwa but nobody expected him to ever be anything if we are being honest with ourselves. What a sh*tshow draft.

and then there's the problem with GMs just having no fcking clue. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lil Woody said:

I get the BPA theory. We also know that certain positions are way more important than others. But imo it's inherently flawed.

So where is the line for people with respect to BPA vs positional importance vs need?  Most would agree go BPA over need, but what about weighting the positions and adjusting scores for it? Think of it like assets. You don't stockpile beanie babies and create wealth.

So here's my ideology for it. As best I can explain it. I tend to look at it as what you would focus on while building a team from scratch and had to do it over 3 years.  For me I place the emphasis on what I call NFL critical positions. I am excluding QB, because that's quite obviously the most critical piece in the game and trumps everything else. Without one, nothing else matters anymore with how the game has devolved.  We can also debate when to add the QB which is another dead horse. So beyond that which has been beaten to death, for me the critical positions are pretty much all passing related across the board: And that is the area to focus on phase 1 of a build. I look at this as your skeleton for your team.

Offense - LT, WR1-2, TE, RT
Defense - SEdge, WEdge, CB 1-3

These positions carry a huge premium around the league and are always in demand and are the guys pushing the ball downfield for the win or stopping the other team if they have the ball last. So when you are looking at a player who ranks within 5-10 spots, you essentially should see it as a tie. Meaning an early 2nd round pass rusher is on par with a late 1st round guard. That guard may make the HOF one day. But he's not going to impact the game and translate that impact to wins as often as a guy knocking down opposing QBs. So OF COURSE position, need always come into play even for the most strict BPA disciple. 

I'd look at the next tier of importance as pass heavy defenders. FS, SS, 4-3 WOLB, 3-4 coverage LB, Interior DL pass rushers (3-4 DEs and 4-3 3tech DTs)

These are the guys who round out your team and make you a complete team and can create competetive balance against opponents players they are counting on to create mismatches. IMO here is where champions are built or destroyed. But that is assuming the foundation or skeleton is in tact.

Finally you can then focus on the readily accessible players like  G, C, NT, ILB, 4-3 MLB, RB, Slot WR which are found with relative ease in ANY draft. These are your redraft players that you cycle through and rarely bother signing to a 2nd contract. They are disposable and replaceable for the most part.

Now this is all in a vaccuum and doesn't take into account elite play so save the what about player X.  That's where you have to make some hard decisions about what to do when you have a superstar at one of those positions....Mangold, Keuchly, etc...

But I'm more curious as to how other people see the value of positions as it relates to drafting/building.

For me it's always positional relevance as a primary concern, then I'd consider BPA within a reasonable range. (Meaning if I have a LT who I ranked 20 overall and a RB I ranked 1 overall, I'll take the RB...) then finally I consider need.

What about you guys?

i know it seems like teams would draft for need but imo the simple fact is it's way more important to get football players first and then find out ways to use them.  there is just too much turnover each year that teams needs to lock into this or that position. and just look at some of the guys in the league.  most are going to be around 6-2 and 225 pounds.  some of the safeties being touted are bigger than darrin lee.  and a guy that big may not be able to go toe to toe with the 300 pounders on the dline and oline but he can win the battles with the other players.  but there is a limit and that depends on the paramters that each team uses to determine football worth.  qb's just aren't going to have the size or ability to go against an lb but that same lb isn't going to have throwing accuracy or distance.  and wide receivers get broken out from db's because, well, db's are wr's who can't catch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...