Or, to compare two physical freaks, if I was Sean Payton (without the suspension) and I was given the choice of adding either Calvin Johnson or Sean Taylor to this year's New Orleans team, I would pick Taylor in a heartbeat. You seem to be suggesting that if their talent could be quantified—if their Madden ratings, so to speak, were both 99, and they were both replacing players with ratings of 75—they would essentially represent the same amount of improvement, just on opposite sides of the ball. And you're correct in that they would represent the same amount of improvement at their respective positions. But the New Orleans offense as a whole already scores so frequently that there aren't nearly as many fruitless drives for Calvin Johnson to turn into points with his play than there would be on an average offense. On the flip side, Sean Taylor would have opportunities to prevent the New Orleans defense from giving up points-producing drives damn near every time he would be on the field, because they already give up so many.
Also, I think the "you have to take the superior talent regardless of where he plays" argument really only applies to top draft picks, because the talent starts to cluster together the more players who come off the board, as is the nature of the bell curve. So, the talent disparity is no longer as great once we get to later rounds of the draft, and certainly not great enough to warrant ignorance of our strength and weaknesses. We don't have a first round pick and we're probably making the playoffs, so we're not going to be making a pick until late in the second round. How can this argument possibly apply to the Redskins?
That might be obvious to you now that I have cleared the matter up for you, but it hasn't been to the many posters who have argued that "Our defense is weaker than our offense, therefore we should focus on defense in the draft." That statement wasn't obviously false because it has the ring of truth which only disappears when it is given a closer inspection.Quote:
It's basically a complicated way of saying, "The player that improves the team the most is the best player for the team," which is obviously true.
Well, what I read is that you had a hunch there might be a counter-argument.Quote:
My argument can't be considered at fault because it assumed you were making a point that has some application in reality.
You missed the point as stated in the OP because it didn't sound obviously true to you. Consequently, you were looking for a way to find the error.
---------- Post added December-22nd-2012 at 04:30 PM ----------
I should just back out and let you two argue this.;)
OF, let me check to see if I am can interpret your personal application of your premise correctly in the following example:
Our team is as it is (O doing notably better than d--vague and general, I know, but lets go with it) and we are grading talent (which can include all things you find important in a player) on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being top rated:
We have the chance for our first selection to be either a #8 level TE or a #5 level safety (and we've made no FA changes at either position). I'm thinking points of separation in talent rating is not a "small" difference in this scale nor is it huge. I'd call it notable/meaningful/serious/substantial etc.
In our current situation, you'd go TE.
Now...either way you answer that (and I have no presumptive or invested agenda--this is just interesting discourse to me), let me ask you if you see this as a complication to your premise:
If in FA you've potentially changed the level of the weaker squad but have yet to see it on the field, how does that work in your decision making?
Say in our above example, we have added two FAs who are 7-8 level talent on O, the 8 at RG and the 7 at KR, but have yet to see them play a game in B & G, does that sway your use of your premise in the example? Do you evaluate their likelihoods as helping the O (perhaps notably) and let that determine any influence, or do you leave that in "doesn't count in this decision" land, or what regarding the example given. It seems to me that it also matters how pick the talent difference is of course in our draft example, that's why I picked the difference of "3" that I did, to make it more complicated (if it does).
Hope that all made sense :ols:---have to go but will be back tonight.
Let's suppose that we had two grade A wide-receivers already on the roster. Adding a third wouldn't be a significant improvement. So, if such an opportunity came up in the draft. We would try to trade down instead. Or, we might draft the rookie and trade a veteran allowing us to get younger and better. The bottom line is that this grade A rookie WR is the BPA who has value we can trade or use one way or another.
Now, in the highly unlikely event that our offense is filled with grade A talent, we do the same thing when the opportunity arises because the BPA has value we can use one way or another.
[If we get a shot at another Calvin Johnson, our offense would improve so much that our defense would find it hard to lose games.]
---------- Post added December-22nd-2012 at 05:20 PM ----------
---------- Post added December-22nd-2012 at 05:52 PM ----------
2) You gave me a lousy choice for our first pick, but I have to take the TE unless there's a chance to trade down in the draft; there's too much difference in the grade ( eight v five ) to do otherwise; If I can trade down, I might be able to get the safety in a lower round. If Fred Davis comes back healthy, I'd scheme to use two TEs more often.
3)I look at both FA and the draft the same; I'd take the BPA in FA also; I'm not just looking for gap fillers; Garcon was a good pick.
Did I answer your questions?
OF, I found this link with a little bit of info. You may have already run across it, but I figured I'd post it in case you haven't.
I was very enthused about it, and posted such, and was very much thought off-base, no little part due to the "thinking" that Cooley was going to be God Forever (stand down Cooley heads---that's not a diss to him). :)
Majorities of the posters here are often far more NOT BPA, and are far more of the "upgrade that position that needs it most on the unit that needs it most with that pick" school, which is the fundamental trait OF is challenging, I believe.
Sorry Oldfan, Look at it this way. If every player gets an individual score based on how good they are (a higher number = better valued player) and their individual number contributes to the whole units score, than your argument would be false. If a better offense (like our current one here in DC) has a total score of 35 (to use the same arbitrary number I saw you use in one of your posts) and our defense has a number lets of 30, then yes adding a player with a quality of "5" to either side of the ball would be equal. (the following are guesses based on the redskins current starters, EX, RG3 is the qb)
So lets say that on offense, our starters look like this QB - 8, RB - 6, FB - 2, WR - 4, WR - 3, TE - 2, OT - 3, OT - 2, OG - 2, OG -2, C - 2. (total 35)
And the defense: OLB - 5, OLB - 4, ILB - 7, ILB - 4, DT - 3, DE - 2, DE - 1, CB - 1, CB - 1, FS - 1, SS - 1. (total 30)
So yes, then adding a 5 point increase wouldn't matter which side of the ball it goes on. But lets say you have the same high draft pick choice and the BEST AVAILABLE player that you can select who is left on the board is a "6" to go at any position. You stick him at QB, does that help? No. he wouldnt play right now. If you stick him at OG, then yes you will get a 4 point increase. If you stick him at CB, then you will get a 5 point increase. Which seems better? of course adding the talent to the defense where you are weaker!
Now your argument for BPA, lets say that the best player available is at QB or RB or OLB where the increase would be 0 or maybe even 1. Then the obvious thing to do would be trade down, but in the NFL a trade isnt always possible to get the value you want in return so why would you draft (EX Matt Barkley, with a score of 6, +0 to the offense) in the second round because he was the BPA instead of maybe a CB with a score of 3 that would atleast play and give you some improvements (+2 to the defense)
The NFL is too non-linear to say it doesnt matter where it goes, and that you can trade at any given time for value, or any other argument. BPA available works at positions you dont already have a superstar at. And BPA is a difficult concept because VERY VERY RARELY will the BPA have a rating substantially higher than the second BPA, when the second BPA fills and need and the first doesnt. If you have a QB of 5 and a WR of 1, and the BPA are QB - 6 and WR - 5, who are you going to take? It is never a sure thing that you will be able to trade down to get that 1 point value loss that you think you would be losing. You have to take both concepts (BPA and draft by need) into consideration, as well as the individuals. AND also that some positions (QB!) are more valuable than others (TE) in the NFL today.
As well as taking the BPA option via the draft, the FO needs to be smart enough to evaluate its existing assets at the same position and be smarter in 'moving on when the times right'.
You take BPA, then move on an asset at the same position before his worth to anyone else has gone. You basically upgrade at the positoin and get something else back ( player / draft pick) to utilise elsewhere. Unless of course you can gain full value buy keeping both on the roster for a prolonged period of time.
Davis had something like 3 receptions as a rookie and I'd argue he wasn't fully utilised through a fair period of his early career here.
I'd suggest that following the BPA approach and making it work to its full value entails more than just picking the BPA in the draft....as explained above.