DKSweets wrote:Let's put it this way: would you prefer to add Ndamukong Suh to this team or Bobby Wagner? Suh is the better player, but it's not a huge margin. Wagner would be a bigger upgrade to the entire unit, though.
If we ignore character issues for the moment, I'd take Suh because I think finding a dominant interior lineman for a 4-3 defense is extremely difficult and ultimately more important.
I'm not saying that they should completely rule out those positions either if an absolute steal falls to them. However, if there is a player of roughly equal caliber who would play one of the many positions I did not mention, why not kill two birds with one stone?
I tried to cover that in my previous post. My comment was specific to DTs but the idea is the same: it just depends on how much talent difference there is between the two players. If they're basically of equal caliber then it may make sense to select the player who fills a position of greater need, unless the other plays a more important position overall. Another factor could be who else is available at that position in the draft. If Players A and B are of equal caliber but the draft is thin at A's position and deep at B's position, maybe it makes more sense to take A, even if B fills a bigger hole on the current roster. Again, I think flexibility is important.
I didn't say starters - I said players who would see the field. If we drafted a CB this year, they likely wouldn't be a starter. If we drafted a WR this year, they would likely not see a majority of snaps. Where I see the problem is having one position 4 players deep and then having other positions trot out journeyman players who have no right to start. Linval Joseph might not be an elite DT (I'm sticking with the DT discussion for simplicity) but I would prefer having him in the lineup (and Stephen for depth) much more than seeing Jasper Brinkley be our starter. We're still building depth, it's just not at one position. Depth is great, and I think we both value that; I just prefer it to be spread among as many positions as possible assuming we don't have a clear cut better player on the board.
Those clear cut better players are mainly what I'm talking about. For example, a team should never pass up Adrian Peterson just because they already have Chester Taylor and Mewelde Moore. In the long run, that upgrade does them more good than going for a lesser player that fills a greater immediate need. When it comes to the draft, I think talent trumps need (within reason, of course) and it's best to take the long view.
And I'll be honest with you, I might not be understanding that final point that you made. It didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, so it's possible that if you explained it again/more/differently I will understand your view better. As it stands, I'm not sure how a player can make our team better without seeing the field.
My point was that ""who will improve our team more?" is the more pertinent question. Adding an impact player who upgrades a position that's already solid can ultimately make the team better than adding a solid starter at a position where the team is currently using a journeyman. Another example: if a team relies heavily on certain positions due to scheme or just the general importance of that position, depth at those spots becomes extra important because the loss of a key starter and a precipitous drop in quality can be devastating. QB is the most obvious example. A really good backup QB might rarely see the field but if a championship-caliber team loses their starting QB, that quality backup can help them remain in contention. There are several examples of teams that needed to ask their backup QB to help them win the Super Bowl... and won. better to be one of them than last year's cardinals, who saw their chances go down the drain with Carson Palmer's injury.
A third example: a starting guard might see the field more than the third corner on the depth chart but if the team runs a defense that relies on a lot of man-to-man coverage, depth at corner may actually be more important to their overall success than that starting guard, even though he'll play more downs.
Of course, neither of our opinions are going to matter at the end of the day, but as usual, I'm enjoying discussing his with you.
Thanks. Same here... I just wish it was easier to express myself on this. I never seem able to communicate my thoughts on the draft well.