So, you are drafting 15th in the NFL draft. You really need a 300+ pound lineman and there’s a good one that you have got your eye on: he can start right away and fulfill your teams biggest need and you are 90% positive he will still be available by the time the 15th pick rolls around.
But a strange thing happens - for no apparent reason (well, the guy was in a publicized DUI as a sophomore, but seems to have rehabilitated himself) the NCAA’s most dominant receiver since… whenever, a guaranteed top-3 pick, a true athletic specimen… this guy starts sliding down the board.
The 15th pick comes up. Your #1 pick, as well as a guy with a “can’t miss” rating, the “best athlete available” is still there for the picking. You know teams below you are salivating to get this guy - shit, you’re regretting giving your private number to Belichick already. But you don’t need a receiver - you have a pretty solid receiving corps that like each other and you don’t want to mess up their camaraderie.
But…
As an athlete, this guy is heads and tails above the guy you were going to pick, the guy you need.
You will be getting a top-3 pick for a #15 pick. There’s a fair amount of value in that - financially, it may make more sense to take the best athlete.
But…
You don’t need this guy. You need the other guy. You need a linebacker, not another receiver.
So what do you do? Do you draft for need, or do you take the best available player?
Belichick is only on the phone to remind you of mystery option C - trade down for more assets. Within the parameters of your scenario, I’d definitely have to consider a trade of some sort - though what that trade might be would obviously be dependent on the other moving parts in the draft(s) that might be involved in such a trade…
Best available player, with the need being a tie-breaker for similarly graded players. In your scenario, we have a clearly higher rated player, so I’d draft him. The Packers drafted a QB in the first round when they had Favre with multiple years still left in him and no need, and it worked out pretty well for them.
First, if the guy who fell to you is legitimately the 3rd best player in the draft then his CAV (Career Approximate Value) is over twice that of your typical 15th pick. Based on that this is a no brainer to pick the athlete.
Second, there are lots of starting LTs in the NFL who were middle/late round picks or even undrafted free agents. At other OL positions it’s even more of a mixed bag. I wouldn’t waste my first round pick on one unless he was clearly the best player left in the draft.
If I were a GM in general I’d go with the strategy that for the first 3 rounds you pick the best player available and don’t worry about positions until round 4.
BTW you conflated lineman and linebacker in your OP. I assumed you meant lineman.
If this guy’s so good, and nobody wants him, I’d assume there was something about him that I was missing. These guys in the draft are the most picked over, well studied animals on the planet. It’s not like one or two people passed on him. In this scenario, 14 other teams have all said, “No thanks.” Unless I could identify a reason for his declining stock, I’d probably stick with my game plan. In fact I’d probably consider trading my spot to someone else if I could still get the guy I initially wanted plus a little something extra.
So on one end of the spectrum, I’m thinking of guys like Randy Moss and Dez Bryant - highly touted prospects offering elite-level talent, but coming into the draft with severe baggage. They fell pretty far in the draft (21st and 24th picks, respectively), and went on to absolutely prove their detractors wrong (Bryant is still a bit of a headcase, but his skills are unquestioned).
I suspect that might be a bit of confirmation bias - does anyone have examples on the other end? Top level talent that fell in the draft due to off-field baggage, and never did make it in the pros because of that baggage?
I hate BPA because if you don’t need him you’re wasting a pick, pure and simple. Especially in this scenario because you’re comparing two “dime-a-dozen” positions for the good players. You can grab a good handsy receiver in the later rounds easily, and you can grab a good no holds barred lineman (pun intended) in later rounds as well.
The thing that comes down to it for me too is that if they’re both elite “can’t miss” prospects, I value linemen higher than receivers (ESPECIALLY if he’s an O-lineman).
So I would keep my lineman and use him to protect my qb so that we score enough for this receiver to be irrelevant, or I’ll use him to get to said receivers QB and render him helpless
Possibly. But Marino dropped for inexplicable reasons (wasn’t there a rumor of a cocaine habit? I mean, it was 1983 and all so those rumors flew around about a lot of people, so I could be wrong) so it’s not as if a quality guy can’t just drop for no apparent reason.
Always take the best available player. Talent always trumps need. You’re gaining a potential superstar for 4-5 years on the cheap, vs overpaying in free agency for someone else’s unwanted player.
Your guard position is a swinging door and you’ve got a good receiving corp already, but you’re on the clock and Calvin Johnson is just sitting there? That’s a no brainer, even for Matt Millen. Cut or trade your high-priced veteran receiver if you have to, but elite players are worth it.
The gap between below average and not-quite-elite NFL players is quite slim, and truly elite, superstar players are rare commodities so when you get a chance to land one, you take it, whether he plays a position you need or not.
This is a no brainer, you take the reciever or make a trade.
A tougher question is a situation like the Rams will be in in 2 weeks. You need an O-lineman and a No.1 reciever and at #2 both an elite reciever and two elite OT’s are available. Which way do you go when the are both elite and needs?
Drafting for “need” is insane for the simple reason that sports are so unpredictable that you cannot know for sure what your needs are. What, you say you don’t need a receiver? You could be one knee injury away from being horribly short of receivers.
A team’s turnover in strengths and weaknesses can be as short as one year, maybe two, and is rarely longer than that. Drafting for need is effectively saying that you are drafting for next season, rather than looking at the team’s long term viability. Making decisions based on next season isn’t a great way to build your foundation of talent. If you NEED a lineman, there’s usually someone competent on the free agent market, or available via trade, who will be more proven and reliable than a college player.
Now, the OP posits a scenario where there is maybe some questions on top of the talent/need equation, so I’m writing this based on the assumption that it is a clear and unambiguous choice between talent and need.
Who was it who said “I’d rather have him on my bench than on the opposing line”? Who you pick won’t just affect how good your team is-- It’ll also affect how good your opponents’ teams are. And if you don’t take that receiver, then someone else will, and use him against you.
Look, back in the late Seventies and early Eighties, my New York Giants had what was widely (but not unanimously- New Orleans Saints fans needn’t argue with me!) regarded as the best linebacking corps in the NFL. Their defense in general was very good. Their OFFENSE was pathetic. So, in 1981, when the Giants had the #2 overall pick, most of us were hoping they’d get a great running back like George Rogers or Freeman McNeil… or maybe a stud offensive lineman like Keith van Horne or Mark May.
Hence, New York fans booed loudly when the commissioner announced that the Giants had picked… another freaking linebacker! For crying out loud, what was wrong with those idiots? The LAST thing we needed was another linebacker.
Guy’s name was Lawrence Taylor. Shows what we fans know.
Point being, the Giants NEEDED a running back, a receiver and/or some offensive linemen. They didn’t really “need” another linebacker. But IF there’s an absolutely phenomenal, once-in-a-lifetime talent available at a position where you’re already strong, well you HAVE to take that guy.
George Rogers turned out to be a very good pro running back. He’d have been a logical and solid pick for the Giants. But there have been MANY NFL running backs as good as Rogers. There haven’t been many linebackers as good as LT.
So, the big question is, HOW good is the best available athlete? Is he a game-changer, a once in a lifetime talent? If so, take him. If not, draft for need.
It’s a combination of need and BPA. At any given time, a team should have their top ranked players at each position. When the pick comes you look at each top player and select the one that will help you most.
I see it as in the first 12 picks or so it’s a little different. At that range, you’re looking for a star. And if it’s your turn you pick the star, wherever he plays. The next 30 picks or so, the surefire stars are gone, so you’re looking for a starter. Well, if you’re drafting a starter, there needs to be a spot for him to start, right? That’s need.
Suppose you owned an NHL team that had an three very good centers but really needed a goalie. For some bizarre reason, you get a chance to draft young Wayne Gretzky.
If you hesitate even a second before drafting Gretzky, you’re insane! It doesn’t matter that you “need” a goalie more than a center, when THAT kind of talent is available, you take it!
So, all you need to ask is, “Regardless of what I think is our greatest position of need, is this guy an elite talent?” If you think he is, you take him. Maybe you can trade one of your other centers for a goalie, or pick one up on the free agent market.
Don’t know about cocaine, but when Pitt went from 11-1 to like 9-3, Marino’s stock went down. I remember some TV guy saying maybe the USFL was for him, and Dick Young wrote that Seymour something-or-other from his block growing up was as good as Marino.
