I'm a strong believer in an asset based approach and building off your strengths. Since our D appears to be our current strength, I'd continue to build there. (Sadly I would have said the opposite a year ago) Yes, we desperately need offense and will need to put focus there; nevertheless, I wouldn't do it at the expense of our defense.If the right DE is there in FA/draft, get him... even if it means you can't get the offensive player you want. As it relates to draft, we shouldn't be looking to trade up (not enough depth)... we should stay pat or move down. My fear with a "balanced approach" is that you become mediocre at both sides of the ball. You can make the playoffs, but I doubt you'd be a title contender. fyi, re: draft, I've previously shared my plan with the #7 pick. I like BPA at targeted positions. If I were decision maker, I'd go 1.Clowney, 2.Matthews, 3.Watkins. I just think those guys are better than the rest. If all three are gone, I'd hope we could trade down. We'll see if combine changes anything, though I use combine to move players down... workout warriors don't move too far up for me in early part of draft.
Very well-reasoned approach, IMO, however, I'd go 1. Clowney 2.Watkins 3. Mathews or Greg Robinson.
Well then the best asset basefor me is to trade down if Clowney is gone; just my opinion.
I think you have to factor in diminishing returns. And you have to have a minimum performance level from your " weak" side as well, otherwise you can't leverage your strength properly. That is what did Lovie in in the past. Our o is also pretty close to being a strength as well IMO
I think you have to factor in diminishing returns. And you have to have a minimum performance level from your " weak" side as well, otherwise you can't leverage your strength properly. That is what did Lovie in in the past. Our o is also pretty close to being a strength as well IMO
Exactly, I have zero doubts we have a playoff capable defense right now - based in the scheme change. We do not have a playoff capable offense. You have to bolster the offense all things being equal in terms of the quality of the pick in front of us.
I think you have to factor in diminishing returns. And you have to have a minimum performance level from your " weak" side as well, otherwise you can't leverage your strength properly. That is what did Lovie in in the past. Our o is also pretty close to being a strength as well IMO
Exactly, I have zero doubts we have a playoff capable defense right now - based in the scheme change. We do not have a playoff capable offense. You have to bolster the offense all things being equal in terms of the quality of the pick in front of us.
When you type about the offense you HAVE to type about the QB. The Buccaneers, IMO, have got to keep aquiring QB's unti lthey find the right guy. Maybe it is Mike Glennon but they need other options, competition there. To me, that means getting another QB early in the draft. Still thinking Manziel though I know I'm in the minority.
I would argue that the Bucs are a 4-12 and need players at any position.
I like the BPA approach regardless of the position (excluding QB if you already have a star there).
I like the BPA approach regardless of the position (excluding QB if you already have a star there).
BPA only works if you have a spot where you can add talent without removing talent. Example, there is no reason for CLE to draft a LOT because no matter how good he is to get on the field it means Joe Thomas comes off the field so their net gain is nothing. WR, CB, DE can all play multiples on the field so adding a Watkins which I don't much like is still a reasonable plan because you can put him on the field without taking VJax and MW19 off the field.
The Bucs don't have any elite talent at LT, QB, or DE so BAP works for the most part. Where BAP would fall apart in the Bucs scenario is if the Bucs went and drafted an UT prospect high given McCoy is on the roster. However, that type of selection would give the Bucs flexibility of cutting Landri (he satisfies that role currently) to save cap space and go younger. Another WR or CB would highly likely see the field as a Buc. Or another OLB to compliment David (Bucs do have three OLB's as UFAs).
Interesting question. Yesterday, defense and running played a big role in two playoff wins. Does anyone know how the Pats offense and the Seattle offense stand relative to the rest of the NFL going in? I realize both those teas have very good/elite QB, so our offense would arguably need to be better if we have near the quality on defense (not sure we do). You could alos look at in reverse, how did, for instance, the Pats defense stand relative to the league.another way to look at is is to focus on the division. we used to beat the Saints and Falcons with strong defense, running and so-so offense. Those Buc defenses were very good, but how good, and how good were the offenses?
Interesting question. Yesterday, defense and running played a big role in two playoff wins. Does anyone know how the Pats offense and the Seattle offense stand relative to the rest of the NFL going in? I realize both those teas have very good/elite QB, so our offense would arguably need to be better if we have near the quality on defense (not sure we do). You could alos look at in reverse, how did, for instance, the Pats defense stand relative to the league.another way to look at is is to focus on the division. we used to beat the Saints and Falcons with strong defense, running and so-so offense. Those Buc defenses were very good, but how good, and how good were the offenses?
Pats relative ranks (adjusted for opposition) 4th offense, 21st defense (14th pass, 27th rushing). NE is 6th rushing and 7th passing adjusted offense.SEA is 8th passing and 7th rushing, 1st in defense, 1st Pass and 8th rush*Just an aside, name the second best QB in the AFCE during the entire time Brady has been at NE. we were playing this game last night and thinking how easy their path through the AFCE has been during his tenure*
I think the vast majority (all?) teams are BAP. You listen to ex-GM's talk about the draft, a lot of what happens is that you have 3 or 4 players all within the same grade. So you take the player that fits the need. Dalbuc - are you just using total yardage stats? If so, don't think that paints nearly as accurate a picture as red zone efficiency, turnovers, etc.
Tog you are correct! And this is where I tend to think teams get in to the most predictable predicament when they are drafting because they allow need to override value based drafting. Depending on current tendencies and actual offensive and defensive schemes being run most teams will tell you they are taking the BPA (Best Player Available) approach, however when the dust settles most can clearly see they drafted for need rather than BVA (Best Value Available) or VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) approach.
Tog you are correct! And this is where I tend to think teams get in to the most predictable predicament when they are drafting because they allow need to override value based drafting. Depending on current tendencies and actual offensive and defensive schemes being run most teams will tell you they are taking the BPA (Best Player Available) approach, however when the dust settles most can clearly see they drafted for need rather than BVA (Best Value Available) or VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) approach.
Yuc,I agree......but, the problem is every team has their own way of determining the value and they don't all match. After each draft there are always stories of how teams had players rated and they usually don't match. So I guess BVA is like beauty and is in the eye of the beholder.
