I only really like Bridgewater at 7, but who cares about "universally considered?" You hire personnel guys to evaluate talent by position and also across positions. If they think there's a QB available then you have to trust them or you shouldn't have hired them in the first place. The draft is littered with examples of the 2nd or 3rd "best" guy being better than the "best" guy.
I don't disagree with how you do things, I just meant that each step away from the consensus entails more risk . . . more reward too, potentially, so that is fine. You can still get the guy you want and he may be "the guy" even if he is the 2nd or 3rd or 4th QBI also wasn't commenting on our personnel guys and trusting our personnel guy. It wouldn't matter to me if they all sucked and just got lucky with the pick . . .the goal is getting a great player. I'd love to see us get a great QB, whether that is with the 1st round pick or later and I don't think Glennon should hold us back. Conversely, I don't want to see us "reach" (i.e., let need dominate over talent) when we have Glennon and other needs
I only really like Bridgewater at 7, but who cares about "universally considered?" You hire personnel guys to evaluate talent by position and also across positions. If they think there's a QB available then you have to trust them or you shouldn't have hired them in the first place. The draft is littered with examples of the 2nd or 3rd "best" guy being better than the "best" guy.
I don't disagree with how you do things, I just meant that each step away from the consensus entails more risk . . . more reward too, potentially, so that is fine. You can still get the guy you want and he may be "the guy" even if he is the 2nd or 3rd or 4th QBI also wasn't commenting on our personnel guys and trusting our personnel guy. It wouldn't matter to me if they all sucked and just got lucky with the pick . . .the goal is getting a great player. I'd love to see us get a great QB, whether that is with the 1st round pick or later and I don't think Glennon should hold us back. Conversely, I don't want to see us "reach" (i.e., let need dominate over talent) when we have Glennon and other needs
The more I learn about how the draft is actually done by good teams - how players are graded, how boards are stacked - the less I value what "consensus" says. It just doesn't fit into a league where teams run different schemes and emphasize certain attributes over others. The Pats put 75 guys on their board - do you think they care what the "consensus" is? And with QBs specifically, how can there be "consensus" when 50% of teams appear to think Manziel can't play in the NFL and 50% think he should go #1 overall? You don't get points for drafting a bust just because the consensus says he should be a good player. I've said this elsewhere, but I don't think "need" is preeminent in Licht's approach to the draft. He's said that what you think you need changes from April to September. Of course it's embedded to an extent in the board, but think the Bucs are going to trust the board and draft accordingly.
I only really like Bridgewater at 7, but who cares about "universally considered?" You hire personnel guys to evaluate talent by position and also across positions. If they think there's a QB available then you have to trust them or you shouldn't have hired them in the first place. The draft is littered with examples of the 2nd or 3rd "best" guy being better than the "best" guy.
I don't disagree with how you do things, I just meant that each step away from the consensus entails more risk . . . more reward too, potentially, so that is fine. You can still get the guy you want and he may be "the guy" even if he is the 2nd or 3rd or 4th QBI also wasn't commenting on our personnel guys and trusting our personnel guy. It wouldn't matter to me if they all sucked and just got lucky with the pick . . .the goal is getting a great player. I'd love to see us get a great QB, whether that is with the 1st round pick or later and I don't think Glennon should hold us back. Conversely, I don't want to see us "reach" (i.e., let need dominate over talent) when we have Glennon and other needs
The more I learn about how the draft is actually done by good teams - how players are graded, how boards are stacked - the less I value what "consensus" says. It just doesn't fit into a league where teams run different schemes and emphasize certain attributes over others. The Pats put 75 guys on their board - do you think they care what the "consensus" is? And with QBs specifically, how can there be "consensus" when 50% of teams appear to think Manziel can't play in the NFL and 50% think he should go #1 overall? You don't get points for drafting a bust just because the consensus says he should be a good player. I've said this elsewhere, but I don't think "need" is preeminent in Licht's approach to the draft. He's said that what you think you need changes from April to September. Of course it's embedded to an extent in the board, but think the Bucs are going to trust the board and draft accordingly.
I hope so.
A great story about "consensus" btw, Vin - Bucky Brooks said on a podcast yesterday that while most boards in good rooms are 150 players long, the Panthers (he was a scout there) used to have 250 guys on their board. Why? Because they were afraid of the owner. They were scared that he'd see a player that was drafted that they didn't like and he'd look at their board and see that his scouts didn't know what they were doing. As a result, the board was cluttered with players they couldn't use.
