A Very Falcoholic Discussion: The Need For A Need Based Draft

by Dave the Falconer on Apr 1, 2009 8:00 AM EDT in Editorial Comment 10 comments

If you take Mike Smith at his word, this team is hungrier than a pack of wolves at an outdoor BBQ. Smith told the official site that his team just has to stay humble through the a gauntlet of fan gratitude and go out there ready to plant their collective foot in another team's hindquarters. I couldn't possibly agree more.

What remains to be seen is if the team sticks to an even more significant point, that of shooting for a draft based on positional needs. I thought we might get something like that last year, but the draft was a pretty even mix of needs (Sam Baker, Matt Ryan, Chevis Jackson) and guys the team thought might fit into their overarching plan (Kroy Biermann, Harry Douglas, Curtis Lofton). Obviously those picks which weren't at a position of huge need worked out great, especially in the case of Lofton.

Still, with so many holes on the defense, I'm hopeful that that Smith and Comrade Dimitroff are looking through the same microscope I am. Using the bulk of our picks to shore up the most glaring weaknesses there would go a long way toward ensuring our long-term success, and I believe there's nothing the dynamic duo wants more than to have their mantles collapse under the weight of all their awards a decade from now. I guess I'd say I'm a believer in drafting on need.

How about you, aggressive readers? Do you believe in a need-based draft philosophy?

0 recs | Comment 10 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I can't imagine

that we won’t be drafting a lot of defensive players, but I think like last year, if someone special is on the board, TD will grab him, regardless of which side of the ball he plays on.

“The Falcons are humble. The Falcons are hungry.”
I like this a lot. Is this going to be the new catchphrase that will replace “the process”?

by phoenix falcoholic on Apr 1, 2009 8:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Im a Need based drafter personally

i always see needs first, its a team game that should always come first.

go hard or go home

by TO falcon on Apr 1, 2009 11:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Needs!

I agree with the needs department. I believe the Falcons will draft mostly defensive personnel. Although I believe TD has big plans to fill every roster spot we currently view as holes, such as S( Thomas DeCoud) LB ( Stephen Nicholas) That would leave us DT and a TE. If that’s the case, I feel you could throw out every mock draft we have done, or at least the ones I’ve done. It could be very possible that were eying Pettigrew with our 1st and a DT with our 2nd.

"Just want the Falcons to win a bowl before I'm gone!"

by Edgecrusher211 on Apr 1, 2009 11:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's gotta be both

Needs based and Best Player Available – Like last year, they had to trade back up for Baker because he was the last elite LT prospect left after the run in the 1st round. They had to fill that need (especially since they drafted the QB). But you also have to be looking ahead to not just this season’s needs, but the needs of the next offseason, whether that’s a potential free agent that you might not want to spend the money on, or an aging/injury prone player. Good teams usually draft the replacement for a player a year before they need them to contribute. Of course, we might not have that luxury, since there are so many perceived holes on Defense.

Hopefully, TD and Coach Smith are fairly comfortable with DeCoud, Chevis Jackson, Nicholas, and/or Trey Lewis. Then they can draft BPA and not have to try to draft 4 new starters all at once.

Oh, and Dave – I’d argue that Lofton was a pretty big need last year. Brooking had been playing out of position at MLB for years. Of course his skills had slipped, but his best years were when he played weakside. With Demorrio Williams leaving, they drafted Lofton to play MLB, and kicked Brooking back outside.

by orang3b on Apr 1, 2009 12:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yup ...

"He's getting better, but he's not there yet ..."
- Bobby Cox (talking about Boyer)

by FrankyWren on Apr 1, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Not much else to say on this. It has to be a combination of both based on what’s left when your turn comes.

by Jesse28 on Apr 1, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If this was a need base/ best player available then I suggest

That we must aim for defensive at least the first three rounds. Tight End is a very good but not game changing position. I think the only way we should consider getting a Tight End within the first 3 rounds is if he completely changes the way our offense will run. What I mean are your Shannon Sharpe’s, John Mackey, hell even Mike Ditka Tight Ends. Pettigrew has been rated as the top Tight End for the draft. However personally I don’t see too much difference between him and Vernon Davis (No. 8) or Greg Olsen (No. 14). I rather go for a for sure thing then someone we really don’t know how he’s going to turn out.

So then that brings up who are for sure things in this year draft? Aaron Curry (out of reach) (William Moore Possible) (Brian Cushing or Clay Matthew’s Definitely)

Now if Pettigrew is the best player available in 2nd round then by all means take him and run with it. He won’t nearly command as much as other tight ends based on salary if he’s in the 2nd round.

Finally you have to look at what we drafted last year and who can step up this year. I’m a fan of DeCoud but, I would feel more confident if we had a stronger safety. Our secondary was horrible last year (with all due respects). Mike Smith knows how to work a defense because that is his specialty Mularkey (sorry for misspelling) is a run oriented offense and I’m positive he is satisfied with the way his team is now.

Defense wins championships, Offense gets you there.

by SquallCloud on Apr 2, 2009 4:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Every GM drafts based on need...

…but not all draft based on immediate needs. Some GMs make picks based on their secret long-term plans. No matter what GMs say none of them draft purely on the best player available. Do you think the Falcons or Ravens would draft Stafford (or Sanchez if you prefer) in the 1st if he was still available? Of course not. There’s absolutely no need when we already have young franchise QB’s with no health or contract issues.
When a GM says “we picked a guy because he was the best player available even though we’re stocked at his position” he is really saying “I am not confident in the players we have now” OR “I’ve got long term plans that might not fit the players we have now”.

Falcon Fans UNITE!

by Blue Falcon on Apr 2, 2009 4:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough ...

but QB might be the exception to the rule. RB might be another exception.

"He's getting better, but he's not there yet ..."
- Bobby Cox (talking about Boyer)

by FrankyWren on Apr 2, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You make a good point

It’s like the drafting of Kevin Kolb in Philly the year Donovan was down. Remember last year when he was benched? If Kolb stepped up and threw two td’s McNabb would be on a different team this year.

by SquallCloud on Apr 3, 2009 6:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs