Draft Philosophy

by Tim on Jan 17, 2008 9:49 PM CST in News Comment 12 comments

The following comment by kozanack (in connection with this post) about what the Texans should do in the upcoming draft got me thinking:

"If I'm the Texans, I am taking the best player available. It is definitely apparent that they need help in the secondary and with the pass rush (maybe a OLB). Although an impact RB would be great, I think a better pass rush would have a bigger impact. But I think they shouldn't reach. Just continue to be patient and look for value and fit."

It raises a great question. Namely, are the Texans good enough to draft for need? Or is the overall talent level still in such a state that the Texans should simply draft the best player available each time they're on the clock?

Last year's selection of Amobi Okoye at No. 10 overall was clearly a prime example of taking the best player available. From a need perspective, the Texans seemed to have far more glaring needs at WR, OL, and DB. But Rick Smith made it clear that Okoye was the highest rated player left on the Texans' draft board, and that was the determining factor:

"He was our top-rated defensive player on the board," Texans general manager Rick Smith said. "For him to be there at the 10th pick was a pleasant surprise for us."

After Okoye, did the Texans go best available with their remaining picks? My initial reaction is no; it appears they drafted for need. The Texans went WR, DB, DB, OL, OL, LB to round out their 2007 draft; all of those positions (save possibly LB) were undoubtedly the weakest areas of the 2006 squad. Sure, "best available" is in the eye of the beholder; the Texans may have honestly thought that Jacoby Jones was the best player available when they picked in the third round, Fred Bennett the best available in the fourth, and so forth. But to my admittedly amateur eye, it looks like management targeted specific positions and went from there, instead of simply acquiring the highest-rated player left on their board.

So what will the Texans, coming off the most promising season in franchise history, do this year? For example, could Smithiak really take a defensive lineman again at No. 18?

I say yes--they absolutely could. I know there's no way it'd ever happen, but imagine if Glenn Dorsey or Chris Long fell to the Texans. Are you telling me that they pass up the opportunity to acquire either of those guys just because of who's currently on the roster? No way. Realistically, however, I'd be shocked if the Texans didn't (1) trade back; (2) draft a DB; (3) draft a RB; or (4) draft a OL at No. 18, and then specifically target areas of need in the later rounds. Then again, I never would have thought that they'd have drafted Amobi Okoye.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hoping that we trade down

I'm not sure what the value is if a team in the late twenties wanted to move up to 18, but if we could trade down to around 26 or 27 and pick up a 2nd-rounder in the process, that'd be gravy. Then again, I'm in favor of trading down every single year. I imagine it's way harder than we seem to think.

Anyways, I know this class is deep for running backs, but I'm not so sure you'll get quality lasting midway into the 3rd. I think we'd be missing a great opportunity if we weren't able to take one late in the 2nd round. If we do that, we can grab a D-back with that late first-round pick, then divide 3rd-7th between O-line and secondary.

by Nashmeister on Jan 17, 2008 11:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

yep

I think, even as successful as the 2007 campaign was, we need to focus on talent accumulation above all. Unless we take a QB or a K with our pick, then I don't think we can go wrong anywhere.

And, jumping on the Shake/Nash bandwagon (which was an awesome funk soul pop group in the 70s), trade back. Trade back!!!!!

by bigfatdrunk on Jan 18, 2008 9:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Upgrading the Wagon

I am now officially going on record as being in favor of trading out of the 1st Round completely....with the "if possible" caveat, of course.

If there really is that much above-average talent available this year for the positions we need, then let's get more 2nd & 3rd Round picks and fill more spots on the 1st Day....and take some competition into Training Camp. Plus, I believe only 1st Round picks are guaranteed contracts. All others must fight for a roster spot.

We can be critical of the draft picks, but in the end we always support the new Texan.

by Shake on Jan 18, 2008 11:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Trading Back

I have no doubt that Smithiak would gladly trade back to accumulate more picks. I just wonder whether, in this era when the draft means more than ever before, there will be anyone willing to pay the going rate to move up to No. 18.

Then again, last year's draft saw a fair amount of movement in the first round (SF-NE and CLE-DAL swaps come immediately to mind).

Looking forward to a day when being a Texans fan doesn't mean that April is the highlight of my season...

by Tim on Jan 18, 2008 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ideal

The ideal is when the best available is exactly what you need.

I am not that smart but Amobi was not much of a surprise. Too much talent to pass on.

I guess one of the classic cases of Best Available vs Needs comes from basketball.

Portland needed a center. (I think it was Portland.) Oljawon had been drafted. Bowie was taken. Michael Jordan went next.

I think we drafted need last year. And Amobi was that kind of ideal. Generally drafting need only would get you in trouble and have you reaching.

You can stretch the Best Availble theory to it's to improbable limits and come back with say seven running backs ??

So you find a balance. Number one on my need list for the Texans is DB.

by TexasOutlaw on Jan 18, 2008 10:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I know, I know, I know

We have other needs, but throw my hat/.02/my tu sabes, into the top tier running back ring. I want to see what it feels like to have a quality running back to root for. (I'll take a flier on DD-W. I never came around to considering him a badass in the backfield.) I'm serious - even from when I was rocking my Warren Moon t-shirt as a kid, we never had a rock-hauling road grader. Damn it. I want one. Like now. Do it.

Shakin 'em off one win at a time... In Schaub we trust.

by SOLIS on Jan 18, 2008 11:27 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Given what we know...

about Alex Gibbs' drafting history, I would wager on three things:

There is no way we take an O-lineman with the first pick (he did it only once in his career).
There is a better than average chance that we take a RB (he's shown a willingness to do it if he thinks the right RB for his system is there).
Failing 2, I almost guarantee we go defense and (most likely) defensive line (NT) or OLB.

--
I am fine with all three of these. If we are going to get a CB--which I agree we need--I would rather do so through FA than have to rely on Fred and a rookie.

by MDC on Jan 18, 2008 12:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

re: d-line

The best pass defense is a great pass rush.

Along those lines, if a d-lineman is the best remaining on our board at the time of our pick, lets take him. He could have as much impact on the pass defense as a safety or corner.

I agree to trading our 1st pick in exchange for a lower 1st and a 2nd rounder. I think there will be RB talent available all the way through the 3rd, leaving our first pick open for the best available.

by BigTexBD on Jan 18, 2008 3:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Amending My View

After revisiting the 2007 results, I realized I had blotted things from my mind like Jameel Cook playing tailback, and Dayne looking like he spent the offseason training at all-u-can-eat buffets.

They need to pick-up someone who can come in a contribute at RB.

by kozanack on Jan 19, 2008 3:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Generally speaking...

when teams draft best player available, that usually means "best player available at a position of need". Notwithstanding all the holes they needed to fill before last year's draft, they didn't take Okoye just because he was the BPA but because he was the BPA at a position of need. Even though there were, and still are, glaring needs at LB and in the secondary, the pass rush in '06 sucked big ol' monkey ballz, so Amobi wasn't exactly a reach. I don't think anyone said that, it's just funner to argue with imaginary people. I learned it by watching Matt.

by ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBuck on Jan 20, 2008 6:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs