Ray Farmer presser
-
Interesting too that he admitted there were some character issues regards Gilbert but that after college he was on the right track and had turned the corner.
-
On not drafting a WR
"offensive lineman affects every single offensive play, a WR has a great game if he touches the ball 10 times, I would rather get the guy that affects the most plays"
On not drafting a WR
"offensive lineman affects every single offensive play, a WR has a great game if he touches the ball 10 times, I would rather get the guy that affects the most plays"
I think many of us have said this exact same sentence multiple times over the last few years.
-
On not drafting a WR
"offensive lineman affects every single offensive play, a WR has a great game if he touches the ball 10 times, I would rather get the guy that affects the most plays"
I think many of us have said this exact same sentence multiple times over the last few years.
I think many of us have said this exact same sentence multiple times over the last few years.
Said he liked plenty of WR's in the draft they were just never value when our turn came.
-
I think many of us have said this exact same sentence multiple times over the last few years.
Said he liked plenty of WR's in the draft they were just never value when our turn came.
Said he liked plenty of WR's in the draft they were just never value when our turn came.
Yep....funny how everyone prefers BPA, then screams "wtf...we needed a receiver or LB" when the pick was actually made. We can argue whether the pick was actually BPA, but Farmer thought so when he was picking...
Either we draft by need or BPA.....but it can't be both.
So, should we go BPA?.... or position of greatest need?......or is it BPA at a position of need?
-
Drafting for need is a recipe for disaster.
You simply cannot allow it to be anything other than a player tiebreaker or a draft-pick, trade trigger.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Said he liked plenty of WR's in the draft they were just never value when our turn came.
Yep....funny how everyone prefers BPA, then screams "wtf...we needed a receiver or LB" when the pick was actually made. We can argue whether the pick was actually BPA, but Farmer thought so when he was picking...
Either we draft by need or BPA.....but it can't be both.
So, should we go BPA?.... or position of greatest need?......or is it BPA at a position of need?
Yep....funny how everyone prefers BPA, then screams "wtf...we needed a receiver or LB" when the pick was actually made. We can argue whether the pick was actually BPA, but Farmer thought so when he was picking...
Either we draft by need or BPA.....but it can't be both.
So, should we go BPA?.... or position of greatest need?......or is it BPA at a position of need?
BPA by position of need unless the talent gap is some insurmountable margin between that and true BPA.
-
Drafting for need is a recipe for disaster.
You simply cannot allow it to be anything other than a player tiebreaker or a draft-pick, trade trigger.
Drafting for need is a recipe for disaster..
BPA by position of need unless the talent gap is some insurmountable margin between that and true BPA.
I was being a bit facetious there. It really isnt as cut and dried as either BPA or just need.....but some magic combination of both.
Last year I listened to Farmer explaining his strategy, which sounded pretty realistic to me.....basically saying that he doesnt rate players on a 1 to 300 scale, but in groups of A, B, C and D players......meaning he has a lot of players rated the same.....these 5 guys are all A's...the next 30 guys are all B's.....etc......so when our pick comes up, he has a group of players rated for that spot and chooses the one best suited for our system and needs....
The other interesting thing he said about last years draft was he only saw 2 players he felt were "worthy" of the 4th pick in the draft, which is probably why he was quick to take a trade down....I dont know who they were, but I suspect they were gone when our pick came up...
-
Drafting for need is a recipe for disaster..
BPA by position of need unless the talent gap is some insurmountable margin between that and true BPA.
I was being a bit facetious there. It really isnt as cut and dried as either BPA or just need.....but some magic combination of both.
Last year I listened to Farmer explaining his strategy, which sounded pretty realistic to me.....basically saying that he doesnt rate players on a 1 to 300 scale, but in groups of A, B, C and D players......meaning he has a lot of players rated the same.....these 5 guys are all A's...the next 30 guys are all B's.....etc......so when our pick comes up, he has a group of players rated for that spot and chooses the one best suited for our system and needs....
The other interesting thing he said about last years draft was he only saw 2 players he felt were "worthy" of the 4th pick in the draft, which is probably why he was quick to take a trade down....I dont know who they were, but I suspect they were gone when our pick came up...
Last year I listened to Farmer explaining his strategy, which sounded pretty realistic to me.....basically saying that he doesnt rate players on a 1 to 300 scale, but in groups of A, B, C and D players......meaning he has a lot of players rated the same.....these 5 guys are all A's...the next 30 guys are all B's.....etc......so when our pick comes up, he has a group of players rated for that spot and chooses the one best suited for our system and needs....
The other interesting thing he said about last years draft was he only saw 2 players he felt were "worthy" of the 4th pick in the draft, which is probably why he was quick to take a trade down....I dont know who they were, but I suspect they were gone when our pick came up...
Exactly... grouped players with tie-broken by need. If only player(s) left are low need then trade down, but no further than you project need players in next group to fall.
As for 2014... I think they had a player left, but the trade down scenario kicked in. If for no other reason than I hope that out of Clowney, Robinson and Bortles I hope that both of their "#4-worthy" picks were not gone. That would be really depressing...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Last year I listened to Farmer explaining his strategy, which sounded pretty realistic to me.....basically saying that he doesnt rate players on a 1 to 300 scale, but in groups of A, B, C and D players......meaning he has a lot of players rated the same.....these 5 guys are all A's...the next 30 guys are all B's.....etc......so when our pick comes up, he has a group of players rated for that spot and chooses the one best suited for our system and needs....
The other interesting thing he said about last years draft was he only saw 2 players he felt were "worthy" of the 4th pick in the draft, which is probably why he was quick to take a trade down....I dont know who they were, but I suspect they were gone when our pick came up...
Exactly... grouped players with tie-broken by need. If only player(s) left are low need then trade down, but no further than you project need players in next group to fall.
As for 2014... I think they had a player left, but the trade down scenario kicked in. If for no other reason than I hope that out of Clowney, Robinson and Bortles I hope that both of their "#4-worthy" picks were not gone. That would be really depressing...
As for 2014... I think they had a player left, but the trade down scenario kicked in. If for no other reason than I hope that out of Clowney, Robinson and Bortles I hope that both of their "#4-worthy" picks were not gone. That would be really depressing...
They did admit that, had they kept #4, they would have selected Watkins......which, with hindsight, might not have been the right pick either.....
-
As for 2014... I think they had a player left, but the trade down scenario kicked in. If for no other reason than I hope that out of Clowney, Robinson and Bortles I hope that both of their "#4-worthy" picks were not gone. That would be really depressing...
They did admit that, had they kept #4, they would have selected Watkins......which, with hindsight, might not have been the right pick either.....
They did admit that, had they kept #4, they would have selected Watkins......which, with hindsight, might not have been the right pick either.....
It was... until Mack was still there.
So I'm guessing Bortles was "the one". And the plan would have been same as Jax... sit and learn. he difference being that he would have actually done so and had a few more weeks before being called upon.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Last year I listened to Farmer explaining his strategy, which sounded pretty realistic to me.....basically saying that he doesnt rate players on a 1 to 300 scale, but in groups of A, B, C and D players......meaning he has a lot of players rated the same.....these 5 guys are all A's...the next 30 guys are all B's.....etc......so when our pick comes up, he has a group of players rated for that spot and chooses the one best suited for our system and needs....
The other interesting thing he said about last years draft was he only saw 2 players he felt were "worthy" of the 4th pick in the draft, which is probably why he was quick to take a trade down....I dont know who they were, but I suspect they were gone when our pick came up...
Exactly... grouped players with tie-broken by need. If only player(s) left are low need then trade down, but no further than you project need players in next group to fall.
As for 2014... I think they had a player left, but the trade down scenario kicked in. If for no other reason than I hope that out of Clowney, Robinson and Bortles I hope that both of their "#4-worthy" picks were not gone. That would be really depressing...
Exactly... grouped players with tie-broken by need. If only player(s) left are low need then trade down, but no further than you project need players in next group to fall.
As for 2014... I think they had a player left, but the trade down scenario kicked in. If for no other reason than I hope that out of Clowney, Robinson and Bortles I hope that both of their "#4-worthy" picks were not gone. That would be really depressing...
Of those 3 Clowney was the biggest risk due to his tendency to take plays off every game I ever saw him in. And if you saw game 1 last year he was sucking wind in the first f'n quarter of his supposed "debut" showing for the Heisman. He lost it right there.
-
Exactly... grouped players with tie-broken by need. If only player(s) left are low need then trade down, but no further than you project need players in next group to fall.
As for 2014... I think they had a player left, but the trade down scenario kicked in. If for no other reason than I hope that out of Clowney, Robinson and Bortles I hope that both of their "#4-worthy" picks were not gone. That would be really depressing...
Of those 3 Clowney was the biggest risk due to his tendency to take plays off every game I ever saw him in. And if you saw game 1 last year he was sucking wind in the first f'n quarter of his supposed "debut" showing for the Heisman. He lost it right there.
Of those 3 Clowney was the biggest risk due to his tendency to take plays off every game I ever saw him in. And if you saw game 1 last year he was sucking wind in the first f'n quarter of his supposed "debut" showing for the Heisman. He lost it right there.
Agree, but motivation was a widely recognized risk with Clowney, so he was taken with eyes wide open.
The one that I think most people fooled themselves on was Robinson. I think his off-the-chart measurables blinded folks to major technique flaws; flaws that were in evidence his rookie year. He may still develop, but he may not. Jake Mathews was by far the surer LT bet in 2014.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Of those 3 Clowney was the biggest risk due to his tendency to take plays off every game I ever saw him in. And if you saw game 1 last year he was sucking wind in the first f'n quarter of his supposed "debut" showing for the Heisman. He lost it right there.
Agree, but motivation was a widely recognized risk with Clowney, so he was taken with eyes wide open.
The one that I think most people fooled themselves on was Robinson. I think his off-the-chart measurables blinded folks to major technique flaws; flaws that were in evidence his rookie year. He may still develop, but he may not. Jake Mathews was by far the surer LT bet in 2014.
Agree, but motivation was a widely recognized risk with Clowney, so he was taken with eyes wide open.
The one that I think most people fooled themselves on was Robinson. I think his off-the-chart measurables blinded folks to major technique flaws; flaws that were in evidence his rookie year. He may still develop, but he may not. Jake Mathews was by far the surer LT bet in 2014.
It doesn't seem like any of the OL prospects taken in the first round in the past couple of years have been particularly good other than the two selected by the Cowboys.
-
They did admit that, had they kept #4, they would have selected Watkins......which, with hindsight, might not have been the right pick either.....
It was... until Mack was still there.
So I'm guessing Bortles was "the one". And the plan would have been same as Jax... sit and learn. he difference being that he would have actually done so and had a few more weeks before being called upon.
It was... until Mack was still there.
So I'm guessing Bortles was "the one". And the plan would have been same as Jax... sit and learn. he difference being that he would have actually done so and had a few more weeks before being called upon.
I have to hope this is what they were thinking.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login