@tour2ma said:

I have to hope this is what they were thinking.

@tour2ma said:

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.

@texasag1969 said:

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.

@tour2ma said:

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.

@mudfly said:

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.

@tour2ma said:

They did admit that, had they kept #4, they would have selected Watkins......which, with hindsight, might not have been the right pick either.....

@mudfly said:

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...

@tour2ma said:

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

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...

@mudfly said:

BPA by position of need unless the talent gap is some insurmountable margin between that and true BPA.

You simply cannot allow it to be anything other than a player tiebreaker or a draft-pick, trade trigger.

@londonbrown said:

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?

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Said he liked plenty of WR's in the draft they were just never value when our turn came.

@londonbrown said:

I think many of us have said this exact same sentence multiple times over the last few years.

@tiamat63 said:

Tipping your hand that you might be looking at a QB early? The idea when you don't secure a top 5 spot might be to devalue (in the mind of other franchises)

the QB the front office is scouting. That's just my take on it.

edit: Or raising the stock of QB's that will be on the board in order to have your desired player avoided.

Heh sure that's probably it. If somebody asked him if he'd consider drafting a place kicker in the first round if it would help the team I bet he would say yes. But read into it anything you want. Like I said to you before no matter what happens somebody is going to get to say I told you so.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Tipping your hand that you might be looking at a QB early? The idea when you don't secure a top 5 spot might be to devalue (in the mind of other franchises)

the QB the front office is scouting. That's just my take on it.

edit: Or raising the stock of QB's that will be on the board in order to have your desired player avoided.

What general manager in his right mind would not make a move if he believed it would help the team? Jesus guys...

WSS

@tiamat63 said:

Let us hope and pray its a smokescreen.

Caught the bit about Manziel being a Haslam pick, immediate defensive. Pretty much tells me all I already knew.

He smoked me once or twice last year.

Did not hear Haslam-Manziel bit, but never bought it anyway.

@tour2ma said:

Guess his best pick was Bitonio so he reference O Line straight away ha

@londonbrown said:

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"

Noted too... "get the guys that affect the game all of the time"...

Only thing was the question was not about O-line vs. WR, it was about WR vs. CB/QB...

@tour2ma said:

Let us hope and pray its a smokescreen.

Caught the bit about Manziel being a Haslam pick, immediate defensive. Pretty much tells me all I already knew.

Q: Would you hesitate to use a 1st round pick on a QB 2-years in a row?

A: Nope... not if I thought it would help this team.

"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"

Sounds like he's done here.