DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2018 NFL Season 2018 NFL Draft Does Belichick have a point about NFL drafting?

Belichick doesn't really understand drafting for need

I was wondering what you all thought about this.

I agree with his logic to a point. I don't think anyone should ever draft for need. You should draft for depth, and you do that by picking the BPA when you're pick comes up. That's why I wouldn't be mad if we took the DE Chubb early. We know he's a good player so if he's high on our board then you take him at say #4. If he's the absolute best on your board, you take him #1. I was never with the take a QB high.

Now there's an argument that you should take the QB or the LT or the DE high because you will get value. If they stink, then you won't be out anything but their rookie contract. If they are great then you get to have them at a reduced price before you need to make that decision to break the bank. Ok, I get that, but drafting a QB at #1 because you need a "face of the franchise" (not a fan of that term), is a recipe for disaster.

But you know what, despite being one of, if not the winningest NFL coach, and fielding a playoff team year in and year out with a good number of castoffs and nobodies, people won't do this. They will reach because of the business side rather than the football side.

Point here is: Don't reach for anyone. Stick to your board.

For the most part I agree with it.

However, if you have a glaring need and the BPA isn't much better than the best player at your glaring need, I'd take the glaring need player.

Belichick has been pretty bad at drafting over the last several years. Drafting good players is mostly luck. That doesn't mean teams shouldn't do research, it means they should know that they are going to fail most of the time.

I would say when you have a pretty talented team from top to bottom it opens up the ability to widen your choices.

I agree with the method of BPA but also disagree to an extent.

You have to take players that you need, but there is also a finite quantity of talent in any draft that doesn't allow for the oversight of selecting the best available talent.

There has to be a balance struck.

Personally, I think Dorsey has set the Browns up for a remarkable balance. With the additions of QB, FS, CB, WR, RB, TE, RT and DE, the Browns have managed to alleviate an overwhelming need.

We don't need a QB, Taylor is fine.
We don't need a RT, Hubbard is fine.
We don't need a CB, Gaines & Carrie are fine.
We don't need a FS, Randall is fine.
We don't need a RB, Hyde is fine.
We don't need a WR, Gordon & Landry are fine.

Yet, these are all positions that could certainly be addressed in the draft, and most will actually be addressed by the end of the draft.

The additions via trade and free agency have given the Browns the flexibility to only dress these positions when the talent available is worthy of filling the position, rather than requiring a selection because the talent must be filled.

It's a great balance to have, and something Belichick has done with fantastic results. Yet, it goes without saying, Belichick doesn't draft a player if he's not going to get time on the field.

I would disagree that most of your list makes those positions "fine". Especially in regards to the OL and secondary.

It may simply be a matter of semantics but I'd say those names mean we aren't desperate. Not that we're fine.

There are 3 things hard to find outside of the draft.

Franchise Qb
Top 10 left Tackle.
#1 Wide receiver.

I agree with Bellichic, but not TBrown4.


The Browns, should draft best player available, but they would have to keep their team together to do that.

The Browns 2017 team, has lost the starting Qb, like it or not, Kizer is gone, they didn't stick it out with Kizer to see if he would improve, which creates a need.

They've lost Joe Thomas to retirement. They've created other holes I don't remember at this time.

If somebody is saying the Browns lose because they draft for need, then the Browns are drafting for need because they are creating the needs by not keeping their own veteran players.

They've been doing it for many years, and it looks like they still are.

Did they let Jason McCourty and Danny Shelton go this off-season, and was there a pressing need for those to happen?

Same with the tight end they cut last off-season.

Eventually it catches up.

If the Pats draft an LT or a QB early,it won't be because of need,it will be the old "he was the top player on our board".
Belicheck has been quite since the SB,now,right before the draft he has something to say.
Pardon me Bill if I don't believe you.

I probably could have phrased it better. Those positions absolutely need upgrading, none have a definitive answer, but I think all of those positions are now at a point in which there is a viable starter in 2018 should the position either not be filled in the draft, the prospect drafted requires development or, knock on wood, the prospect drafted is injured.

That, in terms of BPA selections, none are at a point of (Hyperbole for the sake of clarity), "It doesn't matter how good X player is, X position must be filled so we have to draft Y player."

That, of course, is viewed purely through what can be filled in the forthcoming draft. There are too many positions to fill in one year, but I do think that there has been adequate additions to sustain the team short-term.

Let him say tht when he doesn't have the GOAT at QB around.

Until you get and have a QB that can win games and be a top QB, you draft and draft and draft a qb until you do.

I have said for a long time that if you draft for needs, you are, or will be a losing team.

You address needs in free agency.

With the draft, especially the top 3-4 rounds, go best player you can find. In the long run you are going to be a better team.

However .... and on the other hand ......

Let's say your team has a CB ranked as the top prospect when your pick comes around. However, you also have 5 other CBs ranked as potential day 1 starters, at least one of which is likely to be around when you pick again. You need a LT, and there is one available .... and he is the only one you have ranked in the top 3 rounds. Do you take the LT, who might be your #10 prospect when you pick .... or take the CB, even though you might be able to get almost equal value at the position with your next pick. Need always plays into the draft, at least to an extent. I bet it is used as a factor by every team when they set up their draft boards.

This is a complicated over-simplification ...... but often that's what the draft is. If I need a QB, and the QB that's available is rated as a potential long term starter, but we have a RB also available who is a likely superstar, the value of the position is going to come into play, as well as whether or not I have any need for the position.

Bottom line you should take the best player.


I know that many times they don't.

My opinion is that with free agency, and proper planning, you shouldn't head in to a draft with a glaring need. If you do, that's your fault.

No doubt there is always going to be something that might sway you. No doubt there are going to be times you need a long snapper and draft one when he isn't the BPA.

My comment is general....ok....how about, 85% of the time you best go with BPA? I will say more like 95% of the time in the first 3 rounds.


You are a long standing friend my man. Your posts always get a read, but on this I think I am going to have to side with Bill, and not just because it is my position as well.

I agree whole heartily as long as you have aFrancise QB. Do you think we should draft the Guard instead of Darnold even though the guard is rated higher.

Did I not say there can always be something that might sway you?


I think that settles that lame argument.



If you guys want to keep looking for the extreme situations and not take my comment as a general comment, then why bother?


Ok, you win. No, I am not going to take the extreme position just to stick to my point. Only a idiot would do that, just as only a doofus would bring up extreme examples to win the argument.


But to be fair, you do agree with me....but why ask me? I am just a guy on a message board. Maybe Bill would say to take Nelson....he finds QB's in the 6th round....or was it 5th? At any rate, question Bellicheck. It's not my fault he agrees with me or I with him.

I guess the way I see the draft must be a little different than some do. While there may be a handful of players who top the draft, after that I believe it becomes more murky. I think players are more so in groups than anything else. I believe that, let's say players 6-10 aren't actually rated much differently. I don't believe players 11-15 are rated that much differently.

To me the entire BPA thing is a little overblown. I would venture to guess when you get mid way through the second round that there are most likely a handful of players that are rated almost identical. So which ever of those players meet a need, you draft that player. Why? Because he's rated the same as other players who do not fill a need.

I would venture to guess that outside of sports reporters and supposed draft gurus, that there's hardly any difference at all between Chubb, Barkley, Fits and Ward. You can throw Nelson in there too. I mean BPA is a great catch phrase and makes for great discussions, but I think BPA falls far more into groups of players much more than individual players.