"developing" Coaches, And Trading Up

[takeitdown]

If you have a coaching unit that is dedicated to, and prides themselves on, coaching guys up, and taking what a player does well, and hiding his deficiencies...

Wouldn't you want a plethora of "good" players that you can maximize, and use your teaching tools, and your scheming to their strengths to make them look great?

Versus getting 1 really good guy, and then late rounders? That seems like what you do if you're not confident in your coaching.

Said another way, if you could have three 2nd rounders and three 3rd rounders in this draft, or you could have the number 5 pick, and no 2nd rounder and 1 3rd rounder...which would you do if you feel you can develop players?

I think 6 players in the top 90 vs 2 is pretty obvious.

But sound off. Why do you get a developmental coaching staff if you're going to not get the developmental players?

Or, do you think this is all a smokescreen, and the Falcons are likely to trade back multiple times and acquire 2nd's and 3rds? Dimitroff hasn't done that any, so if it happens, it will definitely be a turning of the page.

[Jaymadd]

It kind of works the other way around. If you are confident you are able to develop players then you dont have a problem trading up because you would be able to have more success with the later round players if you trade away a 2nd or 3rd rounder. If you dont have a developmental coaching staff then you want as many high picks as you can get which is why I beleive Belicheck(sp) trades back because he go with the law of large numbers theory. The more draft picks the greater chance you have of hitting on enough picks to help your roster.

[DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry]

If you have a coaching unit that is dedicated to, and prides themselves on, coaching guys up, and taking what a player does well, and hiding his deficiencies...

Wouldn't you want a plethora of "good" players that you can maximize, and use your teaching tools, and your scheming to their strengths to make them look great.

Versus getting 1 really good guy, and then late rounders? That seems like what you do if you're not confident in your coaching.

Said another way, if you could have three 2nd rounders and three 3rd rounders in this draft, or you could have the number 5 pick, and no 2nd rounder and a 1 3rd rounder...which would you do if you feel you can develop players?

I think 6 players in the top 90 vs 2 is pretty obvious.

But sound off. Why do you get a developmental coaching staff if you're going to not get the developmental players?

Or, do you think this is all a smokescreen, and the Falcons are likely to trade back multiple times and acquire 2nd's and 3rds? Dimitroff hasn't done that any, so if it happens, it will definitely be a turning of the page.

I'd not like a situation where we pick @ 5 and then again at 70+.

I also wouldnt like a situation where we pick 6 times between 35-96.

Ideally, we'd pick once in the Top ~15, and then 3 or 4 more times between 32 and 96

[takeitdown]

It kind of works the other way around. If you are confident you are able to develop players then you dont have a problem trading up because you would be able to have more success with the later round players if you trade away a 2nd or 3rd rounder. If you dont have a developmental coaching staff then you want as many high picks as you can get which is why I beleive Belicheck(sp) trades back because he go with the law of large numbers theory. The more draft picks the greater chance you have of hitting on enough picks to help your roster.

I think there's a wide difference between the talent in the 2nd and 3rd, versus the talent in the 6th and 7th. This is generally borne out by likelihoods of making it in the league.

I don't expect Quinn to be magic, so I'd imagine he still needs "NFL caliber" talent.

In different schemes and systems, you can make a 2nd or 3rd rounder perform like a 1st rounder by focusing on what they do well. But you can't really do the same with 6th and 7th rounders. You still need that baseline talent.

[takeitdown]

I'd not like a situation where we pick @ 5 and then again at 70+.

I also wouldnt like a situation where we pick 6 times between 35-96.

Ideally, we'd pick once in the Top ~15, and then 3 or 4 more times between 32 and 96

I think that makes sense. And that's generally my preference...5 in the top 3.

It was more pointing to the extremes...either a lot of 2nd's and 3rds and no "elite" talent, or 1 elite talent and nearly no 2nds/3rds.

When you look at very real needs at Edge rusher, LG, corner, WR, RB, TE, S, MLB...you also start to see a picture in which we need a lot of capable talent, but not a lot of stars. That's not always the case...but a 2nd or 3rd round TE and WR can make hay in this offense with Julio and Roddy pulling coverage. Same at RB. It's really only when you get to edge that we need a truly top player. We could use one anywhere, of course...but we have a number of holes that would be very well filled with 40-80 level talent in this draft.