You need a OT and a WR who are you taking?

[Tugboat]

1 hour ago, Soko said:

I actually view it the opposite.

If you have 5 bad WRs and then drop Nabers in there, that’s a huge boost to your passing game. But if you have 5 bad OL and then Alt in at LT, you still have a pretty bad OL.

I think the context surrounding this question (whether you’re building the team from complete scratch, do I have other picks, whether you have X Coach, Y QB, or ABC at OL/WR already) drastically changes the smarter choice between these two (neither are bad).

That's where there's a little bit of a difference between having a WR need and LT need specifically, vs just needing an entire OLine.

Though even in the latter case as you're describing...heck, in this draft i might just go Alt first and them come back with an Interior OLine pick in the 2nd if it's that bad as a unit.  Until you build up that OLine, you're going to have a bad time.  Unless you have an ultra elusive QB to mitigate some of the issue.  But that's super rare.

[Dr A W Niloc]

OTs tend to have longer careers and affect both the run and the pass.  In fact, without OTs, there ain't gonna be no passing.

Joe Alt.

[Soko]

17 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

That's where there's a little bit of a difference between having a WR need and LT need specifically, vs just needing an entire OLine.

Though even in the latter case as you're describing...heck, in this draft i might just go Alt first and them come back with an Interior OLine pick in the 2nd if it's that bad as a unit.  Until you build up that OLine, you're going to have a bad time.  Unless you have an ultra elusive QB to mitigate some of the issue.  But that's super rare.

Do we have more picks in this draft? I’m picking 5th, am I the Chargers? Do we have average players on the roster but no WR1 or LT? Or are we building it from scratch where I don’t have anyone? 

I think anyone answering the question has to make assumptions on at least some of those questions, and that changes the smarter choice IMO. If I don’t know what I have, I’ll take the guy who, alone, will make the bigger impact. Though I see the value in taking the guy at the harder-to-fill spot.

Like, if I’m the Chargers (who need an OT and a WR), I’d probably pick Alt. If I’m the Chiefs (who need an OT and a WR), I’d probably pick Nabers. If I’m the Patriots, (who need an OT and a WR), I’d probably pick Alt (but if I could, I’d take MHJ). If I’m the Giants )who need an OT and a WR), I’d take Nabers. 

[Tugboat]

10 minutes ago, Soko said:

Do we have more picks in this draft? I’m picking 5th, am I the Chargers? Do we have average players on the roster but no WR1 or LT? Or are we building it from scratch where I don’t have anyone? 

I think anyone answering the question has to make assumptions on at least some of those questions, and that changes the smarter choice IMO. If I don’t know what I have, I’ll take the guy who, alone, will make the bigger impact. Though I see the value in taking the guy at the harder-to-fill spot.

Like, if I’m the Chargers (who need an OT and a WR), I’d probably pick Alt. If I’m the Chiefs (who need an OT and a WR), I’d probably pick Nabers. If I’m the Patriots, (who need an OT and a WR), I’d probably pick Alt (but if I could, I’d take MHJ). If I’m the Giants )who need an OT and a WR), I’d take Nabers. 

Yeah.  This is where i'm taking this as a more hypothetical exercise, rather than a specific team's situation.  Because the actual teams in that area all have very different situation.  But still have to lean on all sorts of assumptions anyway.

For me it's...if you need "an OT" (singular) and Joe Alt is the guy, you need a LT.  Otherwise, you're wasting draft premium on a position change for no good reason.  So that's already an assumption, but that's how i see it.  Not as the "entire OLine sucks", because i feel like if that's the hypothetical, it should've been described as just "Need OLine".

 

But yeah.  There are so many assumptions and moving parts to even answering this.  Makes more sense to me to approach it more hypothetically and at least try to drill down the some underlying premise with a little bit more universality.

Edited April 18 by Tugboat

[paul-mac]

In this particular draft I’m taking the OT at 5 because I’m very high on the second round WRs in this draft whereas I think there’s a big drop off after the first group of OTs.

[Teen Girl Squad]

20 hours ago, Tugboat said:

Yeah.  This is where i'm taking this as a more hypothetical exercise, rather than a specific team's situation.  Because the actual teams in that area all have very different situation.  But still have to lean on all sorts of assumptions anyway.

For me it's...if you need "an OT" (singular) and Joe Alt is the guy, you need a LT.  Otherwise, you're wasting draft premium on a position change for no good reason.  So that's already an assumption, but that's how i see it.  Not as the "entire OLine sucks", because i feel like if that's the hypothetical, it should've been described as just "Need OLine".

 

But yeah.  There are so many assumptions and moving parts to even answering this.  Makes more sense to me to approach it more hypothetically and at least try to drill down the some underlying premise with a little bit more universality.

The more I do 'this' (armchair team building), the more I think hypothetical 'neutral'/'universal' debates are of marginal value. The situation, league meta, free agency, the actual prospects available, surplus value etc... are just too important. In a vaccuum, we understand that WR and OT are probably pretty close to value and among the most important non-QB positions and thus all of the other factors are much more relevant than the hypothetical, minor differences. It feels more sophisticated to look at it broadly and philosophically, but I think its actually more sophisticated to approach it with full, relevant context.