Beast berated: Perhaps this is the essence of the disagreement....I am not taking the best player available, I am drafting for need subject to value. It seems a meaningless exercise to fill out these draft boards if you are not going to take team need into meaningful consideration.
it seems meaningless to you, then stop doing it and stop wasting your time watching others do it... because you're then just being a buzz kill for yourself and others.
2) I believe I clearly took meaningful consideration into my mock and you're still complaining about it, because it doesn't fit your personal want list...
But if we're talking about team needs
, the team needs TEs, FS, DL, OL, ILB, back-up CBs for when (not if, but when King and/or Alexander go down with an injury), maybe even two.
3) So OL CLEARLY isn't the only need... yet it's the only one you seem to care about which is a huge difference between actual needs and needs you care about.
Furthermore, IMO drafting the best player available is something teams with depth at most positions can do....and we don't have relative depth at almost any position, except corner.
I feel like that's backwards... the more holes you got the more you can simply grab the best player available because that's a need position.
Second, to be frank, I think the statement many GMs say after the draft, such as "XXXX was the top rated guy on the board and we really wanted him" is largely BS in most cases.
Yeah I agree with this, I think post draft is a lot of fluff BS.
Additionally, IMO the offensive line needs to be looked at as five positions, not one. I am not terribly interested in Composite Line Rankings. As previously stated, on the O line, you as strong as your weakest link.
If you're saying you're only strong as your weakest link then you are looking at then as one... which is exactly what you yourself are saying you shouldn't do.
All teams have problems where if certain guys go down, they're completely screwed, other than maybe the Patriots because their strength is amazing coaching. But some teams have sucky OTs like Spriggs starting because there isn't enough talent to go around. If anything I'd try to sign the veteran OT Donald Penn, who the Raiders just released, and is said to workout at the same place as Rodgers and Baktari (spelling) and I think others (Matthews maybe it was?)... I'm sure he want to start at LT, but maybe get him on a two year deal as backup insurance for Bulaga and try to draft a future guy.
Therefore my opinion, for which I have now provided more that adequate rationale, is that posters are not taking OL need into consideration.
That's an interesting opinion, and for some I'm sure you are correct.... but some are taking it AND other positions into consideration, which you are not seeming to do, as you solely only focus on one need when there are many.