I'm not sure I understand the "better value" concept.

I believe that there were many people on this board (and in the press) who said taking a guard at number six was stupid because you could get someone else later in the draft. How does Nelson's draft selection look now?

Now Leonard, that was great value at a second pick, looking back. But I'm betting there were some people who where critical because he was a small school guy, they could have waited until the 3rd round.

Every player in a sport can have a $ value placed on his by every single team. Some teams value other positions or talents differenly than others, or characteristics that a player may have or not have.

I think the Ballard really wants guys who love to play. They will need physical talent, but the LOVE to play. They are team guys, they are workaholics and they are driven. I'm not sure how you put that into a metric.

I have trouble believing Rashan Gary would be graded as a round 1 player. So even though he may be the 5th best, it really seems that only 4 are round 1 worthy picks.

The bold has nothing to do with what I said. It's really very simple. You create a ranked list of your individual prospect ratings. If you get to 26 and a WR is clearly rated higher that a pass rusher on your board, you take the WR and hope one of the pass rushers is available in Rd 2.

A lot of draft analysts think Gary will put on a show at the combine even though he never really dominated in college.

Positional value is definitely a thing. If you don't believe me, check out the franchise tag numbers by position. The reason people made the argument bolded above is because predicting a player will be an All-Pro talent as a rookie is folly, and from a positional value perspective, OG is not a position on which a good GM would typically spend a top 10 pick. Nelson worked out better than anyone could reasonably expect, which is why it ended up working out, but let's not pretend that Ballard wasn't risking drafting the next Jonathan Cooper at the time.

And he may very well. I just think a pick like that in the 1st is a luxury pick and not many teams in the NFL can afford to do it. The argument for him would be that he is raw and can be developed into a dominant player with NFL coaching.

My argument against that would be that the increase in competition level will only further stunt his development, and most teams don't have the practice time to develop a raw player. It would be one thing if he was raw and athletic and dominated in college on athleticism alone. But if he didn't dominate against lesser competition I think there's reason to doubt that he'll do it in the NFL. I would not use a 1st on him.

exactly. You just can't pick a project player in the first. You should be looking to add a starter. If you have a complete team with no holes, maybe you can afford that, but that describes no team.

Ok, I get that. It would explain Nelson. He was the BEST player available. And maybe just a bit more.

I will add this, that kid brought a boat load of intangelbles. It wouldn't and couldnt show up until they took a snap. And that is where Ballard will make his money. Finding the guy who brings something that isn't expected.

I think Polian called the combine and workouts as the underware olympics. If a guy can't show it in a game, what does it matter?

Yeah, I don't know what you are talking about.

Nelson was the big fucking dog in this draft and he was a PRO BOWL player out the gate. How did all the guys above him do? Nelson was all pro as a lineman, the toughest, most intellegent position in the game. And he will only get better.

And while people will say QB is harder, try sittin in a three point stance, LISTENING to audibles and then HOLDING your position until the snap and ajusting your attack depending on the change, and knocking the crap out of the guy in front of you.

This guy could be one of the BEST. He's smart (Notre Damn), atheletic, and his DRIVEN. He likes to beat the piss out of guys in a legal way and not go to jail.

That 6th round pick will look like chump change in the future.