"Best Player Available"

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Another widely used term: "Best Player Available"

 

What does this mean, really?

 

If you need a doctor, go to the "best doctor available". Doesn't that depend on what's wrong with ya?

Do you need a surgeon or a gastroenterologist?

If you have some means to decide who is "best overall", what does that mean, really?

If you put the "best doctor" in a cruddy practice without the proper laboratory and office staff support, will he still seem like the best?

Would you be better off with an adequate doctor who can improvise and compensate in those circumstances?

 

If you need a personal trainer, get the "best personal trainer available". Doesn't "best" depend on your goal? The best trainer for a sprinter maybe not the best for training a figure skater or a distance runner? Of trainers good at developing athletes for different sports, if you could decide who was overall best, what meaning would that have for you?

 

I think don't understand what "best player available" means, really.

[Kevin]

Best player available means "we are going to pick who we want to pick and nobody will find out until we pick!"

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Good points, but what your'e really saying is pick the best player according to our needs, which we should do.

[bowery4]

It means not REACHING to fill a need. Instead you take the most talented regardless of need. BN has said the would take BPA several times recently, but in the past said you take BPA w/ need in mind. So in other words it is all smoke and mirrors, like interviewing and wine and dinning Tebow last year.

[KD in CA]

It means not REACHING to fill a need. Instead you take the most talented regardless of need. BN has said the would take BPA several times recently, but in the past said you take BPA w/ need in mind. So in other words it is all smoke and mirrors, like interviewing and wine and dinning Tebow last year.

 

Nothing like using one ridiculous, meaningless draft cliché to define another. Boy, I'm sure glad we didn't 'reach' for Maurkice Pouncey or Roger Safforld over the 'BPA' CJ Spiller last year. Think of the ridicule Mel Kiper would have heaped on us.

[bowery4]

Nothing like using one ridiculous, meaningless draft cliché to define another. Boy, I'm sure glad we didn't 'reach' for Maurkice Pouncey or Roger Safforld over the 'BPA' CJ Spiller last year. Think of the ridicule Mel Kiper would have heaped on us.

 

 

Hey, I kind of share your opinion but words is all I have,meaningless draft cliché make communication easier and I thought the OP was being honestly naive.

[Ghost of Rob Johnson]

If you put the "best doctor" in a cruddy practice without the proper laboratory and office staff support, will he still seem like the best?

If you pick the best person for every position within that practice, won't you eventually have the best practice around? But if there's 53 open positions, and you only get 7-10 applicants per year, won't having the best practice around take some time?

[macaroni]

If you pick the best person for every position within that practice, won't you eventually have the best practice around? But if there's 53 open positions, and you only get 7-10 applicants per year, won't having the best practice around take some time?

 

 

I agree it would take some time ..... but by the end of a decade or so we'd have hands down the best team in the NFL as opposed to now, where after a decade of futility we've got ..... ahhhhhh ... something less.

[Kevin]

You guys are putting way too much thought into it. Come draft day the bills know who they are selecting. They know the scenarios for trade downs, or what to do if the player they target is gone when they pick.

 

Also, BPA to buddy nix might be different than BPA to mike shanahan for example. It is based on one mans/teams opinion of the players in the draft.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Nothing like using one ridiculous, meaningless draft cliché to define another. Boy, I'm sure glad we didn't 'reach' for Maurkice Pouncey or Roger Safforld over the 'BPA' CJ Spiller last year. Think of the ridicule Mel Kiper would have heaped on us.

 

I would have been OK with 'reaching' for Alualu (#10 pick)

[The Buffalo Irishman]

Best player available means "we are going to pick who we want to pick and nobody will find out until we pick!"

Exactly!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

You guys are putting way too much thought into it. Come draft day the bills know who they are selecting. They know the scenarios for trade downs, or what to do if the player they target is gone when they pick.

 

Also, BPA to buddy nix might be different than BPA to mike shanahan for example. It is based on one mans/teams opinion of the players in the draft.

 

Kevin, I think you just spelled it out in plain English.

 

"Best Player Available" means "we will select whoever we want based on Buddy Nix opinion of the players in the draft (modified by some unknown Wilson factor) and justify it by saying 'BPA'"

[Kelly the Dog]

I said it before and will say it again: Every single pick in every single round by every single team (and in every single sport) is a choice/battle between Best Player Available and Best Player Available at Position of Need, and how much the difference between the two will help the team in the drafter's eyes. Every time, and every team makes that exact same kind of choice.

 

Last year, for example, when it was the Bills choice in the first round, Nix and the powers that be had to decide between Spiller, who was by far their BPA, and their top rated player at NT, DE, LB (the more obvious positions of need going into the draft). Because Nix felt the team lacked playmakers, speed on offense, and their line was suspect (Nix said he felt great backs make lines look better), he decided that the BPA helped the team far more overall, especially for the future, so they picked Spiller even though RB was one of the last positions of need. It also meant on their board the top rated NT, DE and LB was rated far below Spiller.

 

In the second round, the same choice came up again (as it does every round, every team, every year). The Bills had a couple (unknown) BPA on their board at various random positions. But they decided that Terrel Troup, who may have been anywhere from #1-#10 or so on their BPA list, would help the team the most because we so desperately needed a run stuffing NT when changing to a 3-4. But it's the exact same predicament and choice as before.

 

In the third round, again, the same predicament came up, and they chose Carrington over other guys they probably hated rated higher as BPA because they knew we needed DEs when most of ours were being made into linebackers (Kelsay, Schobel, Maybin, etc).

 

But, if there was a player at, say, OT or WR or any other position when it was our turn to draft that was rated SO MUCH higher than Carrington overall, they likely would have taken that guy. But since the player (Carrington) was very likely rated just below other players at positions of less need, Carrington became the obvious choice for them, and they didn't need any more time to make that selection.

 

And again, every team looks at every pick the exact same way. It's just that certain teams have different philosophies on what makes its team better. Pittsburgh, for example, seems to value BPA a little more than BPA at position of need and will tend to draft players for its future as opposed to immediate future.

[K Gun Special]

never mind that teams like the colts and pats have built their respective franchises by taking the highest graded player when its their turn.

 

besides what position on this team isnt a need ?? When we took spiller they knew ML was gonna be traded... and freddy is turning 30 soon.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Another widely used term: "Best Player Available"

 

What does this mean, really?

 

If you need a doctor, go to the "best doctor available". Doesn't that depend on what's wrong with ya?

Do you need a surgeon or a gastroenterologist?

If you have some means to decide who is "best overall", what does that mean, really?

If you put the "best doctor" in a cruddy practice without the proper laboratory and office staff support, will he still seem like the best?

Would you be better off with an adequate doctor who can improvise and compensate in those circumstances?

 

If you need a personal trainer, get the "best personal trainer available". Doesn't "best" depend on your goal? The best trainer for a sprinter maybe not the best for training a figure skater or a distance runner? Of trainers good at developing athletes for different sports, if you could decide who was overall best, what meaning would that have for you?

 

I think don't understand what "best player available" means, really.

 

In simplest terms you theoretically have 2 choices, you can pick the best remaining left tackle (or insert any other position) no matter who is on the board because that is what you need

 

-or-

 

pick the highest rated player on your own draft board that is still there completely irrespective of position.

 

My feeling is saying you will go BPA gives you the most latitude to do what you feel like and is mostly a blurb to placate the fans. With the money at stake I won't even guess what gamesmanship happens behind the scenes or how much effort goes into trying to guess who will pick who in front of them, but there has to be intelligent assessments of how these guys tend to draft historically used as a predictor regardless of what is said.

 

 

 

For example Torrell Troup, was he really he BPA (in alignment with Buddy’s professed strategy) at 41 or was it, hey he’s a highly rated NT and the bills needed one.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2011 by over 20 years of fanhood

[Hapless Bills Fan]

It means not REACHING to fill a need. Instead you take the most talented regardless of need. BN has said the would take BPA several times recently, but in the past said you take BPA w/ need in mind. So in other words it is all smoke and mirrors, like interviewing and wine and dinning Tebow last year.

 

Hey Bowery. Sure, I'll buy that. But let's look at...OK, Spiller.

Bills said "hey, we're taking the BPA, rather than reaching, to fill a need such as QB".

 

Fair enough, if we don't think Tebow, McCoy, or Clausen are really value at #9 pick. Nobody else liked them enough to go in the top half of the 1st.

 

Now what about other needs, such as DL or OT?

Alualu was considered a reach at #10, he's a starting DL for the Jaguars. Graham (#13) cracked the starting lineup for the Iggles.

Pierre-Paul (#15) saw the field as a backup for the Giants, racked up 6 deflections and 5 sacks. We're so freakin' certain they couldn't help the team, overall, more than Spiller?

 

Davis, Iupati, Pouncey - POUNCEY - none of them could be solid starters for our OL?

 

I won't go further back in the draft b'cause last year was Nix 1st year. Point is, our "oh, BPA, no reaching!" seems to be another, later drafting team's solid choice at a position we need.

[Mr. WEO]

never mind that teams like the colts and pats have built their respective franchises by taking the highest graded player when its their turn.

 

besides what position on this team isnt a need ?? When we took spiller they knew ML was gonna be traded... and freddy is turning 30 soon.

They knew that on draft day?? Is that why they, much later let him go for a 4th instead of a 3rd?

 

Hey Bowery. Sure, I'll buy that. But let's look at...OK, Spiller.

Bills said "hey, we're taking the BPA, rather than reaching, to fill a need such as QB".

 

Fair enough, if we don't think Tebow, McCoy, or Clausen are really value at #9 pick. Nobody else liked them enough to go in the top half of the 1st.

 

Now what about other needs, such as DL or OT?

Alualu was considered a reach at #10, he's a starting DL for the Jaguars. Graham (#13) cracked the starting lineup for the Iggles.

Pierre-Paul (#15) saw the field as a backup for the Giants, racked up 6 deflections and 5 sacks. We're so freakin' certain they couldn't help the team, overall, more than Spiller?

 

Davis, Iupati, Pouncey - POUNCEY - none of them could be solid starters for our OL?

I won't go further back in the draft b'cause last year was Nix 1st year. Point is, our "oh, BPA, no reaching!" seems to be another, later drafting team's solid choice at a position we need.

 

Good points. Troup was a reach at 41. Another 2nd round project for the Bills. Despite all the needs, we drafted 1 starter last year (Moats). Nice.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

If you pick the best person for every position within that practice, won't you eventually have the best practice around? But if there's 53 open positions, and you only get 7-10 applicants per year, won't having the best practice around take some time?

 

Good points, Ghost of.

 

On the surface of it, sure - if you hire the best physician available for every position you need to fill, sure, eventually you'll have the best practice.

 

Is that what "BPA" gets you to do?

Or is it, every time there's an open position, you say "oh, the best physician available right now is a great urologist so we'll take him even though we badly need some good internists and we already have two good urologists". Pardon the analogy, but by doing that won't you essentially "piss away" your chance to eventually build an overall great practice?

 

Then that gets me to my other point. What is our player development really like? S&C? Trainers? Quality of coaches? If you hire doctors for a practice, don't give them access to adequate lab services or information management, and require them to see so many patients that they have no time for professional development, in 5 years you'll have a bunch of once-promising middle-aged physicians who are outdated in their field. Is Pouncey a starting center for the AFC champions while Wang barely saw the field because Pouncey is just that much better (even though he was too much of a "reach" at #9) or, in part, because Pouncey had better coaching and player development resources around him, and saw his peers working their a**es off preseason and during the week in a way the Bills just don't?

 

In other words, do our draft choices suck because our scouting totally bites, or are we also lacking in the underlying infrastructure that helps players go from "promising draft choice" to "great"?

[EastRochBillsfan]

If you pick the best person for every position within that practice, won't you eventually have the best practice around? But if there's 53 open positions, and you only get 7-10 applicants per year, won't having the best practice around take some time?

pure genious ghost. not being sarcastic.

 

I said it before and will say it again: Every single pick in every single round by every single team (and in every single sport) is a choice/battle between Best Player Available and Best Player Available at Position of Need, and how much the difference between the two will help the team in the drafter's eyes. Every time, and every team makes that exact same kind of choice.

 

Last year, for example, when it was the Bills choice in the first round, Nix and the powers that be had to decide between Spiller, who was by far their BPA, and their top rated player at NT, DE, LB (the more obvious positions of need going into the draft). Because Nix felt the team lacked playmakers, speed on offense, and their line was suspect (Nix said he felt great backs make lines look better), he decided that the BPA helped the team far more overall, especially for the future, so they picked Spiller even though RB was one of the last positions of need. It also meant on their board the top rated NT, DE and LB was rated far below Spiller.

 

In the second round, the same choice came up again (as it does every round, every team, every year). The Bills had a couple (unknown) BPA on their board at various random positions. But they decided that Terrel Troup, who may have been anywhere from #1-#10 or so on their BPA list, would help the team the most because we so desperately needed a run stuffing NT when changing to a 3-4. But it's the exact same predicament and choice as before.

 

In the third round, again, the same predicament came up, and they chose Carrington over other guys they probably hated rated higher as BPA because they knew we needed DEs when most of ours were being made into linebackers (Kelsay, Schobel, Maybin, etc).

 

But, if there was a player at, say, OT or WR or any other position when it was our turn to draft that was rated SO MUCH higher than Carrington overall, they likely would have taken that guy. But since the player (Carrington) was very likely rated just below other players at positions of less need, Carrington became the obvious choice for them, and they didn't need any more time to make that selection.

 

And again, every team looks at every pick the exact same way. It's just that certain teams have different philosophies on what makes its team better. Pittsburgh, for example, seems to value BPA a little more than BPA at position of need and will tend to draft players for its future as opposed to immediate future.

 

nice post kelly

 

never mind that teams like the colts and pats have built their respective franchises by taking the highest graded player when its their turn.

 

besides what position on this team isnt a need ?? When we took spiller they knew ML was gonna be traded... and freddy is turning 30 soon.

 

I agree. And I'm pretty sure the Bills knew that they might need/want to get rid of Lynch but obviously couldn't say that publicly. i liked/like the player, but as I like to say,he was one blunt away from a big suspension. So to all of you who keep saying, a year later mind you, that rb wasn't a need, I say hogwash.

 

They knew that on draft day?? Is that why they, much later let him go for a 4th instead of a 3rd?

 

 

 

Good points. Troup was a reach at 41. Another 2nd round project for the Bills. Despite all the needs, we drafted 1 starter last year (Moats). Nice.

 

Mr Weo, respectably speaking, give it a rest. It's not like this hasn't been debated 10 times already but i'm pretty sure the concensus on this board was that the thought was the seahawks 4th would be close to new orleans pic, plus we'd get a conditional 5th or 6th. At the time, 2 players sure looked better than one. So i just don't agree with you assessment that we got screwed in that deal. And them offering a 3rd is just rumor anyways.

 

Don't agree with what you said about troupe either. not a reach at all. I'm glad we didn't take fat man cody. When it's all said and done, I think there will be a lot of starters from this draft on this team. Spiller, Troupe, Carrington, Easley and Moats. Plus the undrafted guys, jones and nelson. Either way, I thought everyone knows you really don't know how good a draft is for a good 2-3 years? So we won't know who is right for another year or two. so sit tight.

[Mr. WEO]

pure genious ghost. not being sarcastic.

 

 

 

nice post kelly

 

 

 

I agree. And I'm pretty sure the Bills knew that they might need/want to get rid of Lynch but obviously couldn't say that publicly. i liked/like the player, but as I like to say,he was one blunt away from a big suspension. So to all of you who keep saying, a year later mind you, that rb wasn't a need, I say hogwash.

 

 

 

Mr Weo, respectably speaking, give it a rest. It's not like this hasn't been debated 10 times already but i'm pretty sure the concensus on this board was that the thought was the seahawks 4th would be close to new orleans pic, plus we'd get a conditional 5th or 6th. At the time, 2 players sure looked better than one. So i just don't agree with you assessment that we got screwed in that deal. And them offering a 3rd is just rumor anyways.

 

Don't agree with what you said about troupe either. not a reach at all. I'm glad we didn't take fat man cody. When it's all said and done, I think there will be a lot of starters from this draft on this team. Spiller, Troupe, Carrington, Easley and Moats. Plus the undrafted guys, jones and nelson. Either way, I thought everyone knows you really don't know how good a draft is for a good 2-3 years? So we won't know who is right for another year or two. so sit tight.

 

DOn't we say that every year? After every Bills draft? And what do we conclude after the requisite 2-3 years of wait-and-see?---that we need to "build through the draft".

 

Several of those guys may be starters some day, no doubt. But first day picks (ok, first 2 days in the new system) on a team with so many needs should be guys who can play now. A 2nd round NT who needs to bulk up and work with a trainer in order to be ready to play NT?

 

Look at NE's draft class from last year. Lot if starters and guys who saw a lot of action and made significant contributions--on a team with far fewer needs than ours.

 

Why is that?

[Sisyphean Bills]

Every player is given a grade by the team. Say they use a scale from 1-10. Players are given some overall point total based on all the tests, examinations, etc. Drafting BPA means that you simply pick the guy with the highest grade on your draft board. This is as opposed to say an approach where there may be 15 solid XX rated from 5.0-5.5 on your board and because of a run at the YY position there is only 1 YY left in that range but with a 5.0 grade. The next best YY might be a 2.8, let's say. Instead of taking the YY, you remain true to your board and take the XX even if you already have some XX on the team, etc.

 

Now, Belichick would look at that situation with cold hearted glee, because someone who is desperate for a YY will likely come calling and offer him a package of picks in exchange. Belichick would trade down, not taking a reach or following the run, and maybe even missing the top XX (or 10) on his board, but full well knowing he'll get one of the top 15 XX (with little drop off talent-wise, for a cheaper contract, and with the confidence he can coach the player up better anyway), and on top of that get some other picks for players or for yet more trades as well.

 

Of course, the contrasting approach is targeting. For example, under Levy, the Bills had 3 DTs with the same grade which they figured meant all 3 would go in the 1st round. When 2 of those DTs were taken, the Bills gave up picks to trade back into the first round to get the last remaining DT they'd given that grade.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I would have been OK with 'reaching' for Alualu (#10 pick)

Well, you say that in retrospect…but are you saying that you were hoping that the Bills were going to pick Alualu when they were on the clock? Alualu was considered a reach at #10 by almost every NFL team.

 

"Alualu was drafted as the tenth overall pick in the 2010 NFL Draft by the Jacksonville Jaguars, a move that was widely regarded as the biggest surprise of the draft, and according to ESPN NFL Draft expert Mel Kiper Jr. "A risky move for taking him this high".

 

 

Others have explained the BPA vs Need argument very sufficiently here and many times before and the very real conundrum of reconciling and balancing those two draft factors.

 

No team employs exclusively one method. It's always a balance, the only question is how balanced?

 

The only thing I'd add is that drafting the BPA and drafting for Need are two concepts and so when these terms are used, it's really just rhetoric.

 

No team ignores their needs just as no team ignores the best player available, even if that player doesn't address a need.

 

[bobobonators]

best player available simply means drafting the most talented football player irrespective of your team needs...this makes the most sense when a team has so many needs, that it becomes pointless to try and focus on a specific position and ignoring the others. hence, draft the best player available.

 

the examples you use don't apply to football. if you have a medical condition, of course you go to the specialist that can best remedy your condition...a football team has numerous elements/problems that can't be addressed by a single player, no matter how good they are. So in other words, just focus on the best player available, regardless of position (within reason of course), without limiting your search to the best player within a specific position.

[KD in CA]

best player available simply means drafting the most talented football player irrespective of your team needs...this makes the most sense when a team has so many needs, that it becomes pointless to try and focus on a specific position and ignoring the others. hence, draft the best player available.

 

The problem is, you don't necessarily know who the best player is at the time since every player is a crap shoot. Once you factor in the standard deviation between projections and reality, it is entirely reasonable to consider any one of a number of guys to be the 'bpa' at a certain point in the draft, making it foolish to completely ignore the needs of your team.

 

Everyone roasted the Texans for passing on 'BPA' Reggie Bush to draft for a 'need' in Mario Williams. Turns out they got the BPA after all.

[bobobonators]

The problem is, you don't necessarily know who the best player is at the time since every player is a crap shoot. Once you factor in the standard deviation between projections and reality, it is entirely reasonable to consider any one of a number of guys to be the 'bpa' at a certain point in the draft, making it foolish to completely ignore the needs of your team.

 

Everyone roasted the Texans for passing on 'BPA' Reggie Bush to draft for a 'need' in Mario Williams. Turns out they got the BPA after all.

 

i agree. my post implied that best player available = projected, by the coaches/organization.

Edited January 29, 2011 by bobobonators

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Well, you say that in retrospect…but are you saying that you were hoping that the Bills were going to pick Alualu when they were on the clock? Alualu was considered a reach at #10 by almost every NFL team.

 

Me? I wanted the Bills to draft Dan Williams or Brian Bulaga. Both of whom show potential, I think, to be quality NFL players, neither of whom have been the "standouts" of the draft class on their line. Which probably shows why my job is NOT evaluating college football talent. What I want is for those who do get paid to evaluate football talent for the Bills, to draft some players in the 1st few rounds who contribute consistently for a number of seasons. Franchise players, so to speak. I think our record speaks for itself that something is badly amiss here - either in the talent evaluation, or the choice of which talent to draft, or both.

 

Others have explained the BPA vs Need argument very sufficiently here and many times before and the very real conundrum of reconciling and balancing those two draft factors.

 

No team employs exclusively one method. It's always a balance, the only question is how balanced?

 

My perception is that the Bills balance has been to draft a medical practice full of urologists. In fact, looking at the draft, it's not that we've completely ignored the internist (lines on both sides of the ball); it's that when we have drafted high on DL or OL, the players we've drafted have been busts (McCargo, Maybin) who haven't contributed at all. On the other hand, it does seem that our drafts have been skewed towards WR, RB, DB. If that's 'cuz we're looking at "best player available" maybe we need to quit that.

 

The argument for Spiller is that Bills must have evaluated all the available OL and DL talent as "too much of a reach" at that position.

My point is that other teams (Tampa, etcetera) seem to have found players who could contribute strongly their rookie year, at those positions drafted just a few positions later. One position later in the case of Alualu, two in the case of Anthony Davis, Pierre-Paul at #15 etcetera.

 

Why are these guys too much of a reach for us, but "just right" for them?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

DOn't we say that every year? After every Bills draft? And what do we conclude after the requisite 2-3 years of wait-and-see?---that we need to "build through the draft".

 

Several of those guys may be starters some day, no doubt. But first day picks (ok, first 2 days in the new system) on a team with so many needs should be guys who can play now. A 2nd round NT who needs to bulk up and work with a trainer in order to be ready to play NT?

 

Look at NE's draft class from last year. Lot if starters and guys who saw a lot of action and made significant contributions--on a team with far fewer needs than ours.

 

Why is that?

 

I hear you, WEO. That's my point. We pass up guys cuz "oh, they're a reach, we want BPA" and the guys we pass up crack the starting lineup and make contributions.

Heck, the guys we draft later or sign as UDFA crack the starting lineup and make contributions.

 

If we do have a system, it's broken (including last years draft) and we need to stop making excuses about "needs at every position" and f***ing figure out what the problem is and fix it.

 

best player available simply means drafting the most talented football player irrespective of your team needs...this makes the most sense when a team has so many needs, that it becomes pointless to try and focus on a specific position and ignoring the others. hence, draft the best player available.

 

the examples you use don't apply to football. if you have a medical condition, of course you go to the specialist that can best remedy your condition...a football team has numerous elements/problems that can't be addressed by a single player, no matter how good they are. So in other words, just focus on the best player available, regardless of position (within reason of course), without limiting your search to the best player within a specific position.

 

Within reason of course. But are the Bills within reason?

 

Bob, with respect, I think you've just argued that my example does apply. If you have a medical condition, you may have one of numerous elements/problems that can't be addressed by a single physician, no matter how good they are. If the practices approved by your medical insurance focused only on hiring the best doctor available, regardless of specialty, you'd think it was ridiculous if they told you the only urologist you could see wasn't board-certified, but you could see any one of 10 board-certified allergists or gynecologist. "Why did you hire so many allergists or GYNs?" you'd yell. "Wasn't there a competent, board certified urologist you could have hired?" "Oh, no, sir, I'm sorry, we had to focus on the best doctor available, regardless of specialty".

 

You would probably even like to make an argument that your practice should focus on certain fundamental positions (say, family practice - or DL or OL) rather than drafting a bunch of RB, WR, or DB with top picks year after year.

 

I suppose I'm just ticked off at all the "draft Greene, draft Peterson" stuff. I'll put some brandy in my coffee and calm down "Real Soon Now"tm.

[papazoid]

Another widely used term: "Best Player Available"

 

What does this mean, really?

 

If you need a doctor, go to the "best doctor available". Doesn't that depend on what's wrong with ya?

Do you need a surgeon or a gastroenterologist?

If you have some means to decide who is "best overall", what does that mean, really?

If you put the "best doctor" in a cruddy practice without the proper laboratory and office staff support, will he still seem like the best?

Would you be better off with an adequate doctor who can improvise and compensate in those circumstances?

 

If you need a personal trainer, get the "best personal trainer available". Doesn't "best" depend on your goal? The best trainer for a sprinter maybe not the best for training a figure skater or a distance runner? Of trainers good at developing athletes for different sports, if you could decide who was overall best, what meaning would that have for you?

 

I think don't understand what "best player available" means, really.

 

 

essentially it means that it is best to draft the player most likely to make it in the NFL irregardless of position......even if it's a position you are already strong in. said in another way, why take on added risk of failure to address a position of need and pass over a better player at a position of strength.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

essentially it means that it is best to draft the player most likely to make it in the NFL irregardless of position......even if it's a position you are already strong in. said in another way, why take on added risk of failure to address a position of need and pass over a better player at a position of strength.

 

OK, fair enough. I get it, that's how it's supposed to work.

Point is, players we pass over at positions we need appear to be making it in the NFL for other teams while the "player most likely to make it in the NFL that we draft" appears....tenuous.

Why dat?

[Sisyphean Bills]

OK, fair enough. I get it, that's how it's supposed to work.

Point is, players we pass over at positions we need appear to be making it in the NFL for other teams while the "player most likely to make it in the NFL that we draft" appears....tenuous.

Why dat?

Is it not interesting, Hopeful, that 4 "BPA" picks in the last draft were players that were projects for a 3-4 defense?

[spartacus]

The problem is, you don't necessarily know who the best player is at the time since every player is a crap shoot. Once you factor in the standard deviation between projections and reality, it is entirely reasonable to consider any one of a number of guys to be the 'bpa' at a certain point in the draft, making it foolish to completely ignore the needs of your team.

 

Everyone roasted the Texans for passing on 'BPA' Reggie Bush to draft for a 'need' in Mario Williams. Turns out they got the BPA after all.

 

your premise that "every player is a crap shoot" always applies when the Bills pick players, but not to other teams with NFL caliber talent evaluators.

 

 

Good talent evaluator do not screw up the process every year, unlike the Bills who consistently manage to take players in the top 12 who have no business being drafted there.

 

but hey- it's not Modrak's fault that he has no clue what attributes are critical to producing in the NFL

 

if the Bills could evaluate talent, then maybe BPA would even be possible

 

 

[Frostbelt City]

For example... Revis is the best CB in the draft and Trent Edwards is the best QB in the draft, hypothetically

 

We'd pick the BPA - Revis

[Webster Guy]

OK first of all Papazoid, 'irregardless' isnt a word. Its a double negative- the correct term is regardless. (Just making sure you don't end up getting Bruce Smith disease and using your own set of words like I do when I'm drinking)

 

I like this thread and some of the points here, it just goes to show how much BS some of these draft guru's and GM's have when they talk about BPA and how they construct a draft board. Some teams, like the Rams, swear they stick to the BPA approach, but my guess is they don't pick a QB in the first round this year even if he WAS the best player on their board because they already have a young rising star QB. So its a blend that falls somewhere in between the two for sure.

 

Right now all I care about is our defensive front seven, and I hope our board has lots and lots of fast, strong NFL future stars waiting to get our defense back to respectable and maybe even feared. Come on Nix you've gotta pull through on this one or I swear I'll never visit the south again.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Webster Guy

[Koufax]

Kelly and others covered most of what I think, but I always have to chime in on BPA conversations.

 

BPA means trying to get the best 5+ year playing contribution from your selection. Over that 5 year period needs changed dramatically, and most players don't make big enough first year impact to address a need (although it is great when they do).

 

If you pick someone else who is an inferior player because you think he is more of a need (Bulaga over Spiller), over the course of the 5+ years, you will have less talent on your roster, and less individual contributions towards victories, which leads to fewer victories.

 

There are certainly some wild cards to this.

 

1) Hindsight is 20/20, but draft day evaluations are very often not good, and a lot of other times circumstances and injuries step in. But I honestly feel that at #9 Spiller was the draft day BPA, and Maybin and Whitner were not. I think it is very likely that someone taken after him will outperform him, but without a crystal ball picking that player instead of Spiller would have been lucky and not smart.

 

2) There are special positions like QB where if you have a good one, you would pass on the BPA at QB, and if you don't have a good one, you might have to overspend if there is a good one (even if there is a better player at another position, as long as the QB is considered a good one).

 

3) Player ranking boards are not exact, so when players are rated very close, they can be considered interchangeable on the BPA chart even if you have one higher, and you can pick the player who better fits your needs and depth chart, as well as taking into account picks in previous rounds (so you don't end up with a 7 LB draft).

 

Spiller didn't play 2010 like the best player at #9, but I still don't see who the Orakpo/Ngata who we should have picked, and I think he has a very good chance to be an impact player over the next few seasons. The reason people are down on Spiller (maybe rightly so) is because he didn't play well in 2010, not because he was a RB, or wasn't the seeming best player when picked. He doesn't have to play LT or LB to make people happy...he just has to play well and make an impact.

 

I think Troup and Carrington were not picked as BPA, and they were uh-oh picks related to the 3-4 switch. While I don't love that decision, I like both players and I think it is an understandable reason to deviate slightly from BPA if you still really like players.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Is it not interesting, Hopeful, that 4 "BPA" picks in the last draft were players that were projects for a 3-4 defense?

 

Interesting. I like that choice of a word. It is so very much more....civilized and couth...than the ones I use.

 

I guess this is one where we have to give it those 2-3 years.

[boyst]

I am surprised that no one mentioned it:

 

BPA: A term used to describe what Mel Kiper, a suit-wearing office man, or talking head would describe as the best bet on who could be better then others on a professional level. The unique thing about these dubbed players is that they will serve no function to your team for many years to come because they often fill a role already taken by a more experienced player who is proven.

 

examples of this include: CJ Spiller, Willis McGahee, Donte Whitner, Aaron Maybin, JP Losman, and many other past Bills picks.

 

see also: Reggie Bush.