"Best Player Available"

[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.