Drafting for Need vs. ("ivrs.") BPA

[Trader]

It appears that there will not be a significant free agent period prior to the 2011 Draft taking place. I believe that teams will draft for need in 2011 rather than Best Player available more than they have in the past. The exception being QB.

 

My prediction is that the Bills would draft Cam Newton if they had a chance. Don't worry Cam haters because they won't get the chance he will be gone because he is the best football player to come along in years. Newton will be in the pro bowl someday. You guys who think Newton is a bust are wrong.

 

The Bills will draft Von Miller or JJ Watt with their first pick. They will feign interest in Gabbert in hope of a trade if they can do a deal the Bills will pick Watt or Jordan if they cannot do a trade the pick will be Von Miller. That is my story and I am sticking to it.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Trader

[Meathead]

a) there is zero chance the bills draft newton. zee. row.

 

4) what does ivrs. mean?

[NoSaint]

Watt at 3 would be worse than whitner at 8, and we still can't get over that on this board. I don't even want to know what it would be like around here if that happened.

[Bill from NYC]

Watt at 3 would be worse than whitner at 8, and we still can't get over that on this board. I don't even want to know what it would be like around here if that happened.

 

I disagree. When we took Whitner, both of our lines were awful and there were a ton of good players out there, as well as offers to trade down. Whitner wasn't the worst player the Bills ever drafted, but he is up there in terms of being the worst pick they ever made.

 

Watt is a huge player who can make this a stronger team. We need this because we are weak. Also, count me as one who has the feeling that most of the mocks will be WAY off this season.

[thebandit27]

Watt at 3 would be worse than whitner at 8, and we still can't get over that on this board. I don't even want to know what it would be like around here if that happened.

 

I respectfully disagree with that. My personal opinion is that Watt is a top-10 talent, and is scheme diverse; I think he's a great fit as a 5-tech, and he looked great rushing the passer from the DT position (did you see him in their bowl game against TCU?).

 

But my personal opinion aside, I've seen a few sources that identify Watt as a potential target for Dallas at 9, Washington at 10, or Houston at 11.

[Trader]

Watt at 3 would be worse than whitner at 8, and we still can't get over that on this board. I don't even want to know what it would be like around here if that happened.

 

They will not draft Watt at 3 they would take Miller. If they do trade down Miller will not likely be there then they will draft Watt. I did not spell it out I know so I apologize for the confusion.

 

I respectfully disagree with that. My personal opinion is that Watt is a top-10 talent, and is scheme diverse; I think he's a great fit as a 5-tech, and he looked great rushing the passer from the DT position (did you see him in their bowl game against TCU?).

 

But my personal opinion aside, I've seen a few sources that identify Watt as a potential target for Dallas at 9, Washington at 10, or Houston at 11.

 

the closer to the draft the higher Watt will climb.

[LabattBlue]

NO NFL team makes their selection based on BPA no matter what BS they spew. For example, are you trying to tell me that if the highest rated player on a teams board at the time of their selection is a QB, that a team like New Orleans, Green Bay or San Diego(teams that are solid at the QB position) are going to take that QB in Round 1? I doubt it.

[NewEra]

Speaking in absolute terms is lame.

 

I think they're gonna take newton or gabbert, whomever is there. Franchise QB is every teams biggest need if they don't already have one. Teams aren't always in a position to get one, and if they are, and like the players available, they should grab one. Sure, there's a chance it sets us back if they bust, but every player has a chance to bust. Go big or go home.

[thebandit27]

NO NFL team makes their selection based on BPA no matter what BS they spew. For example, are you trying to tell me that if the highest rated player on a teams board at the time of their selection is a QB, that a team like New Orleans, Green Bay or San Diego(teams that are solid at the QB position) are going to take that QB in Round 1? I doubt it.

 

Sure they do, you've already seen it.

 

Green Bay took Aaron Rodgers a full 3 years before getting rid of Favre.

Philadelphia took Kevin Kolb a full 4 years before getting rid of McNabb.

 

It happens.

 

Teams like Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and New England do this stuff all the time: Baltimore picks Michael Oher despite having Jared Gaither and Marshall Yanda at OT, Pittsburgh selects Ziggy Hood even though they don't have any kind of glaring need at DE.

 

I'm not saying many teams do it, but the best ones seem to.

[KD in CA]

The problem with drafting the 'best available player' is that the Bills have shown no ability to identify who that might be at any given point in the draft.

[BuffaloBillsMagic1]

The problem with drafting the 'best available player' is that the Bills have shown no ability to identify who that might be at any given point in the draft.

This has been our main problem as we always try and "outsmart" the consenus of all other teams and scouts.

[LabattBlue]

Sure they do, you've already seen it.

 

Green Bay took Aaron Rodgers a full 3 years before getting rid of Favre.

Philadelphia took Kevin Kolb a full 4 years before getting rid of McNabb.

 

It happens.

 

Teams like Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and New England do this stuff all the time: Baltimore picks Michael Oher despite having Jared Gaither and Marshall Yanda at OT, Pittsburgh selects Ziggy Hood even though they don't have any kind of glaring need at DE.

 

I'm not saying many teams do it, but the best ones seem to.

You are right. I guess I should clarify my statement...teams that suck, that are drafting in the top half of the first round and have needs at multiple positions should not be subscribing to a BPA strategy.

[thebandit27]

You are right. I guess I should clarify my statement...teams that suck, that are drafting in the top half of the first round and have needs at multiple positions should not be subscribing to a BPA strategy.

 

Ah, I guess I didn't realize that's what you meant.

 

That does beg the question: should those teams drafting in the top 5 not subscribe to the BPA theory because they suck, or do they suck because they don't properly execute the BPA theory?

[Beerball]

Ah, I guess I didn't realize that's what you meant.

 

That does beg the question: should those teams drafting in the top 5 not subscribe to the BPA theory because they suck, or do they suck because they don't properly execute the BPA theory?

either, neither or both

 

 

Using different strategies based on where you are picking makes perfect sense.

 

A well put together team with no glaring weaknesses can afford to pick the BPA. Those teams don't typically pick at the top of the first round (barring a trade of a top pick). A team with many holes to fill can't always afford to go BPA. If the BPA happens to coincide with an area of strength what good would that pick be? If the stars align properly and the BPA matches a need then no question you pick that player.

[Thoner7]

This may sound silly but I think that drafting BPA is dumb all the time. It assumes that yoru scouting is 100% to succeed. I find that very arbitrary. That is because I feel ranking players in a list of 1-250 is arbitrary (it simply cannot be done accurately enough), so any strategy based off of that ranking must then also be arbitrary.

 

The Bills are at 3. Hypothetically they could have mark Ingram as the #1 rated player on their board, yet Dareus is 4th and Cam Newton is 5th. They take Ingram who is BPA. Well that doesn’t help your team – so Ingram is not the BPA *for your team*. In that sense he isn’t even the BPA. Secondly, who is to say that after a 12 year career, your rankings weren’t the slightest bit off – and Dareus turns out to be better than Ingram? Well if you drafted for need – then you would have gotten the better player too! Why not risk taking the player who is better for your team rather than just better – when history tells you the rankings are more wrong than they are right anyways? It’s a lower risk to improve your team

 

My thinking is that a tiered system is a much better ranking system than a linear list. You keep your tiers fixed and fit players in each class into those levels. Last year the “elite” level would have prob had Suh and Bradford and maybe Eric Berry. This year it could be Dareus, Fairley, Peterson, AJ Green. The next tier down last year could have had Bulaga, and Spiller among others. Even though you have Spiller on your linear board ranked say 12 spots higher, the two of them are still in the same tier. The drafting rule should be take a player in your highest occupied tier, and take the position you need the most out of that tier. That should help find a better balance between need and quality, and also help minimize evaluation mistakes and maximize team improvement. Kinda like dollar-cost averaging in the stock market - its a more stable approach. That’s my strategy.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Thoner7

[K Gun Special]

jeez you people are dense.

 

BPA doesnt mean that if you have a guy rated a 90 and one rated 89 you have to take the 90 even tho the 89 guy is a need.

 

BPA means you dont draft a tackle who you have slotted as a 80 because you neeeeed him when you're drafting at #3 and can get a 90 rated player.

 

Its a relatively simple concept please try to follow along.

 

Bill Polian built the 90s Bills on BPA and built the Colts on BPA. The Pats have done the same as have all of the successful franchises.

 

Im glad Nix is doing the same.

[Beerball]

jeez you people are dense.

 

BPA doesnt mean that if you have a guy rated a 90 and one rated 89 you have to take the 90 even tho the 89 guy is a need.

 

BPA means you dont draft a tackle who you have slotted as a 80 because you neeeeed him when you're drafting at #3 and can get a 90 rated player.

 

Its a relatively simple concept please try to follow along.

 

Bill Polian built the 90s Bills on BPA and built the Colts on BPA. The Pats have done the same as have all of the successful franchises.

 

Im glad Nix is doing the same.

To whom are you speaking?

[Orton's Arm]

either, neither or both

 

 

Using different strategies based on where you are picking makes perfect sense.

 

A well put together team with no glaring weaknesses can afford to pick the BPA. Those teams don't typically pick at the top of the first round (barring a trade of a top pick). A team with many holes to fill can't always afford to go BPA. If the BPA happens to coincide with an area of strength what good would that pick be? If the stars align properly and the BPA matches a need then no question you pick that player.

I largely agree with this post. I think that an ideal draft strategy wouldn't be pure BPA or pure need-based, but would combine the two.

 

First, you should envision the team you want to have in four or five years time. Then you look at the team you have; and compare the shortcomings of the current team with the envisioned team. That comparison should give you a picture of the kind of players you need to add over the next several years. When the draft arrives, you should look for players who your picture of what you're looking for. This isn't to suggest that you should simply ignore players who don't fit into your list of needs. For example, if the best player at a position you intend to upgrade is an 80, and the best player at a non-upgrade position is a 100, you could make a strong case for taking the 100. (Unless he's a RB or something.)

[Trader]

jeez you people are dense.

 

BPA doesnt mean that if you have a guy rated a 90 and one rated 89 you have to take the 90 even tho the 89 guy is a need.

 

BPA means you dont draft a tackle who you have slotted as a 80 because you neeeeed him when you're drafting at #3 and can get a 90 rated player.

 

Its a relatively simple concept please try to follow along.

 

Bill Polian built the 90s Bills on BPA and built the Colts on BPA. The Pats have done the same as have all of the successful franchises.

 

Im glad Nix is doing the same.

 

Is this year different because of the absence of a collective bargaining agreement? Remember there is no trading of players, no signing of free agents and no trading of players for draft picks. My point is that this year teams will be forced to draft for need more than ever before because there is not other way to strengthen a weak position.

[Beerball]

Is this year different because of the absence of a collective bargaining agreement? Remember there is no trading of players, no signing of free agents and no trading of players for draft picks. My point is that this year teams will be forced to draft for need more than ever before because there is not other way to strengthen a weak position.

What made you answer his rudeness with a reasoned response/question? Why not someone who actually put some thought into their post?

[White Linen]

I believe there's going to be a strong free agent period. It will obviously be shortened and frantic, but it will be viable just the same.

[Trader]

What made you answer his rudeness with a reasoned response/question? Why not someone who actually put some thought into their post?

 

Good point Beerball I was just clarifying my question on the post which appeared to drift off the topic for a while. I was trying to bring back the thread back to my original question which reflects my thought that this is a very different year with the labor situaion.

[Koufax]

NO NFL team makes their selection based on BPA no matter what BS they spew. For example, are you trying to tell me that if the highest rated player on a teams board at the time of their selection is a QB, that a team like New Orleans, Green Bay or San Diego(teams that are solid at the QB position) are going to take that QB in Round 1? I doubt it.

 

QB is the exception to BPA because of the special quality of the position, and the fact that ideally you have one guy take all the snaps for many years. But see the Rodgers Kolb mentions already.

 

 

This has been our main problem as we always try and "outsmart" the consenus of all other teams and scouts.

 

I don't think at any point we try to outsmart anybody. I think we have failed to pick the best player often, but that is because of a mistaken big board, and not because of caring about other teams or scouts.

 

 

You are right. I guess I should clarify my statement...teams that suck, that are drafting in the top half of the first round and have needs at multiple positions should not be subscribing to a BPA strategy.

 

Without any personal attack intended, this is the dumbest post I have seen in a while. If a team is good and is one short term need away from being elite, maybe THEY could justify not taking BPA. But a team that is not putting its eggs in the 2011 basket and needs to inject as much talent as possible into any of the 53 roster slots, a team in the top half of the first round with multiple needs should ABSOLUTELY be drafting BPA pick after pick, year after year. Our "needs" change faster than we move from bad to good anyway.

 

BPA doesnt mean that if you have a guy rated a 90 and one rated 89 you have to take the 90 even tho the 89 guy is a need.

 

BPA means you dont draft a tackle who you have slotted as a 80 because you neeeeed him when you're drafting at #3 and can get a 90 rated player.

 

Its a relatively simple concept please try to follow along.

 

Bill Polian built the 90s Bills on BPA and built the Colts on BPA. The Pats have done the same as have all of the successful franchises.

 

Im glad Nix is doing the same.

 

+1. Exactly, BPA isn't an exact science, and you shouldn't really be confident that a 90 is better than an 89, but you should be confident that a 90 is better a 80, and if you pick an 80 over a 90, you either have terrible trust in your scouting/ranking ability, or you have such a dumb strategy that you are hurting your team each time you pick.

 

BUT, and an important but, I think that the BPA rankings end up being nowhere close to what Kiper and others put grades on. A Kiper "95" CB is not as valuable to a football team as a "89" DE. Just like a 20 HR catcher is worth more than a 20 HR firstbaseman, I think that the rankings from 1-100 are not weighted correctly to the value of different positions, and so I am certainly not advocating taking Green or Peterson because I don't think either is going to be the BPA as it should be measured.

[K Gun Special]

Good point Beerball I was just clarifying my question on the post which appeared to drift off the topic for a while. I was trying to bring back the thread back to my original question which reflects my thought that this is a very different year with the labor situaion.

 

 

There will be a FA period. Both sides are aware of the weaknesses of their positions and understand a deal asap is in their best interests.

 

This may alter draft plans slightly but i do not think teams will be drafting for need. Successful teams arent built by drafting for need.

 

The Bills will not get better by drafting all D to address the run defense. Btw, part of that problem was the O couldnt stay on the field.

 

at #3, the Bills will have a choice of very similarly rated football players, and it will likely fill a hole while being a BPA.

 

some on this board, and not you specifically, have said just draft D no matter what. SO even if a starting TE or QB is available and rated higher than an available DE/OLB, we should take DE/OLB.

 

I can see why this is alluring and makes some sense, but the Bills will not be a better football team in the long run.

[Dragonborn10]

The frightening problem for the Bills may be that AJ Green and Peterson will be the best players available when they pick. If they don't draft for need then it would be one of those. There should be many chances to move down and get a front 7 defender who also would be the best player available at 7-12.

[K Gun Special]

The frightening problem for the Bills may be that AJ Green and Peterson will be the best players available when they pick. If they don't draft for need then it would be one of those. There should be many chances to move down and get a front 7 defender who also would be the best player available at 7-12.

 

 

Thats entirely possible.

 

BPA philosophy doesnt mean you have to. If Green is rated a 90 but a front 7 guy is close, you take the front 7. BPA means you dont take a front 7 guy when there are much better players available.

 

 

I dont think we trade down though. they have an opportunity to get a special player at #3.

[Green Lightning]

I think Thoner has it right with the tiered approach. Now let's hope the FO has the tiers correct.