auburnbillsbacker Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 They traded up in the first round twice because the best player available in their opinion was at a position of need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
416BillsFan Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 17 hours ago, CardinalScotts said: Was Josh Allen the best player available when the Bills moved up to get him ? You could argue yes - so they moved up to get the best player not because it was a need- although it was. As with everything in the NFL, this is subject to the *not including quarterbacks fine print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 14 hours ago, row_33 said: Whitner was fine, it was taking 3 DBs with the first four picks that was the problem Whitner never was worth the 9th pick in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLTbills Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 I think it's a different scenario when you've been looking for a franchise QB for 2 decades..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 His theory is that if you stayed at 21 and just picked the next QB available that is drafting for need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 It's mostly BPA but there is a little need sprinkled in. If Daniel Jones is available at 9 and he is the BPA on the Bills board.....they're not taking them. I believe it's BPA at the positions they are targeting or at least need some help in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey152 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 1 minute ago, PrimeTime101 said: again it was an EXAMPLE. some GM's consider 10 spots a reach some consider 15. the number was an example. The Patriots has had a great history of solid draft picks. I don't think you get it https://insidetheiggles.com/2017/03/31/drafting-need-best-player-available/ Go read ALL of this. see what some of the best teams in the league do. GET A CLUE PLEASE! I'm pretty sure you are the one that doesn't get it...what we are saying isn't even all that different. But what you were describing isn't BPA at a position of need...it's just BPA. BPA at a position of need is just drafting for need, because of course you would draft the BPA at the position you need... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey152 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: It's mostly BPA but there is a little need sprinkled in. If Daniel Jones is available at 9 and he is the BPA on the Bills board.....they're not taking them. I believe it's BPA at the positions they are targeting or at least need some help in. I think BPA is too literal. It would be extremely rare that there is a single "best player"...usually it is a group of players lumped together. If two guys are in the same tier, they are considered the same from a value or talent standpoint...that's when you can start bringing in subjective stuff like personal opinions and current roster. If none of the guys left in that top tier fit your team for whatever reason, you should trade the pick and not just give them to a team that does need/want them for free. Edited January 24, 2019 by Mikey152 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 11 hours ago, BillsFan1988 said: Maybin was a complete bust before we even pkd him. He failed my eye test big time. I almost lost it when we took him over Orakpo. Uggh. Not that we had a choice, but it was Mike Williams over Julius Peppers all over again for me. AVP had a miracle comeback against the PANTERS that landed us the number 4 pick instead of 2. Thanks Pill! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nextmanup Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 One thing to keep in mind in the context of this discussion is that "Best Player Available" is more often than not a myth. There is no absolute list of definitive rankings with some guy at #10 being better than some other guy at #18. In fact, most organizations get it wrong more than they get it right. So it's more like "who we thought was best player available at the time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan1988 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 30 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said: Uggh. Not that we had a choice, but it was Mike Williams over Julius Peppers all over again for me. AVP had a miracle comeback against the PANTERS that landed us the number 4 pick instead of 2. Thanks Pill! Yea that cost us big time on top of that we took Williams over McKinnie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, BillsFan1988 said: Yea that cost us big time on top of that we took Williams over McKinnie. Yep. I'm stuck on Peppers because I loved him as a prospect, but we didn't even land the right tackle. Tom Donahoe was a freaking con man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 We are assuming the brain trust is worthy of having a job and being minimally competent too much to assume for 20 years now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDingus Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 You're right. Most teams say they're not going to reach, grab BPA, blah blah blah, but in reality they're factoring in NEED to all of that anyway, and ultimately going for who the BPA in the positions of most need. Very few teams have the luxury of grabbing the ACTUAL BPA round. Back in 2014 when the Bills had a loaded roster minus a QB, we very well could've went that route. We had studs all over the defense, offensive weapons, a solid O-line, a fantastic D-line, etc. but that one key piece was missing. Hopefully we can get back to that point some day, only this time with Josh Allen having the QB position secured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 23 hours ago, BillyWhiteShows said: Brandon Beane’s comments on drafting continue to confuse me. He had been firm in saying “we don’t draft for need” and that draft for need get in trouble. He has said the famous cliche “best player available.” But didn’t Beane draft for need and not BPA last year? He traded up for Josh Allen and Edmunds because QB sand MLB were a giant need! If he was drafting BPA, then he would have taken the best player available at 21 and 22. But he said in his presser at the Senior Bowl that it was drafting for need because he traded up. Huh? Didn’t he trade up to....you guessed it, draft for need? In fact, I’d argue that most teams draft for need. If they didn’t, then we’d see more team draft 2 QB’s in 1 draft or draft a QB high behind an established QB. This would be like the Jets drafting Haskins because he’s the highest ranked prospect available when they pick. They won’t do it because they already have a young QB they drafted the year earlier. Also when teams set up their board doesn’t need come into play with the rankings? One time the Bills did draft BPA, was the selection of CJ Spiller in 2009. The pick was lauded by nearly everyone in the media as foolish considering they already had a Pro Bowl RB in Marshawn Lynch and a solid backup in Fred Jackson. Yet the sick was clearly a BPA. I get the idea of drafting for need and best player available, however I think in most circumstances teams draft based on their needs. Can anyone explain what he means by drafting for need or drafting best player available. Because it seems like the Bills drafted for need last year, and that it happens all of the time. Drafting BPA simply means that you are valuing the player over the position. It does not mean that you can't maneuver your way around the board to target a specific player. In terms of Tremaine Edmunds, I know that Beane has stated there was a huge drop-off on his board after him. It wasn't just about getting a linebacker. So even though he traded up, his goal was going after the BPA. If there wasn't such a big drop-off in talent, he may have been willing to stay put. When it comes to the Quarterback, I think most GMs are willing to make an exception to their general philosophy. Most aren't going to spend a high pick on a QB if they are already set. And most will reach a little bit early or trade up to get their guy, if they don't have a franchise QB on the roster. For the 2019 draft, I think what Beane is trying to suggest is pretty clear. The Bills biggest holes are clearly at O-Line and WR. However, the strength of this draft (particularly in the Top 10) is on the Defensive Line. Beane is not going to pass on a ridiculously talented D-Lineman for a much lower ranked offensive player, just so he can say he addressed a particular need. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LABILLBACKER Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 2 hours ago, whatdrought said: Bolded part- I think that that's a slippery slope. Before you know it you're ignoring a players worth and only drafting based on what you need. From there you're half a step away from the later Al Davis years wherein you ignore a players worth and draft entirely based on a certain trait or desire. That's how you draft a career #4 WR with the 7th pick. Some players bust, that's true. But when you reach on players the bust is more likely, and the consequences of the bust are more extreme. Underlined part- this i agree with. I don't see (as of yet, and this being my opinion so it ain't worth crap) any WR worth a a top ten pick. Maybe a couple tackles, but I struggle spending a super high pick on a RT. Honestly, if we're stuck on picking a offensive player high, the TE Hockenson from Iowa might end up looking like the best option, even though taking a top 15 TE is also ridiculous. I would never in a million years advocate an Al Davis scenario. Davis was obsessed with Olympic class wide receivers and nothing else and his vision was short sighted. My strategy says to identity your top 3 needs in the 1st round and select the bpa at on of those needs. You've accomplished both arguments. An A player is just as likely to bust as a B player. We will have more than one excellent option for McB this april. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 26 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said: I would never in a million years advocate an Al Davis scenario. Davis was obsessed with Olympic class wide receivers and nothing else and his vision was short sighted. My strategy says to identity your top 3 needs in the 1st round and select the bpa at on of those needs. You've accomplished both arguments. An A player is just as likely to bust as a B player. We will have more than one excellent option for McB this april. I may have misunderstood- that sounds like the perfect way to find the balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boca BIlls Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 Every team set up their boards for need and calls it BPA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 On 1/23/2019 at 4:49 PM, JÂy RÛßeÒ said: Donte Whitner @ 8 (1 pick after the top safety had come off the board) = drafting for need CJ Spiller @ 9 when they already had Fred Jackson and Marshawn Lynch = drafting BPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing Bong Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 5 hours ago, Elite Poster said: To simply say one method is better or works better is flawed, just don't reach on players. Usually teams only do this with QBs anyways. That's basically what I was trying to say. Pretending living and abiding by one over the other is silly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts