The Difference Between Best Player Available vs. Drafting For Need (Sal Capaccio Explains...)

[auburnbillsbacker]

They traded up in the first round twice because the best player available in their opinion was at a position of need.  

[416BillsFan]

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.

[Big Turk]

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.

[CLTbills]

I think it's a different scenario when you've been looking for a franchise QB for 2 decades.....

[kota]

His theory is that if you stayed at 21 and just picked the next QB available that is drafting for need.  

[Royale with Cheese]

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.  

[Mikey152]

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...

[Mikey152]

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

[LSHMEAB]

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!

[Nextmanup]

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."

 

 

[BillsFan1988]

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.

[LSHMEAB]

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.

[row_33]

We are assuming the brain trust is worthy of having a job and being minimally competent

 

too much to assume for 20 years now

 

 

[BigDingus]

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.

[mjt328]

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.

 

 

 

[LABILLBACKER]

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.

[whatdrought]

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. 

[Boca BIlls]

Every team set up their boards for need and calls it BPA...

[vincec]

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

[Bing Bong]

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.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Boca BIlls said:

Every team set up their boards for need and calls it BPA...

 

Fans spend hours telling us what the team is thinking 

 

then the team drafts the exact opposite and these fans crow they knew it all along

 

 

[BillyWhiteShows]

1 hour ago, vincec said:

CJ Spiller @ 9 when they already had Fred Jackson and Marshawn Lynch = drafting BPA

 

Yep and it was frowned upon badly.  That’s why I do think it’s never truly BPA.  Maybe if you are on a roster who can afford to do - like the Bills in the late to mid 90’s but I think most times you set your board based on need.

 

 Someone here made the argument that Spiller was a section based on need because Chan said he wanted a “scat back”

[Shaw66]

5 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Good post, Shaw.

 

I think it illustrates the "BPA conundrum" though.  Each FO is boiling a bunch of player characteristics (including subjective characteristics like character, dedication, and 'football intelligence') down to a number.  Of necessity, the number they get is impacted by how an individual FO weights those things.  Faulty weighting or evaluation = faulty results.

For reference, here are the next 20 guys drafted after Spiller in 2010.  Would anyone want to argue that at least 5 of them shouldn't arguably have been considered objectively better players, based on college career/football intelligence/impact?

IMO, Chan Gailey made it clear pre-draft that he badly wanted a player with Spiller's "waterbug" or "scatback" type characteristics.  If it's true Spiller was the BPA on their board, that would only be because they weighted their characteristics accordingly.

 

Interesting names there.   

 

My recollection is not so much that Gailey want a scatback but that after the draft they kept saying they took Spiller because he was the guy available who had the ability to be a game changer.  

 

My cousin, in reference to why the Giants didn't take a quarterback in last year's draft,  said "when you have an opportunity to get a Hall of Fame player, you take him.  As great as I think Barkley looks, I think that doesn't apply when you need a QB.   In any case, my recollection is that that's what Gailey was thinking.   He thought Spiller was a generational player.  

 

I like your notion about how the GM has to distill all of this information, based on what they value most, and come up with a ranking for every guy.   They have to take stuff that is very subjective and turn it into an objective number.   Can't be done.   If it could be done, people wouldn't have missed Brady and JJ Watt and all the other guys we can name.  

[BillyWhiteShows]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Interesting names there.   

 

My recollection is not so much that Gailey want a scatback but that after the draft they kept saying they took Spiller because he was the guy available who had the ability to be a game changer.  

 

My cousin, in reference to why the Giants didn't take a quarterback in last year's draft,  said "when you have an opportunity to get a Hall of Fame player, you take him.  As great as I think Barkley looks, I think that doesn't apply when you need a QB.   In any case, my recollection is that that's what Gailey was thinking.   He thought Spiller was a generational player.  

 

I like your notion about how the GM has to distill all of this information, based on what they value most, and come up with a ranking for every guy.   They have to take stuff that is very subjective and turn it into an objective number.   Can't be done.   If it could be done, people wouldn't have missed Brady and JJ Watt and all the other guys we can name.  

Spiller....Sammy....the Bills have problems with “generational players” and injuries.  Stay away!

[Simon Says]

I dont think you grasp the concept. In a recent article, Beane said that last year,he needed a QB and had to trade up to get one. He felt Allen was good value ,worth the picks,and ,yes filled a need. If Bills had stayed at their original spot (21?)and drafted a QB because they NEEDED a QB, that is "drafting for need".  But the QBs still  available at 21 were not worth the #21 pick so,a bad value. But,lets say the top rated Center or pass rusher or other good VALUE player was still there in other words, "best player available", regardless of position or team needs.

[Alphadawg7]

The only thing I’m confused on is how this thread is so long.  It’s not complicated.  

 

BPA is subjective to a teams draft board.  Teams draft board is subjective to team needs.  Best RB in draft could be on board when Giants pick...but that RB isn’t even on the Giants draft board. 

 

When a GM says BPA, they are referencing their internal draft board.  That’s it.  Every single time a GM has said BPA this has been the case, and even Beane himself has said multiple times they will “stay true to their board” when he says he’s going BPA.  The “needs” of the team are already factored into that board.  

 

Not drafting for need means means he won’t reach for a specific position just because that position has a bigger need.  He will take the guy who is highest on their board regardless of position.  But that doesn’t mean they will have players at every position on their board in that spot.  Like I said, Giants aren’t putting RBs on their first round draft board just like Bills won’t be putting QB on their first round draft board either.  

[BillyWhiteShows]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

The only thing I’m confused on is how this thread is so long.  It’s not complicated.  

 

BPA is subjective to a teams draft board.  Teams draft board is subjective to team needs.  Best RB in draft could be on board when Giants pick...but that RB isn’t even on the Giants draft board. 

 

When a GM says BPA, they are referencing their internal draft board.  That’s it.  Every single time a GM has said BPA this has been the case, and even Beane himself has said multiple times they will “stay true to their board” when he says he’s going BPA.  The “needs” of the team are already factored into that board.  

 

Not drafting for need means means he won’t reach for a specific position just because that position has a bigger need.  He will take the guy who is highest on their board regardless of position.  But that doesn’t mean they will have players at every position on their board in that spot.  Like I said, Giants aren’t putting RBs on their first round draft board just like Bills won’t be putting QB on their first round draft board either.  

 

It’s not as cut and dry as you think.  Everyone has different interpretations of what BPA means.  

[Alphadawg7]

7 minutes ago, BillyWhiteShows said:

 

It’s not as cut and dry as you think.  Everyone has different interpretations of what BPA means.  

 

Yeah I know, that’s really what I just said.  It’s 100% subject to that teams board.  And all boards look different.

[LSHMEAB]

Just now, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Yeah I know, that’s really what I just said.  It’s 100% subject to that teams board.  And all boards look different.

It's like 6 pages of semantics. I'm reading people's opinions, but it doesn't move any needles. Don't quite get it either.

[davspo]

When I hear them say they draft the best player available I cringe-  they all draft the best player that fits their need.  It’s so stupid when they say that.

[RobbRiddick]

Surely it just means if you see a great player who is at the top of your board and he happens to fit into a hole on your team. 

 

Imagine if the only QB available with a 1st round grade was someone like EJ, would they have taken him or traded up to take him? Probably not. In that case they probably would have waited and either taken a guy in the later rounds with less risk or waited until the following year.

 

And as far as Edmunds goes, they must have thought he was either the BPA or one of the very top guys because otherwise they wouldn't have traded up to get him. They probably could have stuck where they were and still got a MLB. Of course, then they might have ended up grabbing someone with a 2nd round grade... which would have been drafting for need.

[WideNine]

On 1/23/2019 at 3:23 PM, 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.  

 

I think he was simply referring to not reaching for a need position ignoring the BPA at your current draft position.

 

They moved up to address positions of need, but took what they felt was the BPA at those draft positions as well... Josh Allen and Tremaine Edmunds.

 

There was no conflict. 

 

This year, if they stay at the 9th pick and the BPA is a defensive lineman, but they grab an o-lineman that has a late first or early second round grade that would probably be reaching for need.

 

If they traded down picked up some extra picks and then picked up an o-lineman close to where his draft value was on their board that would be fine.

 

I get what Beane is trying to say, but you also have to understand that not all teams have the same draft boards and grades on players so it is a bit subjective. 

 

That being said, usually if there is a collective wtf after a pick, and a lot of comments indicating someone would have been available much later, and the position/player drafted is a team need....then your team probably did not draft the BPA.

 

Clear as mud.

 

[Mikey152]

13 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

The only thing I’m confused on is how this thread is so long.  It’s not complicated.  

 

BPA is subjective to a teams draft board.  Teams draft board is subjective to team needs.  Best RB in draft could be on board when Giants pick...but that RB isn’t even on the Giants draft board. 

 

When a GM says BPA, they are referencing their internal draft board.  That’s it.  Every single time a GM has said BPA this has been the case, and even Beane himself has said multiple times they will “stay true to their board” when he says he’s going BPA.  The “needs” of the team are already factored into that board.  

 

Not drafting for need means means he won’t reach for a specific position just because that position has a bigger need.  He will take the guy who is highest on their board regardless of position.  But that doesn’t mean they will have players at every position on their board in that spot.  Like I said, Giants aren’t putting RBs on their first round draft board just like Bills won’t be putting QB on their first round draft board either.  

 

You are completely wrong if you think every player isn't on their board and isn't ranked appropriately according to talent.  Just because you have a starter at a position doesn't mean you don't want to know what is available.  The player could be an upgrade, backup/handcuff, an heir apparent/cost control, or even trade bait (either in the draft or later).  

 

This is where I think fans and GMs differ.  Fans are thinking about right now...coaches are too, most of the time.  But GMs are trying to build a sustainable roster.  They have three years from now in mind just as much as today. Position should really only ever come into play in "all else being equal" type scenarios, period.  

[rodneykm]

I'm fine with how they've drafted. The way I see it is, he went out and got his future franchise QB on offense and defense in year 1. From here on out, you draft BPA based on need. Obviously, we all hope the BPA is a stud offensive lineman. 

[CoudyBills]

On 1/23/2019 at 4:33 PM, BillyWhiteShows said:

 

I get what you are saying, it just sounds very confusing.  Based on what you are saying, there’s really not that much difference between the two.  Unless you pull a Buddy Nix and draft EJ Manuel in the 1st round 

Exactly.  The only time there is a noticeable difference is when someone reaches for a need.  IMO

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, Mikey152 said:

 

You are completely wrong if you think every player isn't on their board and isn't ranked appropriately according to talent.  Just because you have a starter at a position doesn't mean you don't want to know what is available.  The player could be an upgrade, backup/handcuff, an heir apparent/cost control, or even trade bait (either in the draft or later).  

 

This is where I think fans and GMs differ.  Fans are thinking about right now...coaches are too, most of the time.  But GMs are trying to build a sustainable roster.  They have three years from now in mind just as much as today. Position should really only ever come into play in "all else being equal" type scenarios, period.  

 

I don’t think you fully understood what I wrote.  Teams have an overall board and they have a an actual team draft board and even round specific targets.  Trust me, KC does not have any of the QBs on their first round board.  Giants don’t have any RBs on their first round board.  

 

There is a difference of having an overall board so you can see how the draft may fall, who may go where, what may be there for trade opportunities down or up, etc.

 

But then there is their actual draft board on who they would draft, players they scouted in depth, etc.  Their actual draft board isn’t going to contain players they are not interested in drafting.  When they say they are going to stay “true to their board and go BPA” that is what they are talking about.  BPA on the overall board could be a QB in the first round at 9, Bills are NOT taking him because he’s not BPA to Beanes draft board.  He will take his BPA which will be at a different position or look to trade down with someone who wants that QB.  

[row_33]

1 hour ago, rodneykm said:

I'm fine with how they've drafted. The way I see it is, he went out and got his future franchise QB on offense and defense in year 1. From here on out, you draft BPA based on need. Obviously, we all hope the BPA is a stud offensive lineman. 

 

they do whatever they want, no sense trying to predict it

 

agreed on the QB, lots of potential there

[buffaloboyinATL]

It was that magical moment when the best player available also happened to fill a position of need, which is why they were willing to move up to get them. With Allen, they were trying to move up to get him even higher than where we picked him and I believe with Edmunds, he dropped down further than they had expected which made him by far the best player available on their board, which made it easily worth the cost in their eyes.

[TigerJ]

The thing is in many parts of the draft, there are multiple players at multiple positions between the values of whom you could not slip a piece of dental floss.  So, if you've got a group of players like that in say the third round, need becomes an important criteria in helping the GM decide which player to pick.  If you've got a player who's head and shoulder above the next best guy, which does happen, you pick the better player even if he doesn't fill a need.  Either that, or you attempt to trade down a few spots to where value meets need.  

[Straight Hucklebuck]

On 1/23/2019 at 7:25 PM, 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.

Even though the Bills traded their 1st Round pick in 2017 for the Chiefs 27th pick and 2018 1st Rounder. Then they traded Glenn to position themselves. 

 

So he can claim the board just lined up, but the Bills were taking a QB according to a plan for over a year.