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

[BillyWhiteShows]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Thing is, you're not the GM. Beane is. 

 

He's making this point again and again and again because he believes in it, deeply. He drafts BPA.

 

Yes, position is a factor, especially when you need a QB, or when a position is less valuable to a team. You don't draft a long-snapper in the 1st round even if he's the greatest long-snapper the NFL has ever seen. Some positions are more important than others, some less. And that factors in. It's not a black and white discussion. There are subtleties and distinctions. But what Beane is telling you is what his priorities are. You might want him to take into account the needs of the roster. He's not interested in what others think he should do. He's got priorities.

 

Here's an intelligent piece by Buscaglia that just came out:

 

 

 

"3) Drafting for need vs. value explained further

 

"- Just a day after the 2018 season ended for the Bills, Beane made a bit of a buzzworthy statement about not drafting for need, and that he refuses to do that as long as he's the GM of the team. However, it's a more nuanced discussion than it is cut and dry. So, with almost a month passed between then and the Senior Bowl, Beane opened up the conversation a bit. His justification is that -- especially in the first round -- drafting at a spot for need only and reaching for that player with other, more talented players at different positions available is how teams can get themselves into trouble. He then brought up the situation of last year and had they stayed at 21 and taken a quarterback, it would have been them reaching to fill a need -- but because they moved up to get Josh Allen at seventh overall, they had the need and the value meet eye-to-eye. I think there's even more to the equation than Beane mentioned while he was keeping it more general, in the sense of positional weight and how much each spot should be valued by a team -- which ultimately factors into the full value of the prospect himself. All of that sounds great in theory, but having the gumption to pull it off in a pressurized situation is something Beane has to stand by. I asked him off to the side about that side of it, when he's on the clock and the potential of passing on someone that helps them right away for someone that's of higher value to them organizationally. His response:

 

" 'Well sometimes that’s not always the most popular decision and maybe not even in the building, and obviously with the fans, but you know, coaches, they want good players to help them execute and do their job better. But again, my job is to bring the best players that I can to the Buffalo Bills to give Sean and his staff. And if you start reaching, it may not hurt you immediately, but over time, you’re taking less talented players, your team is going to suffer a little bit.' "

 

"As the first round goes, there isn't a real way to gauge what the Bills did in the first round in 2018 -- Beane's only draft in Buffalo -- because of the move up to get those two players at where they valued each player. We'll get a more definitive gauge of what the Bills do at ninth overall, and how it lines up with this draft theory."

 

https://www.wkbw.com/sports/bills/5-takeaways-from-buffalo-bills-gm-brandon-beane-at-the-2019-senior-bowl

 

 

Buscaglia uses the word "nuanced," and that's right, it's a nuanced discussion. But treating BPA as the most important factor is a strong, strong belief for Beane. It's in his DNA. That's why he harps on it over and over again.

 

 

 

 

Good information.  As others here said, its more about not reaching than it is about drafting the best player available.  It’s BPA....to an extent.  

 

But my point was, need does play a role for teams in the draft to help determine each team’s BPA.

[formerlyofCtown]

14 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.  

He made need and BPA line up.  Cant believe there are some of you that still dont understand that.  He pretty much explains it himself in his recent interview.

 

You notice he didnt get in a bidding war with the Jets for #3 and he got into the top 10 for less than what people said it would take.

Edited January 24, 2019 by formerlyofCtown

[WideRightRevenge]

13 hours ago, BillyWhiteShows said:

 

Not really.  I get the idea behind but I’m speaking in realistic terms. It’s been established by several people already, “best player available” can be someone different in actuality.  You are really drafting the best player available in your area of news 

 

I haven't read the whole thread .. but my take is ... in especially in round 1 and 2  .. you draft for need .... in later rounds you go for BPA .. meaning if you have a 2nd round grade on a player and its the 4th round .. pull the damn trigger.

[formerlyofCtown]

3 hours ago, MJS said:

It's never truly BPA. If you have a franchise QB you don't draft a QB in the first round if that is the BPA.

 

It is BPA within reason and considering the makup of your team. No matter who you draft, there has to be a slot they fit into on your team or it is a wasted pick.

 

But, the theory of filling holes in free agency so you can draft BPA in the draft holds true. You don't want to go into the draft with super glaring needs or you will start reaching for players and pass on potential stars.

I can definitely agree with this view point.

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Whitner was horrible value where he was picked. 

 

If they had to have him, they should have traded back, snagged some extra picks and picked him in the early 20s. He'd have been there. And people wouldn't have had the unreasonable expectations for him that they had because he was picked so early.

Ralph probably said take a safety they have cheap contracts.

[formerlyofCtown]

14 hours ago, Stevie Ray said:

No GM will outright say they draft for need (even though they do, or more like  combination of the two - need and BPA as others have alluded to). But they wont say it as part of their strategy not to tip their hand ahead of the draft. Best to say BPA and let others guess where they will actually go.

I think he did hint at a desire to trade 9.

[machine gun kelly]

14 hours ago, Stevie Ray said:

No GM will outright say they draft for need (even though they do, or more like  combination of the two - need and BPA as others have alluded to). But they wont say it as part of their strategy not to tip their hand ahead of the draft. Best to say BPA and let others guess where they will actually go.

 

I agree.  It’s the worst kept secret that GM’s try to find improvements to weakest part of their team.  Between free agency and the draft, we’re going after lineman, a CB, and WR. They did a good job with improving the defense, now they are going to work on the offense.

[SoCal Deek]

Thank goodness this doesn’t impact the Bills this year....we have NEEDS at almost every roster spot!

[Thurman#1]

3 hours ago, BillyWhiteShows said:

 

Good information.  As others here said, its more about not reaching than it is about drafting the best player available.  It’s BPA....to an extent.  

 

But my point was, need does play a role for teams in the draft to help determine each team’s BPA.

 

 

It's more than BPA to an extent. It's BPA as the controlling idea, the number one priority.

 

Need plays a role, it's a very slight role, mostly in eliminating a few positions from consideration high ... or a positive role if you need a QB, though even then Beane moved to make draft slot and the value of the player they needed meet so they were getting what they felt was BPA at the slot they were drafting at.

 

BPA is 90% of how he works. You keep saying there's a role, and nearly everyone agrees with you but you've been told a bunch of times that it's a slight role. Believe that.

 

You'll get more evidence of that as Beane spends his free agency bucks. He'll fill the obvious holes with guys who can play at an NFL level, now that cap issues won't hold him back. That will leave him without any desperately urgent needs. This is what he's said, and you should expect him to live by it. This will then allow him to eliminate even further the importance of need in his draft.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Thurman#1

[FeelingOnYouboty]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Whitner was horrible value where he was picked. 

 

If they had to have him, they should have traded back, snagged some extra picks and picked him in the early 20s. He'd have been there. And people wouldn't have had the unreasonable expectations for him that they had because he was picked so early.

 

They panicked when Michael Huff was taken by the Raiders. We all knew Ngata was BPA and fit a huge area of need.

[Bing Bong]

12 hours ago, Augie said:

Oh, this is very cool! You have access to their draft board? That would be the only way you know who their BPA is. I want access - how did you do it? 

It's always BPA when they rationalize it long enough lol.

 

Let's just say they ain't drafting Kyler Murray if he falls to the 2nd round. I'm sure come draft time there will be a juicy OG they wanted to fall that they pick that happens to be their BPA. Way up on their draft board. At a position of need. And their BPA no less!

 

Regardless of if Pat Mahomes' clone is available (I'm struggling with non-QB positions right now because literally any position is a position of need lol).. BUT IN GENERAL.. If we had Troy Polamalu and Ed Reed.. we ain't drafting Charles Woodson. He ain't on the draft board rounds 1-3. It's filled with all but a handful of positions of actual need filtered by position and ordered by BPA.

 

If we want to call getting the best OL on our board BPA it's also 80% because we wanted an OL anyway. It's just human nature to think you've had your cake and ate it too while you don't draft Aaron Donald because subconsciously Dareus, Mario, Kyle, and Hughes are bumping him way the heck down your "BPA" board and you wouldn't even know it.

[Bing Bong]

12 hours ago, Just Joshin' said:

The tiers are the key.  I think when people hear BPA they believe there is a ranked list and they draft based on the list.

 

The reality is that players are grouped into tiers and within the tiers they will look at need.  In the early rounds there are less players in a group, later rounds more players.  This is why later rounds look more like need because there are more players to select within a tier.

Exactly. Drafting purely on need or BPA is moronic. It's a hybrid. Turns out, virtually all positions in football outside QB, P, and K can use plenty of top quality depth. 

 

why TF would the 49ers select Bobby Wagner with Aldon Smith, Navarro Bowman, Patrick Willis, Ahmad Brooks.

 

They should have and did take a WR. Problem was he wasn't Alshon Jeffrey. Not BPA at the position they were even gunning for. Just draft the best players at any of the several positions you need any year. You need so many positions to reload up on every year, the chances of busting anyway are so high.. worst thing 2012 49ers could possibly do is draft a Barkevious Mingo.. marginally BPA on your list over positions you need much more of in talent. Always a strong possibility you draft a position you have loads of talents and screw it up as well.

 

Just draft well, draft the 15 or so starting positions you actually need to reload, and pray it works out. Don't live religiously by BPA.

 

Chances are if Trent Richardson is BPA on your board.. you missed getting Kuechly. Good job Browns.

Edited January 24, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[mabden]

18 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.  

 

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.  

 

He traded up to draft the best player available in each case.    He had the capital to spend, so why what for BPA at any particular spot, when you can get Better Players Available.

[metzelaars_lives]

Fortunately it sounds like most of you have finally come around to the idea that there’s no such thing as “BPA.”  If there was, then a team like the Giants would take a RB one of these years and everyone would be like, WTF, and they’d say, what can I say, he was our BPA.  If you still believe in BPA, I’ll make a bet with you that the Bills don’t draft a safety in the first five rounds.  It is a hybrid between need and BPA, as it always has been for every team ever.

[chris heff]

I’d like to thank all of you, I finally understand. 

[LABILLBACKER]

All teams draft for "best player available at top position of need".

The whole concept that teams ignore this and take the BPA regardless of their position is silly.

[Elite Poster]

19 hours ago, WhoTom said:

It's not an either/or situation. You draft the best player available who fits a need. If you're on the clock and the BPA doesn't satisfy a need, then you have the option of trading back so you can fill other positions of need. If that doesn't work, then you can draft the BPA, who's likely an upgrade at a position where you don't have a need. then you've got depth or trade value in a player.

 

On the flip side, if you need something - like a franchise QB - then you trade up so that when you are on the clock, the BPA will be a QB that you want.

 

I'm pretty sure that what Beane meant was the he wouldn't reach on a pick just because the need is there.

 

This is what they do. That is absolutely not what he said.

11 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

All teams draft for "best player available at top position of need".

The whole concept that teams ignore this and take the BPA regardless of their position is silly.

 

Then does anyone truly draft BPA?

[Mikey152]

30 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

All teams draft for "best player available at top position of need".

The whole concept that teams ignore this and take the BPA regardless of their position is silly.

 

 

You're half right...

 

Teams won't (and shouldn't) pass on a better player at a position they don't "need" to take one at a position they do.  If that single player is truly the only BPA, they would likely trade down (or have traded up before they were stuck with just the one option)

 

Whats subjective about BPA is who the Best player available actually is.  Rarely is it just one guy, but rather a tier of guys that are of a similar grade.  Using some planning and trading, you should be able to generally select players from an area of need from the top tiers on your board.

 

What you should never do is skip tiers because the higher tiers don't have any players you need.  That's poor asset management, but you see fantasy football players do it all the time...they will fill out their starting roster before even looking at bench players, almost no matter what, which would be fine if injuries, bye weeks and trades didn't exist, I guess. 

 

 

Repost from the Josh Allen thread:

 

"Best Player available" is sort of a misnomer...it is incredibly rare where there is a literal "best player".  Most of the time what happens is players fall into groups or tiers made up of similarly-ranked players (position is likely factored in somewhat, but from an absolute value standpoint and not based on need).  

 

When you adopt a BPA strategy, you should always be picking from the highest tiers left on your board.  If there aren't any positions you need in your highest tier (or loads of guys left in that tier), maybe you trade down...and if there is only one or two guys left in a tier at a position of need maybe you trade up.  

 

What BPA really means is don't reach for need...you should trust your board you spent a year building.  Crazy stuff happens to rosters in football, and you can always trade picks or players if you're in a position of surplus.

 

Here is a simplified example:

 

Lets say your team really needs an OL and a WR and does not need a QB or a S.  Everywhere else is neutral.

 

With your first pick, there are three guys on your board with first-round grades:  QB, S, and RB.  Your second round tier has 5 WR and 10 OL.

 

The best choice would be to trade down for say 2 2nd round picks and draft a WR and an OL.  That is BPA AND good asset management

 

A good choice would be to draft the RB.  That is BPA and neutral asset management

 

A bad choice would be to take the QB or S because they are unlikely to increase in value from here...you may get lucky and at least you drafted "BPA", but it is poor asset management.

 

A terrible choice would be to draft a WR or OL.  It is not BPA and good asset management..

Edited January 24, 2019 by Mikey152

[Bing Bong]

4 minutes ago, Elite Poster said:

Then does anyone truly draft BPA?

I'd argue the Giants are one of the few teams that did with Saquon Barkley.

 

Depends on a team's definition of BPA. I just think they rewrite history (or trade up) to say they got their "BPA".

 

Saquon Barkley was truly the BPA where he was selected. The only objective guy that thinks he's the authority on BPA is Mel Kiper. And as a GM famously said: who the hell is Mel Kiper??

[Elite Poster]

Just now, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

I'd argue the Giants are one of the few teams that did with Saquon Barkley.

 

Depends on a team's definition of BPA. I just think they rewrite history (or trade up) to say they got their "BPA".

 

Saquon Barkley was truly the BPA where he was selected. The only objective guy that thinks he's the authority on BPA is Mel Kiper. And as a GM famously said: who the hell is Mel Kiper??

 

Personally I would argue Nelson was the BPA in the entire draft. 

 

Also, BPA really only means what one specific team thinks on that specific day. To be frank, sometimes drafting for need results in massive home runs where you aren't particularly positive that was the best player left. Ask the colts with Darius Leonard. 

 

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. 

[whatdrought]

An example would be drafting Montez Sweat at 9 instead of a Jonah Williams or Dk Metcalf. We have a need for OL, WR, and DE. Of those three, DE might be our least pressing need. But Sweat is the far superior player. He's worth more in general, without looking at the need factor. I think at that point, you take the DE and get the others later. 

 

Also important to realize that you can pick for need and for BPA interchangeably in the same draft. 

[Shaw66]

19 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.  

First, I think you have to recognize that Allen may have been the b est player available where the Bills took him, and Edmunds may have been the best available where the Bills too HIM, too.   I think what you saw in each case that the Bills saw an opportunity to trade up to where, with that pick, the best player available also happened to fit a need.  In other words, they TRADED for need, but they DRAFTED the BPA.  

 

I think Spiller is a good example to consider.   I don't think that Beane is so BPA oriented that if he had been in the Spiller situation, he would have taken CJ.   I'd like to think he'd either take the guy right behind Spiller on his board (because everyone knows that no one is absolutely sure who the BPA is among two closely ranked guys.  If the guy right behind Spiller on Beane's board was, let's say, also a running back, I think Beane would work hard to trade out of the spot.   That is, he'd trade away from a pick if the BPA isn't a need, and then at the lower picks he'd take BPA.   

 

In the 2019 draft, for example, if Beane's BPA when he's on the clock is a QB, I think he's trading out.  

[whatdrought]

The problem comes in when you take players higher than their intrinsic worth as a player dictates. 

 

John Doe might be the best RB in the draft, but he's really only seen as a 2nd round pick objectively. If the Raiders need a running back and pick John Doe at pick 15, they're paying a very high premium for position, instead of talent. 

 

This usually goes out the window in regards to QB and you get the Christian Ponders and Blaine Gabberts of the world becoming top 20 picks. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by whatdrought

[Alphadawg7]

20 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.  

 

Not sure what’s confusing about it.  They traded up to get the BPA on their board.  That’s the whole point of trading up, to get a coveted player at top of a teams board that is available still but won’t last until their pick.  

 

People take these statements too literally.  It doesn’t mean BPA based on mock drafts or Kipers loud mouth opinion of who the best guy on board is.  It means BPA on that teams board.  If a team has a pro bowl QB, they aren’t going to draft a QB if he is BPA, in fact QB won’t even be on their early board.  

 

BPA is already factoring in team specific needs or areas they can improve on.  Beane is saying he’s not afraid to take a defensive player if he makes the team better even though the defense is better than the offense right now.  What Beane means is that he is not going to reach to take a player at a position of a bigger need over a better player at a position where we may not be as weak, but said player would still be an upgrade and help the team more.

 

BPA has and always will be a reflection to the players the team put on their specific board, and not all players will be on each teams board based on where they are set and where they can improve.  Another example:  A RB may be the BPA to some people, but a team may not prioritize RB as high as DE, so on a teams board they value a DE higher than a RB and that’s DE will be the BPA on that teams board.  

 

BPA is very subjective team by team.

 

PS:  Bills drafted Spiller because they foolishly listened to Gaileys demand for a “scat back” and more foolishly thought the roster was good enough to draft for luxury.  

Edited January 24, 2019 by Alphadawg7

[BillyWhiteShows]

4 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Not sure what’s confusing about it.  They traded up to get the BPA on their board.  That’s the whole point of trading up, to get a coveted player at top of a teams board that is available still

but won’t last until their pick.  

 

People take these statements too literally.  It doesn’t mean BPA based on mock drafts or Kipers loud mouth opinion of who the best guy on board is.  It means BPA on that teams board.  If a team has a pro bowl QB, they aren’t going to draft a QB if he is BPA, in fact QB won’t even be on their early board.  

 

BPA is already factoring in team specific needs or areas they can improve on.  Beane is saying he’s not afraid to take a defensive player if he makes the team better even though the defense is better than the offense right now.  What Beane means is that he is not going to reach to take a player at a position of a bigger need over a better player at a position where we may not be as weak, but said player would still be an upgrade and help the team more.

 

BPA has and always will be a reflection to the players the team put on their specific board, and not all players will be on each teams board based on where they are set and where they can improve.  

 

PS:  Bills drafted Spiller because they foolishly listened to Gaileys demand for a “scat back” and more foolishly thought the roster was good enough to draft for luxury.  

 

But the board is different for each team and it’s largely decided on need.  That’s my whole point in saying that yes, Need does come into play.

[Mikey152]

1 minute ago, BillyWhiteShows said:

 

But the board is different for each team and it’s largely decided on need.  That’s my whole point in saying that yes, Need does come into play.

 

It's not built on need...positions come into play, but more with regards to their intrinsic value than their value to a given team.  Pushing players up or down your board based on position RELATIVE TO YOUR TEAM is exactly what you should never do

Edited January 24, 2019 by Mikey152

[Alphadawg7]

3 minutes ago, BillyWhiteShows said:

 

But the board is different for each team and it’s largely decided on need.  That’s my whole point in saying that yes, Need does come into play.

 

Nobody ever said it didn’t.  Again people take this too black and white and too literally.  Of course needs play a role, but once the board is set Beane is saying he will stay true to it whether it’s offensive or defensive.  And outside QB, there isn’t a position on this team that won’t be on beanes early board that can’t be upgraded.  

 

Has nothing to to do with Kiper rankings, mock drafts, etc.  

Edited January 24, 2019 by Alphadawg7

[Mikey152]

I was thinking about an analogy that might help

 

Lets say you want a blue shirt to go with some gray pants you got for Christmas, so you go to the store.  When you get there, they are all out of your size.

 

would you:

A) Buy a different size (Draft for need)

B) Look at different colors in your size (draft BPA)

C) Look at pants that go with shirts you already have (draft BPA but at a position of strength)

D) Go to a different store (trade down)

 

I would say that as far as decisions go, B=D>C>A

 

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Mikey152

[PrimeTime101]

I Don't think some of you understand the concept of BPA. They go into the draft with gaps to fill on the roster, but the last thing they want to do is reach. SO for example.

 

High Needs.... OT, OG, DT, WR

Mid Needs.... RB, #2 CB, TE

Low Needs.... P, OLB, DE, another WR.

 

So now they hit the draft. they have there list of top 500 players in draft that could be different then many other peoples top 500.

 

So here we go round 1 pick 9. the BPA is 7Edge, 9OLB, 10edge, 11DT, 12T     So you have the 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th best players on the board they really want an DT or T but they have to reach 2 spots to get there BPA High Needs at 11DT. Can they filp a small trade? if not do we really want that #7edge and skip needs this round?

 

I am here to tell you MOST of the time its BPA at NEED and they will get that 11DT and slightly reach leaving the 7edge and 9OLB on the board.

 

BPA at NEED people.... that's the concept people don't get. You BPA at need as long as you don't reach.. Now.. if your need player is out of range and you cant manage a trade then you go 7EDGE. its all what is on there top 500 board and there needs list.

[LABILLBACKER]

27 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

An example would be drafting Montez Sweat at 9 instead of a Jonah Williams or Dk Metcalf. We have a need for OL, WR, and DE. Of those three, DE might be our least pressing need. But Sweat is the far superior player. He's worth more in general, without looking at the need factor. I think at that point, you take the DE and get the others later. 

 

Also important to realize that you can pick for need and for BPA interchangeably in the same draft. 

If I'm a team that sucks offensively,  I'm not waiting around for my draft needs to line up with my bpa scenario. Now the great news this year is we need OL, WR & DL (95 gone) almost equally. So no matter how you mix it, a quality player WILL fall to 9 at one of these 3 positions.  Have your cake and eat it too.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

33 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

First, I think you have to recognize that Allen may have been the b est player available where the Bills took him, and Edmunds may have been the best available where the Bills too HIM, too.   I think what you saw in each case that the Bills saw an opportunity to trade up to where, with that pick, the best player available also happened to fit a need.  In other words, they TRADED for need, but they DRAFTED the BPA.  

 

I think Spiller is a good example to consider.   I don't think that Beane is so BPA oriented that if he had been in the Spiller situation, he would have taken CJ.   I'd like to think he'd either take the guy right behind Spiller on his board (because everyone knows that no one is absolutely sure who the BPA is among two closely ranked guys.  If the guy right behind Spiller on Beane's board was, let's say, also a running back, I think Beane would work hard to trade out of the spot.   That is, he'd trade away from a pick if the BPA isn't a need, and then at the lower picks he'd take BPA.   

 

In the 2019 draft, for example, if Beane's BPA when he's on the clock is a QB, I think he's trading out.  

 

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.

 

[Mikey152]

4 minutes ago, PrimeTime101 said:

I Don't think some of you understand the concept of BPA. They go into the draft with gaps to fill on the roster, but the last thing they want to do is reach. SO for example.

 

High Needs.... OT, OG, DT, WR

Mid Needs.... RB, #2 CB, TE

Low Needs.... P, OLB, DE, another WR.

 

So now they hit the draft. they have there list of top 500 players in draft that could be different then many other peoples top 500.

 

So here we go round 1 pick 9. the BPA is 7Edge, 9OLB, 10edge, 11DT, 12T     So you have the 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th best players on the board they really want an DT or T but they have to reach 2 spots to get there BPA High Needs at 11DT. Can they filp a small trade? if not do we really want that #7edge and skip needs this round?

 

I am here to tell you MOST of the time its BPA at NEED and they will get that 11DT and slightly reach leaving the 7edge and 9OLB on the board.

 

BPA at NEED people.... that's the concept people don't get. You BPA at need as long as you don't reach.. Now.. if your need player is out of range and you cant manage a trade then you go 7EDGE. its all what is on there top 500 board and there needs list.

 

Thats the point of tiers...to determine what is and isn't a reach.  It's also why BPA at a position of need is not a good description, because the name alone IMPLIES reaching is ok.

[LABILLBACKER]

33 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

An example would be drafting Montez Sweat at 9 instead of a Jonah Williams or Dk Metcalf. We have a need for OL, WR, and DE. Of those three, DE might be our least pressing need. But Sweat is the far superior player. He's worth more in general, without looking at the need factor. I think at that point, you take the DE and get the others later. 

 

Also important to realize that you can pick for need and for BPA interchangeably in the same draft. 

If I'm a team that sucks offensively,  I'm not waiting around for my draft needs to line up with my bpa scenario. Now the great news this year is we need OL, WR & DL (95 gone) almost equally. So no matter how you mix it, a quality player WILL fall to 9 at one of these 3 positions.  Have your cake and eat it too.

[PrimeTime101]

1 minute ago, Mikey152 said:

 

Thats the point of tiers...to determine what is and isn't a reach.  It's also why BPA at a position of need is not a good description, because the name alone IMPLIES reaching is ok.

NO it does not imply REACHING LMAO where do you get this stuff... Just because you have a position of need and you draft that need doesn't mean you have to reach for it..

 

seriously just stop and think before you type

[Mikey152]

1 minute ago, LABILLBACKER said:

If I'm a team that sucks offensively,  I'm not waiting around for my draft needs to line up with my bpa scenario. Now the great news this year is we need OL, WR & DL (95 gone) almost equally. So no matter how you mix it, a quality player WILL fall to 9 at one of these 3 positions.  Have your cake and eat it too.

 

Here's the problem...every team needs different things; your offense needs to get better relative to other teams, not in a vacuum.

 

If you pass on an A player for a B player...the team behind you is going to get that A player.  Your team might have gone from a C to a B, but that team just went from a C to an A.  

1 minute ago, PrimeTime101 said:

NO it does not imply REACHING LMAO where do you get this stuff... Just because you have a position of need and you draft that need doesn't mean you have to reach for it..

 

seriously just stop and think before you type

 

BPA at a position of need as a statement does nothing to address the issue of reaching.  In your description you said something about it, but the term "BPA at a position of need" literally implies you would skip positions you don't need.  That is the definition of reaching.

[richardb1952]

29 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

An example would be drafting Montez Sweat at 9 instead of a Jonah Williams or Dk Metcalf. We have a need for OL, WR, and DE. Of those three, DE might be our least pressing need. But Sweat is the far superior player. He's worth more in general, without looking at the need factor. I think at that point, you take the DE and get the others later. 

 

Also important to realize that you can pick for need and for BPA interchangeably in the same draft. 

 

 

Quite true.  Also, by taking a lesser pick at 9 (let's say WR), the team may find that in second round they might have gotten a WR that was ranked very closely to the one they took in first.  Now, they lost on the impact player they might have had in the first round and find themselves not taking a WR in second cause they just got one.  ON and on it goes.  EJ Manuel was taken because he was the best QB in the class.  Problem was, he was still only graded as a second round or lower pick.  You have to know the value for the players that fill the needs of your team.  Need and Value have to align.

[PrimeTime101]

7 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:

 

Here's the problem...every team needs different things; your offense needs to get better relative to other teams, not in a vacuum.

 

If you pass on an A player for a B player...the team behind you is going to get that A player.  Your team might have gone from a C to a B, but that team just went from a C to an A.  

 

BPA at a position of need as a statement does nothing to address the issue of reaching.  In your description you said something about it, but the term "BPA at a position of need" literally implies you would skip positions you don't need.  That is the definition of reaching.

Mikey I just think your writing down lots of stupid crap that makes NO sense what so ever. the definition of reaching is going for a player of need that is 7+ spots higher on your top 500 list. that is called reaching when you have another guy of need that's only 2 up on your list.

 

you just making up silly comments as you go on and it needs to stop. BPA at NEED is what the best of GM's DO!

 

I think you need to get over yourself. I can care less what you think what BPA at NEED is..

Edited January 24, 2019 by PrimeTime101

[whatdrought]

8 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

If I'm a team that sucks offensively,  I'm not waiting around for my draft needs to line up with my bpa scenario. Now the great news this year is we need OL, WR & DL (95 gone) almost equally. So no matter how you mix it, a quality player WILL fall to 9 at one of these 3 positions.  Have your cake and eat it too.

 

 

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. 

[Mikey152]

1 minute ago, PrimeTime101 said:

Mikey I just think your writing down lots of stupid crap that makes NO sense what so ever. the definition of reaching is going for a player of need that is 7+ spots higher on your top 500 list. that is called reaching when you have another guy of need that's only 2 up on your list.

 

you just making up silly comments as you go on and it needs to stop. BPA at NEED is what the best of GM's DO!

 

I think you need to get over yourself. I can care less what you think what BPA at NEED is..

 

7+ spots higher and I am the one making up crap?  You literally just pulled that number out of your ass.

 

 

[oldmanfan]

Let's say with this upcoming # 9 pick you have a guy at edge rusher you see as a perennial all Pro type, and a LT you see as a solid player for years.  You'd be nuts to take the LT over the Edge guy.  Talent wins.

[PrimeTime101]

2 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:

 

7+ spots higher and I am the one making up crap?  You literally just pulled that number out of your ass.

 

 

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!

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Let's say with this upcoming # 9 pick you have a guy at edge rusher you see as a perennial all Pro type, and a LT you see as a solid player for years.  You'd be nuts to take the LT over the Edge guy.  Talent wins.

exactly. all that factors in. some times GM's think the current BPA player will turn into all pro  its all based on opinions of the player on the board. well said.