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

[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.