You say you're all for BPA, but do you mean it?

[Logic]

I was thinking about this the other day.

There are many fans on this board who say they're totally fine with the BPA strategy, i.e. drafting the best player available no matter what.. Many will go to great lengths to defend it or remind everyone daily that it's the way to go. I get it. I really do. I'm not here to argue against taking the best player available in each round. It's fine with me. I think every team does a little bit of lip service to it every year while also making draft picks that make it clear that "need" is at least a LITTLE BIT of a factor, but I digress.

The point of this post is this: You say you're all for taking the best player available in each round, but if that idea is put to the test, how will you react?

Here's the scenario --

The Bills have selected, let's say, Ed Oliver with pick 9. Now, after anxiously waiting for the Bills to be on the clock in the second round, it's finally time. Still available on the board are N'Keal Harry, Hakeem Butler, Irv Smith Jr, Chris Lindstrom, and Dalton Risner. The Bills turn in their card. We all wait with great anticipation as it is announced...."With the 40th pick in the 2019 NFL draft, the Buffalo Bills select....Rock Ya-Sin, cornerback, Temple". Or "The Buffalo Bills select Jonathan Abram, safety, Mississippi State".

Well? What's your reaction? Are you thrilled that the Bills got the highest rated player on their board? Are you not at all bothered that they didn't fill their offensive "needs"? What say you? When the tires hit the pavement, are you truly on board with drafting the BPA?

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Logic

[NoSaint]

I’m on board for BPA. 

 

If if they think there is a great corner vs an ok wr- go get that corner. 

[Warcodered]

I think it's less BPA and more best value for your team which player would improve your team the most.

[unbillievable]

With the #9 pick, the Bills select.... Dwayne Haskins.

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

8 minutes ago, Logic said:

I was thinking about this the other day.

There are many fans on this board who say they're totally fine with the BPA strategy, i.e. drafting the best player available no matter what.. Many will go to great lengths to defend it or remind everyone daily that it's the way to go. I get it. I really do. I'm not here to argue against taking the best player available in each round. It's fine with me. I think every team does a little bit of lip service to it every year while also making draft picks that make it clear that "need" is at least a LITTLE BIT of a factor, but I digress.

The point of this post is this: You say you're all for taking the best player available in each round, but if that idea is put to the test, how will you react?

Here's the scenario --

The Bills have selected, let's say, Ed Oliver with pick 9. Now, after anxiously waiting for the Bills to be on the clock in the second round, it's finally time. Still available on the board are N'Keal Harry, Hakeem Butler, Irv Smith Jr, Chris Lindstrom, and Dalton Risner. The Bills turn in their card. We all wait with great anticipation as it is announced...."With the 40th pick in the 2019 NFL draft, the Buffalo Bills select....Rock Ya-Sin, cornerback, Temple". Or "The Buffalo Bills select Jonathan Abram, safety, Mississippi State".

Well? What's your reaction? Are you thrilled that the Bills got the highest rated player on their board? Are you not at all bothered that they didn't fill their offensive "needs"? What say you? When the tires hit the pavement, are you truly on board with drafting the BPA?

 

 

Absolutely - and if the BPA there isn’t the guy you want, move, particularly in RD 1

[HOUSE]

LOL, No team will admit they filled a need rather then the BPA

 

Bunch of lairs...

[Logic]

2 hours ago, Warcodered said:

I think it's less BPA and more best value for your team which player would improve your team the most.

But BPA and what you're describing are two different things, to an extent.

I'm asking for those pure defenders of BPA, those people who will tell you "what is not a need today may become a need tomorrow". The dyed-in-the-wool, "BPA is the way!" people.

So the corner, in this scenario, is ranked higher on the Bills board than the remaining WRs, TE, and O-linemen I mentioned. Should they take a player they feel is inferior because he is more of a need? Or should they take the player that is, clear and away, the highest rated player still remaining on the board? In this case, a cornerback. What should they do? And if they opt for the cornerback, how do you feel about it?

Edited April 7, 2019 by Logic

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

7 minutes ago, Logic said:

I was thinking about this the other day.

There are many fans on this board who say they're totally fine with the BPA strategy, i.e. drafting the best player available no matter what.. Many will go to great lengths to defend it or remind everyone daily that it's the way to go. I get it. I really do. I'm not here to argue against taking the best player available in each round. It's fine with me. I think every team does a little bit of lip service to it every year while also making draft picks that make it clear that "need" is at least a LITTLE BIT of a factor, but I digress.

The point of this post is this: You say you're all for taking the best player available in each round, but if that idea is put to the test, how will you react?

Here's the scenario --

The Bills have selected, let's say, Ed Oliver with pick 9. Now, after anxiously waiting for the Bills to be on the clock in the second round, it's finally time. Still available on the board are N'Keal Harry, Hakeem Butler, Irv Smith Jr, Chris Lindstrom, and Dalton Risner. The Bills turn in their card. We all wait with great anticipation as it is announced...."With the 40th pick in the 2019 NFL draft, the Buffalo Bills select....Rock Ya-Sin, cornerback, Temple". Or "The Buffalo Bills select Jonathan Abram, safety, Mississippi State".

Well? What's your reaction? Are you thrilled that the Bills got the highest rated player on their board? Are you not at all bothered that they didn't fill their offensive "needs"? What say you? When the tires hit the pavement, are you truly on board with drafting the BPA?

 

...guess my inherent shortcomings still cause me to question the BPA concept versus NEED....until the Cowgirls OL was beset by injury/illness, they were rated one of if not THE top OL in the league, featuring three 1st rounders as starters....sans the injury/illness and they're on the clock with BPA being OL, why pull THAT trigger?....say their secondary had glaring needs.....why not address NEED vs BPA or am I misunderstanding something?....

[Chuck Wagon]

What are our needs?

 

You can't say we need a "#1 WR" and expect someone on day 2 to fill that role.  I would argue our biggest need is more blue chip players, at any position outside of obvious spots where one guy plays like QB / C.  That supports BPA.

[oldmanfan]

Yes, in rounds 1and 2.  

[Warcodered]

7 minutes ago, Logic said:

But BPA and what you're describing are two different things, to an extent.

I'm asking for those pure defenders of BPA, those people who will tell you "what is not a need today may become a need tomorrow". The died-in-the-wool, "BPA is the way!" people.

So the corner, in this scenario, is ranked higher on the Bills board than the remaining WRs, TE, and O-linemen I mentioned. Should they take a player they feel is inferior because he is more of a need? Or should they take the player that is, clear and away, the highest rated player still remaining on the board? In this case, a cornerback. What should they do? And if they opt for the cornerback, how do you feel about it?

I've always seen BPA as an oversimplification of the process. I mean if you do that to the letter then you allow chance to dictate the construction of your team far too much.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Warcodered

[LOVEMESOMEBILLS]

8 minutes ago, Logic said:

I was thinking about this the other day.

There are many fans on this board who say they're totally fine with the BPA strategy, i.e. drafting the best player available no matter what.. Many will go to great lengths to defend it or remind everyone daily that it's the way to go. I get it. I really do. I'm not here to argue against taking the best player available in each round. It's fine with me. I think every team does a little bit of lip service to it every year while also making draft picks that make it clear that "need" is at least a LITTLE BIT of a factor, but I digress.

The point of this post is this: You say you're all for taking the best player available in each round, but if that idea is put to the test, how will you react?

Here's the scenario --

The Bills have selected, let's say, Ed Oliver with pick 9. Now, after anxiously waiting for the Bills to be on the clock in the second round, it's finally time. Still available on the board are N'Keal Harry, Hakeem Butler, Irv Smith Jr, Chris Lindstrom, and Dalton Risner. The Bills turn in their card. We all wait with great anticipation as it is announced...."With the 40th pick in the 2019 NFL draft, the Buffalo Bills select....Rock Ya-Sin, cornerback, Temple". Or "The Buffalo Bills select Jonathan Abram, safety, Mississippi State".

Well? What's your reaction? Are you thrilled that the Bills got the highest rated player on their board? Are you not at all bothered that they didn't fill their offensive "needs"? What say you? When the tires hit the pavement, are you truly on board with drafting the BPA?

 

Then the Bills have to take N'Keal Harry in this situation imo. He very well could end up as the best WR in this years draft. He's got size(6'-4"), can make plays all over the field, has put up numbers in back to back seasons and would be  steal at pick 40. I don't know another player you can pick @ #40 and have a legit chance of getting the best player at a skill position.

[Logic]

1 minute ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...guess my inherent shortcomings still cause me to question the BPA concept versus NEED....until the Cowgirls OL was beset by injury/illness, they were rated one of if not THE top OL in the league, featuring three 1st rounders as starters....sans the injury/illness and they're on the clock with BPA being OL, why pull THAT trigger?....say their secondary had glaring needs.....why not address NEED vs BPA or am I misunderstanding something?....

I hear you.

Many people say "it's a mixture of both. You take the best player available at a position of need". And maybe that's the way to go. But that's not what pure "best player available" actually means. And again I say: A team may have a player who is not a "need" ranked unquestionably higher on their board than a player who DOES fill a "need". Should they ignore the difference in ranking and take the "need" guy? That's the big philosophical question here.

And like I said, and like @HOUSE mentioned. To some extent, teams are full of *****. Many teams will talk until they're blue in the face about "BPA no matter what", and then invariably, their premium picks will be spent on need positions. Happens every year.

It's a complex and nuanced discussion. In the end, I'm just wondering how our most ardent "BPA no matter what!" people would feel if that became a reality in the form of a non-need in this draft in an early round.

[SoCal Deek]

BPA is a myth. Teams essentially select the best player available that’ll fit a roster spot of need. BPAoN: Best Player Available of Need

[NoSaint]

3 minutes ago, Logic said:

But BPA and what you're describing are two different things, to an extent.

I'm asking for those pure defenders of BPA, those people who will tell you "what is not a need today may become a need tomorrow". The died-in-the-wool, "BPA is the way!" people.

So the corner, in this scenario, is ranked higher on the Bills board than the remaining WRs, TE, and O-linemen I mentioned. Should they take a player they feel is inferior because he is more of a need? Or should they take the player that is, clear and away, the highest rated player still remaining on the board? In this case, a cornerback. What should they do? And if they opt for the cornerback, how do you feel about it?

 

Take the corner. 

 

Rosters flip drastically in 2-3 years and I want the best player on the field in 2020 and 2021 and 2022. Not the guy that is less likely to succeed and will be forced into a higher pressure situation day 1.

 

plus injuries. Come September who knows what the CB depth chart looks like. One injury to any of 3-4 guys and you’ve filled an immediate need too.

[Logic]

Just now, NoSaint said:

 

Take the corner. 

 

Rosters flip drastically in 2-3 years and I want the best player on the field in 2020 and 2021 and 2022. Not the guy that is less likely to succeed and will be forced into a higher pressure situation day 1.

 

plus injuries. Come September who knows what the CB depth chart looks like. One injury to any of 3-4 guys and you’ve filled an immediate need too.

I like this answer.

Specifically, to not draft what the staff views as a premium cornerback just because they have, what...EJ Gaines and Kevin Johnson on the roster? Or undrafted (but awesome) Levi Wallace? You're going to let THOSE guys keep you from drafting a premium player at a premium position?!

On the other hand...

[thurst44]

9 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

With the #9 pick, the Bills select.... Dwayne Haskins.

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

 

Ha, that's the thing tho. QBs are almost never going to be the BPA at any point since, due to the position's value, they will necessarily be overdrafted.

[NoSaint]

6 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I've always seen BPA as an oversimplification of the process. I mean if you do that to the letter then you allow chance to dictate the construction of your team far too much.

 

As opposed to the risk of lesser players not developing? Get the best talent in the draft and fill gaps via free agency.

Edited April 7, 2019 by NoSaint

[Ethan in Cleveland]

23 minutes ago, Logic said:

I was thinking about this the other day.

There are many fans on this board who say they're totally fine with the BPA strategy, i.e. drafting the best player available no matter what.. Many will go to great lengths to defend it or remind everyone daily that it's the way to go. I get it. I really do. I'm not here to argue against taking the best player available in each round. It's fine with me. I think every team does a little bit of lip service to it every year while also making draft picks that make it clear that "need" is at least a LITTLE BIT of a factor, but I digress.

The point of this post is this: You say you're all for taking the best player available in each round, but if that idea is put to the test, how will you react?

Here's the scenario --

The Bills have selected, let's say, Ed Oliver with pick 9. Now, after anxiously waiting for the Bills to be on the clock in the second round, it's finally time. Still available on the board are N'Keal Harry, Hakeem Butler, Irv Smith Jr, Chris Lindstrom, and Dalton Risner. The Bills turn in their card. We all wait with great anticipation as it is announced...."With the 40th pick in the 2019 NFL draft, the Buffalo Bills select....Rock Ya-Sin, cornerback, Temple". Or "The Buffalo Bills select Jonathan Abram, safety, Mississippi State".

Well? What's your reaction? Are you thrilled that the Bills got the highest rated player on their board? Are you not at all bothered that they didn't fill their offensive "needs"? What say you? When the tires hit the pavement, are you truly on board with drafting the BPA?

 

BPA is all bull####. They will draft DL, TE, OLB, OT with the first four picks. 

Beane will just spin it with some nonsense on how they had a bunch of guys they coukd have gone with and they were lucky the draft unfolded to get the guys they did.

It’s the same GM speak every year.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Ethan in Portland

[ColoradoBills]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

I've always seen BPA as an oversimplification of the process. I mean if you do that too the letter then you allow chance to dictate the construction of your team far too much.

 

I sometimes think that the draft "board" people talk about is oversimplified.

Many think it's a list of players ranked #1-#300. 

 

In fact it's multiple boards set up by each team (and many do it differently).

Top Elite Talent board.

Top 50.

Positional boards

Needs board.

 

All these get refined down to a board that says something like the following.

These X amount of players are ranked top 1/3 of Round 2 players.

This is how I see it.

[Jay_Fixit]

Yes, I mean it.

 

BPA is BPA.

 

It’s that simple.

 

”Ohhh what if a QB is the BPA??!!!”

 

Grow up.

[Kirby Jackson]

4 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I’m on board for BPA. 

 

If if they think there is a great corner vs an ok wr- go get that corner. 

I am on this boat and more on it every year. You need talent everywhere and anywhere. Get the best players that you can and break ties with positions of need.

[Warcodered]

3 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

BPA is all bull####. They will draft DL, TE, OLB, OT with the first four picks. 

I think it's more MVPA-most valuable player available, and the value would vary based on the make up of the team.

[LSHMEAB]

No. I'm BPA at premium positions (OT's, pass rushers), especially in the top 10. A player at a non premium position would have to be head and shoulders above the field to represent value. I'll exclude QB since the Bills won't be taking one of those this year.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Here is a better scenario than CB or safety. What if BPA is a center? 

[Jay_Fixit]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

BPA is a myth. Teams essentially select the best player available that’ll fit a roster spot of need. BPAoN: Best Player Available of Need

Ya totally, like when the Jets had Sheldon Richardson and Muhammed Wilkerson for their D interior and took.....Leonard Williams. 

 

BPA is very real.

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, Ethan in Portland said:

Here is a better scenario than CB or safety. What if BPA is a center? 

What if BPA is a punter?

[CaptnCoke11]

35 minutes ago, Logic said:

I was thinking about this the other day.

There are many fans on this board who say they're totally fine with the BPA strategy, i.e. drafting the best player available no matter what.. Many will go to great lengths to defend it or remind everyone daily that it's the way to go. I get it. I really do. I'm not here to argue against taking the best player available in each round. It's fine with me. I think every team does a little bit of lip service to it every year while also making draft picks that make it clear that "need" is at least a LITTLE BIT of a factor, but I digress.

The point of this post is this: You say you're all for taking the best player available in each round, but if that idea is put to the test, how will you react?

Here's the scenario --

The Bills have selected, let's say, Ed Oliver with pick 9. Now, after anxiously waiting for the Bills to be on the clock in the second round, it's finally time. Still available on the board are N'Keal Harry, Hakeem Butler, Irv Smith Jr, Chris Lindstrom, and Dalton Risner. The Bills turn in their card. We all wait with great anticipation as it is announced...."With the 40th pick in the 2019 NFL draft, the Buffalo Bills select....Rock Ya-Sin, cornerback, Temple". Or "The Buffalo Bills select Jonathan Abram, safety, Mississippi State".

Well? What's your reaction? Are you thrilled that the Bills got the highest rated player on their board? Are you not at all bothered that they didn't fill their offensive "needs"? What say you? When the tires hit the pavement, are you truly on board with drafting the BPA?

 

All hell would break loose.  I’d bet anything on it.  

Edited April 7, 2019 by CaptnCoke11

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

18 minutes ago, Logic said:

I hear you.

Many people say "it's a mixture of both. You take the best player available at a position of need". And maybe that's the way to go. But that's not what pure "best player available" actually means. And again I say: A team may have a player who is not a "need" ranked unquestionably higher on their board than a player who DOES fill a "need". Should they ignore the difference in ranking and take the "need" guy? That's the big philosophical question here.

And like I said, and like @HOUSE mentioned. To some extent, teams are full of *****. Many teams will talk until they're blue in the face about "BPA no matter what", and then invariably, their premium picks will be spent on need positions. Happens every year.

It's a complex and nuanced discussion. In the end, I'm just wondering how our most ardent "BPA no matter what!" people would feel if that became a reality in the form of a non-need in this draft in an early round.

..makes much more sense versus a black and white "either or" proposition.......it's a hybrid decision.....good assessment....

Edited April 7, 2019 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[Toesy]

There are not that many top players in any draft-if you start drafting for need you lower your chance of getting one of the few top players available. Just because you have a "need" does not mean there is a player available this year to fill that need. Draft geeks wildly overestimate how many top players are available every year.   

[Big Turk]

The problem with this is we have no idea who is the BPA for them when they draft so we have no idea if they are telling the truth when they say that player was highest on the board.

Edited April 7, 2019 by matter2003

[JimmyNoodles]

I think BPA may be a little broader in concept, meaning that players are likely rated in tiers and then you select your pick of need if they are on the same tier. All the players you listed could be on the same tier and therefore any of them is an BPA pick. When players fall and their tier grade is higher, you should select them regardless. 

[Mickey]

29 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

LOL, No team will admit they filled a need rather then the BPA

 

Bunch of lairs...

 

When you ask a question you know they can't answer, you should expect to be lied to and morally, I have no qualms with that. To say that they took a guy for need is to: 1. send the message to the guy you drafted that you don't think he is as good as his draft position and 2. you are telling all your current players at that position that they are awful and will soon be jobless. Probably not the best way to run a football team unless alienating both rookies and vets at the same time is your goal. And what would such a statement gain you? 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Mickey

[Bangarang]

Take the best player available. It’s that simple.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, Bangarang said:

Take the best player available. It’s that simple.

...um....er....ok........

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

Take the best player available. It’s that simple.

how do you define BPA?

[JoeF]

30 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

LOL, No team will admit they filled a need rather then the BPA

 

Bunch of lairs...

There will be a rationalization... Beane will say when we have two players at two positions essentially equally rated, we go with the position where we have the least depth. 

 

Another rationalization is that certain positions are prioritized before the draft begins...for example, QB is not seen as a round 1-3 need this year...but if Tyree Jackson is sitting there at the 29th pick of the 4th round -- you have to take him...its called accumulating assets.

 

 

[formerlyofCtown]

44 minutes ago, Logic said:

I was thinking about this the other day.

There are many fans on this board who say they're totally fine with the BPA strategy, i.e. drafting the best player available no matter what.. Many will go to great lengths to defend it or remind everyone daily that it's the way to go. I get it. I really do. I'm not here to argue against taking the best player available in each round. It's fine with me. I think every team does a little bit of lip service to it every year while also making draft picks that make it clear that "need" is at least a LITTLE BIT of a factor, but I digress.

The point of this post is this: You say you're all for taking the best player available in each round, but if that idea is put to the test, how will you react?

Here's the scenario --

The Bills have selected, let's say, Ed Oliver with pick 9. Now, after anxiously waiting for the Bills to be on the clock in the second round, it's finally time. Still available on the board are N'Keal Harry, Hakeem Butler, Irv Smith Jr, Chris Lindstrom, and Dalton Risner. The Bills turn in their card. We all wait with great anticipation as it is announced...."With the 40th pick in the 2019 NFL draft, the Buffalo Bills select....Rock Ya-Sin, cornerback, Temple". Or "The Buffalo Bills select Jonathan Abram, safety, Mississippi State".

Well? What's your reaction? Are you thrilled that the Bills got the highest rated player on their board? Are you not at all bothered that they didn't fill their offensive "needs"? What say you? When the tires hit the pavement, are you truly on board with drafting the BPA?

 

Absolutely if he is truly BPA.  Part of the BPA equation is if he is Best player available including whats on your Roster.  

Also what glaring need do we have?

[SoTier]

39 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I’m on board for BPA. 

 

If if they think there is a great corner vs an ok wr- go get that corner. 

 

As a corollary, if the corner and wr are rated about the same, then you can pick for need, but to pass on a great player at one position to take a decent one because you have a hole at a particular position, is a plan for mediocrity at best.

[Just Joshin']

I see BPA as a philosophy, not a hard and fast rule.  Players are usually grouped in tiers.  Within the tiers you try to select for need.  There is not a BPA list from 1 to 200 and a team just picks the next name.

 

Now in your scenario the player on the board was in tier 1 at a position of strength and all others were lower tiers, taken the BPA.  The exception to that might be QB.

 

So this discussion is all about definition of BPA.