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

[Kirby Jackson]

Why is anyone arguing that teams don’t go BPA? Teams absolutely do that. They build their boards accordingly and then stick to it. 

[SouthNYfan]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

We aren't.

 

I think Payne's tape was as good as almost any player in the draft last year. It was very good. But you consider positional value when grading and that did drop him into the second tier of grades for me. I had a definitive top 8 and a cluster of guys after that which both Payne and James were in. 

 

I think last year had some serious studs on both sides of the ball

That's why I'm glad we had two firsts!

[mannc]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

I think that there’s a narrow range of players with similar grades, and it shouldn’t be taken TOO literally. That’s how I see it, anyway. If two kids in HS graduate with a 93 average, they look the same to you and me, but one will be ranked higher in class rankings when you get down to the nitty gritty. A college will choose based upon what “bucket” they are trying to fill, and which one is crowded. 

Exactly.  It’s all based on highly subjective grades.  It’s particularly meaningless when you are comparing, say, a running back and a defensive end.  

[GoBills808]

14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

We aren't.

 

I think Payne's tape was as good as almost any player in the draft last year. It was very good. But you consider positional value when grading and that did drop him into the second tier of grades for me. I had a definitive top 8 and a cluster of guys after that which both Payne and James were in. 

 

6 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Why is anyone arguing that teams don’t go BPA? Teams absolutely do that. They build their boards accordingly and then stick to it. 

 

So you guys are seriously arguing an NFL team had Payne ranked above Tremaine Edmunds?

[SouthNYfan]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

 

So you guys are seriously arguing an NFL team had Payne ranked above Tremaine Edmunds?

 

Well.

The Redskins must have.

 

[GoBills808]

Just now, SouthNYfan said:

 

Well.

The Redskins must have.

 

 

Right. Because there's simply no other explanation than BPA.

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

 

So you guys are seriously arguing an NFL team had Payne ranked above Tremaine Edmunds?

 

Personally, Edmunds was in my top 8. But a lot of NFL teams were worried about Edmunds' fundamentals. That is why he slipped. 

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

 

Right. Because there's simply no other explanation than BPA.

 

So if you want teams I think reached for need in last year's first I think the 49ers did, the Buccaneers did and the Raiders definitely did. 

[Kirby Jackson]

6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

 

So you guys are seriously arguing an NFL team had Payne ranked above Tremaine Edmunds?

I wasn’t arguing that but ABSOLUTELY that’s plausible. 

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Personally, Edmunds was in my top 8. But a lot of NFL teams were worried about Edmunds' fundamentals. That is why he slipped. 

 

Or did he slip because the Niners knew they were getting rid of Trent Brown, and the Skins needed a DT, and the Raiders were awful along the o line and went with Kolton Miller @16? Are you saying you also believe the Raiders had Kolton Miller ranked above Tremaine Edmunds?

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

Or did he slip because the Niners knew they were getting rid of Trent Brown, and the Skins needed a DT, and the Raiders were awful along the o line and went with Kolton Miller @16? Are you saying you also believe the Raiders had Kolton Miller ranked above Tremaine Edmunds?

 

No I have just said the 49ers and the Raiders in my mind reached for needs. I have never argued it doesn't happen. Just that it isn't what every team does which was what you found hilarious. 

 

But if you think the questions about Edmunds' fundamentals were not live and present out there among teams and film guys before the 2018 draft then you are wrong. I personally got challenged on having him in my top 8 both by numerous people I speak to who are either themselves, or well connected with, well respected scouts and analysts. 

 

EDIT: Kolton Miller should never in a million years have been a first round pick. But he wouldn't be the first combine warrior to suddenly be way overvalued on a team's board. I think they reached for need but I don't totally rule out that Gruden fell for him based on the Combine.

Edited April 7, 2019 by GunnerBill

[SouthNYfan]

16 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

Right. Because there's simply no other explanation than BPA.

 

Well they took him over Edmunds, and it's not like they were stacked at LB.

I think they were probably closely graded by the Redskins and they chose the position of greater need for two closely ranked players on their board

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Well they took him over Edmunds, and it's not like they were stacked at LB.

I think they were probably closely graded by the Redskins and they chose the position of greater need for two closely ranked players on their board

 

Right...so why can't we just use Best Value Available, value being your own interpretation whatever combination of player rank, draft position, and team needs/priorities you prefer. Because BPA is clearly just bs coach/gmspeak.

[akcash]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Devin White is a possibility imo. The Bills would be so athletic at LB that they can stay in their base more than other teams. They’d kick Edmunds to SLB. White is one of the best few players in this draft.

Yep and like you say I actually have always thought SLB is his natural position... our lb core would be ultra elite like you say and if Milano could hang with slot receivers yeah we could stay in that most of the time... I just don't think he's in play for us bc I think they have too much invested on Edmunds being our MLB and you can't take him off the field on third down... and also you can't afford to take Milano off the field basically ever... if like you say they thought that could be our Nickel package on steroids that would be awesome... I don't think Milano could hang with a lot of slot receivers tho and Taron Johnson is too good of a nickel... I wish we could take White tho be he is super elite at MLB.

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Because BPA is clearly just bs coach/gmspeak.

 

Except it is not. 

[White Linen]

Grading players is something no more perfected than when the draft first began.  Who really cares if a fan or FO says we draft BPA vs need?  

 

BPA is an illusion and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.  

[SouthNYfan]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

Right...so why can't we just use Best Value Available, value being your own interpretation whatever combination of player rank, draft position, and team needs/priorities you prefer. Because BPA is clearly just bs coach/gmspeak.

 

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Except it is not. 

 

?

[dayman]

Pure BPA is an insane way to think about things and of course we would run ourselves into the ground with that strategy. In later rounds is becomes more of thing ... in early rounds you need to value based on your needs/roster. If BPA were something people thought was real there would be no trades ever. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by dayman

[GoBills808]

If you guys want to keep using BPA*except in cases of the quarterback position, or when similarly ranked players of near equal value happen to fall in draft position wherein the argument for team needs can be used to select a lower ranked player, or in instances of outstanding NFL combine performances then have at it ??

 

 

[Big C]

Teams do build their board according to needs. You take the BPA according to your board, which can differ from other teams' boards due to a lot reasons and surely need is one of them. 

 

The thing is players like Payne and Edmunds both fell into a similar tier - and I think most teams had them somewhere in the 8-24 range - but the way different scout teams and so on view these guys is highly subjective beyond that. 

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

If you guys want to keep using BPA*except in cases of the quarterback position, or when similarly ranked players of near equal value happen to fall in draft position wherein the argument for team needs can be used to select a lower ranked player, or in instances of outstanding NFL combine performances then have at it ??

 

 

 

No what you are doing here is suggesting that I have said all teams always adhere to BPA. I have never said that. I said your argument that none do was incorrect. 

 

Some teams reach for need in the draft. Hell the Bills have done it for most of the past 15 years. Others do not. They take the best player available on their board. There are plenty of examples of both (some teams reaching and some teams going BPA in last year's first round). 

 

The one position that is always exempt from BPA is Quarterback. Almost every team reaches for Quarterbacks because when you don't have one everything else is basically irrelevant. 

[Matt_In_NH]

IMO people was take "BPA" a little too literally.

 

I have seen a bunch of posts talking about BPA which for me needs a little more definition. BPA sounds simple but it is not as simple as it sounds on the surface in my opinion. The reality is teams do look at positions of need and I contend this is not necessarily a bad thing. The reason is there is uncertainty in anyone's rankings and that uncertainty has to be considered. Best Player Available in the draft to some means you rank every player from 1 to N and then when it is your turn to draft you take the guy at the top of the list regardless of position. Add talent to your roster, more talent is always better. That is the general philosophy right? But then why do teams consistently take players at positions of need? 

I believe the reason is uncertainty in rankings makes it reasonable to take a guy at a position of need vs the guy at the very top of your list. Rankings are based on data and subjective opinions. Obviously you can measure how fast, how big, how flexible someone is. But there are other factors that go into a players rankings, injury history, desire/hunger to play the game and many other things For instance, lets say you rank each player with a score from 1-100 but because the rankings are somewhat subjective there is an uncertainty in anyone ranking of +-3 points. It is your turn to draft, there is a LB with a score of 91, a OT with a score of 89 and a guard with a score of 90. You need a tackle and are deep at LB. Do you take BPA, the LB because he has the highest number? Pretty much no teams do this, they take they guy that is close but at a position of need. Now if you take a guy outside of your uncertainty window at a position of need, you are probably reaching.

There are other factors also, if the draft was heavy with LB's at high numbers you may take a guy at a position that has scarce talent knowing one of those LB's will likely be there next time you draft.

My 2 cents....

[GoBills808]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No what you are doing here is suggesting that I have said all teams always adhere to BPA. I have never said that. I said your argument that none do was incorrect. 

 

Some teams reach for need in the draft. Hell the Bills have done it for most of the past 15 years. Others do not. They take the best player available on their board. There are plenty of examples of both (some teams reaching and some teams going BPA in last year's first round). 

 

The one position that is always exempt from BPA is Quarterback. Almost every team reaches for Quarterbacks because when you don't have one everything else is basically irrelevant. 

 

I don't like it. For one I think it lacks clarity, but two (reiterating what you and SouthNYfan disagreed with earlier)...it's coachspeak. It is, and it's lazy. It's so the front office has an out when they throw their hands up and say 'Well, we took the best guy available at that spot' instead of giving the fans credit for having half a brain and saying what actually HAPPENED, like 'We saw some value here that we thought other teams missed on, and we took a chance on a guy who fit what we were trying to build this season and going forward'

 

EDIT*- My argument was that every team drafts for need, for clarity's sake.

Edited April 7, 2019 by GoBills808

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

EDIT*- My argument was that every team drafts for need, for clarity's sake.

 

And they don't. 

[Rochesterfan]

9 hours 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?

 

 

 

Maybe I am way off base, but I don’t think so.  The issue with the current draft set-up is exactly the problem with this argument.  Teams near the very top of the draft - top 10 - 15 picks end up drafting more true BPA.  Because of the pressure and scrutiny- they end up drafting great athletes that do not always fit need or culture of the team or overpay for the QB position and do not get the value of the pick.

 

The teams drafting on the back half of the draft - are getting the BPA with need and fit included and that makes for more successful drafting in my opinion.  

 

For example - Detroit ends up with WR as BPA early in the draft 3 out of 4 drafts or the NYJs drafting DL in the first round 4 out of 5 years.  These teams drafting early struggle because you are not always getting good fits and good players.  

 

The teams drafting later have their choice of both BPA and fit/need and that to me is why they have more success.  You see it with NE, Pittsburgh, etc even going back to the Bills and SF of the 90s.  You also see high drafting teams struggle to break out like Cleveland, LA Rams, Buffalo, NYJ, SF - until they hit that one or 2 times were need/BPA/ fit all come together and they begin to transcend.

 

That is where I stand on this point.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Rochesterfan

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

And they don't. 

 

??No offense guy but your opinion ain’t worth that much to me, gonna need more than a one liner  or just drop it.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

 

??No offense guy but your opinion ain’t worth that much to me, gonna need more than a one liner  or just drop it.

 

I don't take offense. I have already explained why I think you are wrong. You don't like it because you think it lacks clarity, and you believe to to be coach speak. You have no provided a single argument to evidence your assertion that every team drafts for need. Some do. It is true. To say they all do is wrong and when presented with examples you said you didn't understand what certain GMs were doing.... I can tell you what they are doing. They are drafting BPA. That is why John Elway took the best player in the 2018 draft at #5 despite having numerous other needs. 

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I don't take offense. I have already explained why I think you are wrong. You don't like it because you think it lacks clarity, and you believe to to be coach speak. You have no provided a single argument to evidence your assertion that every team drafts for need. Some do. It is true. To say they all do is wrong and when presented with examples you said you didn't understand what certain GMs were doing.... I can tell you what they are doing. They are drafting BPA. That is why John Elway took the best player in the 2018 draft at #5 despite having numerous other needs. 

 

Sure, I don’t claim to know how Elway approaches the draft. Maybe he’s my exception like QB is for BPA, who knows.Your other examples I gave arguments for. Chapter and verse couple pages back. 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

 

Sure, I don’t claim to know how Elway approaches the draft. Maybe he’s my exception like QB is for BPA, who knows.Your other examples I gave arguments for. Chapter and verse couple pages back. 

 

Ones that I am sorry to say I found totally unconvincing. 

[GoBills808]

11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Ones that I am sorry to say I found totally unconvincing. 

 

Well, considering you apparently believe the Redakins had Da’Ron Payne graded higher than Edmunds and James I find your standard of plausibility very complex. Like, comically so.

[Thurman#1]

8 hours 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?

 

 

 

I don't think it actually is "no matter what," Logic. If the greatest long snapper in the history of the league, easily the best at his position ever, appears, you still don't pick him in the first. Same with punter. It's not "no matter what." It's within reason.

 

Indy's not going to draft a guy in the first to compete with Quenton Nelson, nor are the Giants or Cowboys going RB in the first. There are exceptions.

 

However, BPA at bottom is the sensible way to go, and should be applied in 80- 95% of all cases. GunnerBill points out that QB is an exception. That's right. There are other less overwhelming exceptions as well. 

 

Nearly any principle applied "no matter what" will produce problems.

 

But teams that draft primarily by need are handicapping themselves in the long run. Plenty do it regardless, of course, but they're hurting themselves.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Thurman#1

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

Well, considering you apparently believe the Redakins had Da’Ron Payne graded higher than Edmunds and James I find your standard of plausibility very complex. Like, comically so.

 

Complex in what way? 

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Complex in what way? 

Edmunds and James were both widely considered top 10 talents. Payne was widely not. Your insistence that he was the Skins’ BPA ahead of those two, in the draft immediately following a season in which they gave up the most rushing yards in the league, not to mention installing a new DC...that is what I’d charitably call a complex line of reasoning.

[TigerJ]

Once you get past the first round, there are likely multiple players available for whomever is picking at a given spot that will be graded equally, or so closely that you can't fit a razor blade between them.  It would be highly unlikely for there to be only one player that fits into the category of BPA when Buffalo is picking at #40.  It's more likely that there will be 4 or 5.  That being the case, at least one or two in that group will fill a need.

[LABILLBACKER]

We're not taking a DB @ 40Picks 9 & 40 will be some combination of DL, TE, WR, OL.

[Thurman#1]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Borderline 2nd rounder? Wow. I had him as a top 15 player. 

 

 

Yup, Mayock had Payne at #16 in his final big board, Brandt at #20. 

 

Having him earlier than borderline 2nd rounder was very reasonable at the time.

 

And if scouts didn't differ, there'd be no need for them. There'd just be one service scouting and ranking guys and everyone would go by that. Different teams will have different BPA rankings. That's human beings for ya. I don't know how Washington made that choice. I no longer keep close track of them. And yeah, Washington had serious needs in that draft that would have been filled with James or Edmunds. They might easily have chosen Payne by the BPA method. I don't know if they did, but they certainly could have.

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Formerly Allan in MD]

I'm all for BOTA.

[Jay_Fixit]

41 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

We're not taking a DB @ 40Picks 9 & 40 will be some combination of DL, TE, WR, OL.

Unless DB is BPA.

[fansince88]

Ohhhhh, you got me. Im actually not going to be happy with BPA. Im leaning towards mediocrity. 

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

9 hours 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?

 

 

Like Brandon Beane said in his press conference.... In FA you plug holes and in the draft you find talent regardless of position and he won't be held back drafting a certain position even if he feels good about the talent there and that should be the mentality.

[Shaw66]

9 hours ago, Logic said:

Right. I get that.

But what I'm asking is what if a corner or safety or other "non-need" position is the clear cut best player left on THEIR BOARD SPECIFICALLY? Do they take said player, or do they not?

Several folks have replied mentioning a tiered grading system, the stacking of players with similar grades based on positional value and need, etc...So, going with that, let's suppose in my original scenario that the Bills have all the offensive players ("need" players) I listed in tier 2 of their board. The corner or safety is in tier 1. They've gotta take the corner or safety, right? Are you okay with it if they do? That's what this thread is about.

I'm okay with it.  As I understand what they're doing, taking the corner or safety improves the level of talent of the team, and in their process, upgrading talent is more important having all positions equally talented.  They dont care that much if, say, the receiving corps is a little weaker if in the bargain they got a really good corner.  

 

McBeane expect every guy to do his job, so having less talent at receiver, in my example, isn't a disaster.  Having a specially talented corner helps more than adding a less talented receiver.  They figure it will even out over time.  It's very much a long term approach.  I'm okay with it. 

5 hours ago, dayman said:

Pure BPA is an insane way to think about things and of course we would run ourselves into the ground with that strategy. In later rounds is becomes more of thing ... in early rounds you need to value based on your needs/roster. If BPA were something people thought was real there would be no trades ever. 

This is exactly the opposite of what Beane says he does.  In the early rounds he takes strict BPA.  In later rounds he considers need.