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

[SoTier]

29 minutes ago, inaugural balls said:

 

What if you're sufficiently loaded at a particular position and the BPA ON YOUR BOARD is the same position, what do you do?

Then you get better if the rookie is truly a stud -- and you can trade the higher paid vet for a draft pick or let one walk in FA.  With rookie contracts only lasting 3-5 years, smart GMs are always looking to have young guys in the wings to step in.  That's how teams that are perennial playoff contenders stay on top season after season while poor teams like the Bills are constantly using the draft to fill immediate holes, either because they don't prepare for player movement or they're constantly spinning their wheels trying to please new HCs who don't fit the players currently on the team.

[CookieG]

1 hour 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.

Even in that situation, I think there are more questions that go into the decision..

 

-how bad is the area of need?  Is it a chronic problem or a one year thing?

-how likely are to fulfill that need elsewhere? This is really where honest self evaluation takes place. Simply saying, "we can get another guy later in the draft"

-ROI - In your example, if I have the top pass D in the league, how much will Player A make that better?  More importantly, how much more will player A make the team as a whole better? If player B improves the deficient area substantially, but not completely..but player A only adds marginally to a strength, what's the better gain?

-how confident am I that player A is really that much ahead of player B...or anyone else who is eligible at that slot? 

-how good am I at correcting a deficiency in areas I'm weak at, evaluation wise? Do I need to "overdraft" to make up for my own e v a l areas?

 

I think a GM has to look at a different objective than a lot of player evaluation people. A GM MUST consider areas of deficiency, or he's not going to be a GM very long.

 

Its easier for a scout to say..."BPA", but the GM looking at a horrible offense, or defense..has to consider how improve the weak areas of a team.

 

And I think what B716 is saying has a lot of merit. BPA can vary greatly depending on the person assigning the BPA tag.

 

For example...Rexy..(who's kidding who...he ran at least the first round of every draft where he was a coach).  I'm quite sure, that if you got into that mind...(God, who'd want to), he probably didn't have an offensive player listed in his top 100...ever.

 

And I'm quite sure that in his mind, every first round pick was the BPA at their slot. He got a few right, Wilkerson for example.  But he was wrong more than he was right, by a wide margin. Milliner, Coples, Kyle Something, Calvin Pryor.  So yeah, the person doing the evaluation does make a difference.

 

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

1 minute ago, SoTier said:

Then you get better if the rookie is truly a stud -- and you can trade the higher paid vet for a draft pick or let one walk in FA.  With rookie contracts only lasting 3-5 years, smart GMs are always looking to have young guys in the wings to step in.  That's how teams that are perennial playoff contenders stay on top season after season while poor teams like the *Bills are constantly using the draft to fill immediate holes, either because they don't prepare for player movement or they're constantly spinning their wheels trying to please new HCs who don't fit the players currently on the team.

*bolded

 

like the *past Bills

 

this regime is going in to its second draft and did well imo on their first. so it is fair to say your take would be more of the past bills rather than the present.

 

they're not done yet

 

 

[akcash]

Bpa would be Devin White at 9 and we're not taking Devin White.  It's a balance more weighted toward bpa but it bends a little for a need.

[ColoradoBills]

37 minutes ago, inaugural balls said:

 

This seems reasonable.

 

So drafting BPA didn't happen in this case.

 

 

 

Technically not for the team trading down but more and more teams are doing it.  See link below.

 

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

Yeah, but we were talking about the concept of BPA as it relates to TRADES, as opposed to a rule in and of itself. If trades are an exception to the BPA rule and QBs are another, how many exceptions before the rule starts looking more like guidelines?

 

It seems to me that trades are becoming more and more usual because teams want the BPA on their board.  See link below.

 

3 minutes ago, SoTier said:

Then you get better if the rookie is truly a stud -- and you can trade the higher paid vet for a draft pick or let one walk in FA.  With rookie contracts only lasting 3-5 years, smart GMs are always looking to have young guys in the wings to step in.  That's how teams that are perennial playoff contenders stay on top season after season while poor teams like the Bills are constantly using the draft to fill immediate holes, either because they don't prepare for player movement or they're constantly spinning their wheels trying to please new HCs who don't fit the players currently on the team.

 

You are right the bills have been chasing their tail for way too long.  I hope some stability will get them to a better place.

 

 

I like to look at this site when it comes to the draft.  I linked to last years draft but you can search other years.

Recently more teams have traded out of their original drafting position than ever.

https://www.prosportstransactions.com/football/DraftTrades/Years/2018.htm

[Cripple Creek]

4 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?

 

Nobody means it except in rare instances without putting exceptions on what BPA means to them that particular year.

[Augie]

21 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

Yeah, but we were talking about the concept of BPA as it relates to TRADES, as opposed to a rule in and of itself. If trades are an exception to the BPA rule and QBs are another, how many exceptions before the rule starts looking more like guidelines?

 

Umm, maybe I missed that? QB’s have their own rules, and all I saw was you only trade up for BPA. I have no problem with that, but I dodn’t know what else I might have missed. 

 

Anyways, I think most of these are firm guidelines. Little in life should be carved in stone. As they say, never say never. 

[GoBills808]

8 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Technically not for the team trading down but more and more teams are doing it.  See link below.

 

 

It seems to me that trades are becoming more and more usual because teams want the BPA on their board.  See link below.

 

 

To me, the 'available' in 'Best Player Available' means taking the best guy at the spot you're picking...trading up or down means you actually want (or need, or would prefer etcetc) a DIFFERENT 'best player available' at a different spot, and you're willing to either give or receive additional draft capital to do so. Is that still BPA?

[Toesy]

IMO this team really doesn't have any glaring holes or "needs"-I would define a need as you are thinking the guy you drafted is your day one starter as a rookie. Using that criteria, maybe they can draft one or two but that is it-probably DT, maybe OT. This roster has a lot of B and C level talent-which is higher than most rookies.

[SoTier]

10 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

*bolded

 

like the *past Bills

 

this regime is going in to its second draft and did well imo on their first. so it is fair to say your take would be more of the past bills rather than the present.

 

they're not done yet

 

 

 

We'll have to see if the Bills current regime turns out better than past regimes.  The personnel moves made in 2017, unfortunately, resembled typical Bills moves -- most notably letting Gilmore and Woods walk away rather than re-signing them and filling the holes with first and second round rookies.  Maybe with Brandon gone, that pattern has changed but we won't know if that's true until some of Beane's players become eligible for FA.

[Kirby Jackson]

16 minutes ago, akcash said:

Bpa would be Devin White at 9 and we're not taking Devin White.  It's a balance more weighted toward bpa but it bends a little for a need.

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.

[ColoradoBills]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

To me, the 'available' in 'Best Player Available' means taking the best guy at the spot you're picking...trading up or down means you actually want (or need, or would prefer etcetc) a DIFFERENT 'best player available' at a different spot, and you're willing to either give or receive additional draft capital to do so. Is that still BPA?

 

I would have to say that logically, in the purest sense of the phrase, that would be no.

[GoBills808]

6 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Umm, maybe I missed that? QB’s have their own rules, and all I saw was you only trade up for BPA. I have no problem with that, but I dodn’t know what else I might have missed. 

 

Anyways, I think most of these are firm guidelines. Little in life should be carved in stone. As they say, never say never. 

 

I just think it's hilarious how every team drafts 'BPA' and somehow manage to fill their positions of need simultaneously. 

[GunnerBill]

59 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Oh, I don't think that's true at all. There are a ton of trade-ups for QBs who are very clearly not BPA. 

 

 

Again - QBs are the exception in this. If you don't have a QB and you think there is a good one you try and get him. Screw BPA.

[Lurker]

Nobody picks BPA in a vacuum.   That's just an old wives tale...

 

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Lurker

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Lurker said:

Nobody picks BPA in a vacuum.   That's just an old wives tale...

 

 

 

BPA is how you get Sebastian Janikowski in the first round and Roberto Aguayo in the second...Aguayo going before Yannick Ngakoue and Kenyan Drake, both of whom the Bucs could definitely have used. 

[Augie]

10 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

I just think it's hilarious how every team drafts 'BPA' and somehow manage to fill their positions of need simultaneously. 

 

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. 

[SouthNYfan]

9 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

BPA is how you get Sebastian Janikowski in the first round and Roberto Aguayo in the second...Aguayo going before Yannick Ngakoue and Kenyan Drake, both of whom the Bucs could definitely have used. 

 

I heard we need a punter at #9

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

21 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

We'll have to see if the Bills current regime turns out better than past regimes.  The personnel moves made in 2017, unfortunately, resembled typical Bills moves -- most notably letting Gilmore and Woods walk away rather than re-signing them and filling the holes with first and second round rookies.  Maybe with Brandon gone, that pattern has changed but we won't know if that's true until some of Beane's players become eligible for FA.

hence the use of past regarding your take(s)

 

one down, next one upcoming. at this point it is a wait and see situation but if anything, I sure did/do like what's been done so far. so anything in the past, speaking for myself, remains in the past.

 

future looks bright so far

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

 

I just think it's hilarious how every team drafts 'BPA' and somehow manage to fill their positions of need simultaneously. 

 

They don't though. Actually if you look at a lot of teams they very much do not draft for need (certainly not early in the draft). You happen to follow a team that has for far too long but it is not what everyone does. Let us take some of the most obvious examples from the 2018 first round:

 

Broncos - no Quarterback, no offensive tackle (ended up moving their LG out to play there) and yet they took a defensive end at #5 despite having Von Miller and Shane Ray - two first round picks. 

 

Bears - everyone crying out for offensive help at receiver, tight end and tackle.... their defense was already coming together and they signed Trevathan as a big money FA the previous year. Yet they took the best player on the board - Roquan Smith. 

 

Redskins - a year removed from taking a 1st round DT take another first round DT despite having basically no good outside receivers and no safety. If they were drafting for need why not take Calvin Ridley or Derwin James? They stayed with their board and took Payne.

 

Falcons - One defensive tackle worth his salt going into a contract year, nothing at safety, issues at pass rusher.... Julio and Mohammed Sanu outside.... surely they didn't need a receiver? Picked Calvin Ridley. BPA. 

 

And they are just from memory without delving any deeper than what I remember about last year's draft. Of course the later in the draft you go the more teams think about filling holes but in the 1st round where teams go on the clock and there is nobody in that top tier of their board at what would be a perceived position of need they just go BPA.  

 

 

1 hour ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

He had an amazing rookie season.

People forget how good he actually played.

 

Smoke. Mirrors. And Kyle Shanahan. 

 

[GoBills808]

9 minutes 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. 

 

I think it might be the other way around, at least for some teams. As in, they have positions they prioritize and construct their draft board from that perspective as opposed to which college kid is available at which spot. Using the Steelers as an example, since they drafted Roethlisberger in 2004 they've taken a wideout in 9/14 drafts with at 3rd round pick or better...I don't think that's simply a 'best player available' coincidence.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

I think it might be the other way around, at least for some teams. As in, they have positions they prioritize and construct their draft board from that perspective as opposed to which college kid is available at which spot. Using the Steelers as an example, since they drafted Roethlisberger in 2004 they've taken a wideout in 9/14 drafts with at 3rd round pick or better...I don't think that's simply a 'best player available' coincidence.

 

But that is just what was discussed two or three pages back. BPA is not an objective thing. Every team's board already has a subjective element baked into it. You got a franchise QB? You wanna keep him well stocked with weapons. You play a man defense? Your board won't value zone only corners so high. You play an old school 34? You probably value run stoppers at DT more than a team running a wide nine style 43. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by GunnerBill

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Nope

 

i want my players 

 

 

[stinky finger]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

Nope

 

i want my players 

 

 

 

May they be available and the best! 

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But that is just what was discussed two or three pages back. BPA is not an objective thing. Every team's board already has a subjective element baked into it. You got a franchise QB? You wanna keep him well stocked with weapons. You play a man defense? Your board won't value zone only corners so high. You play an old school 34? You probably value run stoppers at DT more than a team running a wide nine style 43. 

 

Right, so why all the fuss about best player available? If I'm the Falcons, a wideout is more important than a corner or a safety, and that's not even mentioning how Panthers went Moore for some reason. Nobody knows what Elway is thinking at QB so I won't even try. Nagy wasn't worried about those positions being an offensive guy, so I'm not going to second guess him on Smith. And it's not a coincidence that the Redskins took Payne at NT in the first immediately after promoting Manusky to DC and after having given up the most yards rushing in the league the season prior.

[OCinBuffalo]

The linked articles tell us that teams don't ever use unqualified BPA. Nope. They may start with best player, and put players into pools, but then, they qualify and prioritize within each pool based on need. 

 

This doesn't mean that they forget about best player. They still group people by that to start...which is why, given the OP's scenario, the Bills would take the CB or a S if he's in the highest remaining best player pool, than the O lineman whose in a lower pool, but fills a need better.

 

I think a "reach" happens when a team starts to get nervous about need...especially after a run at a certain position happens, and they think there's going to be another run at a different position, that will conclude before they have a chance to make their next pick. So, to get ahead of that run, they reach now.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

 

Right, so why all the fuss about best player available? If I'm the Falcons, a wideout is more important than a corner or a safety, and that's not even mentioning how Panthers went Moore for some reason. Nobody knows what Elway is thinking at QB so I won't even try. Nagy wasn't worried about those positions being an offensive guy, so I'm not going to second guess him on Smith. And it's not a coincidence that the Redskins took Payne at NT in the first immediately after promoting Manusky to DC and after having given up the most yards rushing in the league the season prior.

 

None of which is an argument for need over BPA. It is simply further evidence that sometimes what a team values is not the consensus. That is undoubtedly true. But to try and argue any of them were either 1st or 2nd priority "needs" for their teams is nonsense. 

2 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

The linked articles tell us that teams don't ever use unqualified BPA. Nope. They may start with best player, and put players into pools, but then, they qualify and prioritize within each pool based on need. 

 

This doesn't mean that they forget about best player. They still group people by that to start...which is why, given the OP's scenario, the Bills would take the CB or a S if he's in the highest remaining best player pool, than the O lineman whose in a lower pool, but fills a need better.

 

I think a "reach" happens when a team starts to get nervous about need...especially after a run at a certain position happens, and they think there's going to be another run at a different position, that will conclude before they have a chance to make their next pick. So, to get ahead of that run, they reach now.

 

Agreed OC and good to see you pop in.  Your last para is exactly why the Bill traded up for Zay Jones btw. We know because McDermott said so straight after "the ice was getting a little thin at receiver". Reaches rarely work out (and I say that as someone who liked Zay coming out). 

[NoSaint]

44 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

I just think it's hilarious how every team drafts 'BPA' and somehow manage to fill their positions of need simultaneously. 

When you have about 30 guys getting regular roles when all are healthy, you almost always have about a 5-10 spots that are easily upgradable and another dozen that are coming up on a contract year or cap decision. 

 

Our needs include impact players at OL, RB, TE, WR, and DL. Odds are one of those will be BPA or essentially a tie, and if not, even taking a corner would have value. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

None of which is an argument for need over BPA. It is simply further evidence that sometimes what a team values is not the consensus. That is undoubtedly true. But to try and argue any of them were either 1st or 2nd priority "needs" for their teams is nonsense. 

 

So (to cite the example you used)...you're saying Da'Ron Payne was the BPA when the Redskins picked at 13 and that WASN'T a 'we need a DT because our run defense is terrible'? With Tremaine Edmunds and Derwin James still on the board? Payne didn't have anywhere near the kind of production to justify that if he was simply picked because he was the best guy at that spot...they needed him after Vea went immediately before.

[SouthNYfan]

23 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They don't though. Actually if you look at a lot of teams they very much do not draft for need (certainly not early in the draft). You happen to follow a team that has for far too long but it is not what everyone does. Let us take some of the most obvious examples from the 2018 first round:

 

Broncos - no Quarterback, no offensive tackle (ended up moving their LG out to play there) and yet they took a defensive end at #5 despite having Von Miller and Shane Ray - two first round picks. 

 

Bears - everyone crying out for offensive help at receiver, tight end and tackle.... their defense was already coming together and they signed Trevathan as a big money FA the previous year. Yet they took the best player on the board - Roquan Smith. 

 

Redskins - a year removed from taking a 1st round DT take another first round DT despite having basically no good outside receivers and no safety. If they were drafting for need why not take Calvin Ridley or Derwin James? They stayed with their board and took Payne.

 

Falcons - One defensive tackle worth his salt going into a contract year, nothing at safety, issues at pass rusher.... Julio and Mohammed Sanu outside.... surely they didn't need a receiver? Picked Calvin Ridley. BPA. 

 

And they are just from memory without delving any deeper than what I remember about last year's draft. Of course the later in the draft you go the more teams think about filling holes but in the 1st round where teams go on the clock and there is nobody in that top tier of their board at what would be a perceived position of need they just go BPA.  

 

 

 

Smoke. Mirrors. And Kyle Shanahan. 

 

 

He had a high completion rate and didn't throw many ints his rookie year.

He led the NFL in y/a and int%

He threw for 3200 yards, 20td 5int

Almost 66% comp

102+ rating and like a 69+ qbr

Also ran for 800+ yards and 7 TDs

 

That wasn't all shanny

When he was rushed back from his injury, only to make it even worse, he never looked the same.

He was sailing throws all over the place and turned into an int machine

Confidence ruined

It was really sad

 

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

So (to cite the example you used)...you're saying Da'Ron Payne was the BPA when the Redskins picked at 13 and that WASN'T a 'we need a DT because our run defense is terrible'? With Tremaine Edmunds and Derwin James still on the board? Payne didn't have anywhere near the kind of production to justify that if he was simply picked because he was the best guy at that spot...they needed him after Vea went immediately before.

 

Safety was a much bigger need than defensive tackle. As was receiver. Why did they take a DT? BPA on their board. And yes, I had Edmunds and James above Payne on my board (Edmunds actually in a higher tier, James in the same tier) but the Skins went for a DT. 

Just now, SouthNYfan said:

 

He had a high completion rate and didn't throw many ints his rookie year.

He led the NFL in y/a and int%

He threw for 3200 yards, 20td 5int

Almost 66% comp

102+ rating and like a 69+ qbr

Also ran for 800+ yards and 7 TDs

 

That wasn't all shanny

When he was rushed back from his injury, only to make it even worse, he never looked the same.

He was sailing throws all over the place and turned into an int machine

Confidence ruined

It was really sad

 

 

It was all half field reads. He never knew what he was looking at. As soon as teams cottoned on he wad toast. The injuries did not help. But I am convinced it was going that way anyway. The reason he became an INT machine was teams forcing him to read the whole field. He didn't know what he was looking at. Even on simple high, low concepts he was reading the wrong DB. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Safety was a much bigger need than defensive tackle. As was receiver. Why did they take a DT? BPA on their board. And yes, I had Edmunds and James above Payne on my board (Edmunds actually in a higher tier, James in the same tier) but the Skins went for a DT. 

 

Right...because they needed a 0/1 tech from Alabama after having the 32nd ranked run defense in the league. There is no way the Skins had him ranked that high, he was an afterthought in a lot of people's minds. He was a borderline 2nd rounder imo.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

 

Right...because they needed a 0/1 tech from Alabama after having the 32nd ranked run defense in the league. There is no way the Skins had him ranked that high, he was an afterthought in a lot of people's minds. He was a borderline 2nd rounder imo.

 

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

[SouthNYfan]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Safety was a much bigger need than defensive tackle. As was receiver. Why did they take a DT? BPA on their board. And yes, I had Edmunds and James above Payne on my board (Edmunds actually in a higher tier, James in the same tier) but the Skins went for a DT. 

 

It was all half field reads. He never knew what he was looking at. As soon as teams cottoned on he wad toast. The injuries did not help. But I am convinced it was going that way anyway. The reason he became an INT machine was teams forcing him to read the whole field. He didn't know what he was looking at. Even on simple high, low concepts he was reading the wrong DB. 

 

That's very fair.

I'm not convinced he wouldn't have improved without the injury.

I think that just destroyed him mentally, and physically.

It wrecked his mechanics, which weren't great to begin with.

Anyway, I think that without the injury he wouldn't have been the dumpster fire he turned into lol

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

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

 

https://www.hogshaven.com/2018/4/27/17289794/washington-redskins-select-daron-payne-tylers-take

 

 

[Boca BIlls]

Remember BPA is according to teams Draft boards which are really made by teams according to their needs.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

 

https://www.hogshaven.com/2018/4/27/17289794/washington-redskins-select-daron-payne-tylers-take

 

 

 

The guy says himself he was picked over two players who he ranked higher and would have "filled big needs." 

 

The Redskins needed James, they needed Edmunds. They needed Payne. They chose Payne. That tells me it was more than pure need. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

The guy says himself he was picked over two players who he ranked higher and would have "filled big needs." 

 

The Redskins needed James, they needed Edmunds. They needed Payne. They chose Payne. That tells me it was more than pure need. 

 

What it tells me is that they needed him the most, but guess we aren't going to agree here. 

[SouthNYfan]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The guy says himself he was picked over two players who he ranked higher and would have "filled big needs." 

 

The Redskins needed James, they needed Edmunds. They needed Payne. They chose Payne. That tells me it was more than pure need. 

 

I saw him ranked anywhere from #11 to #24 overall

Most had him in the low teens (12-15) from that I remember pre draft

Redskins got good grades from most everywhere for taking him if I remember correctly as well

[GunnerBill]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

 

What it tells me is that they needed him the most, but guess we aren't going to agree here. 

 

We aren't.

Just now, SouthNYfan said:

 

I saw him ranked anywhere from #11 to #24 overall

Most had him in the low teens (12-15) from that I remember pre draft

Redskins got good grades from most everywhere for taking him if I remember correctly as well

 

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.