Jump to content

Need vs BPA


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, DefenseWins said:

I do believe that its BPA but I think the Roster is taken into account.  I believe the highest rated QB on our board is our own Josh Allen.  Just like The NYG highest rated RB is Barkley.  We are not likely to take a QB nor they a RB.  If BPA upgrades the Roster within the next few years then it will happen.  Teams are not gonna waste picks.  The article is spot on with moving around the board to try and line it up.  If teams drafted for need then these mock drafts would be more accurate.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

I do believe that its BPA but I think the Roster is taken into account.  I believe the highest rated QB on our board is our own Josh Allen.  Just like The NYG highest rated RB is Barkley.  We are not likely to take a QB nor they a RB.  If BPA upgrades the Roster within the next few years then it will happen.  Teams are not gonna waste picks.  The article is spot on with moving around the board to try and line it up.  If teams drafted for need then these mock drafts would be more accurate.

 

I agree.  I think need is always a consideration (or if you've just drafted your QB, lack of need) but it shouldn't be the driving force -- that's when teams end up with Donte Whitner rather than Hali Ngata or Aaron Maybin rather than anybody or Tre White rather than Patrick Mahomes.  I think need comes into play when players of about equal talent are available.  

 

A lot of media types and posters are on Gettleman for taking Barkley over "a QB" but it's entirely possible that the Giants didn't like any of the 2018 QBs all that well or only liked Mayfield better or as well as Barkley.   Historically, over the last twenty years, QBs who aren't clearly the #1 consensus pick in the draft tend to bust about half the time and most drafts produce only 1 franchise QB (and some none), so taking a RB who's considered a generational talent rather than grabbing a lesser QB just because the team needs a young QB makes a lot of sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to choose one over the other I would choose best player available because if you start reaching for need then in all likelihood you as a GM will be back at the draft in a year or two looking to fill that same position because you reached and missed.

 

In reality, BPA and need are both factored into a GM's draft plan or at least they should be. If you just go strictly BPA and end up drafting 6 offensive lineman because they were the highest rated players on your board and your team already has 4 of 5 spots locked down by young lineman, that would not be a good plan. Conversely, if you had a need for lineman and reached for the position by taking 6 of them in the draft, that also would not make sense as you were passing up more talented players at other positions just to try and fill a need with lesser rated players.

 

A good GM will have drafted well in the past and filled most of their holes in free agency so that there is not a glaring need at a position. In rounds 1 and 2, acquiring highly talented players is the key so BPA takes priority over need. But even then a good GM has a plan and will try and get the BPA at a position they have some need for at the top of the draft. It may require the GM moving up or down the draft board in order to draft the best player at a position your team could use. As the draft moves into the middle rounds drafting for need becomes more of a factor. Again, you should never be passing over 20 players on your board to take the 21st at a position of need but in the later rounds players are going to be closely grouped together and there will be negligible differences between them. If your team is absolutely stacked at the LB position it would make sense to avoid that position to draft other spots where the player has a better chance at making your team and contributing on the field.

Edited by racketmaster
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the team construction i think - if you have premier players all over the roster it may make sense to go need to get a player that plugs in and starts but might never be a pro bowler. 

 

We are not that team - if you consider Allen, White, Milano/Edmunds and the safeties elite - or at least future elite... That leaves nothing for the trenches, and no playmakers on offense.  With this particular draft very strong at the top with D-line talent, and a blue chip TE - those would be my choices.  We don't have desperate needs for either, but one likely sits as the BPA at the time of our pick.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nucci said:

You need the best player available

 

...and typically that player matches up with a need.

 

It's a humorous topic.  People are looking for black and white, when the analysis is nothing but gray.

 

And oh yeah -- GMs lie.  A lot.

 

Edited by eball
  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I look at the Bills roster, other than QB, they can use a talent upgrade at any position group.  That's why Beane keeps talking about taking BPA.  It gets a little confusing when trade downs come into play.  Those decisions are made when the grade on available players doesn't match the pick or when the roster has enough glaring wholes where the extra picks are of more value than the player available at the original pick.  Since I don't know about the specific grades on given players, I don't feel like I'm really in a position to judge the draft until I see them perform in games.  I have draft prospects that I like but that doesn't mean they will be the best selection.  I have to keep reminding myself that I really liked the selection of Dareus and we all know how poorly that turned out.  I'm just going to trust the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

I agree.  I think need is always a consideration (or if you've just drafted your QB, lack of need) but it shouldn't be the driving force -- that's when teams end up with Donte Whitner rather than Hali Ngata or Aaron Maybin rather than anybody or Tre White rather than Patrick Mahomes.  I think need comes into play when players of about equal talent are available.  

 

A lot of media types and posters are on Gettleman for taking Barkley over "a QB" but it's entirely possible that the Giants didn't like any of the 2018 QBs all that well or only liked Mayfield better or as well as Barkley.   Historically, over the last twenty years, QBs who aren't clearly the #1 consensus pick in the draft tend to bust about half the time and most drafts produce only 1 franchise QB (and some none), so taking a RB who's considered a generational talent rather than grabbing a lesser QB just because the team needs a young QB makes a lot of sense.

 

I believe the case with Mahomes was that McD was already looking at Allen.  You dont trade down that many places looking to get a certain player.  That trade was a beginning of acquiring the capital to move up in 2018.

I pretty much agree with everything stated though.

 

In the case of the Giants, Im glad they passed on a QB.  Ive read and heard Allen was the #1 QB on their board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

...and typically that player matches up with a need.

 

It's a humorous topic.  People are looking for black and white, when the analysis is nothing but gray.

 

And oh yeah -- GMs lie.  A lot.

 

Exactly.

 

every player has a grade.  For example, if Beane gives Haskins and Josh Jacobs a grade of 6.5 and Ed Oliver, Hockenson and Jawaan taylor a 6.4....who does he take?  I’m confident that he doesn’t take the “BPA”.  Grey area exists 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Exactly.

 

every player has a grade.  For example, if Beane gives Haskins and Josh Jacobs a grade of 6.5 and Ed Oliver, Hockenson and Jawaan taylor a 6.4....who does he take?  I’m confident that he doesn’t take the “BPA”.  Grey area exists 

 

According to Beane he wouldn't even have Haskins on his board -- because the board is set up by ranking as impacted by need.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

...and typically that player matches up with a need.

 

It's a humorous topic.  People are looking for black and white, when the analysis is nothing but gray.

 

And oh yeah -- GMs lie.  A lot.

 

Yep. Like Buddy always said, everybody’s trying to rob the same train. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jay_Fixit said:

BPA is BPA.

 

Really simple.

Which is better,  a plug-and-play, slightly good starter, or a guy who take a year or two to develop and then could be an impact player and all-pro?    Think of the stock market and how to build a portfolio.    Risk vs, potential gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

I believe the case with Mahomes was that McD was already looking at Allen.  You dont trade down that many places looking to get a certain player.  That trade was a beginning of acquiring the capital to move up in 2018.

I pretty much agree with everything stated though.

 

In the case of the Giants, Im glad they passed on a QB.  Ive read and heard Allen was the #1 QB on their board.

 

Whether it was Pegula, Brandon, and/or McDermott in any combination  who decided to trade out of the #10 spot in 2017, he/they screwed up by passing on two excellent collegiate QBs when they needed a young QB.  Two of the most likely reasons why they did this was that they needed a DB to replace Gilmore or that KC made them an offer they couldn't refuse.  Claiming that the Bills passed on Mahomes or Watson because they were "waiting" for Allen is simply nonsense.  There is absolutely no evidence that anyone with the power to make personnel decisions on the Bills at the time of the 2017 draft (ie, not Whaley and not the scouts) had enough knowledge of the college players who weren't in the current draft to have more than a vague knowledge of who they were.  Furthermore, Allen's best season, 2016, was unimpressive compared to Mahomes and Watson's seasons, especially since they put up much better numbers while playing at major programs compared to Allen who played at Wyomfing which is, at best, a modest regional program.  

 

3 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Which is better,  a plug-and-play, slightly good starter, or a guy who take a year or two to develop and then could be an impact player and all-pro?    Think of the stock market and how to build a portfolio.    Risk vs, potential gain.

 

Actually, your example is irrelevant to this discussion.  You're describing the idea of a team making a safe pick versus gambling on a player with much more  potential but more risk (say from an injury or coming from a smaller program).  That situation is not necessarily related to team need.  Need vs BPA is based on passing on one or more better prospects in order to draft a lesser prospect primarily because the lesser prospect happens to play a position of "need".

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Whether it was Pegula, Brandon, and/or McDermott in any combination  who decided to trade out of the #10 spot in 2017, he/they screwed up by passing on two excellent collegiate QBs when they needed a young QB.  Two of the most likely reasons why they did this was that they needed a DB to replace Gilmore or that KC made them an offer they couldn't refuse.  Claiming that the Bills passed on Mahomes or Watson because they were "waiting" for Allen is simply nonsense.  There is absolutely no evidence that anyone with the power to make personnel decisions on the Bills at the time of the 2017 draft (ie, not Whaley and not the scouts) had enough knowledge of the college players who weren't in the current draft to have more than a vague knowledge of who they were.  Furthermore, Allen's best season, 2016, was unimpressive compared to Mahomes and Watson's seasons, especially since they put up much better numbers while playing at major programs compared to Allen who played at Wyomfing which is, at best, a modest regional program.  

 

 

Actually, your example is irrelevant to this discussion.  You're describing the idea of a team making a safe pick versus gambling on a player with much more  potential but more risk (say from an injury or coming from a smaller program).  That situation is not necessarily related to team need.  Need vs BPA is based on passing on one or more better prospects in order to draft a lesser prospect primarily because the lesser prospect happens to play a position of "need".

 

Allen was looked at with higher regard in 2017 than 2018.  That was likely the case.  If you actually knew anything you would realize the 2018 class was already being looked at with higher regard.  Just take a look at where the QBs were drafted.  I am speculating at why the trade was made but my speculation is based on fact.  What is yours based on.  They were shocked Tre White was still on the board.

Edited by formerlyofCtown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Whether it was Pegula, Brandon, and/or McDermott in any combination  who decided to trade out of the #10 spot in 2017, he/they screwed up by passing on two excellent collegiate QBs when they needed a young QB.  Two of the most likely reasons why they did this was that they needed a DB to replace Gilmore or that KC made them an offer they couldn't refuse.  Claiming that the Bills passed on Mahomes or Watson because they were "waiting" for Allen is simply nonsense.  There is absolutely no evidence that anyone with the power to make personnel decisions on the Bills at the time of the 2017 draft (ie, not Whaley and not the scouts) had enough knowledge of the college players who weren't in the current draft to have more than a vague knowledge of who they were.  Furthermore, Allen's best season, 2016, was unimpressive compared to Mahomes and Watson's seasons, especially since they put up much better numbers while playing at major programs compared to Allen who played at Wyomfing which is, at best, a modest regional program.  

 

 

Actually, your example is irrelevant to this discussion.  You're describing the idea of a team making a safe pick versus gambling on a player with much more  potential but more risk (say from an injury or coming from a smaller program).  That situation is not necessarily related to team need.  Need vs BPA is based on passing on one or more better prospects in order to draft a lesser prospect primarily because the lesser prospect happens to play a position of "need".

 

Gosh you are so certain that you are perfect. "Best" player is not an absolute definition, regardless of your opinion.  "Immediate Need" versus "Potential" versus "Best performance now" versus "we have drafted 6 tight ends and 3 are all-pro and the other 3 could start for 25 nlf teams" are all part of what should be the consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...