PrimeTime101 Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 This topic has been brought up a million times on these boards and it goes like this You have a "wish list" and on this list is players that fit in your system. This list is for every round. So when they say BPA.. That does not mean they going to trade back to #24 and BPA happens to be a RB and that's what they go with? NO.. It doesn't work that way.. BPA for need. Under same thing.. they move back to #24.. yea RB is BPA but they have what the GM/Coach feels is a great fit for there need 2 picks away and another 5 spots away.. But the one 5 spots away is higher on need then 2 spots away.. What do they do? They get there guy even if they have to reach a little bit.. So when GM says or Coach says BPA its BPA at NEED. Again. this has been all over the forums every year for the last few years before a draft. This topic has a history of drawing trolls as well.. so don't forget.. don't feed the trolls.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 I find it interesting how mixed up BPA still gets. BPA never ever, in any circumstance, literally means Best Player Available. Never has and never will. It means the BPA on the board that particular GM built around their teams needs and wants. That is not an automatic correlation with the actual BPA in the entire draft. And furthermore, media and fans are no where near as skilled in grading and ranking these players as NFL scouts and GMs. So media and fan speculation of who the BPA is at any point in the draft is pretty unreliable. BPA when we pick could be a QB. We will not be picking a QB. Just like BPA could be a RB and the Giants will not be picking a RB. I honestly find the whole BPA thing to be quite annoying and misused constantly. Beane will choose BPA at 9 and probably all his picks...but his version of BPA has already factored in team needs, players they want, interviews, scheme fit, etc etc. There is no such thing as BPA, it all factors needs in. And BPA also factors in that teams process of evaluation which is why mock drafts are so impossible to do accurately. Right now, we dont know what position Beane has put more weight on. If he grades an impact offensive player as a major target, then a guy like DK or Hockenson may be the BPA on his board at 9. If he weighs the DL higher, then it could be one an EDGE or DT that is BPA on his board at 9. Heck, he may way OL heaviest of them all and then BPA is one of the tackles at 9. So for me, its foolish to just assume we know what BPA will be when a certain team is on the clock because it has literally zero to do with the media rankings, fan rankings, etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 I've listened to numerous GMs over the years. All have a similar system. Prospects are not ranked from 1-500. They are generally divided and ranked by position, and then divided into TIERS. So when the Bills pick at #9, they may have 5-6 guys at various positions in the SAME tier, all considered worthy of being selected in that spot. They may have Jonah Williams (OT), DK Metcalf (WR), TJ Hockinson (TE), Ed Oliver (DT), Rashan Gary (DE) and Devon White (LB) all ranked within the same tier. They could select ANY of these guys and still claim they have taken the BPA, even if they are ultimately making a preference based on need. When teams say they are drafting BPA... what they really mean is they WILL NOT be reaching (taking a player in a lower tier) just to fill a need. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said: I believe the case with Mahomes was that McD was already looking at Allen. I REALLY doubt it my man. I'd give it about a billion to 1 odds. McDermott was a first year HC trying to figure out a thousand different things for season 1. There is no way he spent enough time scouting the 2018 draft prospects to determine his QB of the future who he may or may not even be in position to draft. This is out there. Edited April 20, 2019 by LSHMEAB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 10 hours ago, SoTier said: Tre White rather than Patrick Mahomes 10 hours ago, SoTier said: 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. This is a blatant contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 3 hours 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. They may have been waiting for the '18 QB class as the consensus was they were better than the '17 class at the time. Knowing they'd have two firsts and assuming they'd be terrible they may have thought at the time they'd have their pick of the litter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 is there a bad pick in the top 10? this draft seems to be loaded with talent on both sides. drafting at 9, bpa...should be a keeper? no? just askin' for my cousin vinny over here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Doc Brown said: They may have been waiting for the '18 QB class as the consensus was they were better than the '17 class at the time. Knowing they'd have two firsts and assuming they'd be terrible they may have thought at the time they'd have their pick of the litter. That makes a lot more sense(to me) than the idea that McDermott specifically had Allen pegged as his pick a full year in advance. We're talking about a first year COACH. I don't think he/they wanted to commit to a QB with a lame duck GM in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwell Tarly Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 Go BPA, unless the guy is a total mismatch for your system or you're totally stacked at that position. Luckily the Bills aren't absolutely desperate for any one thing this time so they can manuever around a little to get who they like. There's a bunch of D line guys in their range this year, and with Kyle retiring, that choice makes a lot of sense. IMO, they could use a blue chip talent in several places on this team. For a high first rounder I would focus on D line, O line, or CB. If they trade down then open it up to include LB or WR . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts