Don't like drafting for need just for need sake.

[Yantha]

BPA within reason is my approach.  Obviously you don't draft a first round QB, and I think you put a loose ranking of positions you would draft in the first round.

 

This year my rounds 1-3 focus would be:

Any O-line position:  RT, RG, LG, OC.  I'd even go O-line for all 3 picks if the right players were there (BPA)

Linebacker:  Edmunds replacement/depth (and I don't want Klein either....)

Corner:  I feel the position group is unstable since we don't know if White will get back to 100%.

 

BUT!!!  if BPA is strongly in favour of SAFETY, DE, DT, or WR....  you don't pass on the talent.  LIke, if a first round-graded DT was sitting there in round 3, do you pass?

 

RB is my head-scratcher this year.  I'd like Cook to have a shot, but Bijan is interesting.

 

I also agree (NO TRADING UP!).

 

[BarleyNY]

2 hours ago, JohnNord said:

Every team drafts for need…

It’s always BPA based on need.  Anyone who tells you it’s strictly BPA has been hoodwinked by GM speak.  
 

If you have an All-Pro Center, you aren’t going to take another Center even if he is BPA. 

The best teams do not put themselves in a position where they have to fill immediate needs via the draft.

 

I think quality FOs would look at your center situation with more nuance. Say that center is sticking out on the team’s board on day 2. What’s the whole situation? How much is the All-Pro C making? How close to the end of his career is he? Can he be moved for a pick. Do other teams rate the C similarly? If so, some would be probably trade up to get him and you could leverage that into good trade value. Can the C play OG, even for a season? So maybe the best move is to take that C, let him compete at OG his first season. The following season he can step in at C and the team can trade their All-Pro C to save cap space and get some picks or a player back.

[Billl]

26 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

The best teams do not put themselves in a position where they have to fill immediate needs via the draft.

 

I think quality FOs would look at your center situation with more nuance. Say that center is sticking out on the team’s board on day 2. What’s the whole situation? How much is the All-Pro C making? How close to the end of his career is he? Can he be moved for a pick. Do other teams rate the C similarly? If so, some would be probably trade up to get him and you could leverage that into good trade value. Can the C play OG, even for a season? So maybe the best move is to take that C, let him compete at OG his first season. The following season he can step in at C and the team can trade their All-Pro C to save cap space and get some picks or a player back.

There is literally zero chance that the Chiefs would consider a C on day 2.  None.

[BADOLBILZ]

8 minutes ago, Billl said:

There is literally zero chance that the Chiefs would consider a C on day 2.  None.

 

 

I agree that they certainly won't take a second or third round center with 2 years left on his deal.......but do you think they are going to pay Humphrey the $20M going rate after the 2024 season?     

[Billl]

Just now, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

I agree that they certainly won't take a second or third round center with 2 years left on his deal.......but do you think they are going to pay Humphrey the $20M going rate after the 2024 season?     

Probably not, but that doesn’t mean they need to draft the solution two years in advance.  By the time he gets on the field, you’d be having this same conversation about drafting his replacement.

[KOKBILLS]

On 2/24/2023 at 11:57 AM, In Summary said:

You can pick need if the value is there.

 

Or, you can Draft Cody Ford over DK Metcalf...

Edited February 25, 2023 by KOKBILLS

[BADOLBILZ]

1 minute ago, Billl said:

Probably not, but that doesn’t mean they need to draft the solution two years in advance.  By the time he gets on the field, you’d be having this same conversation about drafting his replacement.

 

Yep.

 

There are a lot of people on this board who think Creed Humphrey was a brilliant pick...........I actually think it was sort of an admission by the Chiefs that they didn't think there were many second round values so they took a sure thing at a position they don't really value.

 

The center position has never been easier to play with all these wide set defensive fronts and teams being terrified to blitz.   350# NT's are barely a thing anymore and Humphrey could play with one thumb up hisass on most passing downs and not even have the opportunity to miss a block.

 

I can't see them paying him the All Pro rate to block occasionally on passing downs.   But someone will.   And the Chiefs will probably plug in a 5th rounder or something and it won't look like a problem unless the LT and G's aren't good.

[BarleyNY]

24 minutes ago, Billl said:

There is literally zero chance that the Chiefs would consider a C on day 2.  None.

Probably not. But I guarantee that they don’t look at situations like you described so simply. The odds that there wouldn’t be similarly rated players at different positions in the second round is very, very low. And if it was the case that a C was far and away the best player on the board they’d likely trade out for value.

 

Later in the draft they’d take one as depth, especially if that player could also play OG and had upside. 

[Billl]

1 minute ago, BarleyNY said:

Probably not. But I guarantee that they don’t look at situations like you described so simply. The odds that there wouldn’t be similarly rated players at different positions in the second round is very, very low. And if it was the case that a C was far and away the best player on the board they’d likely trade out for value.

 

Later in the draft they’d take one as depth, especially if that player could also play OG and had upside. 

Maybe.  Or maybe they’d take the second best guy on their board if he’s at a position of need.  If that guy turns out to be a good player and fills a hole, that’s a much better pick than grabbing the best backup C in the league.  You’ve got to get your players on the field while they’re cheap when you’ve got a top of the pay scale QB.  If McBeane doesn’t figure this out with a quickness, they’re about a year away from tearing it down around Josh and starting over.

[BarleyNY]

3 hours ago, Billl said:

When the best player on the board is also at a team’s biggest need, they should trade up for that player.  Best player available is critical, but players are only cheap for 4 seasons.  In today’s NFL, you can’t afford to sit players and waste their cost controlled years backing up established starters.  

 

It doesn’t have to be a decision of BPA versus need.  It should be both, and GMs need to be savvy enough to move up and down the draft board to find that fit.  It’s what I think Kansas City did in moving up for McDuffie when they needed a CB and Trent was easily the highest player at any position left on their draft board.  I don’t think that Elam was the highest player on Buffalo’s board, but he was the highest CB so they went and got him.

There’s a huge difference between:

- having to take players at certain positions to fill immediate needs and

- having at least a serviceable player ahead of those players

 

In the former, teams are stuck reaching in the draft and then playing rookies with the hopes they work out. In the latter, the rookies have to earn their way on the field. It doesn’t mean they sit for years on their rookie deals, but the team doesn’t have to depend on them immediately. 
 

I think your last paragraph is correct. Moving around the draft to find value is smart. Also there are usually similarly rated players at different positions so need can be considered. But if a team used FA to eliminate positions of desperate need they put themselves in position to take advantage of values in the draft when they fall to them. 

[BarleyNY]

12 minutes ago, Billl said:

Maybe.  Or maybe they’d take the second best guy on their board if he’s at a position of need.  If that guy turns out to be a good player and fills a hole, that’s a much better pick than grabbing the best backup C in the league.  You’ve got to get your players on the field while they’re cheap when you’ve got a top of the pay scale QB.  If McBeane doesn’t figure this out with a quickness, they’re about a year away from tearing it down around Josh and starting over.

It helps when those players are good enough to get onto the field. The Bills moved on from many of the high priced DL and replaced them with draft picks. They spent much of that savings on Von Miller. The seemed forced to me. They went into those drafts knowing they were taking DL early and often and they forced some of those picks rather than going with better prospects. Ditto with Elam. 

[Billl]

11 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

It helps when those players are good enough to get onto the field. The Bills moved on from many of the high priced DL and replaced them with draft picks. They spent much of that savings on Von Miller. The seemed forced to me. They went into those drafts knowing they were taking DL early and often and they forced some of those picks rather than going with better prospects. Ditto with Elam. 

Totally agree.  If they were picking CB no matter what, they should have traded up for McDuffie.  Basham over Humphrey made no sense, and I really liked Boogie.  It was a weird pick.

[jethro_tull]

the problem with drafting for need is often short sighted.  teams should draft for need for the season after next, not next season.  

why?  player development, starting rookies is more often than not a losing proposition.  

how do you draft for the season after next?

what positions will be free agents that season that will not be worth the money needed to keep him?

what positions have two good seasons left?  

what positions are patched together with FAs? 

answer those questions, draft them this year and they will be ready when you need them. 

[JohnNord]

10 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

The best teams do not put themselves in a position where they have to fill immediate needs via the draft.

 

I think quality FOs would look at your center situation with more nuance. Say that center is sticking out on the team’s board on day 2. What’s the whole situation? How much is the All-Pro C making? How close to the end of his career is he? Can he be moved for a pick. Do other teams rate the C similarly? If so, some would be probably trade up to get him and you could leverage that into good trade value. Can the C play OG, even for a season? So maybe the best move is to take that C, let him compete at OG his first season. The following season he can step in at C and the team can trade their All-Pro C to save cap space and get some picks or a player back.

You’ve bought into GM speak.  All teams always draft for need and based on those needs they go BPA.  Maybe toward the end of the draft they go more BPA over needs but make no mistake about it -  team needs are a factor with every premium pick in the draft 

[BillsFanForever19]

Everyone drafts for need. No one takes someone at a position they have filled with a great player with their first pick if they have holes on the team. But you want that value and need to line up. If it doesn't, trade down.

 

Unluckily for us, we're going to have a lot of holes to fill going into this Draft. So BPA and Need will almost assuredly line up nicely.

[Kirby Jackson]

It HAS to be offense imo. Kelvin Benjamin is the only 1st round selection that Josh Allen has played with. That’s ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. I don’t really care if they go WR or OL. I lean WR because it is more impactful but both are desperate areas. They need to draft a minimum of 3 players from those 2 position groups. 
 

I think that I’m okay with Bijan Robinson if there are no OL or WRs left that grade out in that range. He is one of the top few players in this draft and would represent an upgrade to the offense. Robinson and Cooks would be one of the best tandems in the league day 1. I don’t love the idea but love the player. If the WRs & OL are gone I’d rather Robinson than defense.

[newcam2012]

35 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

It HAS to be offense imo. Kelvin Benjamin is the only 1st round selection that Josh Allen has played with. That’s ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. I don’t really care if they go WR or OL. I lean WR because it is more impactful but both are desperate areas. They need to draft a minimum of 3 players from those 2 position groups. 
 

I think that I’m okay with Bijan Robinson if there are no OL or WRs left that grade out in that range. He is one of the top few players in this draft and would represent an upgrade to the offense. Robinson and Cooks would be one of the best tandems in the league day 1. I don’t love the idea but love the player. If the WRs & OL are gone I’d rather Robinson than defense.

I'm fine if they don't make a defensive pick the whole draft. 

 

I'm tired of Allen running for his life, not having a consistent run game, and having WRs that can't separate. 

 

Which would you chose? Give Allen weapons and protection to excell or put more money and draft picks into a defense that whiffs in the playoffs. 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, newcam2012 said:

I'm fine if they don't make a defensive pick the whole draft. 

 

I'm tired of Allen running for his life, not having a consistent run game, and having WRs that can't separate. 

 

Which would you chose? Give Allen weapons and protection to excell or put more money and draft picks into a defense that whiffs in the playoffs. 

This!! Forget trying to plug holes and add a few MPH to your fastball. Get better at your strengths and try to hide your weaknesses. Don’t bother trying to raise the bottom; raise the ceiling.

[newcam2012]

9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

This!! Forget trying to plug holes and add a few MPH to your fastball. Get better at your strengths and try to hide your weaknesses. Don’t bother trying to raise the bottom; raise the ceiling.

Agree. I just don't think McD gets that because of his defensive background. 

[Chaos]

there is one plug and play offensive linemen in the draft. Get Henry and Skoronski in the same step. 

[newcam2012]

50 minutes ago, Chaos said:

there is one plug and play offensive linemen in the draft. Get Henry and Skoronski in the same step. 

Love it!

[Nextmanup]

On 2/24/2023 at 11:52 AM, BarleyNY said:

FA is for need, the draft is for long term team building. Teams that draft for need do so at their own peril. 

Bills have done a good bit of that under the Beane administration.

 

Don't believe me, look at the facts.

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, Nextmanup said:

Bills have done a good bit of that under the Beane administration.

 

Don't believe me, look at the facts.

 

 

If that’s the case we are failing in the draft. If you’re using prime draft assets on Boogie Basham, AJ Epenesa, Cody Ford, etc… that’s a problem. You need your prime assets to get difference makers not rotational players. 

[PrimeTime101]

On 2/24/2023 at 11:52 AM, BarleyNY said:

FA is for need, the draft is for long term team building. Teams that draft for need do so at their own peril. 

so I agree and disagree with this statement. FA IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE FOR NEED! that is a captain obvious statement. But one could argue the Diggs move was long term building. Some times you don't just get fa for short term thus your statement is a mixed bag.  How drafting is done, is a mix of 1. need, 2. talent and then how the cookies crumble to your pick.

 

My statement below explains it the best. If you think our needs are not important to how we or teams draft then your nuts.

 

On 2/24/2023 at 11:57 AM, PrimeTime101 said:

sigh. this conversation comes up every year around this time.

 

1. You have a set of positions of need and a rank for how high the need is

2. Your draft nominees have your own GM ranking system that is ranked by talent.

3. When the draft pick comes they look at their needs and look at what is left in the draft talent wise for the position.

 

So. GM has a set of ranks for potential draft picks and a set of ranks where they need players. Then they choose by what is the best talented player for their top few needs. 

 

Another words..  IF the GM's needs in this order are WR, OL, HB (just as an example) and the most talented by far player left is a HB, then they will choose HB. If HB is BPA (Best Player Available) to their needs, but OL is a very close second and OL is a much higher scaled need? Then they will do a slight "reach" to get their need because the talented player levels are close enough to do so.

 

None of has have a CLUE what our GM and HC draft philosophies are other than... we have a defensive minded HC.

 

Another words.. BPA is a real thing, yet it is not as simple as that. 

 

[BarleyNY]

13 hours ago, JohnNord said:

You’ve bought into GM speak.  All teams always draft for need and based on those needs they go BPA.  Maybe toward the end of the draft they go more BPA over needs but make no mistake about it -  team needs are a factor with every premium pick in the draft 

I think you are looking at the real draft the way fans look at interactive mock drafts. Prospects don’t stack neatly like that in real life. Rarely is there one player sticking out on a team’s board. Usually a group of similarly rated players at different positions to chose from. Easy to take one where there’s a bigger need. Teams that force picks to fill immediate needs are the ones that you see reaching for that. Good teams do consider need, but it is more long term and they put themselves into position to take better talent and more impactful players.

Edited February 26, 2023 by BarleyNY

[BarleyNY]

2 hours ago, PrimeTime101 said:

so I agree and disagree with this statement. FA IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE FOR NEED! that is a captain obvious statement. But one could argue the Diggs move was long term building. Some times you don't just get fa for short term thus your statement is a mixed bag.  How drafting is done, is a mix of 1. need, 2. talent and then how the cookies crumble to your pick.

 

My statement below explains it the best. If you think our needs are not important to how we or teams draft then your nuts.

 

 

Again, I’m speaking to teams that rely on the draft to fulfill IMMEDIATE needs. 

[PrimeTime101]

10 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Again, I’m speaking to teams that rely on the draft to fulfill IMMEDIATE needs. 

we don't do that?

[JohnNord]

7 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

I think you are looking at the real draft the way fans look at interactive mock drafts. Prospects don’t stack neatly like that in real life. Rarely is there one player sticking out on a team’s board. Usually a group of similarly rated players at different positions to chose from. Easy to take one where there’s a bigger need. Teams that force picks to fill immediate needs are the ones that you see reaching for that. Good teams do consider need, but it is more long term and they put themselves into position to take better talent and more impactful players.

You are really my underselling how teams consider need.  IMO need is probably the single biggest factor that determines a selection.  There are many teams that have rookies start at key positions on a football team - that is because they prioritized the need rather than BPA.  
 

There’s a few misnomers in this thread.  #1 someone said that the draft is for BPA and free agency is for filling needs.  In a perfect world this makes sense, it doesn’t work that way in reality.  If you need a left tackle and are cash strapped, you probably have a better chance at success drafting an LT than you do signing a vet minimum player like Bobby Hart.  Obviously, if all the tackles with a R1  are off the board when a team selects, teams will draft another position in R1, and draft the tackle in later rounds.  This, again, is an example of drafting for need.  
 

Second, you claimed that the Bills drafting Rosseau and Basham was drafting for need.  I completely disagree.  While the Bills did need to get younger at Edge, they had Epinesa from the previous year along with vets like Jerry Hughes and Mario Addison.  You could argue that DE wasn’t a pressing need in 2021.  
 

I think they Bills drafted Boogie Basham simply because he was rated highly on their board and was available.  You can argue that Center was a bigger need, and yet the Bills went with DE.  In my opinion, this is an example of drafting BPA and a key reason why a lot of teams don’t usually do it in round 1z. 

7 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

Again, I’m speaking to teams that rely on the draft to fulfill IMMEDIATE needs. 

Almost every selection in Round 1 of the 2022 NFL Draft filled an IMMEDIATE need.  

 

 

[BarleyNY]

11 hours ago, JohnNord said:

You are really my underselling how teams consider need.  IMO need is probably the single biggest factor that determines a selection.  There are many teams that have rookies start at key positions on a football team - that is because they prioritized the need rather than BPA.  
 

There’s a few misnomers in this thread.  #1 someone said that the draft is for BPA and free agency is for filling needs.  In a perfect world this makes sense, it doesn’t work that way in reality.  If you need a left tackle and are cash strapped, you probably have a better chance at success drafting an LT than you do signing a vet minimum player like Bobby Hart.  Obviously, if all the tackles with a R1  are off the board when a team selects, teams will draft another position in R1, and draft the tackle in later rounds.  This, again, is an example of drafting for need.  
 

Second, you claimed that the Bills drafting Rosseau and Basham was drafting for need.  I completely disagree.  While the Bills did need to get younger at Edge, they had Epinesa from the previous year along with vets like Jerry Hughes and Mario Addison.  You could argue that DE wasn’t a pressing need in 2021.  
 

I think they Bills drafted Boogie Basham simply because he was rated highly on their board and was available.  You can argue that Center was a bigger need, and yet the Bills went with DE.  In my opinion, this is an example of drafting BPA and a key reason why a lot of teams don’t usually do it in round 1z. 

Almost every selection in Round 1 of the 2022 NFL Draft filled an IMMEDIATE need.  

 

 

You are confusing team that get immediate production from early picks with teams that reach to fill needs and have to start those rookies. 

[Don Otreply]

On 2/26/2023 at 9:22 AM, Kirby Jackson said:

If that’s the case we are failing in the draft. If you’re using prime draft assets on Boogie Basham, AJ Epenesa, Cody Ford, etc… that’s a problem. You need your prime assets to get difference makers not rotational players. 

 

Getting “Prime assets” are a “need”  for every team, all draft picks are for need…, BPA/BPA at position of need are both needs, it is never not done for  a perceived need. 

 

[Fetou]

Drafting talented players who produce will eventually result in having more flexibility to meet all of your needs anyhow. The core issue is finding talent. We seem to struggle at that regardless of the position