PDA

View Full Version : Merits of going BPA


AntoinCD
01-23-2010, 05:15 AM
I was looking at one of the mocks in the mock draft section and it got me thinking. Some teams like the Ravens tend to see value as more important than need, while other teams has set needs and pass on higher rated players. My question is, if your team needed for example OLB, S and OG and you were picking at say 17/18 range and Dez Bryant fell to your pick. Is it better to fill your need with a lesser valued player like Earl Thomas or take the guy who should be a top ten pick?

Personally I would draft for need unless the value was so good. The mock in question had Gerald McCoy fall to the late 20s. For the Pats I would have him in a heartbeat over any pass rusher in the draft.

Brent
01-23-2010, 08:02 AM
I believe some teams factor in need, when making their draft board. However, if a player's value exceeds the spot he falls to, I say take him. An example of this from last year, the Niners had Crabtree, Raji and Oher at the top of their board when the Raiders took DHB. The Packers took Raji and thus left Crabtree & Oher at the top. The Niners felt that Crabtree was a top 5 talent, and took him over Oher, who was a need & the next highest rated player.

nofalcons10
01-23-2010, 08:24 AM
I believe some teams factor in need, when making their draft board. However, if a player's value exceeds the spot he falls to, I say take him. An example of this from last year, the Niners had Crabtree, Raji and Oher at the top of their board when the Raiders took DHB. The Packers took Raji and thus left Crabtree & Oher at the top. The Niners felt that Crabtree was a top 5 talent, and took him over Oher, who was a need & the next highest rated player.

perfect post.

i would like to add that there is one other option in this scenario that hasn't been mentioned and that is #Trade down.


you want to get the most value for your pick possible.

if for some reason you are being offered a probowler and other picks as compensation or two first round picks or something of that nature then the top 5 pick that fell to you could then be equal in value to what is being offered in the trade-down scenario.

Like the redskins raping the saints in 1999.

wicket
01-23-2010, 09:01 AM
People are looking way to black & white into this issue. Some teams shouldnt draft certain positions but it certainly is the case that greater value can trump a bigger need. The ravens could use another OT and the niners really needed another wideout, however they had bigger needs.
So going BPA in the sense that teams shouldnt disregard value is important but just ranking the players on quality and drafting the highest guy remaingin on your list is absurd.

Day One Pick
01-23-2010, 09:05 AM
Good teams can afford to draft for need because they have so few holes. Bad teams on the other hand can't afford to pass up value. Bad teams have a lot of needs and overall have a lack of talent. Passing on a more talented play for the sake of filling a need makes no sense on several levels. Bad teams need to be building for the future which extends well beyond just next year. Good teams are in the position where one player in one position could be enough to get them over the top. Big, big misconception.

Jakey
01-23-2010, 09:58 AM
The Steelers wouldnt draft Dez Bryant if he was there...he's without doubt a top 10 talent...but WR/QB i basically the only positions we wouldnt go in round one. If it was another position dropping...like Joe Haden at CB...no chance we pass it up. It depends on both need and value imo.

DoWnThEfiElD
01-23-2010, 10:11 AM
The Lions went BPA last year and it actually turned out well for us. Our one need was talent and that why we went BPA.

People got on the Lions for not taking Oher, which I understand, but their strategy for that draft was BPA and they had Pettigrew rated higher, thus the pick.

Halsey
01-23-2010, 11:01 AM
The whole 'BPA' concept is oversimplified. For one thing, it's an opinion, yet many people seem to talk about BPA as if it's a fact that a certain player at any point is the 'BPA'. You're likely to get differing opinions on who the BPA is at any given point from different members of the same organization. Also, one team's BPA is not going to be anothers. The BPA for one team might be a player that simply doesn't fit the scheme of another. The biggest problem with the whole BPA concept is that you really don't know. Just because you think a guy is BPA doesn't mean he'll actually turn out to be BPA. Seattle fans thought for sure that Aaron Curry was 'BPA' a year ago. Smart Seattle fans would trade Curry for Mark Sanchez is a New York second now.

Day One Pick
01-23-2010, 11:16 AM
The whole 'BPA' concept is oversimplified. For one thing, it's an opinion, yet many people seem to talk about BPA as if it's a fact that a certain player at any point is the 'BPA'. You're likely to get differing opinions on who the BPA is at any given point from different members of the same organization. Also, one team's BPA is not going to be anothers. The BPA for one team might be a player that simply doesn't fit the scheme of another. The biggest problem with the whole BPA concept is that you really don't know. Just because you think a guy is BPA doesn't mean he'll actually turn out to be BPA. Seattle fans thought for sure that Aaron Curry was 'BPA' a year ago. Smart Seattle fans would trade Curry for Mark Sanchez is a New York second now.

Right, but it's a term used in reguards to each particular team's BPA. If you hear it used in a mock draft, that's just a prediction, guess, assumption, or whatever else you would like to call it.

DeepThreat
01-23-2010, 11:16 AM
I'm a proponent of BPA, but it's not that black and white. I believe that the two should be balanced. As a team, I take the player who helps my team the most. Whether it fits a need or not is irrelevant.

Day One Pick
01-23-2010, 11:25 AM
I'm a proponent of BPA, but it's not that black and white. I believe that the two should be balanced. As a team, I take the player who helps my team the most. Whether it fits a need or not is irrelevant.

I agree. It's also like said by other's more complex than just best player. Teams all have draft boards. These draft boards take into consideration their needs and then factor the talent in. For example, the Browns would probably not have Russell Okung higher on their board than Joe Haden, Dez Bryant, Derrick Morgan, ect., but I also don't believe they would totally take all the LT prospects out. If they were to trade down to say 15th, and then they were on the clock, a player like Okung could be their BPA if he were to fall (which he won't). They wouldn't have him ranked lower than those other players because they thought they were better than him, it would be because those players value based on need and ability.

TheSlinger
01-23-2010, 12:52 PM
I'm like 98% in favour of going BPA over needs drafting.

I think the biggest argument in favour is that you just can't accurately predict what your needs are going to be even in this coming year let alone 3 years from now. It may appear that you have a strength at CB so you pass up on the CB at the top of your board, but what happens when one of them gets injured? How about two years from now when that star player's contract expires and you can't keep him around, now you have a desperate need at CB, and since you reached for an inferior player, perhaps at the other position as well.

It's extremely difficult to predict which players will break out, decline, get hurt, leave, etc.

There is nothing wrong with having too much talent at one position. It's really not that difficult to utilize talent, and even in a "worst-case scenario" where you have a glut of talent that you just can't give enough playing time to, you can recoup value through trade.

Also, this is a lesser consideration, but why would you leave the best player available for your competitors to take? Often this isn't going to be a massive deal, but imagine how thrilled AFC teams would be if they could deprive the Jets of Revis or the Titans of CJ28.

PossibleCabbage
01-23-2010, 05:17 PM
Really, I think the dichotomy between "need" vs "BPA" is overstated. They're just really different ways of defining "best".

Suppose for a moment that, relative to a team, players are rated on some absolute objective numerical scale (say 0-10). The extremes really just represent two different strategies that aren't necessarily supportable in practice.

Strategy A: "BPA"

Always take the highest rated player on the board, so if if there's a 8, a 7.5, and a 6 available to be picked, you pick the 8 regardless of what position he plays or who you have playing that position.

Potential problems: If you did this in reality, you'd end up drafting like 6 quarterbacks every year and you wouldn't win football games, because none of them can block or tackle.

Strategy B: "Need"

Always take the player on the board who is the biggest upgrade from the person he would be replacing in your lineup. So if there's an 8, a 7.5, and a 6 available; and the 8 would replace a guy who's a 7, the 7.5 would replace a guy who's a 6, and the 6 would replace a guy who's a 4, you take the 6 since he's the largest upgrade of the three guys you're considering.

Potential problems: If you did this in reality, you'd end up with a roster made up of guys who are 6/10 and you'd get beaten by teams that have some 9s and 10s.

But really, both strategies can honestly say that they are selecting the best player available. "BPA" guys are selecting the "best" player based on the estimation of a player's talent and upside on an absolute scale. "Need" guys are selecting the "best" player based on the estimation of a player's ability to improve your team.

Don't both the GM who are picking the "most absolutely talented" player and the GM who are picking the "would improve this team the most" at this point, have a good case for saying that they picked the best player they could?

Realistically, I don't think GMs think like either extreme. Its certainly not a good idea to ignore what you do and don't already have, but it's also certainly not a good idea to take a bunch of guys who may not be that talented merely because you're weak at those positions. The Best GMs take all of this into account, and often times picks that are claimed to be "BPA" by the experts are simply picks made to fill needs that the team doesn't yet have, but expects to have in a year or two down the line.

In this, as in most things, the best position is a nuanced one significantly more moderate than the extremes.

nyqua
01-23-2010, 05:41 PM
Just make tiers of players and rank the players in each tier by need.

RaiderNation
01-23-2010, 06:24 PM
IMO in the 1st round you should go BPA unless you already have a franchise QB, LT ect... Round 2-4 should be on need and 5-7 should be both value and need

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
01-23-2010, 10:46 PM
The Titans picked up Chris Johnson after drafting LenDale White and Chris Henry in the second two years in a row, that turned out pretty well for them.

Day One Pick
01-23-2010, 10:55 PM
The Titans picked up Chris Johnson after drafting LenDale White and Chris Henry in the second two years in a row, that turned out pretty well for them.

Good example.

Brent
01-24-2010, 01:41 AM
Am I the only one who thinks you can adjust your BPA based on need?

If I need an OT more than any other position, the entire draft board is altered, as I put more value into needs.

Flyboy
01-24-2010, 01:55 AM
Am I the only one who thinks you can adjust your BPA based on need?

If I need an OT more than any other position, the entire draft board is altered, as I put more value into needs.

I think the position definitely comes into play. I think a great example would be us (the Saints) taking Robert Meachem 27th in the draft when it was obvious we had defensive needs.

SenorGato
01-24-2010, 02:21 AM
I'm a proponent of BPA, but it's not that black and white. I believe that the two should be balanced. As a team, I take the player who helps my team the most. Whether it fits a need or not is irrelevant.

+1

I also think teams should more aggressively pursue the BPA when they're rebuilding. Not enough teams do that.

Babylon
01-24-2010, 12:11 PM
BPA. Perfect example is St. Louis. They obviously need a QB but if you take a Clausen or a Bradford and they carry a grade of say a 9.5 (out of 10) when you could take Suh who carries a 9.9 or a 10 then you run the risk of being part of a trivia question 10 years from now.

Bottom line take the higher rated guy or trade the pick for value and try to get the other player (Clausen, Bradford) a little later.

Halsey
01-24-2010, 01:04 PM
BPA. Perfect example is St. Louis. They obviously need a QB but if you take a Clausen or a Bradford and they carry a grade of say a 9.5 (out of 10) when you could take Suh who carries a 9.9 or a 10 then you run the risk of being part of a trivia question 10 years from now.

Bottom line take the higher rated guy or trade the pick for value and try to get the other player (Clausen, Bradford) a little later.

Like when the Rams passed on Matt Ryan and Mark Sanchez for 'higher rated' guys...

phlysac
01-24-2010, 06:24 PM
BPA changes from pick to pick. The "Best" in BPA can be seen as a term of "value". If there is a run on a certain position and the "value" of the next player at that position is significantly higher than the player behind him, the aforementioned player's "value" skyrockets" and could put him at the top of the BPA's.

Example:

Team (A) has 6 OT's in their "Top-20" draft board.
Team (A) selects at pick #12
By pick #11, 5 of the 6 OT's are off the board.
That 6th OT now has alot more value than the #7 OT who had a 2nd round grade.

descendency
01-24-2010, 10:52 PM
I agree with Bill Belichick who said that drafting for need leaves you with a lot of busts. Drafting the best player available for your system gives you options in case of injuries and other misfortunes. It gives you flexibility.

Unfortunately, it also makes you one of the worst pass rushing teams in the NFL.

However, I think you have to consider positional value (QB, OTs, and Pass rushers) over positions with little value (KR, P, OG, S)

sup3rdup3r
01-24-2010, 11:42 PM
Like when the Rams passed on Matt Ryan and Mark Sanchez for 'higher rated' guys...

Ummmm why don't we wait until he develops in to something more than just a "hand the ball off" QB before acting like it was a mistake to pass on him. I dunno why they would regret taking Jason Smith if he develops in to a franchise LT.

Halsey
01-25-2010, 08:42 AM
Ummmm why don't we wait until he develops in to something more than just a "hand the ball off" QB before acting like it was a mistake to pass on him. I dunno why they would regret taking Jason Smith if he develops in to a franchise LT.

Sanchez attempted more passes yesterday than the Jets had rushing attempts. In fact, he had 8 games this year of atleast 25 passing attempts. The idea that he's just handing it off is nonsense.

Dagagad
01-25-2010, 10:12 AM
I think the best teams go BPA whilst that data is filtered through their own conception of what the most important positions are, followed by their needs.

Say a team needs a QB, a DT and a SS.

They have the SS as a 8, the dt as a 7 and the QB as a 6. I think they take the QB in a tight decision between him and the DT. Of course that is very simplified, but that would be the typical process.

GhostDeini
01-26-2010, 10:02 AM
Good teams can afford to draft for need because they have so few holes. Bad teams on the other hand can't afford to pass up value. Bad teams have a lot of needs and overall have a lack of talent. Passing on a more talented play for the sake of filling a need makes no sense on several levels. Bad teams need to be building for the future which extends well beyond just next year. Good teams are in the position where one player in one position could be enough to get them over the top. Big, big misconception.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_o3mZN7Uuzy8/SR9pskzLEtI/AAAAAAAABlw/KsN87N29gAA/s400/family-guy-i-disagree-1.jpg


I always thought teams picking late in the first are the ones that can afford to take best player available and hope for the best since they're already pretty good and won't be depending on a rookie to be a major contributer early. Whatever they get from the rookie is just a bonus.

Bad teams on the other hand should always go with team need no matter what. If you're picking really high it means you weren't good at any phase of the game and expecting a rookie to turn around your franchise is asking for a huge letdown. You build teams inside out, from both lines. Once your LOS is set then you can afford to take the flashy WR.