Top 10 Pick : BPA or Positional Need

BallerT1215 · 02-27-2013, 03:38 PM

I have been meaning to make this thread since I heard Mike Mayock during the combine 2 days ago.

To summarize him, he basically said if you are in the top 10 you need to draft a Pro Bowler regardless of position. That player has to be a star and immediate impact, regardless of need. Basically, he is saying you dont reach for best player at your NEED but you take best player on your board whether you need him or not if you are sure he will be a future Pro Bowler.

What are your thoughts on this?

As a Bills fan, I've grown accustomed to top 10 picks and while I understand what Mayock is saying about getting a cant miss prospect, I don't think you can just take the best player especially if you are set at that position.

Iamcanadian · 02-27-2013, 04:39 PM

Drafting top 10, you have to take the BPA otherwise you will end up paying an average starter a star's salary and you won't even be able to retain him when he becomes a FA because you won't want to pay him that amount of money.

BPA doesn't mean a team doesn't have choices, players are grouped by talent and in every group there can be up to 10 players who are all around the same ranking, so a team still has plenty of choices when they pick, even if the position isn't totally ideal for them. To draft for need means you are skipping over the next group of players and you are drafting a prospect who is potentially 20X lower ranked than the group you should be selecting from.

BPA is never just one guy, it is always a group of prospects ranked pretty close in talent.

JT Jag · 02-27-2013, 04:55 PM

Combination of both. Top 10, you're probably there for a reason, so you need an immediate impact player. Some teams don't have the time to drop a top ten draft pick on a developmental guy, even if he's at the top of their board. So you pick the best guy who plays a position that you have a hole in.

This isn't to say that you go out of your way to reach for the best player who plays at your biggest need position. But if you have three general significant needs going into the draft, you pick the best player who plays one of those roles in the top 10.

Better teams get to be more flexible in this regard, but there's really no such thing as a team that truly drafts BPA. Everyone considers need to a degree when they are drafting.

descendency · 02-27-2013, 05:00 PM

Best Player available, 100% of the time. 100%. If you are top 10, it's because you suck. You need players at every position. No player is limited to one position, except maybe a QB. But if that QB is that good, you should be able to trade down/out and rake in a fortune.

stlouisfan37 · 02-27-2013, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by descendency

Best Player available, 100% of the time. 100%. If you are top 10, it's because you suck. You need players at every position. No player is limited to one position, except maybe a QB. But if that QB is that good, you should be able to trade down/out and rake in a fortune.

I fully agree. The most talented teams take the BPA throughout the draft, they don't worry about who they do and don't have already. Take the best player and find a way to use him to make your team better. Over the course of time all your needs will be filled and you will have talent and depth throughout your roster. The 49ers have done this and it is the reason why they are talking about trading for Revis, because they have more draft picks than roster spots for young players.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl---s...211130553.html

JT Jag · 02-27-2013, 08:55 PM

It's short sighted to say that teams should or do go BPA 100% of the time. It's a lovely idea, but impractical. Say a team has a 26 year old all pro defensive tackle, and they just drafted a tackle in the second round last year. The #1 player on their board is a run-stuffing tackle, he'll only be able to play tackle and you already have lots of money tied up at that position.

The #2 player is a cornerback and both of your starting cornerbacks from last year are free agents.

No one takes the "best available player" in this scenario. Not a single general manager in the NFL. They will take the best player for their team, though.

nepg · 02-27-2013, 08:57 PM

It's always situational.

With the Alex Smith trade, everyone is basically going BPA anyway....

SOnMyChest · 02-27-2013, 09:19 PM

People get confused when they hear best player available. The Steelers draft using the best player available philosophy. What teams do first is develop a list of needs. The Steeler's needs are solely based off the holes in their roster. Once they determine their needs they are willing to select any of those positions with any of their picks solely based on who is the best player available. Just from a pure economic standpoint you will never see New England draft a tight end in the first

BallerT1215 · 02-28-2013, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Jag

It's short sighted to say that teams should or do go BPA 100% of the time. It's a lovely idea, but impractical. Say a team has a 26 year old all pro defensive tackle, and they just drafted a tackle in the second round last year. The #1 player on their board is a run-stuffing tackle, he'll only be able to play tackle and you already have lots of money tied up at that position.

The #2 player is a cornerback and both of your starting cornerbacks from last year are free agents.

No one takes the "best available player" in this scenario. Not a single general manager in the NFL. They will take the best player for their team, though.

This is pretty much where i stand on the question.

thebow305 · 02-28-2013, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Jag

It's short sighted to say that teams should or do go BPA 100% of the time. It's a lovely idea, but impractical. Say a team has a 26 year old all pro defensive tackle, and they just drafted a tackle in the second round last year. The #1 player on their board is a run-stuffing tackle, he'll only be able to play tackle and you already have lots of money tied up at that position.

The #2 player is a cornerback and both of your starting cornerbacks from last year are free agents.

No one takes the "best available player" in this scenario. Not a single general manager in the NFL. They will take the best player for their team, though.

It also depends on the disparity between the top players considered for the pick, as well as the depth at each position in that given year. Sometimes positions in a draft are loaded while others are top heavy. This may cause teams to reach for a player because they are afraid of the position falling off a cliff at a certain point and left without a real great alternative. Every team is different, but I agree with JT, if all things are the same and you have a greater need elsewhere, go with the need.

It's hard to argue for one side either way, because as a Bills fan, you know that C.J. Spiller was the BPA on the board when you took him. And it didn't seem like a logical move with F-Jax and Lynch already on the roster, but now just a few short years later, C.J. is the starter and a possible top 5 back.

It's hard to say that overall it made the team better though. Because here you are again drafting in the Top 10. So like I said, there's a strong argument for either side on this one.

Halsey · 02-28-2013, 07:43 PM

The whole BPA thing sounds good, but what does it really mean? When the Falcons drafted Matt Ryan many people said they should have taken Glen Dorsey or Darren McFadden because they were better players. Many people think Chance Warmack is the BPA of the 2013 Draft. Should the Chiefs take him #1? The whole BPA concept is oversimplified and not realistic.

Nastradamus · 02-28-2013, 07:53 PM

Best value available is a better way to put it. That way, the proposed situation by JT Jag doesn't happen. DT will be lower on that team's value board.

rawdawg · 02-28-2013, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsey

The whole BPA thing sounds good, but what does it really mean? When the Falcons drafted Matt Ryan many people said they should have taken Glen Dorsey or Darren McFadden because they were better players. Many people think Chance Warmack is the BPA of the 2013 Draft. Should the Chiefs take him #1? The whole BPA concept is oversimplified and not realistic.

Agreed. Every single pick of the draft should be the best player available. But the best player available to one team is not the BPA for another team. And anyone who thinks need doesn't play into who a team thinks is the BPA is kidding themselves.

JT Jag · 02-28-2013, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nastradamus

Best value available is a better way to put it. That way, the proposed situation by JT Jag doesn't happen. DT will be lower on that team's value board.

Best value available. I like that. We should use that more often.

Because, see, Chance Warmack might very well be the best player in this draft. But he's not the best value, even if he becomes an all-pro for years. That's why he'll get drafted towards the back end of the top ten. Teams are catching on more in recent years that guards are valuable and occasionally worth a first round pick, but they will never be a premium position.

BallerT1215 · 02-28-2013, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rawdawg

Agreed. Every single pick of the draft should be the best player available. But the best player available to one team is not the BPA for another team. And anyone who thinks need doesn't play into who a team thinks is the BPA is kidding themselves.

So if you got a guy rated highly at CB, you have a need at CB and you feel he is the best CB but as overall prospect you feel there is a couple ?'s and it could go a wrong way...

And there is an MLB that you are confident will be multiple pro bowler in his career and no ?'s as far as you are concerned but you already have a solid MLB on your team in year 2 of his 5 year contract...

You are going CB still?

Brothgar · 02-28-2013, 09:41 PM

In my opinion it isn't even that easy.

There are multiple factors that you need to look at outside of this is the best player on the board or this is our biggest need.

1. Positional value.
BPA could be a guard it also could be your biggest need. But it isn't that high value position.

2. Are you set on the position?
I know someone is going to bring up Michael Jordan being passed up by the Blazers because they already had Clyde Drexler but in spite of that I'm not 100% sure that they didn't make the right choice. Going strait for the BPA puts the concentration of talent in one area of the field generally. See the Detroit Lions also forces you to ignore several different red flags.

3. The Red Flags
Injuries, height weight speed, character.

These are all things that will drop players on your board. See Janoris Jenkins who was the top guy on the board from a football standpoint but that character made him fall.

If you are going to ask what areas are most important I'd say the red flags are the biggest ones. See Jarvis Jones in this draft or Dequan Bowers a few years ago or even Russell Wilson the second you add the red flag to a guy their stock will go down even if he is the best player available at the biggest position of need.

PossibleCabbage · 02-28-2013, 09:57 PM

Neither.

You take the player who adds the most value to your team. You don't take the best player available, since maybe that guy plays at a position of strength on your team and wouldn't beat out guys you've already got. You don't blindly fill needs because you don't want to take a player who's really not that good just because he's the best player at a "need" position.

You take the player who adds the most value to your team. To me, maximizing value includes considering three things in the following order: 1) This player is in or close to the top tier of talent available, 2) This player upgrades a position on our team more than other available comparably talented players would, 3) this player plays at at the most important position among the top talent who constitute significant upgrades.

If nothing else, this saves you from having to figure out who's "better" between two extremely dissimilar positions.

ph90702 · 02-28-2013, 11:28 PM

Best player available with the exception of a quarterback if you already have one. With every position but quarterback, you can find a way to make it work. Also, who's to say that the particular position that is currently strong will be strong a few years down the road?

Lil Quip · 03-01-2013, 12:14 PM

I have a strong dislike for this phrase. It is just to be the antithesis of teams reaching for need. And they went off the deep end with it. It is used to reward forward thinking teams who usually don't have the needs other teams do or have the ability to risk the reward on a prospect.

And when you add in value and you take ad infinitum, it breaks down too.

Offensively who has the highest value? Take field position? QB first most likely. Then a punter averages four punts a game for 40 yards? That becomes 160 yards of field position a game. Go for points? Just look at NFL all time scoring leaders, and you see quite a few kickers, plus every kickoff that is a TB is 45 net yards so they add a ton of yard value too.

In all honesty, there is some optimal formula for applying need value and quality. I would have criteria like perceived floor/perceived ceiling and actual value to account for risk. Perceived and actual position need on the team, etc. Lets just say it gets real complicated real quick. This is why engineers and stats guys spend their time analyzing more important things and leave draft arguments to themselves.

Monomach · 03-01-2013, 12:42 PM

No, it's not always BPA. That's just goofy. If Frank Gore and Colin Kaepernick die in a car crash and the 49ers get into the top ten, they're not drafting the BPA if he's an ILB.

Best Player Available is not a valid draft strategy. Best player that reasonably fits a need is.

tjsunstein · 03-01-2013, 12:51 PM

I like best value available, very good way to put it.

bigbluedefense · 03-01-2013, 12:55 PM

If you're in the top 10, there's a good chance you have a lot of needs anyway. So I would go BPA unless it's an obvious contradiction.

The whole point of the draft is to acquire talent. You hit on enough draft picks and you'll have a good team. Talent finds a way on the field.

SuperPacker · 03-01-2013, 12:55 PM

I'd say push BPA as far as you can without making a pick that would be stupid and pointless.

H.O.O.D · 03-01-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Jag

It's short sighted to say that teams should or do go BPA 100% of the time. It's a lovely idea, but impractical. Say a team has a 26 year old all pro defensive tackle, and they just drafted a tackle in the second round last year. The #1 player on their board is a run-stuffing tackle, he'll only be able to play tackle and you already have lots of money tied up at that position.

The #2 player is a cornerback and both of your starting cornerbacks from last year are free agents.

No one takes the "best available player" in this scenario. Not a single general manager in the NFL. They will take the best player for their team, though.

One similar situation that came to mind was 2011 with Martin Mayhew though IDK what the Lions board exactly looked like ,they took a falling Nick Fairley who presented good value as the consensus was he was a top 10 pick. Prince Amukamara was still on the board and corner was a need for the Lions. Jimmy Smith was also on the board but did have character concerns and may have been dropped/flagged so it is understandable why he wasn't the pick.

AcheTen · 03-01-2013, 01:06 PM

I'd go BPA but give weight to specific positions.

For example, I'd never take anything but QB, OT, pass-rushing 4-3 DE or 3-4 OLB, CB, pass-covering FS, WR, or pass-catching TE with a first round pick.

So in the first round every year, as long as I had a QB in place, I'd take the best available player at OT, pass-rushing 4-3 DE / 3-4 OLB (depending on scheme we run) CB, pass-covering FS, WR, or pass-catching TE. I literally wouldn't care if I had a glut of players at a particular position (outside of QB) - I'd still take that position in the first round if it was the highest rated player at my draft pick. For example, the New York Giants selected Jason Pierre Paul in 2010 in the first round despite having both Justin Tuck and Osi Umenyiora and Mathias Kiwanuka on the roster, and it paid off for them.

Within those bounds, I would also weight OT and pass-rushers more highly than WR and CB/FS. I would never take a WR, CB/FS over any OT or pass rusher (as long as they were at least "good" prospects at those positions available) unless the WR or CB/FS were truly elite prospect on the level of Calvin Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald (for the former) or Ronnie Lott or Rod Woodson (for the latter). This is because WRs and CB/FS are valuable positions but very unpredictable as first round prospects and good, competent players at those positions can actually be found just as easily in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds.

Because, in my opinion, non-pass-rushing LB and RB have such little value to a team, and are so easy to find in free agency and later rounds of the draft, I would never draft them higher than the 3rd round no matter how great a grade they have at their position. The same goes for even lesser value positions such as FB, K, P, primarily-blocking TE, and the like.

If I didn't have a QB in place, I'd give much more weight to that position because without a franchise QB the other positions don't matter. I'd draft the QB first unless the best QB prospect available at my draft position was truly below-average, like possibly this year. But I certainly wouldn't take Jake Long over Matt Ryan like the Dolphins did, because Matt Ryan was a "good" QB prospect, and while Jake Long was a truly elite OT prospect, a "good" QB prospect will still outweigh an "elite" prospect at every other position.