BPA Strategy

[KillaCamNewton]

Do any fellow armchair GMs want to explain why front offices follow this strategy? At least in the first 3 rounds?

to me the draft is the easiest way to plug holes in the roster without having to rely on the free agent market and the headache of either negotiating with the market or outbidding other teams

i can understand the BPA route in the 3rd day of the draft, at that point you are just looking for hidden gems, in the first 3 rounds though there is plenty of talent to find instant starters

the problem I have with the BPA strategy is that it doesnt improve your team as much if it doesnt fill a clear need, the other is I dont know how you can even clearly designate who is the BPA when there are about 30 different positions a player can play (yes I know there are only 22 players on the field I mean that there are several different types of running backs/receivers/linebackers/DBs/DLinemen)

how can you determine who is the better player between a receiver and a linebacker? Can you definitively say Julio Jones is a better player than Von Miller?

the argument I always see against picking “for need” is that when you do that you reach, but what is the proof in that? To me when you draft for need and the player doesnt pan out that simply means you picked the wrong player at that position - which comes down to the failure of the scouting dept/front office in how they evaluated players at that position. When players draft to fill a need and the player is a bust, typically there was a player drafted later at the same position who became a quality starter

example - i see the Broncos drafting Paxton Lynch as an argument as to why you dont draft “for need.” Peyton had just retired and the Broncos were coming off a Super Bowl and had an elite defense with solid receivers and a solid OLine. The most obvious hole in the roster was QB and they took Lynch who was a bust. However, Dak Prescott and Jacoby Brissett were both picked later in the draft, and either of those two QBs would have been more than adequate to take over the position and kept the team contending for Super Bowls instead of creating the revolving door at QB they went through the next 4 years. So I always see that example as a team drafting for need and simply picking the wrong player at that position

i always hear the Luke Kuechly argument as well as a support for why you always take the BPA. For one, linebacker wasnt exactly a sure thing when we picked Luke - our two best linebackers were coming off an achilles tear and the other his third straight year with an ACL tear. We also had obvious holes on the DLine in that draft as well as Safety and corner. Would anyone look back on 2012 now and regret us picking Chandler Jones, Fletcher Cox, Stephon Gilmore or Harrison Smith instead?

Dave Gettleman was a staunch advocate of the BPA strategy, and by the end of the 2014 season it was clear we had an elite roster but had a few obvious holes, mainly on the OLine and secondary. In the first rounds in 2015 and 2016 we had great opportunities to fill these holes and field a complete roster, instead Gettleman took the “BPA” and both picks were at positions that were arguably the biggest strengths on the roster. Who knows how much longer we would have fielded a contending team if we had taken a Landon Collins or Donovan Smith instead of Shaq and a Michael Thomas or Xavien Howard instead of Butler

 

just trying to create a discussion since who knows what is next now that the draft is over!

 

 

[LinvilleGorge]

I think teams likely factor need into their BPA rankings and no GM is ever going to admit to drafting a guy who he didn't have as his BPA. I mean, you wouldn't have seen the Chiefs draft a QB in the 1st no matter what.

[Drk89Wng]

BPA should only be a luxury when the roster is balanced or at the beginning of as rebuild. When you are a few pieces away from winning it all or filling out all your holes BPA is only a good choice is if it fills a need also. If in turn it doesn’t a good mix every other year of BPA and filling needs early is best imo. Teams like the Steelers and Ravens seldom have bad drafts because they know how to mix and match their needs to talent available. 

[AU-panther]

First of all most teams really don't practice a pure BPA strategy.

Even DG, I'm guessing Derrick Brown had a higher grade then the OT he took in the draft.

A better way to think of it that you try to fill your needs without reaching.

The reason though you do try to take the best player (or close to it) is that the majority of the players in the draft really aren't that good and no better than what is already in the league.  Most fans have a really poor understanding of that.  

If the talent coming into the league was as good as everyone thought the talent in the league would become exponentially better than what it was 10 years ago, which isn't the case.

Once you realize that the majority of player are going to be no better than replacement level you start to worry less about need then you do actually finding a player that has a decent chance of becoming better than average.

Another reason is that team rosters turn over really quick in today's NFL.  What isn't a need today, probably will be soon.

I'm not saying you shouldn't look at need, I'm just telling you the argument for BPA.  

Its easy to look back and talk about Thomas instead of Butler, but there are plenty of OTs and WRs that didn't' work also.  What if we hadn't took KK to take a bigger need that year.

Personally I think you try to fill your needs without reaching.  In a perfect world you wouldn't draft a player when you "need" him.  That is what FA is for.  Think about this draft, there were really good WRs and OTs available that we passed on because of need.  Long term that might hurt us.

 

 

[Moose Hoover]

I'm BPA free

[jfra78]

BPA in a position of need.

[Peon Awesome]

I would think that even teams that are strong advocates of a BPA philosophy don't just look at their board ranked 1 to 255 and indiscriminately pick the highest player available when it comes time to pick. And generally speaking, teams probably discriminate between players more broadly in tiers, something along the lines of:

Tier 1 - elite, can't miss prospects, potential all-pros

Tier 2 - potential pro bowler, day 1 starter

Tier 3 - immediate contributor, potential long-term starter

Tier 4 - solid depth

Tier 5 - special teamer, could grow into a role

Tier 6 - practice squad material

Picking BPA means not taking a player of a lower tier just because they fit a need. But you might select a player you think is slightly less talented within the same tier if you think they have more value to the team based on need/scheme/etc

[jb2288]

I didn’t read your entire post but I think the simple answer is if you need as much as we do BPA. If you’re a contender, grab what you need to get you over the hump. I believe that’s why so many people are ripping the Packers. They’re close to being SB caliber team and took BPA instead of a need 

[jfra78]

6 minutes ago, jb2288 said:

I didn’t read your entire post but I think the simple answer is if you need as much as we do BPA. If you’re a contender, grab what you need to get you over the hump. I believe that’s why so many people are ripping the Packers. They’re close to being SB caliber team and took BPA instead of a need 

Yea, but we didnt do that.  If it had been, we would have picked RBs or WRs.  We picked the best player in a position of need.

[jb2288]

5 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

Yea, but we didnt do that.  If it had been, we would have picked RBs or WRs.  We picked the best player in a position of need.

Where? I think round 1 and 2 were BPA depending on how you feel about Simmons vs Brown. Maybe Jonathan Taylor but I think the NFL values DE > RB 

[panther4life]

BPA is not to be taken literally. That’s the simple answer. 

[MMA]

Julio is not a better player than Von Miller that’s why Miller went #2 and pretty much single handedly won Peyton Manning his second super  bowl

[JARROD]

The world isn’t black and white. It’s colors.

too many try to make sense of things by putting out labels, trying to use statistics,... trying to put everything into black and white.  You can’t because it’s chaos,.... and the best you can do is point a direction.  
 

Matt Rhule said in another article that he would have a certain player penciled in that he wanted, have that player gone so they chose the next player in their “grouping”

they put players in groupings together.... and when the pick comes up if you have a player in that grouping— BPA... that also fits a need... you take them first... if you don’t then you try to trade out.

thats why you see teams trade out.

if a group of players is being taken and one is a particular need.... then you trade up. 
 

controlled chaos.

[Wes21]

The idea is that if you draft based on need instead of BPA, over time you end up with an inferior roster to the one you could have had if you would have just taken the BPA.  I subscribe to that theory.  If you have an immediate need at a position, you need to plug it via free agency.  You don't need to go drop $100M on the need, there are plenty of vets in their last contract that you can get for a year or two while you try to home grow a replacement.  And if you can't find one in the draft, there's always a new crop of vets on their last contract to rinse and repeat the process.

But as I said in another thread, I believe it was Brian Billick that said something to the effect of "most teams draft based on BPA, but its amazing how many times players at need positions get a higher grade than they should have."