"Best Player Available"

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Another widely used term: "Best Player Available"

 

What does this mean, really?

 

If you need a doctor, go to the "best doctor available". Doesn't that depend on what's wrong with ya?

Do you need a surgeon or a gastroenterologist?

If you have some means to decide who is "best overall", what does that mean, really?

If you put the "best doctor" in a cruddy practice without the proper laboratory and office staff support, will he still seem like the best?

Would you be better off with an adequate doctor who can improvise and compensate in those circumstances?

 

If you need a personal trainer, get the "best personal trainer available". Doesn't "best" depend on your goal? The best trainer for a sprinter maybe not the best for training a figure skater or a distance runner? Of trainers good at developing athletes for different sports, if you could decide who was overall best, what meaning would that have for you?

 

I think don't understand what "best player available" means, really.

[Kevin]

Best player available means "we are going to pick who we want to pick and nobody will find out until we pick!"

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Good points, but what your'e really saying is pick the best player according to our needs, which we should do.

[bowery4]

It means not REACHING to fill a need. Instead you take the most talented regardless of need. BN has said the would take BPA several times recently, but in the past said you take BPA w/ need in mind. So in other words it is all smoke and mirrors, like interviewing and wine and dinning Tebow last year.

[KD in CA]

It means not REACHING to fill a need. Instead you take the most talented regardless of need. BN has said the would take BPA several times recently, but in the past said you take BPA w/ need in mind. So in other words it is all smoke and mirrors, like interviewing and wine and dinning Tebow last year.

 

Nothing like using one ridiculous, meaningless draft cliché to define another. Boy, I'm sure glad we didn't 'reach' for Maurkice Pouncey or Roger Safforld over the 'BPA' CJ Spiller last year. Think of the ridicule Mel Kiper would have heaped on us.

[bowery4]

Nothing like using one ridiculous, meaningless draft cliché to define another. Boy, I'm sure glad we didn't 'reach' for Maurkice Pouncey or Roger Safforld over the 'BPA' CJ Spiller last year. Think of the ridicule Mel Kiper would have heaped on us.

 

 

Hey, I kind of share your opinion but words is all I have,meaningless draft cliché make communication easier and I thought the OP was being honestly naive.

[Ghost of Rob Johnson]

If you put the "best doctor" in a cruddy practice without the proper laboratory and office staff support, will he still seem like the best?

If you pick the best person for every position within that practice, won't you eventually have the best practice around? But if there's 53 open positions, and you only get 7-10 applicants per year, won't having the best practice around take some time?

[macaroni]

If you pick the best person for every position within that practice, won't you eventually have the best practice around? But if there's 53 open positions, and you only get 7-10 applicants per year, won't having the best practice around take some time?

 

 

I agree it would take some time ..... but by the end of a decade or so we'd have hands down the best team in the NFL as opposed to now, where after a decade of futility we've got ..... ahhhhhh ... something less.

[Kevin]

You guys are putting way too much thought into it. Come draft day the bills know who they are selecting. They know the scenarios for trade downs, or what to do if the player they target is gone when they pick.

 

Also, BPA to buddy nix might be different than BPA to mike shanahan for example. It is based on one mans/teams opinion of the players in the draft.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Nothing like using one ridiculous, meaningless draft cliché to define another. Boy, I'm sure glad we didn't 'reach' for Maurkice Pouncey or Roger Safforld over the 'BPA' CJ Spiller last year. Think of the ridicule Mel Kiper would have heaped on us.

 

I would have been OK with 'reaching' for Alualu (#10 pick)

[The Buffalo Irishman]

Best player available means "we are going to pick who we want to pick and nobody will find out until we pick!"

Exactly!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

You guys are putting way too much thought into it. Come draft day the bills know who they are selecting. They know the scenarios for trade downs, or what to do if the player they target is gone when they pick.

 

Also, BPA to buddy nix might be different than BPA to mike shanahan for example. It is based on one mans/teams opinion of the players in the draft.

 

Kevin, I think you just spelled it out in plain English.

 

"Best Player Available" means "we will select whoever we want based on Buddy Nix opinion of the players in the draft (modified by some unknown Wilson factor) and justify it by saying 'BPA'"

[Kelly the Dog]

I said it before and will say it again: Every single pick in every single round by every single team (and in every single sport) is a choice/battle between Best Player Available and Best Player Available at Position of Need, and how much the difference between the two will help the team in the drafter's eyes. Every time, and every team makes that exact same kind of choice.

 

Last year, for example, when it was the Bills choice in the first round, Nix and the powers that be had to decide between Spiller, who was by far their BPA, and their top rated player at NT, DE, LB (the more obvious positions of need going into the draft). Because Nix felt the team lacked playmakers, speed on offense, and their line was suspect (Nix said he felt great backs make lines look better), he decided that the BPA helped the team far more overall, especially for the future, so they picked Spiller even though RB was one of the last positions of need. It also meant on their board the top rated NT, DE and LB was rated far below Spiller.

 

In the second round, the same choice came up again (as it does every round, every team, every year). The Bills had a couple (unknown) BPA on their board at various random positions. But they decided that Terrel Troup, who may have been anywhere from #1-#10 or so on their BPA list, would help the team the most because we so desperately needed a run stuffing NT when changing to a 3-4. But it's the exact same predicament and choice as before.

 

In the third round, again, the same predicament came up, and they chose Carrington over other guys they probably hated rated higher as BPA because they knew we needed DEs when most of ours were being made into linebackers (Kelsay, Schobel, Maybin, etc).

 

But, if there was a player at, say, OT or WR or any other position when it was our turn to draft that was rated SO MUCH higher than Carrington overall, they likely would have taken that guy. But since the player (Carrington) was very likely rated just below other players at positions of less need, Carrington became the obvious choice for them, and they didn't need any more time to make that selection.

 

And again, every team looks at every pick the exact same way. It's just that certain teams have different philosophies on what makes its team better. Pittsburgh, for example, seems to value BPA a little more than BPA at position of need and will tend to draft players for its future as opposed to immediate future.

[K Gun Special]

never mind that teams like the colts and pats have built their respective franchises by taking the highest graded player when its their turn.

 

besides what position on this team isnt a need ?? When we took spiller they knew ML was gonna be traded... and freddy is turning 30 soon.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Another widely used term: "Best Player Available"

 

What does this mean, really?

 

If you need a doctor, go to the "best doctor available". Doesn't that depend on what's wrong with ya?

Do you need a surgeon or a gastroenterologist?

If you have some means to decide who is "best overall", what does that mean, really?

If you put the "best doctor" in a cruddy practice without the proper laboratory and office staff support, will he still seem like the best?

Would you be better off with an adequate doctor who can improvise and compensate in those circumstances?

 

If you need a personal trainer, get the "best personal trainer available". Doesn't "best" depend on your goal? The best trainer for a sprinter maybe not the best for training a figure skater or a distance runner? Of trainers good at developing athletes for different sports, if you could decide who was overall best, what meaning would that have for you?

 

I think don't understand what "best player available" means, really.

 

In simplest terms you theoretically have 2 choices, you can pick the best remaining left tackle (or insert any other position) no matter who is on the board because that is what you need

 

-or-

 

pick the highest rated player on your own draft board that is still there completely irrespective of position.

 

My feeling is saying you will go BPA gives you the most latitude to do what you feel like and is mostly a blurb to placate the fans. With the money at stake I won't even guess what gamesmanship happens behind the scenes or how much effort goes into trying to guess who will pick who in front of them, but there has to be intelligent assessments of how these guys tend to draft historically used as a predictor regardless of what is said.

 

 

 

For example Torrell Troup, was he really he BPA (in alignment with Buddy’s professed strategy) at 41 or was it, hey he’s a highly rated NT and the bills needed one.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2011 by over 20 years of fanhood

[Hapless Bills Fan]

It means not REACHING to fill a need. Instead you take the most talented regardless of need. BN has said the would take BPA several times recently, but in the past said you take BPA w/ need in mind. So in other words it is all smoke and mirrors, like interviewing and wine and dinning Tebow last year.

 

Hey Bowery. Sure, I'll buy that. But let's look at...OK, Spiller.

Bills said "hey, we're taking the BPA, rather than reaching, to fill a need such as QB".

 

Fair enough, if we don't think Tebow, McCoy, or Clausen are really value at #9 pick. Nobody else liked them enough to go in the top half of the 1st.

 

Now what about other needs, such as DL or OT?

Alualu was considered a reach at #10, he's a starting DL for the Jaguars. Graham (#13) cracked the starting lineup for the Iggles.

Pierre-Paul (#15) saw the field as a backup for the Giants, racked up 6 deflections and 5 sacks. We're so freakin' certain they couldn't help the team, overall, more than Spiller?

 

Davis, Iupati, Pouncey - POUNCEY - none of them could be solid starters for our OL?

 

I won't go further back in the draft b'cause last year was Nix 1st year. Point is, our "oh, BPA, no reaching!" seems to be another, later drafting team's solid choice at a position we need.

[Mr. WEO]

never mind that teams like the colts and pats have built their respective franchises by taking the highest graded player when its their turn.

 

besides what position on this team isnt a need ?? When we took spiller they knew ML was gonna be traded... and freddy is turning 30 soon.

They knew that on draft day?? Is that why they, much later let him go for a 4th instead of a 3rd?

 

Hey Bowery. Sure, I'll buy that. But let's look at...OK, Spiller.

Bills said "hey, we're taking the BPA, rather than reaching, to fill a need such as QB".

 

Fair enough, if we don't think Tebow, McCoy, or Clausen are really value at #9 pick. Nobody else liked them enough to go in the top half of the 1st.

 

Now what about other needs, such as DL or OT?

Alualu was considered a reach at #10, he's a starting DL for the Jaguars. Graham (#13) cracked the starting lineup for the Iggles.

Pierre-Paul (#15) saw the field as a backup for the Giants, racked up 6 deflections and 5 sacks. We're so freakin' certain they couldn't help the team, overall, more than Spiller?

 

Davis, Iupati, Pouncey - POUNCEY - none of them could be solid starters for our OL?

I won't go further back in the draft b'cause last year was Nix 1st year. Point is, our "oh, BPA, no reaching!" seems to be another, later drafting team's solid choice at a position we need.

 

Good points. Troup was a reach at 41. Another 2nd round project for the Bills. Despite all the needs, we drafted 1 starter last year (Moats). Nice.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

If you pick the best person for every position within that practice, won't you eventually have the best practice around? But if there's 53 open positions, and you only get 7-10 applicants per year, won't having the best practice around take some time?

 

Good points, Ghost of.

 

On the surface of it, sure - if you hire the best physician available for every position you need to fill, sure, eventually you'll have the best practice.

 

Is that what "BPA" gets you to do?

Or is it, every time there's an open position, you say "oh, the best physician available right now is a great urologist so we'll take him even though we badly need some good internists and we already have two good urologists". Pardon the analogy, but by doing that won't you essentially "piss away" your chance to eventually build an overall great practice?

 

Then that gets me to my other point. What is our player development really like? S&C? Trainers? Quality of coaches? If you hire doctors for a practice, don't give them access to adequate lab services or information management, and require them to see so many patients that they have no time for professional development, in 5 years you'll have a bunch of once-promising middle-aged physicians who are outdated in their field. Is Pouncey a starting center for the AFC champions while Wang barely saw the field because Pouncey is just that much better (even though he was too much of a "reach" at #9) or, in part, because Pouncey had better coaching and player development resources around him, and saw his peers working their a**es off preseason and during the week in a way the Bills just don't?

 

In other words, do our draft choices suck because our scouting totally bites, or are we also lacking in the underlying infrastructure that helps players go from "promising draft choice" to "great"?

[EastRochBillsfan]

If you pick the best person for every position within that practice, won't you eventually have the best practice around? But if there's 53 open positions, and you only get 7-10 applicants per year, won't having the best practice around take some time?

pure genious ghost. not being sarcastic.

 

I said it before and will say it again: Every single pick in every single round by every single team (and in every single sport) is a choice/battle between Best Player Available and Best Player Available at Position of Need, and how much the difference between the two will help the team in the drafter's eyes. Every time, and every team makes that exact same kind of choice.

 

Last year, for example, when it was the Bills choice in the first round, Nix and the powers that be had to decide between Spiller, who was by far their BPA, and their top rated player at NT, DE, LB (the more obvious positions of need going into the draft). Because Nix felt the team lacked playmakers, speed on offense, and their line was suspect (Nix said he felt great backs make lines look better), he decided that the BPA helped the team far more overall, especially for the future, so they picked Spiller even though RB was one of the last positions of need. It also meant on their board the top rated NT, DE and LB was rated far below Spiller.

 

In the second round, the same choice came up again (as it does every round, every team, every year). The Bills had a couple (unknown) BPA on their board at various random positions. But they decided that Terrel Troup, who may have been anywhere from #1-#10 or so on their BPA list, would help the team the most because we so desperately needed a run stuffing NT when changing to a 3-4. But it's the exact same predicament and choice as before.

 

In the third round, again, the same predicament came up, and they chose Carrington over other guys they probably hated rated higher as BPA because they knew we needed DEs when most of ours were being made into linebackers (Kelsay, Schobel, Maybin, etc).

 

But, if there was a player at, say, OT or WR or any other position when it was our turn to draft that was rated SO MUCH higher than Carrington overall, they likely would have taken that guy. But since the player (Carrington) was very likely rated just below other players at positions of less need, Carrington became the obvious choice for them, and they didn't need any more time to make that selection.

 

And again, every team looks at every pick the exact same way. It's just that certain teams have different philosophies on what makes its team better. Pittsburgh, for example, seems to value BPA a little more than BPA at position of need and will tend to draft players for its future as opposed to immediate future.

 

nice post kelly

 

never mind that teams like the colts and pats have built their respective franchises by taking the highest graded player when its their turn.

 

besides what position on this team isnt a need ?? When we took spiller they knew ML was gonna be traded... and freddy is turning 30 soon.

 

I agree. And I'm pretty sure the Bills knew that they might need/want to get rid of Lynch but obviously couldn't say that publicly. i liked/like the player, but as I like to say,he was one blunt away from a big suspension. So to all of you who keep saying, a year later mind you, that rb wasn't a need, I say hogwash.

 

They knew that on draft day?? Is that why they, much later let him go for a 4th instead of a 3rd?

 

 

 

Good points. Troup was a reach at 41. Another 2nd round project for the Bills. Despite all the needs, we drafted 1 starter last year (Moats). Nice.

 

Mr Weo, respectably speaking, give it a rest. It's not like this hasn't been debated 10 times already but i'm pretty sure the concensus on this board was that the thought was the seahawks 4th would be close to new orleans pic, plus we'd get a conditional 5th or 6th. At the time, 2 players sure looked better than one. So i just don't agree with you assessment that we got screwed in that deal. And them offering a 3rd is just rumor anyways.

 

Don't agree with what you said about troupe either. not a reach at all. I'm glad we didn't take fat man cody. When it's all said and done, I think there will be a lot of starters from this draft on this team. Spiller, Troupe, Carrington, Easley and Moats. Plus the undrafted guys, jones and nelson. Either way, I thought everyone knows you really don't know how good a draft is for a good 2-3 years? So we won't know who is right for another year or two. so sit tight.

[Mr. WEO]

pure genious ghost. not being sarcastic.

 

 

 

nice post kelly

 

 

 

I agree. And I'm pretty sure the Bills knew that they might need/want to get rid of Lynch but obviously couldn't say that publicly. i liked/like the player, but as I like to say,he was one blunt away from a big suspension. So to all of you who keep saying, a year later mind you, that rb wasn't a need, I say hogwash.

 

 

 

Mr Weo, respectably speaking, give it a rest. It's not like this hasn't been debated 10 times already but i'm pretty sure the concensus on this board was that the thought was the seahawks 4th would be close to new orleans pic, plus we'd get a conditional 5th or 6th. At the time, 2 players sure looked better than one. So i just don't agree with you assessment that we got screwed in that deal. And them offering a 3rd is just rumor anyways.

 

Don't agree with what you said about troupe either. not a reach at all. I'm glad we didn't take fat man cody. When it's all said and done, I think there will be a lot of starters from this draft on this team. Spiller, Troupe, Carrington, Easley and Moats. Plus the undrafted guys, jones and nelson. Either way, I thought everyone knows you really don't know how good a draft is for a good 2-3 years? So we won't know who is right for another year or two. so sit tight.

 

DOn't we say that every year? After every Bills draft? And what do we conclude after the requisite 2-3 years of wait-and-see?---that we need to "build through the draft".

 

Several of those guys may be starters some day, no doubt. But first day picks (ok, first 2 days in the new system) on a team with so many needs should be guys who can play now. A 2nd round NT who needs to bulk up and work with a trainer in order to be ready to play NT?

 

Look at NE's draft class from last year. Lot if starters and guys who saw a lot of action and made significant contributions--on a team with far fewer needs than ours.

 

Why is that?