White Linen Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 I believe there's going to be a strong free agent period. It will obviously be shortened and frantic, but it will be viable just the same.
Trader Posted April 10, 2011 Author Posted April 10, 2011 What made you answer his rudeness with a reasoned response/question? Why not someone who actually put some thought into their post? Good point Beerball I was just clarifying my question on the post which appeared to drift off the topic for a while. I was trying to bring back the thread back to my original question which reflects my thought that this is a very different year with the labor situaion.
Koufax Posted April 10, 2011 Posted April 10, 2011 NO NFL team makes their selection based on BPA no matter what BS they spew. For example, are you trying to tell me that if the highest rated player on a teams board at the time of their selection is a QB, that a team like New Orleans, Green Bay or San Diego(teams that are solid at the QB position) are going to take that QB in Round 1? I doubt it. QB is the exception to BPA because of the special quality of the position, and the fact that ideally you have one guy take all the snaps for many years. But see the Rodgers Kolb mentions already. This has been our main problem as we always try and "outsmart" the consenus of all other teams and scouts. I don't think at any point we try to outsmart anybody. I think we have failed to pick the best player often, but that is because of a mistaken big board, and not because of caring about other teams or scouts. You are right. I guess I should clarify my statement...teams that suck, that are drafting in the top half of the first round and have needs at multiple positions should not be subscribing to a BPA strategy. Without any personal attack intended, this is the dumbest post I have seen in a while. If a team is good and is one short term need away from being elite, maybe THEY could justify not taking BPA. But a team that is not putting its eggs in the 2011 basket and needs to inject as much talent as possible into any of the 53 roster slots, a team in the top half of the first round with multiple needs should ABSOLUTELY be drafting BPA pick after pick, year after year. Our "needs" change faster than we move from bad to good anyway. BPA doesnt mean that if you have a guy rated a 90 and one rated 89 you have to take the 90 even tho the 89 guy is a need. BPA means you dont draft a tackle who you have slotted as a 80 because you neeeeed him when you're drafting at #3 and can get a 90 rated player. Its a relatively simple concept please try to follow along. Bill Polian built the 90s Bills on BPA and built the Colts on BPA. The Pats have done the same as have all of the successful franchises. Im glad Nix is doing the same. +1. Exactly, BPA isn't an exact science, and you shouldn't really be confident that a 90 is better than an 89, but you should be confident that a 90 is better a 80, and if you pick an 80 over a 90, you either have terrible trust in your scouting/ranking ability, or you have such a dumb strategy that you are hurting your team each time you pick. BUT, and an important but, I think that the BPA rankings end up being nowhere close to what Kiper and others put grades on. A Kiper "95" CB is not as valuable to a football team as a "89" DE. Just like a 20 HR catcher is worth more than a 20 HR firstbaseman, I think that the rankings from 1-100 are not weighted correctly to the value of different positions, and so I am certainly not advocating taking Green or Peterson because I don't think either is going to be the BPA as it should be measured.
K Gun Special Posted April 10, 2011 Posted April 10, 2011 Good point Beerball I was just clarifying my question on the post which appeared to drift off the topic for a while. I was trying to bring back the thread back to my original question which reflects my thought that this is a very different year with the labor situaion. There will be a FA period. Both sides are aware of the weaknesses of their positions and understand a deal asap is in their best interests. This may alter draft plans slightly but i do not think teams will be drafting for need. Successful teams arent built by drafting for need. The Bills will not get better by drafting all D to address the run defense. Btw, part of that problem was the O couldnt stay on the field. at #3, the Bills will have a choice of very similarly rated football players, and it will likely fill a hole while being a BPA. some on this board, and not you specifically, have said just draft D no matter what. SO even if a starting TE or QB is available and rated higher than an available DE/OLB, we should take DE/OLB. I can see why this is alluring and makes some sense, but the Bills will not be a better football team in the long run.
Dragonborn10 Posted April 10, 2011 Posted April 10, 2011 The frightening problem for the Bills may be that AJ Green and Peterson will be the best players available when they pick. If they don't draft for need then it would be one of those. There should be many chances to move down and get a front 7 defender who also would be the best player available at 7-12.
K Gun Special Posted April 10, 2011 Posted April 10, 2011 The frightening problem for the Bills may be that AJ Green and Peterson will be the best players available when they pick. If they don't draft for need then it would be one of those. There should be many chances to move down and get a front 7 defender who also would be the best player available at 7-12. Thats entirely possible. BPA philosophy doesnt mean you have to. If Green is rated a 90 but a front 7 guy is close, you take the front 7. BPA means you dont take a front 7 guy when there are much better players available. I dont think we trade down though. they have an opportunity to get a special player at #3.
Green Lightning Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I think Thoner has it right with the tiered approach. Now let's hope the FO has the tiers correct.
Recommended Posts