Is BPA or need more important in rd 2?

[Chris in Syracuse]

I was thinking about this. We need OT, LB, and WR most but depth everywhere else. If you are Buddy do you take the BPA or reach for need in round 2.

I think we should stick with BPA in this round. I would not move up and give up picks. I say stay at 41 and take BPA. Starting round 3 I think need wins out.

[SWVABillsFan]

How about BPA at position of need. If Jonathan Martin is available he is MY pick. WR and LB are a need; but look at how many are on the roster already as opposed to tackles. Tackle has to be the most importany position of need. After round 2 tackles fall off big, wr's don't.

[dogma+]

BPA is ALWAYS more important.

 

Need is not a good talent evaluator.

[Tcali]

If a D lineman is there who is waay better than all the other players...Id say grab him---cant have enough D linemen(Giants)

[San-O]

I would agree and get BAP at any of the mentioned positions, however, WR is generally not a position you are going to

get a lot of production out of the first couple years, in general. IMO.

 

The Bills do need O-line/tackle help, like now, and everyone knows it.

 

Grab the BAP, leaning towards tackle?

 

 

If a D lineman is there who is waay better than all the other players...Id say grab him---cant have enough D linemen(Giants)

 

 

+ 1

 

LDE would be awesome. Get Kelsay off the field.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

If a D lineman is there who is waay better than all the other players...Id say grab him---cant have enough D linemen(Giants)

 

Really? 10? 15?

I think you can, especially when you don't have a good LT or any WR's that can make a play. The Giants have those too.

[3putt]

What good is a WR if the QB can't throw accurately over 20 yds? So you have a 6'4 target 10 yards off the line of scrimmage, might as well draft a TE.

[Maddog69]

BPA is a made up cliche.

The teams will grade players.

Then when it is their turn, they look at their positinoal needs. They look at the available players and they try to determine which positions have depth and which do not. If they decide they they need a WR and an OT and they have two prospects rated closely, they look at which position they feel will be harder to address in later rounds and that is what they take.

 

It is pretty easy to understand.

 

If you were strictly going BPA, they could potentially be forced to select 10 linebackers because that is the player that was BPA in each round.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Maddog69

[dogma+]

BPA is a made up cliche.

The teams will grade players.

Then when it is their turn, they look at their positinoal needs. They look at the available players and they try to determine which positions have depth and which do not. If they decide they they need a WR and an OT and they have two prospects rated closely, they look at which position they feel will be harder to address in later rounds and that is what they take.

 

It is pretty easy to understand.

 

If you were strictly going BPA, they could potentially be forced to select 10 linebackers because that is the player that was BPA in each round.

 

This post is 100% wrong.

 

The Packers are a very well known BPA at ALL COSTS team. Regardless of need, they will take BPA. For example, in 2005, they had Brett Favre as their entrenched starter. When it was their turn to pick, Rodgers was the best player available. After confirming that there were no trade offers, they took Rodgers. When asked years later, they said they had no plans of going after Rodgers when they went into the draft. It took them by surprise. He was simply the best player available.

[Maddog69]

This post is 100% wrong.

 

The Packers are a very well known BPA at ALL COSTS team. Regardless of need, they will take BPA. For example, in 2005, they had Brett Favre as their entrenched starter. When it was their turn to pick, Rodgers was the best player available. After confirming that there were no trade offers, they took Rodgers. When asked years later, they said they had no plans of going after Rodgers when they went into the draft. It took them by surprise. He was simply the best player available.

they had Favre who was a aging, highly paid QB with injury problems, pain killer addiction and who apparently enjoyed texting pictures of his junk to people. They were in a position where there roster was pretty stacked and they could afford to draft a highly rated QB prospect and let him sit behind Favre until such point he was ready to play and they could move Favre, This was not strictly a case or BPA.

 

The closest case you could make would be Detroit who selected 3 straight WRs with their top picks in 3 consiecutive drafts. Look how that worked out for them.

 

 

And if BPA is a hard and fast rule, why do teams trade up and down the draft. Why would St Louis not just stay at #2 and take RGIII ?

Edited April 27, 2012 by Maddog69

[loserlovers]

What good is a WR if the QB can't throw accurately over 20 yds? So you have a 6'4 target 10 yards off the line of scrimmage, might as well draft a TE.

dumb, are you refering to trent edwards? who never attempted to throw over 20 yards, i think the 20 or so long tds by fitz in his time here have proven he somewhat decent at long balls.

[dogma+]

they had Favre who was a aging, highly paid QB with injury problems, pain killer addiction and who apparently enjoyed texting pictures of his junk to people.

 

No they didn't. This was 2005. Brett Favre had just thrown for over 4,000 yards and 30 TD's in one of his best seasons EVER. He didn't send a picture of his "junk" to people for 5 more years.

 

They were in a position where there roster was pretty stacked and they could afford to draft a highly rated QB prospect and let him sit behind Favre until such point he was ready to play and they could move Favre

 

No they weren't. This was 2005. The Packers were NOT stacked; they were 4-12 and obviously didn't make the playoffs.

 

This was not strictly a case or BPA.

 

Actually, it was. The Packers wanted Demarcus Ware, but he was taken. They never considered a QB before the draft.

 

"The best decision-makers, in my view, "trust the board." Players have been poked, prodded, analyzed and discussed for seven months. It's time to let the board do the work. The biggest downfall of decision-makers is becoming impulsive and emotional, straying from the board. Nothing deflates the morale of scouting staffs faster.In 2005, all of the defensive players we targeted -- including DeMarcus Ware and Marcus Spears, both picked by Dallas -- were off the board, leaving us staring at Aaron Rodgers, the only player left with a first-round grade. Although we had the most durable quarterback in football, Brett Favre, we decided to "trust the board." I called Rodgers' agent, Mike Sullivan. I've been an agent, and I felt for Mike. They sat in that green room for six hours watching all the other players be selected, left alone as the catering staff cleared tables around them. I had to keep them on hold another excruciating 10 minutes to see whether the phone rang with a trade offer for the pick (it didn't). I think about how things would be different had Ware or Spears been available or if we had received an offer for that pick." - Andrew Brandt, Vice President of the Packers.

 

They picked Rodgers solely on BPA.

 

And if BPA is a hard and fast rule, why do teams trade up and down the draft. Why would St Louis not just stay at #2 and take RGIII ?

 

Because they know the player they want wont be available when it's their turn to pick, because he would be the best player available before their turn. Trading up and down have nothing to do with the BPA philosophy.

 

You are 100% wrong.

Edited April 27, 2012 by dogma+

[Malazan]

It is always BPA

[Maddog69]

No they didn't. This was 2005. Brett Favre had just thrown for over 4,000 yards and 30 TD's in one of his best seasons EVER. He didn't send a picture of his "junk" to people for 5 more years.

 

 

 

No they weren't. This was 2005. The Packers were NOT stacked; they were 4-12 and obviously didn't make the playoffs.

 

 

 

Actually, it was. The Packers wanted Demarcus Ware, but he was taken. They never considered a QB before the draft.

 

"The best decision-makers, in my view, "trust the board." Players have been poked, prodded, analyzed and discussed for seven months. It's time to let the board do the work. The biggest downfall of decision-makers is becoming impulsive and emotional, straying from the board. Nothing deflates the morale of scouting staffs faster.In 2005, all of the defensive players we targeted -- including DeMarcus Ware and Marcus Spears, both picked by Dallas -- were off the board, leaving us staring at Aaron Rodgers, the only player left with a first-round grade. Although we had the most durable quarterback in football, Brett Favre, we decided to "trust the board." I called Rodgers' agent, Mike Sullivan. I've been an agent, and I felt for Mike. They sat in that green room for six hours watching all the other players be selected, left alone as the catering staff cleared tables around them. I had to keep them on hold another excruciating 10 minutes to see whether the phone rang with a trade offer for the pick (it didn't). I think about how things would be different had Ware or Spears been available or if we had received an offer for that pick." - Andrew Brandt, Vice President of the Packers.

 

They picked Rodgers solely on BPA.

 

 

 

Because they know the player they want wont be available when it's their turn to pick, because he would be the best player available before their turn. Trading up and down have nothing to do with the BPA philosophy.

 

You are 100% wrong.

thanks for your opinions. I repsectfully disagree. There is not a team in the league that always drafts strictly BPA. There are many more factors involved. Including the fact that calculating who the BPA is for that team might take into account their needs. So in a sense, they can draft for need and BPA and need at the same time. I get what you are saying about Favre and I agree with you to a point. I just think that Rodgers might just have been one of those "too good to pass up" draft picks. There are times when a guy drops to a team that was never expected to be there and you just have to draft him. That does not mean that the team will only draft BPA each and every time. Now that I think about it, this is really a silly argument we are having. There are many factors involved in what player a team drafts. For instance, if you go strictly by BPA, why do teams pass on a player who does not fit their scheme or has injury concerns or character issues? Let me put it to rest. You are right, teams always select what they consider BPA. But BPA is not simply ranking the players from 1-254 and selecting them as they fall. Team needs and depth charts are a factor. Character issues and injury issues are a factor. Depth at a given position is a factor (meaning that players at a position with less depth might get higher rankings). Needs of other team around you in each round are a consideration. Trade offers from other teams are a consideration. So, yeah, you are right. BPA all the way.

[SWVABillsFan]

It is always BPA

BULL. If you draft a top 5 QB one year, like Cam Newton(who has a great season), and that season you suck and draft top 5 again and another top 5 QB is there, do you take him? No, BPA of need is key.

[Matt in KC]

I think the later you go in the draft the more the picks are based on need. By late in the draft you should know where you still have a chance to upgrade. Yes, it still depends the talent available, but not as much as at the start of the draft.

 

Would you rather draft a 7th round player with a 10% chance of performing at the level of an active game day back up in a position where you still need another backup; or would you rather draft a player with a 13% chance of performing at the level of an active game day back up who only has a 1% chance of being better than the current starters and backups already on the roster?

 

Of course by the 7th round I think GMs are thinking of the practice squad, next year etc, but the above is the basic dymanic of the question.

[K-9]

I think the later you go in the draft the more the picks are based on need. By late in the draft you should know where you still have a chance to upgrade. Yes, it still depends the talent available, but not as much as at the start of the draft.

 

Would you rather draft a 7th round player with a 10% chance of performing at the level of an active game day back up in a position where you still need another backup; or would you rather draft a player with a 13% chance of performing at the level of an active game day back up who only has a 1% chance of being better than the current starters and backups already on the roster?

 

Of course by the 7th round I think GMs are thinking of the practice squad, next year etc, but the above is the basic dymanic of the question.

 

That's it exactly.

 

BPA is usually the rule of thumb in the first round, especially early on. It's just a fact that the highest rated players are going to be found there. It's also why teams coined the phrase "reach for need." Because it means exactly that; a better player was bypassed for a lower rated player that fit a position of perceived higher need. It's usually a safer pick to just take the better football player because, at the worst, you will upgrade your team that way. "Reach" in the draft room is not used the way the draftniks like to use it. Just because a lower rated player on Kiper's board got drafted before a higher one he will use the term 'reach' but it has little basis in fact in how it relates to the scouting grades assigned each player and the various draft boards constructed around the league.

 

Needs have traditionally been addressed after the first round. The player grades are usually much tighter so there is less variance in talent level anyway. But it's worth noting that since the advent of FAgency, teams have been able to address specific needs before the draft which has allowed those teams to select BPA even after the first round.

 

When BPA meets need, everybody is happy.

 

Like I always say, playmaker is ALWAYS a position of need. That's why teams don't pass up playmakers at any position if they can help it. Adding good players always helps a team.

 

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited April 27, 2012 by K-9

[KD in CA]

BPA is a made up cliche.

The teams will grade players.

Then when it is their turn, they look at their positional needs. They look at the available players and they try to determine which positions have depth and which do not. If they decide they they need a WR and an OT and they have two prospects rated closely, they look at which position they feel will be harder to address in later rounds and that is what they take.

 

It is pretty easy to understand.

 

If you were strictly going BPA, they could potentially be forced to select 10 linebackers because that is the player that was BPA in each round.

 

Yup.

 

People who talk about "BPA" apparently fail to understand that the 'best' player for the Bills might not be the 'best' player for another team, and vice versa. And since evaluating players is a highly subjective process to begin with, to think that teams should refuse to take position needs and scarcity into account when making that evaluation is ludicrous.

 

But I guess it gives fans a simple label to wave around when they want to complain about picks or players.

[dogma+]

Yup.

 

People who talk about "BPA" apparently fail to understand that the 'best' player for the Bills might not be the 'best' player for another team, and vice versa. And since evaluating players is a highly subjective process to begin with, to think that teams should refuse to take position needs and scarcity into account when making that evaluation is ludicrous.

 

But I guess it gives fans a simple label to wave around when they want to complain about picks or players.

 

NFL teams use the phrase Best Player Available. Not just fans.

[Tcali]

Really? 10? 15?

I think you can, especially when you don't have a good LT or any WR's that can make a play. The Giants have those too.

details details