You say you're all for BPA, but do you mean it?

[Shaw66]

9 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So trades are normally linked to value and need and trying to synchronize the two. 

 

When the Bills traded up last year to take Edmunds it was because they had a need at MLB and a guy fell to a spot where he likely was sticking out as BPA on their board. When that happens it is worth exploring if you can get up and take that player. 

That's a great example of how need might play into a day one decision.  Same thing with Allen last year.  

 

But when Beane says he takes the BPA he means that at the pick where he finds himself he takes the BPA without regard to need.  That's different from trading because he sees a guy who is the BPA who also fits the need. Beane just means he's taking the guy with higher rating, whatever the position the guy may play.  If he has a need he may move. 

[maryland-bills-fan]

I think that the "BPA" discussions are missing an important part of what is involved.   I think most people are fixated solely on the best player available who is immediate plug-and-play.  A guy who did a number of highlight film plays for a major college gets a lot of attention.   A superior athlete from a small school with more potential is less likely.  A guy who played out of position (pro position) is down rated.  I like to classify the players in the following two criteria:

 

Ceiling  (very high, high, medium, low) AND Floor (very high, high, medium, low)

 

In the first round you want high/high people. (duh)

 

In the middle rounds you have to make a choice. 

              Do you want a (medium/medium) guy who will probably be an adequate player or backup?  or

              do you want a (high /low) guy who might be a great player, but might also be a flame-out and not even stick in the league?

 

In the lower rounds, most of the time they are drafting guys with (upside/ medium-low) because that is all that is left.

 

It does make a difference in how you draft in the 2nd to 4th round- go after a superior athlete who might be better than expected   or    go with a safe, average type guy?  Last year the Bills spent draft picks to move up twice in the first round to take (high/high) guys, rather than go with one (high/high) guy and multiple shots at (medium/medium) guys.

 

 

 

Another aspect of drafting is that "BPA" does NOT seem to consider the value of the position or the frequency that humans exist with that position's skill set.  An example is OL center.  "Smarts" is more needed there than at OG, since the center inputs blocking assignments at the line of scrimmage.  How do you compare "smarts" versus blocking and pulling ability?   There are a lot of good running backs- how to compare the BPA RB and BPA TE?   There has to be some sort of "scaling factor" comparing the positions as well as a year-to-year factor based upon the strength of the college class at that position.

 

I guess I don't know what "BPA" really means, although many people are very sure that they absolutely know.

 

 

[SouthNYfan]

I heard this was in another thread, I'm not quite sure, maybe, but I don't really know.

[Toesy]

You seem to be missing the point that your "needs" are not necessarily available in the draft that year-some years nobody from a certain position makes it in the NFL so if you are going to draft for that need you lose.

[maryland-bills-fan]

2 minutes ago, Toesy said:

You seem to be missing the point that your "needs" are not necessarily available in the draft that year-some years nobody from a certain position makes it in the NFL so if you are going to draft for that need you lose.

     I agree.   I think that if it is a "need" you pay to get a FA to fill the hole and may not be happy.  If it is a "need", you don't want a poor performance at that position hurt the rest of the team, because other teams will exploit it.  A known veteran stops the bleeding, while most rookies (unless they are a sure generational talent) come with a risk-especially the first year.

    If you have raised children, you probably understand the difference between a "need" and a "want".  

[papazoid]

BPA is exactly what it says ….the Best Player Available

 

i'm assuming a team (G.M) has done it's homework and has a board all set.

 

when it comes to your turn to pick….you take the top guy remaining on your board.

 

if by chance , that guy doesn't also fill a "need"...….then you could trade up or down to maximize value.

[formerlyofCtown]

10 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

I think that the "BPA" discussions are missing an important part of what is involved.   I think most people are fixated solely on the best player available who is immediate plug-and-play.  A guy who did a number of highlight film plays for a major college gets a lot of attention.   A superior athlete from a small school with more potential is less likely.  A guy who played out of position (pro position) is down rated.  I like to classify the players in the following two criteria:

 

Ceiling  (very high, high, medium, low) AND Floor (very high, high, medium, low)

 

In the first round you want high/high people. (duh)

 

In the middle rounds you have to make a choice. 

              Do you want a (medium/medium) guy who will probably be an adequate player or backup?  or

              do you want a (high /low) guy who might be a great player, but might also be a flame-out and not even stick in the league?

 

In the lower rounds, most of the time they are drafting guys with (upside/ medium-low) because that is all that is left.

 

It does make a difference in how you draft in the 2nd to 4th round- go after a superior athlete who might be better than expected   or    go with a safe, average type guy?  Last year the Bills spent draft picks to move up twice in the first round to take (high/high) guys, rather than go with one (high/high) guy and multiple shots at (medium/medium) guys.

 

 

 

Another aspect of drafting is that "BPA" does NOT seem to consider the value of the position or the frequency that humans exist with that position's skill set.  An example is OL center.  "Smarts" is more needed there than at OG, since the center inputs blocking assignments at the line of scrimmage.  How do you compare "smarts" versus blocking and pulling ability?   There are a lot of good running backs- how to compare the BPA RB and BPA TE?   There has to be some sort of "scaling factor" comparing the positions as well as a year-to-year factor based upon the strength of the college class at that position.

 

I guess I don't know what "BPA" really means, although many people are very sure that they absolutely know.

 

 

You also have to consider your Roster.  People seem to forget that.  I here the argument what if BPA is a QB.  Even if he is the highest rated QB in the draft, is he rated higher than Allen.

1 minute ago, papazoid said:

BPA is exactly what it says ….the Best Player Available

 

i'm assuming a team (G.M) has done it's homework and has a board all set.

 

when it comes to your turn to pick….you take the top guy remaining on your board.

 

if by chance , that guy doesn't also fill a "need"...….then you could trade up or down to maximize value.

This is on the money.

[maryland-bills-fan]

8 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

I heard this was in another thread, I'm not quite sure, maybe, but I don't really know.

Maybe. I know that I have been realizing this concept over the past week or so and using a concept a bit. I'm just stating it here explicitly.  It's also possible somebody else wrote the same thing and I didn't see it, or I saw something like this and don't remember where the seed idea came from.  There isn't a lot of new stuff under the sun.

[maryland-bills-fan]

2 minutes ago, papazoid said:

BPA is exactly what it says ….the Best Player Available

 

i'm assuming a team (G.M) has done it's homework and has a board all set.

 

when it comes to your turn to pick….you take the top guy remaining on your board.

 

if by chance , that guy doesn't also fill a "need"...….then you could trade up or down to maximize value.

I think there is a difference between who will be the best player in your next season's opening game and who will be the best player the second half of the season and for the following years.   You are not including the expected improvement and development of the draftee in your thinking.   I think teams make choices in choosing between an instant starter who is max'ed out and a player who might start at a lower level and then far exceed the first type.

[Toesy]

If the Bills draft exceptionally well it will have nothing at all to do with team needs. You can see this by looking at the draft history-the whole game is to snag the few NFL level players in the draft (at any position). I like how Beane used FA to build up depth and competition-I don't remember the Bills doing that before this year.

[SouthNYfan]

8 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Maybe. I know that I have been realizing this concept over the past week or so and using a concept a bit. I'm just stating it here explicitly.  It's also possible somebody else wrote the same thing and I didn't see it, or I saw something like this and don't remember where the seed idea came from.  There isn't a lot of new stuff under the sun.

 

My point was not that you can't discuss this, it was that there is already a 9+ page active thread on BPA on the first page

[maryland-bills-fan]

Just now, SouthNYfan said:

 

My point was not that you can't discuss this, it was that there is already a 9+ page active thread on BPA on the first page

I read most of that and didn't see any discussion of this idea.  Maybe we could get along her at 2BD with only 3 or 4 threads, each 2,000 posts long?

 

[cage]

15 minutes ago, papazoid said:

BPA is exactly what it says ….the Best Player Available

 

i'm assuming a team (G.M) has done it's homework and has a board all set.

 

when it comes to your turn to pick….you take the top guy remaining on your board.

 

if by chance , that guy doesn't also fill a "need"...….then you could trade up or down to maximize value.

 

I'm not sure I agree that BPA is a always a single player, especially as the draft moves into the mid to later rounds.  It might a be a tight clustering of 2-5 players that are at the top of your remaining board.  From there they would pick the player from a needed position group.  For example, if in Round 4 the top three players in order was a QB, S and RB and they were within a very close range of grading (not sure exactly how the Bills grading system looks), then I'm sure we wouldn't be picking the QB, but probably opting for the RB

Edited April 8, 2019 by cage

[SouthNYfan]

3 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

I read most of that and didn't see any discussion of this idea.  Maybe we could get along her at 2BD with only 3 or 4 threads, each 2,000 posts long?

 

 

So why didn't you add that idea to the thread discussing BPA?

A new idea on the same topic probably doesn't warrant a thread.

[cage]

2 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

So why didn't you add that idea to the thread discussing BPA?

A new idea on the same topic probably doesn't warrant a thread.

 

That's possible, but really once a thread is past 8 pages its impossible to keep up with it.  The topic often digresses and introducing a new thought will just get lost in the volume.  New threads have no cost and for me its just easier to keep track of

Edited April 8, 2019 by cage

[Shaw66]

I think people are making this too hard.  From what I understand from what Beane (and others) have said, teams like the Bills evaluate every player in the draft and give him a number.  That number is a rating of how good the team thinks the player will be.  The guy who ends up with the highest number is the best player.  

 

What exactly does that mean?  Well, obviously, position has to have something to do with it.   The best punter in the history of the world could be available, but I don't think he gets the highest rating in the draft, because the difference, in terms of wins and losses, between having the best punter in the world and having any old punter just isn't that great. In fact, I think the difference in wins and losses probably is the way numbers are assigned.  Which has the most impact on winning games?  That's why QBs are higher on boards than kickers.   

 

It's not which player will have the most impact on wins FOR OUR TEAM.   It's just which player helps his team win.   

 

Another way to look at it is probability of making the Hall of Fame.  Hall of Famers are drafted disproportionately at the top of the draft.  Why?  Because they are the guys who, over the course of their careers, have the most impact on the outcome of games, so they get drafted first.  

 

So every guy has a number, the team lists the players in order of their number, and in the early rounds a BPA team like the Bills takes the guy with highest number left on their board.  The only exception is if there's an absolute certainty that the guy isn't going to play - like if the Bills' BPA is a QB, you pass on the BPA.  Ideally you trade out, but if you can't find a trade partner, you take the second guy.   You DON'T do that if it's a DT and you're strong at DT, because the guy is still your BPA, you platoon your DTs, and in a year or two one or more of your other DTs will be gone.  So strength at a position generally ISN'T view as a problem by someone like Beane.   If he's in the first round and if he already has a GREAT #1 wideout, and if the BPA is a wideout, he takes him.   Why?  Because the wideout is the BPA, he's going to strength the team (who wouldn't want two true #1s starting for them?), and it won't be a contract problem until the next contract comes up for one or the other.  

 

Difference between wins and losses also makes it easy to see why in the later rounds need becomes a bigger factor.  In the fourth round, let's say, there aren't any obvious difference makers left.   If a guy is perceived as a difference maker, someone will have taken him before the fourth.   So the guys left all have similar or identical scores (based on size, athleticism, brains, etc.), because none of them is likely to impact wins and losses any more or less than the other guys with similar scores.   So at the point, based on the scores, there isn't one BPA - there maybe 10 or 20, all tied with the same score.   Since they all are likely to have the same impact, you're free to take the player who has the BPA score AND who plays a position where you'd like to get more help.  

[SouthNYfan]

34 minutes ago, cage said:

 

That's possible, but really once a thread is past 8 pages its impossible to keep up with it.  The topic often digresses and introducing a new thought will just get lost in the volume.  New threads have no cost and for me its just easier to keep track of

 

Well he said he read all of it.

So he's caught up fine.

Just LAMP'ing it up

[colin]

our front office is all about ceiling.  they clearly go for that over all other traits. 

[mjt328]

People seem to have a really hard time understanding the BPA idea.  It's really not that tough.

 

Just because a GM is drafting BPA, does NOT mean he isn't taking position into consideration at all. 

 

Fans seem to have this idea that Brandon Beane and his scouts are sitting around, ranking every college prospect from #1 to #500, and then drafting whoever is the top guy on the list.  It doesn't quite work like that.  In reality, most teams are only going to have those numbered breakdowns by position.  After that, everything will be separated by tiers.  You have the guys you think are elite/future Pro-Bowlers.  You have the guys who are solid starters.  You have the guys who are depth/backups.  Etc. Etc. 

 

So (theoretically) for example, you may have DTs ranked #1-25.  But then you have Quinnen Williams all by himself in Tier 1.  Ed Oliver and Christian Wilkins in Tier 2.  Jeffery Simmons, Jerry Tillery and Dexter Lawrence in Tier 3.  You then have the OTs ranked #1-25.  Nobody is in Tier 1 this year.  Tier 2 has Jawaan Taylor and Jonah Williams.  Tier 3 as Andre Dillard and Cody Ford.  Finally, you have the CBs ranked #1-25.  But you don't have anyone in Tiers 1-2, because it's a really weak class.  You start ranking them in Tier 3 with Byron Murphy and Greedy Williams.  And so on.

 

-  When the pick comes up, you don't want to have a massive need at CB.  Because sitting at #9, it would be a bad idea to reach for an inferior player just to fill need.

 

-  At the same time, if Quinnen Williams is the only Tier 1 guy available, then you take him... even if you feel OT is a bigger need.

 

-  If everyone available is in Tier 2, then you just go by your rankings off the biggest positional need.  And it's still BPA.

 

[cage]

17 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Well he said he read all of it.

So he's caught up fine.

Just LAMP'ing it up

 

You're right,... I'm just speaking for myself.   The SabresSpace forum goes in the opposite direction where they rigorously seems to stick to not having repeat threads and some of these run well into the double-digits in pages.  I just don't have enough time to keep up with that, so I like the multiple threads even if its variations in thought on a larger umbrella issue.  Though we've certainly had multiple BPA and who's your #1 pick threads.... how many days until the draft??

Edited April 8, 2019 by cage