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

[maryland-bills-fan]

58 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.

Could you please specify how many threads are allowed here?   5 to 10 should do it.

 

[ColoradoBills]

1 hour 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.

 

Once you are out of the 1st round there is a large chance that there will be more than 1 player ranked with an assigned number.

That is one argument that has been proven to be true with articles from people who do this for a living.

The other argument is just logical.  NO GM will draft 4 CBs in a row at the top of the draft just because that's the way his board fell.

It just won't happen.

[SouthNYfan]

11 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Could you please specify how many threads are allowed here?   5 to 10 should do it.

 

 

I didn't say people shouldn't start new threads.

I said repeat threads on the exact same topic clutter up the forum.

[maryland-bills-fan]

28 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

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.  

I really don't completely agree for the following reasons.   First of all, I don't think that anybody totally describes a player by a single score and sticks to it absolutely.  Is one guy a 86.43 and another guy an 86.75?  If it were that easy, than all teams would have essentially the same chart and there would be no surprises.  With all the unknowns about a player and where and how he played, there are probably explicit or implicit ranges for each player.  Risk assessments always give fuzzier results.

 

There must also be several other measures- I've suggested a (ceiling/floor) rating which contains a strong sense of development potential in it. Look at our last year 1st round picks and see what the average rating of those players was.  Allen was anywhere from a top 3 pick to a 3rd round pick.    "Need" is also there.  If you had a top 20 pick in 2 successive years- would you take an offensive center two years in a row?  I don't think so. If you are drafting so high that you can get a sure-fire #1 WR two years in a row, might some other "position of need" (OT) be more important to be able to utilize the first #1 WR you drafted?

[ColoradoBills]

4 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

I really don't completely agree for the following reasons.   First of all, I don't think that anybody totally describes a player by a single score and sticks to it absolutely.  Is one guy a 86.43 and another guy an 86.75?  If it were that easy, than all teams would have essentially the same chart and there would be no surprises.  With all the unknowns about a player and where and how he played, there are probably explicit or implicit ranges for each player.  Risk assessments always give fuzzier results.

 

There must also be several other measures- I've suggested a (ceiling/floor) rating which contains a strong sense of development potential in it. Look at our last year 1st round picks and see what the average rating of those players was.  Allen was anywhere from a top 3 pick to a 3rd round pick.    "Need" is also there.  If you had a top 20 pick in 2 successive years- would you take an offensive center two years in a row?  I don't think so. If you are drafting so high that you can get a sure-fire #1 WR two years in a row, might some other "position of need" (OT) be more important to be able to utilize the first #1 WR you drafted?

 

One point I like to make.  It seems from articles (and many draft sites) that the "scale" used by many teams is much more compressed.

8.0 means a HOF player while a 5.0 probably wont make the team.

There are only a small percentage of players with a 7.0 or greater assignment in any year.

Taking the decimal place out to 2 digits is itself a problem.  What criteria can scouts and GMs use to

separate 5-6 guys all with a 6.0 score?

 

Even differentiating between a 6.0 and 6.1 is problematic.  That is why (it seems from those who do this) that the numbers

are assigned to "Round Talent".  Top of the 3rd round talent vs. Bottom of the 3rd round talent.

Thus the "tier" term.

 

I believe that this is true because it just makes the most sense to me.

[Augie]

43 minutes ago, colin said:

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

 

Ceiling is a big thing, but don’t forget character. That’s a real thing too. 

[eball]

Are you really saying that in the first round teams should select drug addicts?  That's sounds crazy to me!

[maryland-bills-fan]

17 hours ago, OCinBuffalo said:

The linked articles tell us that teams don't ever use unqualified BPA. Nope. They may start with best player, and put players into pools, but then, they qualify and prioritize within each pool based on need. 

 

This doesn't mean that they forget about best player. They still group people by that to start...which is why, given the OP's scenario, the Bills would take the CB or a S if he's in the highest remaining best player pool, than the O lineman whose in a lower pool, but fills a need better.

 

I think a "reach" happens when a team starts to get nervous about need...especially after a run at a certain position happens, and they think there's going to be another run at a different position, that will conclude before they have a chance to make their next pick. So, to get ahead of that run, they reach now.

Yes, I think "runs" on players do happen, especially in the lower rounds.  Look at the 2018 draft to the 5th round. 174 players taken.  20 (11%) of them were taken with the same position drafted in two successive picks. (A lot more if you go within 3 picks).  The statistics would show that is not a random event (~ 10 positions listed).  I think it shows people are "drafting for need" in the sense that they have similar grades for people at many positions AND also need somebody at "X".   The guy drafted just before them was an "X" and the next "X" has a good grade BUT the next highest guy at "X" is a real step down.  Pull the trigger on your needs.     

 

2018 DT 12 & 15      center 20 & 21    CB 55 & 56,    WR  60 & 61   DE 66 & 67   WR 132 & 133    DT 139 & 140    CB 151 & 152  TE  156 & 157     PUNTER 156 & 157  (!!!)  
"

Edited April 8, 2019 by maryland-bills-fan

[maryland-bills-fan]

8 minutes ago, eball said:

Are you really saying that in the first round teams should select drug addicts?  That's sounds crazy to me!

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-01-11-sp-260-story.html

 

[SouthNYfan]

12 minutes ago, eball said:

Are you really saying that in the first round teams should select drug addicts?  That's sounds crazy to me!

 

Only if their drug of choice is Jesus.

[papazoid]

there are no ties.....your board is ranked 1-300 period.....make a decision.

 

after that, if you decide not to follow your own board.....and there are a host of good reasons not to.

 

then stop say you are drafting BPA

[Formerly Allan in MD]

Who is the BPA?  Is it the guy this expert says it is, or the one another expert says it is, or the favorite of this other expert,.....?  If it's the one your GM feels it is but you're loaded at that position, do you simply punt?  It's not as simple as "BPA."

[Toesy]

All the team boards are different-that is why the draft is unpredictable-obviously the BPA is the guy the Bills team says it is.

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

I really don't completely agree for the following reasons.   First of all, I don't think that anybody totally describes a player by a single score and sticks to it absolutely.  Is one guy a 86.43 and another guy an 86.75?  If it were that easy, than all teams would have essentially the same chart and there would be no surprises.  With all the unknowns about a player and where and how he played, there are probably explicit or implicit ranges for each player.  Risk assessments always give fuzzier results.

 

There must also be several other measures- I've suggested a (ceiling/floor) rating which contains a strong sense of development potential in it. Look at our last year 1st round picks and see what the average rating of those players was.  Allen was anywhere from a top 3 pick to a 3rd round pick.    "Need" is also there.  If you had a top 20 pick in 2 successive years- would you take an offensive center two years in a row?  I don't think so. If you are drafting so high that you can get a sure-fire #1 WR two years in a row, might some other "position of need" (OT) be more important to be able to utilize the first #1 WR you drafted?

Beane's description of the process, and others that I've heard, are that they do what I said.   It's something like an 8 point scale, with 8.0 being a certain Hall of Fame player.   Every play gets a number, not a range.   They force themselves to make a decision that this guy is a 7.4 and not a 7.3,   I don't know how they make those judgments, exactly, but I'm sure some of it is physical attributes and some of it is character attributes.   But, at least as I've heard Beane describe, none of it is need based.   It is simply a number that is the best score the scouts and others can put on each guy.   

 

Then at the draft, if it's their pick in the first round, they take the guy with the 7.4 over any guy who has a 7.3.   Beane says they follow their board absolutely.   They DON'T say, "well, this 7.3 guy is a receiver, and we really could use help at receiver, so we will take him over the 7.4 guy."  Beane says they are very strict about their discipline.   

 

On something like an 8-point scale, after the first 100 guys, all you have left on the board is a lot of, say, 5.3s and below.   You might have 10 5.3s on top of your board when it's your pick in the fourth round.   THEN need becomes a factor, according to Beane, but not before.  

 

I'm not saying that's the best way to do it, and I get the sense that other GMs have a different approach.   But what I just said is what Beane has said about how he does it.  

[HappyDays]

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't know how they make those judgments, exactly, but I'm sure some of it is physical attributes and some of it is character attributes.   But, at least as I've heard Beane describe, none of it is need based

 

It has to be at least somewhat based in need. We wouldn't draft a 3-4 OLB even if talent wise they were the BPA. But honestly most teams could consider 90% of their position groups as needs. The only positions I'd be shocked to see us take in round 1 are safety, CB, or QB. I could even see us taking a safety or CB in round 2 for depth and long term replacement purposes. We could use upgrades everywhere else on the team and most teams are in the same boat. Outside of your franchise players most positions need an upgrade, if not this year then next year.

[GoBills808]

I think they have a concurrent needs hierarchy that factors in. Like, if you have DE at the top of your team’s needs, get the best DE available provided his score plus the need for a DE outweighs the value of the other needs+the players available at those positions.

[maryland-bills-fan]

14 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Beane's description of the process, and others that I've heard, are that they do what I said.   It's something like an 8 point scale, with 8.0 being a certain Hall of Fame player.   Every play gets a number, not a range.   They force themselves to make a decision that this guy is a 7.4 and not a 7.3,   I don't know how they make those judgments, exactly, but I'm sure some of it is physical attributes and some of it is character attributes.   But, at least as I've heard Beane describe, none of it is need based.   It is simply a number that is the best score the scouts and others can put on each guy.   

 

Then at the draft, if it's their pick in the first round, they take the guy with the 7.4 over any guy who has a 7.3.   Beane says they follow their board absolutely.   They DON'T say, "well, this 7.3 guy is a receiver, and we really could use help at receiver, so we will take him over the 7.4 guy."  Beane says they are very strict about their discipline.   

 

On something like an 8-point scale, after the first 100 guys, all you have left on the board is a lot of, say, 5.3s and below.   You might have 10 5.3s on top of your board when it's your pick in the fourth round.   THEN need becomes a factor, according to Beane, but not before.  

 

I'm not saying that's the best way to do it, and I get the sense that other GMs have a different approach.   But what I just said is what Beane has said about how he does it.  

WOW.  I hear what you are saying.  I just have trouble believing that they ignore the {ceiling versus floor} issue.

[WhoTom]

On 4/7/2019 at 11:27 AM, Logic said:

Many people say "it's a mixture of both. You take the best player available at a position of need". And maybe that's the way to go. But that's not what pure "best player available" actually means.

 

How about if we call it "BPA*"? ?

 

 

[Shaw66]

10 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

WOW.  I hear what you are saying.  I just have trouble believing that they ignore the {ceiling versus floor} issue.

I think they force themselves to make their best guess as to how good a player he will turn out to be.  That best guess obviously includes his ceiling.  But they force themselves to pick a number and then they trust that number. 

 

So, for example, if 8 is perfect, Allen's ceiling was an 8, because he had all the tools to be perfect.  But his score wasn't 8, because they have to calculate the probability that he would actually achieve that level.  So his score may have been 7.6.  

 

That's how I understand what Beane has said. 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

One point I like to make.  It seems from articles (and many draft sites) that the "scale" used by many teams is much more compressed.

8.0 means a HOF player while a 5.0 probably wont make the team.

There are only a small percentage of players with a 7.0 or greater assignment in any year.

Taking the decimal place out to 2 digits is itself a problem.  What criteria can scouts and GMs use to

separate 5-6 guys all with a 6.0 score?

 

Even differentiating between a 6.0 and 6.1 is problematic.  That is why (it seems from those who do this) that the numbers

are assigned to "Round Talent".  Top of the 3rd round talent vs. Bottom of the 3rd round talent.

Thus the "tier" term.

 

I believe that this is true because it just makes the most sense to me.

 

That is how I do it. Not saying I am right and I am sure teams are much more sophisticated in their grading than me.... but that is my grading scheme.