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

[Shaw66]

26 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

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.

You make a good point.  I'd guess that they evaluate players based in the positions the Bills actually have.   So they evaluate the guy as a 4-3 linebacker.  

 

As for the rest of your points, I think that's exactly right.  Except for QB, the BPA is almost certainly going to help you this season or next.  Even safety or corner.  If Troy Polamalu is there at 9, you take him.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Shaw66

[GunnerBill]

35 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

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.  

 

Exactly right. In the first round guys tend be spread. By round 4 I might have 10 guys with the same grade. Because there are fewer of the top players than the role players. 

Just now, Shaw66 said:

You make a good point.  I'd guess that they evaluate players based in the positions the Bills actually have.   So they evaluate the guy as a 4-3 linebacker.  

 

As for the rest of your points, I think that's exactly right.  Except for QB, the BPA is almost certainly going to help you this season or next.  

 

Correct. You evaluate him as a GM for your scheme. If you are a 4-3 team and the guy has played 3-4 OLB in college you evaluate him as an off the ball linebacker in a 4-3 or as a DE in a 4-3. He might score worse in both than as a 3-4 OLB as a result he is lower on your board than on others and is probably picked higher then you would be willing to take him. 

[GoBills808]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Exactly right. In the first round guys tend be spread. By round 4 I might have 10 guys with the same grade. Because there are fewer of the top players than the role players. 

 

Correct. You evaluate him as a GM for your scheme. If you are a 4-3 team and the guy has played 3-4 OLB in college you evaluate him as an off the ball linebacker in a 4-3 or as a DE in a 4-3. He might score worse in both than as a 3-4 OLB as a result he is lower on your board than on others and is probably picked higher then you would be willing to take him. 

 

This is true and ps I feel bad about giving you a hard time yesterday in the thread??I ran out of drugs and I’m sorry

[BringBackFlutie]

On 4/7/2019 at 12:21 PM, Logic said:

But BPA and what you're describing are two different things, to an extent.

I'm asking for those pure defenders of BPA, those people who will tell you "what is not a need today may become a need tomorrow". The dyed-in-the-wool, "BPA is the way!" people.

So the corner, in this scenario, is ranked higher on the Bills board than the remaining WRs, TE, and O-linemen I mentioned. Should they take a player they feel is inferior because he is more of a need? Or should they take the player that is, clear and away, the highest rated player still remaining on the board? In this case, a cornerback. What should they do? And if they opt for the cornerback, how do you feel about it?

It's probably muddier than this.  I think need and position comes into play on their board, but I also think it's overall value, and situation.  I mean, the Bills might value OTs higher than other positions on their board, because of need, but the CB might be a generational talent, and is still going to be higher on their board, overall.  Like, a 60 OT may become a 64, because of need, but the CB might be a 90.  I think in the case the CB falls to them, they try to trade and get more picks, but if they can't, they take the CB.

Edited April 8, 2019 by BringBackFlutie

[GunnerBill]

12 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

This is true and ps I feel bad about giving you a hard time yesterday in the thread??I ran out of drugs and I’m sorry

 

No worries. We disagreed. It remained civil. I don't mind a disagreement or two. 

[Bring it]

Unless there is a gamebreaking difference maker available at 9 then take a player that makes a significant upgrade to a position. Even when a team has needs at other positions.! So yeah BPA does apply but if a real game breaker is there then take him.

[dollars 2 donuts]

I think the truth of this cliche is "Best Player Available we like".

[Shaw66]

Here's a couple of other things to think about in a pure BPA system.

 

Suppose you have the best defensive lineman in the league.  That means, almost as a certainty, that defensive line is NOT your area of greatest need, because almost any three NFL defensive linemen and the best in the league will make up a decent front four.  Now suppose it's your pick and the BPA on your board is a defensive lineman.  What do you do?   Pure BPA, you take the defensive lineman.  

 

Which is exactly what the Houston Texans did with JJ Watt in their lineup and Jadavian Clowney on their board.   Take the BPA.   Now, in hindsight, it hasn't been a spectacular success story, but that isn't because of the theory.  Clowney was injured and may not be quite as good as people thought.  

 

Another way to look at is this.   You've got all these guys with scores, from 8.0 down to 0.1.   At any given point in time, the sum of all the scores of all the guys you have on your team is a measure of how much talent you have.   If you take a guy in an area of need with a 7.2 instead of the PBA with a 7.4, you are limiting the total value of all the talent on your team.   BPA is a system designed to maximize the talent on the team.

 

When you take the guy with a 7.2 and leave a 7.4 on the board, you never get an opportunity to recover that differential.   You certainly don't in the next round, when all that's left are 6.5s or whatever.  That 7.4 is an opportunity you lose forever.   Now, yes, you may get lucky and get a Kyle Williams in later rounds, but every team has those stories.   You can't count on those picks to cover the opportunities you lose when you skip over your BPA.   

 

Now, I'll say this:  Building a successful team is obviously a very difficult task, and BPA is just one of at least a few different approaches teams take toward the draft.  I'm not uncomfortable with this approach, but I really have no idea if it's the best way to go about it.   

[HappyDays]

16 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Building a successful team is obviously a very difficult task, and BPA is just one of at least a few different approaches teams take toward the draft. 

 

I've said this before but I am sure the Bills planned their free agency spending around their draft plans. Everyone says the top talent in this draft is on the defensive line, lo and behold we didn't sign any defensive linemen to big deals. Now they've put themselves in a position where the player they take at 9 is likely to match BPA with need. Or with receivers, it isn't a pressing need like it was 3 months ago, but the receivers we signed are on contracts that are easy to get out of after a year. CB and safety are pretty well locked up for the next couple years but there aren't any top 10 secondary players in this draft anyways. I don't think this stuff is coincidental. Smart teams are planning 1 or 2 years into the future. Beane probably already has an idea of what positions will be deep in the 2020 draft. It isn't as simple as drafting BPA or drafting for need. It's a constant revolving door and the team's job is to make every decision fit together.

Edited April 8, 2019 by HappyDays

[maryland-bills-fan]

29 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Here's a couple of other things to think about in a pure BPA system.

 

Suppose you have the best defensive lineman in the league.  That means, almost as a certainty, that defensive line is NOT your area of greatest need, because almost any three NFL defensive linemen and the best in the league will make up a decent front four.  Now suppose it's your pick and the BPA on your board is a defensive lineman.  What do you do?   Pure BPA, you take the defensive lineman.  

 

Which is exactly what the Houston Texans did with JJ Watt in their lineup and Jadavian Clowney on their board.   Take the BPA.   Now, in hindsight, it hasn't been a spectacular success story, but that isn't because of the theory.  Clowney was injured and may not be quite as good as people thought.  

 

Another way to look at is this.   You've got all these guys with scores, from 8.0 down to 0.1.   At any given point in time, the sum of all the scores of all the guys you have on your team is a measure of how much talent you have.   If you take a guy in an area of need with a 7.2 instead of the PBA with a 7.4, you are limiting the total value of all the talent on your team.   BPA is a system designed to maximize the talent on the team.

 

When you take the guy with a 7.2 and leave a 7.4 on the board, you never get an opportunity to recover that differential.   You certainly don't in the next round, when all that's left are 6.5s or whatever.  That 7.4 is an opportunity you lose forever.   Now, yes, you may get lucky and get a Kyle Williams in later rounds, but every team has those stories.   You can't count on those picks to cover the opportunities you lose when you skip over your BPA.   

 

Now, I'll say this:  Building a successful team is obviously a very difficult task, and BPA is just one of at least a few different approaches teams take toward the draft.  I'm not uncomfortable with this approach, but I really have no idea if it's the best way to go about it.   

Well,,,,, if you have 4 defensive tackles that are graded 8.2,  what good do the two do you that are sitting on the bench?  Might it be better to get rid of that 5.1 offensive guard who is making your 8.2 OT look like a jerk because he is always trying to block two guys?   Try on some reality. Does the new player make your TEAM better?  If you have crap offensive tackles, does it make sense to draft another 8.7 #1 type wide receiver?   Two guys open down field waving for the ball to a QB who is flat on his back, doesn't put points on the board.

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

Well,,,,, if you have 4 defensive tackles that are graded 8.2,  what good do the two do you that are sitting on the bench?  Might it be better to get rid of that 5.1 offensive guard who is making your 8.2 OT look like a jerk because he is always trying to block two guys?   Try on some reality. Does the new player make your TEAM better?  If you have crap offensive tackles, does it make sense to draft another 8.7 #1 type wide receiver?   Two guys open down field waving for the ball to a QB who is flat on his back, doesn't put points on the board.

I think the point is that even though the BPA might be the move that makes your team batter this season, he is the guy who will help your team best I. The long run. BPA is NOT a short term strategy. 

[Thurman#1]

5 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I think the point is that even though the BPA might be the move that makes your team batter this season, he is the guy who will help your team best I. The long run. BPA is NOT a short term strategy. 

 

 

Yes, this.

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Here's a couple of other things to think about in a pure BPA system.

 

Suppose you have the best defensive lineman in the league.  That means, almost as a certainty, that defensive line is NOT your area of greatest need, because almost any three NFL defensive linemen and the best in the league will make up a decent front four.  Now suppose it's your pick and the BPA on your board is a defensive lineman.  What do you do?   Pure BPA, you take the defensive lineman.  

 

Which is exactly what the Houston Texans did with JJ Watt in their lineup and Jadavian Clowney on their board.   Take the BPA.   Now, in hindsight, it hasn't been a spectacular success story, but that isn't because of the theory.  Clowney was injured and may not be quite as good as people thought.  

 

Another way to look at is this.   You've got all these guys with scores, from 8.0 down to 0.1.   At any given point in time, the sum of all the scores of all the guys you have on your team is a measure of how much talent you have.   If you take a guy in an area of need with a 7.2 instead of the PBA with a 7.4, you are limiting the total value of all the talent on your team.   BPA is a system designed to maximize the talent on the team.

 

When you take the guy with a 7.2 and leave a 7.4 on the board, you never get an opportunity to recover that differential.   You certainly don't in the next round, when all that's left are 6.5s or whatever.  That 7.4 is an opportunity you lose forever.   Now, yes, you may get lucky and get a Kyle Williams in later rounds, but every team has those stories.   You can't count on those picks to cover the opportunities you lose when you skip over your BPA.   

 

Now, I'll say this:  Building a successful team is obviously a very difficult task, and BPA is just one of at least a few different approaches teams take toward the draft.  I'm not uncomfortable with this approach, but I really have no idea if it's the best way to go about it.   

 

 

If this is your definition and approach, I doubt there's a single pure BPA team in the league. Let's say the Giants are a pure BPA team and at the time they pick the BPA is an absolutely terrific RB, a guy who's ranked far above all others on the board. A pure BPA team would pick the RB even if they have Saquon. I don't think there's a team in the league that would do that. 

 

I suppose you could argue that they could trade down. Fair enough, but if the second-best player on their board is ranked above all other players on their board (except for the RB of course), and plays a position of need, I think nearly any team is going to go with that guy. 

 

Very few principles work when looked at in an absolutely pure way. There are exceptions to nearly anything, even an idea like BPA that is generally absolutely terrific.

 

Thou shalt not kill. Great principle. But there's self-defense. And if you're in the armed forces. Or if you're driving and somebody darts in front of you and your only alternative is to veer onto the sidewalk and hit a group of nuns ...

[ganesh]

On board for BPA except at key skill positions:  QB,  DE, OT, CB.     There is always exceptions when it comes to those four positions of need...You always reach!!!!

[BringMetheHeadofLeonLett]

Best Player Available, for my particular team. Straight BPA is every bit as inflexible as a coach who won't play to his players' strengths.  

 

If you have a chance to find a player you can build an identity around, you take him no matter your need, but if that's not the case, you take the player that most makes your team better.  

[longtimebillsfan]

BPA is how perennial winners usually build their team.  Too often teams stretch to fill a need and wind up picking a lessor talent too early in the draft.  If there are three players that are close in their ranking, then the player that fills a need would be a wise selection.

 

BPA is an approach that has a history of success.  But that does not mean the management that uses BPA puts blinders on and makes their selection based strictly on their draft board without any other strategy.

[maryland-bills-fan]

7 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yes, this.

I think people are overthinking this and are getting so addicted to a concept that they are not using their common sense..

 

So we plan on having seven "9" safeties and three "4 "cornerbacks?    

 

Which is better?   CASE A:    three 8.8 offensive tackles and offensive guards of 7.0 and 4.0?    or 

                               CASE B:         two 8.8 offensive tackles and offensive guard of 7.0 and  8.8?    

 

Gee, might the opponent's defense pass rush over that 4.0 guard?  NAW. The  surplus 8.8 offensive tackle on the bench will scare that off.

        

How in the world can people agree that football is a TEAM sport and then say that it is better to have a start sitting on the bench (you might need him someday!!) than improving the team on the field?    You only have so many players on the team,  FA's available and so many high draft picks.  Shouldn't you want to wind up with the best overall "score" SUM of players on the field?   Have people forgotten that in many cases an offense or defense is no better than the weakest link that can be exploited by the other team?

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by maryland-bills-fan

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, maryland-bills-fan said:

I think people are overthinking this and are getting so addicted to a concept that they are not using their common sense..

 

So we plan on having seven "9" safeties and three "4 "cornerbacks?    

 

Which is better?   CASE A:    three 8.8 offensive tackles and offensive guards of 7.0 and 4.0?    or 

                               CASE B:         two 8.8 offensive tackles and offensive guard of 7.0 and  8.8?    

 

Gee, might the opponent's defense pass rush over that 4.0 guard?  NAW. The  surplus 8.8 offensive tackle on the bench will scare that off.

        

How in the world can people agree that football is a TEAM sport and then say that it is better to have a start sitting on the bench (you might need him someday!!) than improving the team on the field?    You only have so many players on the team,  FA's available and so many high draft picks.  Shouldn't you want to wind up with the best overall "score" SUM of players on the field?   Have people forgotten that in many cases an offense or defense is no better than the weakest link that can be exploited by the other team?

 

 

In your scenario you are choosing between at 8.8 tackle (case A) and an 8.8 guard (case B). You have two 8.8 tackles already so of course you choose the guard. But if the choice was the 8.8 tackle or another 7.0 guard I'm taking the tackle.

[maryland-bills-fan]

Another concept that many people seem to be ignoring is the increase or decrease in overall "scores" of UNITS depending upon how good the individuals are.  (a.k.a. "teamwork").      

 

For illustration, look at the left side of the offensive line.  OT    OG   C.    

 

IF they score as    "7"   "7"    "7"   the raw sum might be "21"  but when the play together, the actual sum might be greater as "24"

 

IF they score as    "7"    "5"   7"   the raw sum might be "19"  but when the play together, the actual sum might be less,  maybe "17". The "7"'s are made worse by having to cover by the missed assignments of the "5" and his getting blown up by a DT.

 

 

[Shaw66]

15 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

I've said this before but I am sure the Bills planned their free agency spending around their draft plans. Everyone says the top talent in this draft is on the defensive line, lo and behold we didn't sign any defensive linemen to big deals. Now they've put themselves in a position where the player they take at 9 is likely to match BPA with need. Or with receivers, it isn't a pressing need like it was 3 months ago, but the receivers we signed are on contracts that are easy to get out of after a year. CB and safety are pretty well locked up for the next couple years but there aren't any top 10 secondary players in this draft anyways. I don't think this stuff is coincidental. Smart teams are planning 1 or 2 years into the future. Beane probably already has an idea of what positions will be deep in the 2020 draft. It isn't as simple as drafting BPA or drafting for need. It's a constant revolving door and the team's job is to make every decision fit together.

Yeah, Beane actually said something about this. I think what he said was that he didn't feel any pressure to get a dlineman in free agency because dline was so deep in the draft that he was comfortable that one would fall to him somewhere along the way.

 

He was clear that his objective was to fill all his needs in free agency, and he did that.  He didn't mean he will value d lineman above other positions when the draft comes because he has a need.