SoTier Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 29 minutes ago, inaugural balls said: What if you're sufficiently loaded at a particular position and the BPA ON YOUR BOARD is the same position, what do you do? Then you get better if the rookie is truly a stud -- and you can trade the higher paid vet for a draft pick or let one walk in FA. With rookie contracts only lasting 3-5 years, smart GMs are always looking to have young guys in the wings to step in. That's how teams that are perennial playoff contenders stay on top season after season while poor teams like the Bills are constantly using the draft to fill immediate holes, either because they don't prepare for player movement or they're constantly spinning their wheels trying to please new HCs who don't fit the players currently on the team.
CookieG Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Logic said: Right. I get that. But what I'm asking is what if a corner or safety or other "non-need" position is the clear cut best player left on THEIR BOARD SPECIFICALLY? Do they take said player, or do they not? Several folks have replied mentioning a tiered grading system, the stacking of players with similar grades based on positional value and need, etc...So, going with that, let's suppose in my original scenario that the Bills have all the offensive players ("need" players) I listed in tier 2 of their board. The corner or safety is in tier 1. They've gotta take the corner or safety, right? Are you okay with it if they do? That's what this thread is about. Even in that situation, I think there are more questions that go into the decision.. -how bad is the area of need? Is it a chronic problem or a one year thing? -how likely are to fulfill that need elsewhere? This is really where honest self evaluation takes place. Simply saying, "we can get another guy later in the draft" -ROI - In your example, if I have the top pass D in the league, how much will Player A make that better? More importantly, how much more will player A make the team as a whole better? If player B improves the deficient area substantially, but not completely..but player A only adds marginally to a strength, what's the better gain? -how confident am I that player A is really that much ahead of player B...or anyone else who is eligible at that slot? -how good am I at correcting a deficiency in areas I'm weak at, evaluation wise? Do I need to "overdraft" to make up for my own e v a l areas? I think a GM has to look at a different objective than a lot of player evaluation people. A GM MUST consider areas of deficiency, or he's not going to be a GM very long. Its easier for a scout to say..."BPA", but the GM looking at a horrible offense, or defense..has to consider how improve the weak areas of a team. And I think what B716 is saying has a lot of merit. BPA can vary greatly depending on the person assigning the BPA tag. For example...Rexy..(who's kidding who...he ran at least the first round of every draft where he was a coach). I'm quite sure, that if you got into that mind...(God, who'd want to), he probably didn't have an offensive player listed in his top 100...ever. And I'm quite sure that in his mind, every first round pick was the BPA at their slot. He got a few right, Wilkerson for example. But he was wrong more than he was right, by a wide margin. Milliner, Coples, Kyle Something, Calvin Pryor. So yeah, the person doing the evaluation does make a difference.
DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 1 minute ago, SoTier said: Then you get better if the rookie is truly a stud -- and you can trade the higher paid vet for a draft pick or let one walk in FA. With rookie contracts only lasting 3-5 years, smart GMs are always looking to have young guys in the wings to step in. That's how teams that are perennial playoff contenders stay on top season after season while poor teams like the *Bills are constantly using the draft to fill immediate holes, either because they don't prepare for player movement or they're constantly spinning their wheels trying to please new HCs who don't fit the players currently on the team. *bolded like the *past Bills this regime is going in to its second draft and did well imo on their first. so it is fair to say your take would be more of the past bills rather than the present. they're not done yet 1
akcash Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 Bpa would be Devin White at 9 and we're not taking Devin White. It's a balance more weighted toward bpa but it bends a little for a need.
ColoradoBills Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 37 minutes ago, inaugural balls said: This seems reasonable. So drafting BPA didn't happen in this case. Technically not for the team trading down but more and more teams are doing it. See link below. 4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: Yeah, but we were talking about the concept of BPA as it relates to TRADES, as opposed to a rule in and of itself. If trades are an exception to the BPA rule and QBs are another, how many exceptions before the rule starts looking more like guidelines? It seems to me that trades are becoming more and more usual because teams want the BPA on their board. See link below. 3 minutes ago, SoTier said: Then you get better if the rookie is truly a stud -- and you can trade the higher paid vet for a draft pick or let one walk in FA. With rookie contracts only lasting 3-5 years, smart GMs are always looking to have young guys in the wings to step in. That's how teams that are perennial playoff contenders stay on top season after season while poor teams like the Bills are constantly using the draft to fill immediate holes, either because they don't prepare for player movement or they're constantly spinning their wheels trying to please new HCs who don't fit the players currently on the team. You are right the bills have been chasing their tail for way too long. I hope some stability will get them to a better place. I like to look at this site when it comes to the draft. I linked to last years draft but you can search other years. Recently more teams have traded out of their original drafting position than ever. https://www.prosportstransactions.com/football/DraftTrades/Years/2018.htm
Cripple Creek Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 4 hours ago, Logic said: I was thinking about this the other day. There are many fans on this board who say they're totally fine with the BPA strategy, i.e. drafting the best player available no matter what.. Many will go to great lengths to defend it or remind everyone daily that it's the way to go. I get it. I really do. I'm not here to argue against taking the best player available in each round. It's fine with me. I think every team does a little bit of lip service to it every year while also making draft picks that make it clear that "need" is at least a LITTLE BIT of a factor, but I digress. The point of this post is this: You say you're all for taking the best player available in each round, but if that idea is put to the test, how will you react? Here's the scenario -- The Bills have selected, let's say, Ed Oliver with pick 9. Now, after anxiously waiting for the Bills to be on the clock in the second round, it's finally time. Still available on the board are N'Keal Harry, Hakeem Butler, Irv Smith Jr, Chris Lindstrom, and Dalton Risner. The Bills turn in their card. We all wait with great anticipation as it is announced...."With the 40th pick in the 2019 NFL draft, the Buffalo Bills select....Rock Ya-Sin, cornerback, Temple". Or "The Buffalo Bills select Jonathan Abram, safety, Mississippi State". Well? What's your reaction? Are you thrilled that the Bills got the highest rated player on their board? Are you not at all bothered that they didn't fill their offensive "needs"? What say you? When the tires hit the pavement, are you truly on board with drafting the BPA? Nobody means it except in rare instances without putting exceptions on what BPA means to them that particular year.
Augie Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 21 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: Yeah, but we were talking about the concept of BPA as it relates to TRADES, as opposed to a rule in and of itself. If trades are an exception to the BPA rule and QBs are another, how many exceptions before the rule starts looking more like guidelines? Umm, maybe I missed that? QB’s have their own rules, and all I saw was you only trade up for BPA. I have no problem with that, but I dodn’t know what else I might have missed. Anyways, I think most of these are firm guidelines. Little in life should be carved in stone. As they say, never say never.
GoBills808 Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: Technically not for the team trading down but more and more teams are doing it. See link below. It seems to me that trades are becoming more and more usual because teams want the BPA on their board. See link below. To me, the 'available' in 'Best Player Available' means taking the best guy at the spot you're picking...trading up or down means you actually want (or need, or would prefer etcetc) a DIFFERENT 'best player available' at a different spot, and you're willing to either give or receive additional draft capital to do so. Is that still BPA?
Toesy Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 IMO this team really doesn't have any glaring holes or "needs"-I would define a need as you are thinking the guy you drafted is your day one starter as a rookie. Using that criteria, maybe they can draft one or two but that is it-probably DT, maybe OT. This roster has a lot of B and C level talent-which is higher than most rookies.
SoTier Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said: *bolded like the *past Bills this regime is going in to its second draft and did well imo on their first. so it is fair to say your take would be more of the past bills rather than the present. they're not done yet We'll have to see if the Bills current regime turns out better than past regimes. The personnel moves made in 2017, unfortunately, resembled typical Bills moves -- most notably letting Gilmore and Woods walk away rather than re-signing them and filling the holes with first and second round rookies. Maybe with Brandon gone, that pattern has changed but we won't know if that's true until some of Beane's players become eligible for FA.
Kirby Jackson Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 16 minutes ago, akcash said: Bpa would be Devin White at 9 and we're not taking Devin White. It's a balance more weighted toward bpa but it bends a little for a need. Devin White is a possibility imo. The Bills would be so athletic at LB that they can stay in their base more than other teams. They’d kick Edmunds to SLB. White is one of the best few players in this draft.
ColoradoBills Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: To me, the 'available' in 'Best Player Available' means taking the best guy at the spot you're picking...trading up or down means you actually want (or need, or would prefer etcetc) a DIFFERENT 'best player available' at a different spot, and you're willing to either give or receive additional draft capital to do so. Is that still BPA? I would have to say that logically, in the purest sense of the phrase, that would be no.
GoBills808 Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, Augie said: Umm, maybe I missed that? QB’s have their own rules, and all I saw was you only trade up for BPA. I have no problem with that, but I dodn’t know what else I might have missed. Anyways, I think most of these are firm guidelines. Little in life should be carved in stone. As they say, never say never. I just think it's hilarious how every team drafts 'BPA' and somehow manage to fill their positions of need simultaneously. 2
GunnerBill Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 59 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: Oh, I don't think that's true at all. There are a ton of trade-ups for QBs who are very clearly not BPA. Again - QBs are the exception in this. If you don't have a QB and you think there is a good one you try and get him. Screw BPA.
Lurker Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 (edited) Nobody picks BPA in a vacuum. That's just an old wives tale... Edited April 7, 2019 by Lurker 2
GoBills808 Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Lurker said: Nobody picks BPA in a vacuum. That's just an old wives tale... BPA is how you get Sebastian Janikowski in the first round and Roberto Aguayo in the second...Aguayo going before Yannick Ngakoue and Kenyan Drake, both of whom the Bucs could definitely have used. 1
Augie Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: I just think it's hilarious how every team drafts 'BPA' and somehow manage to fill their positions of need simultaneously. I think that there’s a narrow range of players with similar grades, and it shouldn’t be taken TOO literally. That’s how I see it, anyway. If two kids in HS graduate with a 93 average, they look the same to you and me, but one will be ranked higher in class rankings when you get down to the nitty gritty. A college will choose based upon what “bucket” they are trying to fill, and which one is crowded. 1
SouthNYfan Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 9 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: BPA is how you get Sebastian Janikowski in the first round and Roberto Aguayo in the second...Aguayo going before Yannick Ngakoue and Kenyan Drake, both of whom the Bucs could definitely have used. I heard we need a punter at #9
DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 21 minutes ago, SoTier said: We'll have to see if the Bills current regime turns out better than past regimes. The personnel moves made in 2017, unfortunately, resembled typical Bills moves -- most notably letting Gilmore and Woods walk away rather than re-signing them and filling the holes with first and second round rookies. Maybe with Brandon gone, that pattern has changed but we won't know if that's true until some of Beane's players become eligible for FA. hence the use of past regarding your take(s) one down, next one upcoming. at this point it is a wait and see situation but if anything, I sure did/do like what's been done so far. so anything in the past, speaking for myself, remains in the past. future looks bright so far 1
GunnerBill Posted April 7, 2019 Posted April 7, 2019 1 minute ago, GoBills808 said: I just think it's hilarious how every team drafts 'BPA' and somehow manage to fill their positions of need simultaneously. They don't though. Actually if you look at a lot of teams they very much do not draft for need (certainly not early in the draft). You happen to follow a team that has for far too long but it is not what everyone does. Let us take some of the most obvious examples from the 2018 first round: Broncos - no Quarterback, no offensive tackle (ended up moving their LG out to play there) and yet they took a defensive end at #5 despite having Von Miller and Shane Ray - two first round picks. Bears - everyone crying out for offensive help at receiver, tight end and tackle.... their defense was already coming together and they signed Trevathan as a big money FA the previous year. Yet they took the best player on the board - Roquan Smith. Redskins - a year removed from taking a 1st round DT take another first round DT despite having basically no good outside receivers and no safety. If they were drafting for need why not take Calvin Ridley or Derwin James? They stayed with their board and took Payne. Falcons - One defensive tackle worth his salt going into a contract year, nothing at safety, issues at pass rusher.... Julio and Mohammed Sanu outside.... surely they didn't need a receiver? Picked Calvin Ridley. BPA. And they are just from memory without delving any deeper than what I remember about last year's draft. Of course the later in the draft you go the more teams think about filling holes but in the 1st round where teams go on the clock and there is nobody in that top tier of their board at what would be a perceived position of need they just go BPA. 1 hour ago, SouthNYfan said: He had an amazing rookie season. People forget how good he actually played. Smoke. Mirrors. And Kyle Shanahan. 1 1
Recommended Posts