More on BPA

[schwamm]

We had a thread a couple weeks ago, discussing what BPA means. People continue to throw the term around as if we all agree on what it means, yet I think there are some significantly divergent interpretations being used.

For instance: are picking for need and picking BPA mutually exclusive?

I'd argue they are not. But not because a team would say "we need a CB most, so I'm going to grab the best one available with our first pick".

I think need plays in more in reverse, as in "we are definitely set at QB, so unless a special one falls to us in a late round, they aren't even really on our board". Or more subtly, "we are sitting in pretty good shape at RB, but if a talent that we imagine could have a huge impact on the team falls to us at a position of exceptional value, we are prepared to be all over that like flies on..." you get my drift.

[Smonroe]

My take on BPA is a weighted formula of the obvious (best player available in the draft) plus position of need, plus upcoming contracts.

 

For example, Bethea's contract is up after this season, he's getting up there, and we're not exactly deep at S.  So a S in the draft may rank as higher on our board than others.

 

Conversely, we're set at QB and contracts aren't an issue.  So none of the top 4-6 QBs are going to be on our board for the first two picks IMO.

[21isSuperman]

My take on it has always been best player according to your rankings, regardless of position.  That's why you shouldn't be afraid to take Aaron Rodgers in the first round even though you have Brett Favre starting for you.  You can always develop and trade those players (for example, Kolb) or keep them as backups.  And, of course, it applies to all positions, not just QBs.  So if the top player on the board according to your rankings is a WR on whom you've put a 2nd round grade and it's the 4th round and you have the Broncos' receiving group, my definition of BPA says to take him.  He is ranked so high.  Of course, it gets a little harder when you don't have a pass rush and there is a 3rd round grade DE or OLB there.  But that's how I take it

[TKnight24]

It's BPA based on YOUR NEEDS.

Ex: We wouldn't take Matt Barkley in this draft at all no matter what round. He's NOT needed here nor would he benefit us in any way

[schwamm]

My take on BPA is a weighted formula of the obvious (best player available in the draft) plus position of need, plus upcoming contracts.

For example, Bethea's contract is up after this season, he's getting up there, and we're not exactly deep at S. So a S in the draft may rank as higher on our board than others.

Conversely, we're set at QB and contracts aren't an issue. So none of the top 4-6 QBs are going to be on our board for the first two picks IMO.

I agree on the weighted formula idea. I would argue it involves a lot more, though.

For instance, I think the formula would include a weight for positions based on offensive and defensive schemes. Under BP, the cover 2 meant that, for the most part, OLB and O linemen were valued less than just about any other position. It didn't mean they were excluded from consideration, but other factors had to bump up a player at those positions. I haven't figured out how Grigs values positions yet, but I have to imagine the same holds true for him.

I also think "fit" plays a significant role. If a certain player is believed to offer a significant skill set that could allow a team to do something more or different (I'm thinking about the move to get Hilton last year, for example), I think they get bumped up the big board.

[bestQBever]

As long as our first pick is either a OLB or DE, Im fine. (Maybe even NT)

[bestQBever]

As long as our first pick is either a OLB or DE, Im fine. (Maybe even NT)

 

 

As long as our first pick is either a OLB or DE, Im fine. (Maybe even NT)

or if jonathan cooper somehow falls to us, I wouldn't hesitate.

[Smonroe]

I agree on the weighted formula idea. I would argue it involves a lot more, though.

For instance, I think the formula would include a weight for positions based on offensive and defensive schemes. Under BP, the cover 2 meant that, for the most part, OLB and O linemen were valued less than just about any other position. It didn't mean they were excluded from consideration, but other factors had to bump up a player at those positions. I haven't figured out how Grigs values positions yet, but I have to imagine the same holds true for him.

I also think "fit" plays a significant role. If a certain player is believed to offer a significant skill set that could allow a team to do something more or different (I'm thinking about the move to get Hilton last year, for example), I think they get bumped up the big board.

 

No doubt.  I didn't mean what I posted was the entire formula.  On top of what you said, I'm sure that character matters to a certain extent.  

[CS Colts Fan]

As long as our first pick is either a OLB or DE, Im fine. (Maybe even NT)

 

what if they pick a CB, or S, or RB

 

I wasn't totally happy with last years.. and look how that turned out.

 

I trust Grigs and Co. 

[schwamm]

No doubt. I didn't mean what I posted was the entire formula. On top of what you said, I'm sure that character matters to a certain extent.

Sounds like we see it similarly. I've also suggested that where research suggests other teams have players on their boards also has an impact. Both when other teams seem to have a player lower than "we" do, and "we" believe it is safe to wait to pull the trigger, and when other teams rate a player higher, and it is deemed to be time to jump up and grab someone.

[Buck Showalter]

didnt Grigson give his opinion on the BPA concept the other day, with hand motions & everything...

[TKnight24]

what if they pick a CB, or S, or RB

I wasn't totally happy with last years.. and look how that turned out.

I trust Grigs and Co.

I don't see us taking a RB or S with the 24th. Both of those are deep in the draft this year

[Qwiz]

what if they pick a CB, or S, or RB

 

I wasn't totally happy with last years.. and look how that turned out.

 

I trust Grigs and Co. 

CB and S wouldn't be bad picks either I don't think. I don't think you guys would be reaching for a S in the first though. You're right, the GM knows what he is doing and is putting the pieces together.

[Buck Showalter]

someone posted this earlier in the week...

I am paraphrasing...

something like this...  If you got one guy whose ability is here (motions hand) and another guys ability is here (motions other hand slighty lower than the first hand), but this second guy is at a position of greater need then its a no-brainer you take the guy at the position of need... But then there is the situation where you have a guy fall who you have rated up here ( raises hand much higher than either of the previoushand gestures) now he may be at a position where you may have some depth, but you just dont  pass on a talent like that...

makes sense...

thats how I understand BPA...

[schwamm]

someone posted this earlier in the week...

I am paraphrasing...

something like this... If you got one guy whose ability is here (motions hand) and another guys ability is here (motions other hand slighty lower than the first hand), but this second guy is at a position of greater need then its a no-brainer you take the guy at the position of need... But then there is the situation where you have a guy fall who you have rated up here ( raises hand much higher than either of the previoushand gestures) now he may be at a position where you may have some depth, but you just dont pass on a talent like that...

makes sense...

thats how I understand BPA...

If this was the same press conference I saw, he prefaced all that by saying his draft strategy isn't really something he could describe briefly, but...

[Carlos Danger]

unless a team has a huge hole on its roster, i'd say that need is introduced as follows:

 

If two players are ranked similarly on your board, but one position is more valuable to the team, you take that guy...

 

you never take a guy that you have ranked significantly lower because he fills a need...

 

if the team is set at a position, they will only draft that position if the talent is going to be valuable to trade later and they are not passing on a similarly ranked prospect who fills a position of need...

 

this is the only smart way to draft.. injuries occur all the time in the NFL and usually rookies have to sit/backup a year or two just to learn their craft at the pro level...

 

there is no one position in the NFL other than QB and LT that will consistently lose you games if you have to play a scrub there ... its always smarter to grab the better player and fill holes however you can later... this applies double if the position that you need is RB, because a serviceable back can be found late in the draft or even after during rookie FA..

 

OG and S are also positions where the talent is cheap on the open market.. Teams will cycle through OGs because the OT franchise tag numbers apply to them... S is one of the cheapest positions compared to their importance on the defense... a good scout should be able to find talented FSs and SSs in late rounds and UDFA... nobody wants to pay a S first round $$$ and many corners and LBs are converted to sufficient Safeties...

[mark5362]

We had a thread a couple weeks ago, discussing what BPA means. People continue to throw the term around as if we all agree on what it means, yet I think there are some significantly divergent interpretations being used.

For instance: are picking for need and picking BPA mutually exclusive?

I'd argue they are not. But not because a team would say "we need a CB most, so I'm going to grab the best one available with our first pick".

I think need plays in more in reverse, as in "we are definitely set at QB, so unless a special one falls to us in a late round, they aren't even really on our board". Or more subtly, "we are sitting in pretty good shape at RB, but if a talent that we imagine could have a huge impact on the team falls to us at a position of exceptional value, we are prepared to be all over that like flies on..." you get my drift.

Bpa is bpa. and you can't say it any other way. You can't say I'm not taking a qb because we don't need one.if you do and a team picking after you does then you miss out on a chance of them trading up to your spot and picking up another draft pick in the proses. and you can put any position in that argument qb,cb,dt,whatever.bpa is bpa.  

[ColtsFanMikeC]

My take on it has always been best player according to your rankings, regardless of position.  That's why you shouldn't be afraid to take Aaron Rodgers in the first round even though you have Brett Favre starting for you.  You can always develop and trade those players (for example, Kolb) or keep them as backups.  And, of course, it applies to all positions, not just QBs.  So if the top player on the board according to your rankings is a WR on whom you've put a 2nd round grade and it's the 4th round and you have the Broncos' receiving group, my definition of BPA says to take him.  He is ranked so high.  Of course, it gets a little harder when you don't have a pass rush and there is a 3rd round grade DE or OLB there.  But that's how I take it

 

Rodgers was drafted when Favre was talking retirement.  Farve really irked me, because of his retirement talks, GB went ahead and took Rodgers -- then Favre had the nerve to bash their FO for not providing him with quality WR's.  IMO, if Favre wasn't talking retirement, there is no way that GB would've went with Rodgers in that draft -- I think they would've gone WR or something besides QB.

[schwamm]

Bpa is bpa. and you can't say it any other way. You can't say I'm not taking a qb because we don't need one.if you do and a team picking after you does then you miss out on a chance of them trading up to your spot and picking up another draft pick in the proses. and you can put any position in that argument qb,cb,dt,whatever.bpa is bpa.

So how does a team determine which player is better than the next? Certainly you don't propose consulting with Kiper and McShay...

There isn't consensus across the league at ranking players any one position, let alone comparing players at different positions. I strongly suspect teams use a great deal more than just a straight assessment of talent to stack their boards.

Once the boards are organized, though, I do suspect (as Grigs has directly said) that they follow their draft boards. To that degree, we agree that BPA is BPA.

[Gavin]

Perhaps a harder or more unclear question to answer is, what constitutes an OVERALL BPA, how do you determine, this O Linemen (Warmack for example) is better then lets say Jarvis Jones, Another question is, After you answer that question....Does Warmack (example) fit our scheme or another? In my opinion BPA  is different for most teams. Ill give an example of 2 names that may be available when we pick;

 

 

Larry Warford

Jarvis Jones

 

 

Well both are needs, Warford has the higher grade according to NFL.com (not sure what grade he has on ESPN) but they are rankings that have not been changed

 

A tougher example in my opinion would be, Cooper and Jarvis Jones, How do you determine who is the better player?

[CS Colts Fan]

I don't see us taking a RB or S with the 24th. Both of those are deep in the draft this year

 

I wasn't implying that, was merely giving a what if in reply to bestQBeve  only statement

[The Peytonator]

Yeah I don't see how GMs and scouts can be so black and white about this BPA stuff. Very rarely does a team actually end up taking the best player available. If they did JJ Watt wouldn't have been drafted after Blaine Gabbert, and you wouldn't have guys like Geno Atkins and Richard Sherman lasting to day 3. It all just seems arbitrary to me, and it all seems like a way for the professionals to pound their chest and tell us fans that it's an exact science, when really it's nothing more than educated guess work. You could probably take any old internet mock draft/big board, and have just as much success playing eenie, meenie, miney, moe to figure out your draft picks as the average GM.

 

For the record, I'm not referring to Grigson with the above. He had a ton of hits in his first draft, so he might actually know what he's doing....unlike the majority of other team's GMs.

[OldSchoolColt]

The main benefit is that we don't reach or fall back based on trying to fill a need. In doing so, you will undoubtedly give up too much or fall back and your player is taken. Mainly, you miss out on a great guy(s). Moss fell to the Vikings at 19, unheard of, and they grabbed him. Did it matter that they needed a WR? Did it matter their other needs? No, you simply grab Moss no questions. I see the need question like this. If our ranking of players have one player far above others, and he can be used, then you grab him. But most of the time, players will be ranked in groups where their ability to be a great player are close enough together, that you use need as a tie breaker. So the top four players are all similar in potential, you may take the OG over the OT, WR, TE. Though you also will use a fact like OG's are deep and it looks like several talented ones will be available in the third round and break the tie by picking the WR. If you have a big need, one of your draft picks will not benefit from BPA, and you will have to pick based on need.

[Gavin]

Next question I have: How do WE know beyond a shadow of a doubt Grigson took the BPA

[schwamm]

Next question I have: How do WE know beyond a shadow of a doubt Grigson took the BPA

I really don't believe your mythical "THE BPA" exists in the present. There is only HIS BPA.

I would argue that every pick by every team is always their BPA at the time of the draft. Some GMs are just better at stacking their boards, and better at developing a system for weighing their needs, player talent, fit, risk/reward, etc. than others.

Whether a player turns out to have been "THE BPA" can only be determined by history.

[BOTT]

Me think you guys are over thinking things

[Gavin]

Me think you guys are over thinking things

Agreed but unfortunately the draft is still a few days away, so plenty of time to over think things

[schwamm]

Me think you guys are over thinking things

You are probably right, but I find it to be an interesting topic, especially in light of the frequency the term gets thrown around every off season.

[NewColtsFan]

Next question I have: How do WE know beyond a shadow of a doubt Grigson took the BPA

 

We don't.    And we never will.

 

All we can do is take the man at his word until he says/does something that raises questions....

 

Otherwise...........     what can I tell you?

[OldSchoolColt]

Next question I have: How do WE know beyond a shadow of a doubt Grigson took the BPA

 

Some are obvious. When Grigson grabbed Allen in the 3rd, well beyond when most thought he would go and the fact we just drafted one in the 2nd AND we had soooo many needs, proved he went with BPA at that time.

[Warhorse]

As I see it, consistently good teams take the BPA more often than not....and consistently bad teams choose picks based on need

 

It would be my opinion that our third pick last year came up and no one was predicting another  TE. D Allen is a great example of taking the BPA.

 

Dang good thing our GM has the spine to make that pick...right there.

[Gavin]

Some are obvious. When Grigson grabbed Allen in the 3rd, well beyond when most thought he would go and the fact we just drafted one in the 2nd AND we had soooo many needs, proved he went with BPA at that time.

True 

[esmort]

It's BPA based on YOUR NEEDS.

Ex: We wouldn't take Matt Barkley in this draft at all no matter what round. He's NOT needed here nor would he benefit us in any way

I think there is definitely a point where even Barkley would represent enough value (most likely to trade) that we would take him with later round pick.

[mark5362]

So how does a team determine which player is better than the next? Certainly you don't propose consulting with Kiper and McShay...

There isn't consensus across the league at ranking players any one position, let alone comparing players at different positions. I strongly suspect teams use a great deal more than just a straight assessment of talent to stack their boards.

Once the boards are organized, though, I do suspect (as Grigs has directly said) that they follow their draft boards. To that degree, we agree that BPA is BPA.

You had me cracking up with Kiper and Mcshay (thanks) I thing most GM"S have the players ranked about the same on their board as far as BPA goes.

[jskinnz]

We had a thread a couple weeks ago, discussing what BPA means. People continue to throw the term around as if we all agree on what it means, yet I think there are some significantly divergent interpretations being used.

For instance: are picking for need and picking BPA mutually exclusive?

I'd argue they are not. But not because a team would say "we need a CB most, so I'm going to grab the best one available with our first pick".

I think need plays in more in reverse, as in "we are definitely set at QB, so unless a special one falls to us in a late round, they aren't even really on our board". Or more subtly, "we are sitting in pretty good shape at RB, but if a talent that we imagine could have a huge impact on the team falls to us at a position of exceptional value, we are prepared to be all over that like flies on..." you get my drift.

 

Your topic was great a few weeks ago and remains so today.

 

As it relates to the Colts, and I believe most teams in the NFL, the closest definition would be your last statement.  I know you said RB in your example but for the Colts make that any position except QB and the kickers. 

[jskinnz]

I really don't believe your mythical "THE BPA" exists in the present. There is only HIS BPA.

I would argue that every pick by every team is always their BPA at the time of the draft. Some GMs are just better at stacking their boards, and better at developing a system for weighing their needs, player talent, fit, risk/reward, etc. than others.

Whether a player turns out to have been "THE BPA" can only be determined by history.

 

I would contend that the human element gets in the way alot of the times.  As much as they try to just go by facts, an emotional element gets involved and clouds judgement.  For example, maybe in the process of stacking their board a team with a QB need overlooks, intentional or otherwise, some faults of that are obvious to other teams because they want/need a QB badly creating an artificially high grade on a player. 

 

Other things I find interesting about this topic.

1) How teams stack their board based on where they value certain positions.  I heard Polian a few weeks ago say that he would never draft a guard very high at all.  Other teams don't have that same idea.  I think it means a team like the Colts have to know how other teams value players/positions as well.

 

2) How they rank players based on scheme.  For instance, where would the Colts, a 3-4 team, rank a guy like Ziggy Ansah who is almost universally projected to be a 4-3 DE. 

 

3) And this is a pet peeve of mine.  The Colts, or any other team, will make a pick that will cause analysts to say they reached for the pick.  That statement is based on a few things - most often that the pick went against what the analyst predicted.  And that prediction is more times than not based on a team's perceived need.  The mock drafts are almost always based on need.  But for them to accurately say the pick was a reach, they would need access to a team's board, which they don't have. 

[schwamm]

I would contend that the human element gets in the way alot of the times. As much as they try to just go by facts, an emotional element gets involved and clouds judgement. For example, maybe in the process of stacking their board a team with a QB need overlooks, intentional or otherwise, some faults of that are obvious to other teams because they want/need a QB badly creating an artificially high grade on a player.

Other things I find interesting about this topic.

1) How teams stack their board based on where they value certain positions. I heard Polian a few weeks ago say that he would never draft a guard very high at all. Other teams don't have that same idea. I think it means a team like the Colts have to know how other teams value players/positions as well.

2) How they rank players based on scheme. For instance, where would the Colts, a 3-4 team, rank a guy like Ziggy Ansah who is almost universally projected to be a 4-3 DE.

3) And this is a pet peeve of mine. The Colts, or any other team, will make a pick that will cause analysts to say they reached for the pick. That statement is based on a few things - most often that the pick went against what the analyst predicted. And that prediction is more times than not based on a team's perceived need. The mock drafts are almost always based on need. But for them to accurately say the pick was a reach, they would need access to a team's board, which they don't have.

That's a lot of what I've tried to describe, only done clearly. I agree.

[pacolts56]

The whole "BPA" concept starts with what the Head Coach and his staff, who the GM presumably hired....wants to do....meshed with the prospect's physical talent, experience and how coach-able they are to do it. This can make for some very different draft boards between teams and surprising draft day selections.

 

Ensuring that ALL of those elements....and probably some I haven't thought of....are paid attention to with diligent scouting are key things that separate the success of franchises.

 

Teams who consistently improve all 53 roster spots with guys who can best execute their roles within the agreed upon philosophy in all three phases tend to stay competitive...provided the systems are sound and not easily exploited.

 

And that means the bright shiny object is not always the best fit....

 

 

 

[schwamm]

The whole "BPA" concept starts with what the Head Coach and his staff, who the GM presumably hired....wants to do....meshed with the prospect's physical talent, experience and how coach-able they are to do it. This can make for some very different draft boards between teams and surprising draft day selections.

Ensuring that ALL of those elements....and probably some I haven't thought of....are paid attention to with diligent scouting are key things that separate the success of franchises.

Teams who consistently improve all 53 roster spots with guys who can best execute their roles within the agreed upon philosophy in all three phases tend to stay competitive...provided the systems are sound and not easily exploited.

And that means the bright shiny object is not always the best fit....

Awesome Miracle clip!

So if it wasn't, that should have been pulled out when people were griping about who the Colts brought in thru free agency this year.

[schwamm]

A few days ago, there was a debate waging about whether Grigs would move up in this draft, or trade back. I think it is worth bring up in this discussion because, in addition to ranking players (by any/all means described above), I think consideration is given to where those players are expected to be taken (ie. where other teams have them on their big boards).

Let's say, for the purpose of this discussion, that the Colts have Brian Winters as their top OG, despite all conventional wisdom. Then let's imagine they have him scored, by their own in-house system, with a late first round grade.

According to one poster, if he is next up on their rankings at their pick, they just take him in the first, and never look back.

I doubt that. I think there is consideration for conventional wisdom, an attempt to know what other teams are wanting to do in the draft, and an attempt to take players at a position of highest value. I suspect a great GM is also a little bit the river boat gambler.

I see a big board that slots players where they are expected to go, and Brian Winters, in the example above, might be highlighted with 8x10 color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one... but he'd still be targeted in the round 3/4 range, or maybe moved up just a little.