More on BPA

[jskinnz]

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.

 

I cannot like this post enough.

 

I think we have seen instances of both scenarios in the Colts regime.  The Pat Angerer pick was bashe by virtually everyone with the thinking that he could have been had in the 3rd round.  But clearly the Colts saw their guy and made the pick.  I think both Mike Doss & Bob Sanders was the counter to this argument.  If I recall correctly Dungy or Polian wanted Doss badly in 2003.  Whoever it was wanted to trade up in round 2 to get him but the other remained convinced that he would still be there by the time their pick came around.  They waited and got their man. 

 

On Sanders, I think both wanted him badly and when the Colts traded out of the 1st round, they did so with the idea that he would still be around when they picked (44th I believe).  Knowing that his size and injury history as well as expected needs of those drafting in front of them had to play a role in them believing he would still be around when the Colts' pick came up.  A river boat gambler is an ideal description.

 

I also find this intriguing.  Where is the Colts' line in the sand?  If they really like and want the 30th rated player on their board, is taking him at 24 within an appropriate window?  Is the guy rated 40th outside that window.

 

An endlessly fascinating discussion if you ask me.

[Larry Horseman]

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.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking.

 

Allen is an objective example of how Grigson views BPA and will act on it in the draft. We had so many needs, but Allen must have been graded so much higher than anyone else that Grigs chose player over need.

[bavanlan]

BPA at a position that would make the final 53 man roster.  That would eliminate P, LS, QB and maybe K.

 

EVERY other position should be fair game.

[bavanlan]

I also find this intriguing.  Where is the Colts' line in the sand?  If they really like and want the 30th rated player on their board, is taking him at 24 within an appropriate window?  

 

No, because you'll have at least 6 other guys on your board you like more.

[jskinnz]

No, because you'll have at least 6 other guys on your board you like more.

 

I understand what you are saying but I don't think it is that simple.  There has to be a range that is "close enough" where you can connect need and BPA.  It may not be 6 spots but there has to be flexibility as well.

[jskinnz]

BPA at a position that would make the final 53 man roster.  That would eliminate P, LS, QB and maybe K.

 

EVERY other position should be fair game.

 

Completely agree with this.  I find those that get locked into saying a specific player or position at # 24 to be amazingly uninformed. 

[schwamm]

I've got one more concept I want to float out there, then I promise to stop (quickly hides crossed fingers behind back).

How does quality of positional depth affect a team's big board?

Let's say for argument sake that the team's biggest needs are determined to be OG and CB. Then let's suppose that the top 5 OGs are graded by scouts at 88, 85, 81, 81, and 79, and the top 5 CBs are graded at 84, 80, 75, 68, and 63.

When it comes around to your team's pick, and the next 2 players on the board are the 2nd best OG and the best CB, which do you take? According to strict BPA, the guard is the pick. But you can still find talent at the position later. If you miss the opportunity for the CB here, you might not have another shot at anything close to the same level of ability.

I'd argue this is a scenario where you "reach" for the lesser graded player.

[jskinnz]

I've got one more concept I want to float out there, then I promise to stop (quickly hides crossed fingers behind back).

How does quality of positional depth affect a team's big board?

Let's say for argument sake that the team's biggest needs are determined to be OG and CB. Then let's suppose that the top 5 OGs are graded by scouts at 88, 85, 81, 81, and 79, and the top 5 CBs are graded at 84, 80, 75, 68, and 63.

When it comes around to your team's pick, and the next 2 players on the board are the 2nd best OG and the best CB, which do you take? According to strict BPA, the guard is the pick. But you can still find talent at the position later. If you miss the opportunity for the CB here, you might not have another shot at anything close to the same level of ability.

I'd argue this is a scenario where you "reach" for the lesser graded player.

Well done today. Lots of thought provoking discussion.

My guess is that it comes down to how a speific team values those positions. I imagine the questions a GM may be asking himself is what does their roster look like now? If we had to play with guards currently on the roster, could we? Where are the biggest holes? If we pass on a given position now, what is the depth of that postion later in the draft? It may also depend on how far a reach may be tolerable. On their overall rankings is a reach of up to 5 players acceptable?

[Buck Showalter]

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.

You just made an Alice's Restaurant reference...

Awesome...

[schwamm]

You just made an Alice's Restaurant reference...

Awesome...

Sometimes I just throw stuff in to see who's paying attention.

[Buck Showalter]

Sometimes I just throw stuff in to see who's paying attention.

Now I have that song stuck in my head...

Thanks...

[schwamm]

Now I have that song stuck in my head...

Thanks...

All part of my evil plan...

[bavanlan]

There has to be a range that is "close enough" where you can connect need and BPA.  

 

Yes, it's zero.  

 

I just don't understand why you would take someone who isn't as good of a player as someone else, even if it's just by a tiny bit.

 

If they're basically even, then grade them at even.

 

$.02.

[schwamm]

Yes, it's zero.

I just don't understand why you would take someone who isn't as good of a player as someone else, even if it's just by a tiny bit.

If they're basically even, then grade them at even.

$.02.

"As good as" by what measure? Statistics? Talent? Immeasurables? Floor/ceiling? Need? Fit? Character? Value? Or something else?

[bavanlan]

"As good as" by what measure? Statistics? Talent? Immeasurables? Floor/ceiling? Need? Fit? Character? Value? Or something else?

Whatever objective measure a team is using to rank players.

[schwamm]

Whatever objective measure a team is using to rank players.

Sounds like we agree.

[jskinnz]

Yes, it's zero.  

 

I just don't understand why you would take someone who isn't as good of a player as someone else, even if it's just by a tiny bit.

 

If they're basically even, then grade them at even.

 

$.02.

[bavanlan]

I heard Tex Schramm say on the old Kravitz & Eddie show is that teams have a grouping of players whose value warrants them being picked in a given spot. I guess it is a modified version of BPA and allows for some flexibility. So if there are 3-4 similar players in the same tier available for Indy at # 24, it would not be considered a reach no matter which player they chose. if they went to next lower tier to make the # 24 pick, then that would be a reach.

 

Yeah, that's the Gil Brandt model as well.

 

I think it's antiquated.  With the amount of data teams have today, they should be able to do more than simply group.

[schwamm]

oh man... somebody like something I wrote... quick... I'm sitting at 666 likes.

[schwamm]

thank you Dustin.

[jskinnz]

Yeah, that's the Gil Brandt model as well.

 

I think it's antiquated.  With the amount of data teams have today, they should be able to do more than simply group.

Said it wrong. You are right - it was Gil Brandt.

[schwamm]

Well done today. Lots of thought provoking discussion.

My guess is that it comes down to how a speific team values those positions. I imagine the questions a GM may be asking himself is what does their roster look like now? If we had to play with guards currently on the roster, could we? Where are the biggest holes? If we pass on a given position now, what is the depth of that postion later in the draft? It may also depend on how far a reach may be tolerable. On their overall rankings is a reach of up to 5 players acceptable?

I see what you are getting at, but I'd argue that the team would account for the whole range of influencing criteria (some of which we may or may not have discussed here), prior to arranging their big board. In other words, there wouldn't be any impulse to reach as a result of any of the influences we've tossed around in this thread, as Bavalan is saying.

The one caveat to that may be that each pick a team makes could affect some level of desire to adjust the remainder of their board. So the player taken in round 1 might cause a player in round 5 (or whatever) to get bumped up or back the way you've described... Or so I can imagine.

[jskinnz]

I see what you are getting at, but I'd argue that the team would account for the whole range of influencing criteria (some of which we may or may not have discussed here), prior to arranging their big board. In other words, there wouldn't be any impulse to reach as a result of any of the influences we've tossed around in this thread, as Bavalan is saying.

The one caveat to that may be that each pick a team makes could affect some level of desire to adjust the remainder of their board. So the player taken in round 1 might cause a player in round 5 (or whatever) to get bumped up or back the way you've described... Or so I can imagine.

 

If I understand your point, I would argue that we are talking about 2 different sets of criteria.  Their overall rankings have to be set based on their analysis outside of team needs.  Of these 300 "draftable" players here is the order in our eyes from one through 300. 

 

Only then after the draft has played out in front of them and they are presented with your scenario (CB vs. guard) would they account for which player best helps them with that pick.

 

Hope that makes sense.  Either way, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.  It is rare on here.

[schwamm]

If I understand your point, I would argue that we are talking about 2 different sets of criteria. Their overall rankings have to be set based on their analysis outside of team needs. Of these 300 "draftable" players here is the order in our eyes from one through 300.

Only then after the draft has played out in front of them and they are presented with your scenario (CB vs. guard) would they account for which player best helps them with that pick.

Hope that makes sense. Either way, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. It is rare on here.

I think we are saying the same thing, essentially, but I've been suggesting that the list of 300 be run through all these other filters I've mentioned BEFORE finalizing a big board.

The way you are describing it is more like the way I run my fantasy drafts, though, because I prefer the flexibility of a last minute gut call. I can see GMs wanting that same flexibility, I guess.

[schwamm]

Maybe days 1 and 2 of the draft are best focused on a pre-determined big board, and drafting purely BPA as I've defined it, and day 3 is best approached with more emphasis on filling holes and addressing need, with the flexibility that jskinnz describes?

[jskinnz]

I think we are saying the same thing, essentially, but I've been suggesting that the list of 300 be run through all these other filters I've mentioned BEFORE finalizing a big board.

The way you are describing it is more like the way I run my fantasy drafts, though, because I prefer the flexibility of a last minute gut call. I can see GMs wanting that same flexibility, I guess.

 

I think you have to rank your board independent of outside factors, otherwise you run the risk of having artificially high rankings on players in positions of your need.  I think your overall board has to be as neutral as possible. 

 

Now I do think you know going in where the strength/weakness of a draft may lie and can afford to pass on a guard because there are lower valued ones in later rounds that you feel certain you can get.

 

As to your last post, I do think that eventually you have to draft for need at the lower end of the rounds.   

[bestQBever]

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 would be ok. like u said. we all trust grigson. But I would be A LOT more happy if we go D line.