The "Best" in BPA

[CoachLite]

What goes into evaluating the "best" in BPA (best player available). Is it merely individual stats from prior performance or combine numbers? We took a WR in the first round because he was considered the "best", but in the second round there was another WR rated very high.  Why didn't we take him, too?

 

Seems to me that "best" player available has to do with his place in a 3 - 5 year planning horizon, some fit with team culture, a little bit of need, and the playing lifetimes of other team members along with their financial ramifications.

 

If "best" is merely some measurement of an individual's metrics at a particular point in time, seems that gets us a Trent Richardson, Jeff George or Fredd Young.

 

Of course others may disagree. Your thoughts about "best"?

[Gavin]

BPA is in the eye of the beholder (GM making the pick)...Its really as simple as that

[21isSuperman]

BPA is in the eye of the beholder (GM making the pick)...Its really as simple as that

This.  Teams rate prospects differently.  Dorsett may have been the highest ranked prospect available for Grigson, but not for another GM.  Teams consider different things when they analyze and assess players, so the "best player available" method isn't a science.

[CoachLite]

So the consensus is that "best" is completely subjective, left to the mind and imagination of one GM (or perhaps a handful of scouts and FO personnel). Certainly, that isn't science. But then, does determining "best" require any actual expertise at all? In other words, could "best" be like the recommendation of an incompetent financial advisor that causes you to lose your life savings, but gets paid his commission anyway? (As I recall, Matt Millen didn't come with a money-back guarantee).

 

I would be concerned if "the best player available" were only determined by opinion or consensus.  But then I was concerned by a colleague who made the statement: "I'm a scientist. Whatever I do is science."

[Bluefire4]

So the consensus is that "best" is completely subjective, left to the mind and imagination of one GM (or perhaps a handful of scouts and FO personnel). Certainly, that isn't science. But then, does determining "best" require any actual expertise at all? In other words, could "best" be like the recommendation of an incompetent financial advisor that causes you to lose your life savings, but gets paid his commission anyway? (As I recall, Matt Millen didn't come with a money-back guarantee).

 

I would be concerned if "the best player available" were only determined by opinion or consensus.  But then I was concerned by a colleague who made the statement: "I'm a scientist. Whatever I do is science."

Yes it is subjective. And when the GM gets it wrong, he is fired.

[NewColtsFan]

So the consensus is that "best" is completely subjective, left to the mind and imagination of one GM (or perhaps a handful of scouts and FO personnel). Certainly, that isn't science. But then, does determining "best" require any actual expertise at all? In other words, could "best" be like the recommendation of an incompetent financial advisor that causes you to lose your life savings, but gets paid his commission anyway? (As I recall, Matt Millen didn't come with a money-back guarantee).

 

I would be concerned if "the best player available" were only determined by opinion or consensus.  But then I was concerned by a colleague who made the statement: "I'm a scientist. Whatever I do is science."

 

Each team gives every player a grade.

 

And then when they assemble their board,  the players are listed by grade.

 

So, when their pick comes around they can see who is next up on their board.    This isn't some abstract flight of fancy made up piece of nonsense.     

 

It's not uncommon for multiple players to have the same grade, and in that case,  the players still have to be ranked by priority.

 

When it came time for the Colts pick at 29,  Dorsett was NOT just the highest ranked player left on the board,  he was the highest ranked player by a very large margin.    From the Colts' perspective,  the decision was easy.

 

What's the point in gathering and processing information for a year....   taking the time to rank over 300 players,   establishing your priority list of roughly 100 players,  give or take,   then when the moment of truth comes and the Colts are on the clock,  you abandon your BPA position to take the highest ranked player at a position of need.

 

Grigson said he'd take BPA in his meeting with the media in the days leading up to the draft.   So,  he did exactly what he said he'd do.......

 

Me?    I'd have taken Goldman.   But I won't slam a GM who tells us what he's going to do,  and then does it.   That's what Grigson did.

[Doctor Mad]

Seems there was similar chatter last year when we took Mewhort.  I trust Grigs to do his job AND to be accountable for it.  We really didn't get a "splashy" name player and that has folks upset.  I would have taken Brown or some other DL/NT player at 29.  Heck, we could have had Gregory at 29.  Let's see how this pans out.  BTW, many "experts" have given this draft a "B".  something must have been correct.  Ciao!

[Coffeedrinker]

What goes into evaluating the "best" in BPA (best player available). Is it merely individual stats from prior performance or combine numbers? We took a WR in the first round because he was considered the "best", but in the second round there was another WR rated very high.  Why didn't we take him, too?

 

Seems to me that "best" player available has to do with his place in a 3 - 5 year planning horizon, some fit with team culture, a little bit of need, and the playing lifetimes of other team members along with their financial ramifications.

 

If "best" is merely some measurement of an individual's metrics at a particular point in time, seems that gets us a Trent Richardson, Jeff George or Fredd Young.

 

Of course others may disagree. Your thoughts about "best"?

Playing scouting is a very in depth, complex process and it usually has very little to do with stats or even combine numbers and more about individual traits.

 

For example a player is graded on a scale usually from 0-100 and attributes such as: field awareness, intensity, follows assignments, uses technique as taught, speed, acceleration, agility, height, weight, coachable, integrity, character, etc.

 

The GM and HC and/or asst coaches sit down and go over the attributes that are grade and they determine order of priority and assign a weight to each.  (For example, with Dungy character had a higher weight than size.

 

So then the scouts go out with their books and watch and grade the players in the different catagories, they then multiply the score in each category by the weight for that category and get an overall score.  They then add up the overall score for each category, the highest overall number is 1st on the board, the 2nd highest number is 2nd on the board and so on.  So the BPA available when a team picks in the player left on the board with the highest overall score.

[aaron11]

bpa means its the player that will impact the games the most.

[Warhorse]

Each team gives every player a grade.

 

And then when they assemble their board,  the players are listed by grade.

 

So, when their pick comes around they can see who is next up on their board.    This isn't some abstract flight of fancy made up piece of nonsense.     

 

It's not uncommon for multiple players to have the same grade, and in that case,  the players still have to be ranked by priority.

 

When it came time for the Colts pick at 29,  Dorsett was NOT just the highest ranked player left on the board,  he was the highest ranked player by a very large margin.    From the Colts' perspective,  the decision was easy.

 

What's the point in gathering and processing information for a year....   taking the time to rank over 300 players,   establishing your priority list of roughly 100 players,  give or take,   then when the moment of truth comes and the Colts are on the clock,  you abandon your BPA position to take the highest ranked player at a position of need.

 

Grigson said he'd take BPA in his meeting with the media in the days leading up to the draft.   So,  he did exactly what he said he'd do.......

 

Me?    I'd have taken Goldman.   But I won't slam a GM who tells us what he's going to do,  and then does it.   That's what Grigson did.

 

Playing scouting is a very in depth, complex process and it usually has very little to do with stats or even combine numbers and more about individual traits.

 

For example a player is graded on a scale usually from 0-100 and attributes such as: field awareness, intensity, follows assignments, uses technique as taught, speed, acceleration, agility, height, weight, coachable, integrity, character, etc.

 

The GM and HC and/or asst coaches sit down and go over the attributes that are grade and they determine order of priority and assign a weight to each.  (For example, with Dungy character had a higher weight than size.

 

So then the scouts go out with their books and watch and grade the players in the different catagories, they then multiply the score in each category by the weight for that category and get an overall score.  They then add up the overall score for each category, the highest overall number is 1st on the board, the 2nd highest number is 2nd on the board and so on.  So the BPA available when a team picks in the player left on the board with the highest overall score.

Read these two posts, folks. This is good information, and it is right on the money. 

 

Learn from it......

[Coffeedrinker]

Read these two posts, folks. This is good information, and it is right on the money. 

 

Learn from it......

Thanks Indigo.  But I'm afraid many will not head your advice... This board has become too much like TMZ.

[Superman]

Playing scouting is a very in depth, complex process and it usually has very little to do with stats or even combine numbers and more about individual traits.

For example a player is graded on a scale usually from 0-100 and attributes such as: field awareness, intensity, follows assignments, uses technique as taught, speed, acceleration, agility, height, weight, coachable, integrity, character, etc.

The GM and HC and/or asst coaches sit down and go over the attributes that are grade and they determine order of priority and assign a weight to each. (For example, with Dungy character had a higher weight than size.

So then the scouts go out with their books and watch and grade the players in the different catagories, they then multiply the score in each category by the weight for that category and get an overall score. They then add up the overall score for each category, the highest overall number is 1st on the board, the 2nd highest number is 2nd on the board and so on. So the BPA available when a team picks in the player left on the board with the highest overall score.

This is good stuff. There are probably slight variations from team to team, but that's the long and short of it...

[CanuckColt]

BPA is in the eye of the beholder (GM making the pick)...Its really as simple as that

Yep...very much so.  It is NOT an absolute or a concensus....just a subjective opinion (influenced by needs).