BPA vs. NEED

[jim scheurich]

Explain me this... How is it that people put a want before a need??  Its the same thing as wanting to have a sportscar instead of having food or water.  I just don't understand it...

[NewColtsFan]

6 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

Explain me this... How is it that people put a want before a need??  Its the same thing as wanting to have a sportscar instead of having food or water.  I just don't understand it...

 

Few issues will create a bigger, nastier Colts.com food fight than drafting BPA or drafting for need.

 

But you throw off your premise by changing it....    people are NOT putting a "want" before a "need"....

 

People are valuing taking the best player regardless of position over taking the highest ranked player at a position of need.       You can agree or disagree,  but it's not hard to understand.

 

Use last year's Colts first round pick as an example.   There have probably been a million posts arguing both sides.

 

We said we wanted defense and we clearly needed defense and instead we took WR Phillip Dorsett.

 

Though it wasn't a position of need Grigson came out and said Dorsett was so far easily the best player on the board that the decision to take him was easy.     Reports surfaced that the Colts had Dorsett ranked in the teens. So, even at the lowest possible teen ranking, Dorsett was ranked 19th.     We took him at 29.     So, he was at least 10 spots higher than his draft slot.     That's a lot.      We addressed defense with our 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and one 6th round pick.   

 

Grigson also said had Dorsett not been available, and had the rest of the players been ranked roughly equally, he would then have taken the player of greatest need.

 

So, Grigson covered both sides of the argument. 

 

At the time Dorsett looked like a luxury pick.     But just one year later,   Dorsett looks like a very smart move because he's going to get a lot of playing time and likely catch a large number of passes....

 

That's often life in the NFL.....

 

 

[Superman]

6 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

Explain me this... How is it that people put a want before a need??  Its the same thing as wanting to have a sportscar instead of having food or water.  I just don't understand it...

 

What a bad analogy. You need good players at every position. There are no luxuries on an NFL roster, besides maybe backup QB.

 

The draft is meant to add talent. When you draft the best players you can, the goal is to end up with a bunch of talented players, and over time, that's what happens if you scout well. Along the way, you can address glaring needs in free agency while your young players develop, if necessary. Every once in a while, you can take a big swing at a potential difference maker, whether in free agency or via trade.

 

Too many people make the mistake of thinking that simply drafting a player at a position of perceived need automatically fills that need. In reality, drafted players don't all work out. Logically, by drafting a player that your scouting says isn't as good as a player you're passing on, you are reducing the odds of your player being successful. Two years later, you face the reality that your need isn't filled, and you missed out on the better player who is starting for another team at a position at which you now have a need. Again, logic tells you that over time this will lead to a less talented roster overall. 

 

Don't reach for need. Add the best players you can, and over time, your roster will be better.

[Yoshinator]

8 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

Explain me this... How is it that people put a want before a need??  Its the same thing as wanting to have a sportscar instead of having food or water.  I just don't understand it...

As an aspiring GM who may take over for a team one day (I'm 28 right now), let me explain it to you in an easy way. There are two major ways to improve your team, Free Agency and the Draft (Trades are a 3rd, but they are much more uncommon in football than other sports). Free Agency is used to get players that are older, more experienced, and have been released from their former teams or have had their contract expire and weren't re-signed. Usually this means that they didn't work out with their former team and could mean they are busts (though money can be an issue as well). You use Free Agency to fill needs for your team, whether these are high profile free agents or under the radar free agents is ultimately up to the GM and the cap situation. The point is you are filling needs and making your team whole.

 

The draft is a different animal. The point of it is to get the best available talent and make your team that much better overall. You would like BPA to coincide with need, but it doesn't always work like that. There are extreme instances where we would pass up players that are BPA because of position (we wouldn't take Jared Goff at 18 because we have Andrew Luck), but usually if a player is ranked highest on a draft board and is BPA, then he is the pick. If Ezekiel Elliott is a top 10 pick in Grigson's eyes and he falls to 18, he will probably be the pick. I can't stand Elliott, but I can't deny his talent. You try to improve your team over the long run and make them the best you can overall, the strongest 53 man unit possible. Worst thing you can do is take a player you have 10-15 picks ranked below where you are picking. If you want to do that, you trade down and acquire more picks. Hope this helps you.

[oldunclemark]

12 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

Explain me this... How is it that people put a want before a need??  Its the same thing as wanting to have a sportscar instead of having food or water.  I just don't understand it...

 

Depends on whether you are a playoff team and what round it is.

Check Denver and Chicago - 2015, Jim..

 

The NEEDED offensive linemen...but when they had a chance to get Shane Ray....an OLB..rated very highgly .they traded up and got him to load up on defense.

Did it work? Yes and no. They took what they wanted instead fo what they needed and still won the Super Bowl with a shaky O-line. But Ray showed promise and is still in line to replace DeMarcus Ware eventually

 

Check the Bears - 2015....They badly needed linebackers and edge rushers (Or anybody) on defense...or offensive linemen.  They jumped at the chance to sign a top wide receiver at No. 7 (I forget his name) he was hurt early and never played a down. Bears were non playoff losers..but they'd have been short of the playoffs no matter who they drafted. They were building for the future with a new coach.

Like Cleveland this year.

 

Both teams took 'best player available' //Putting want ahead of need...

Unless you have no QB (like Denver) I'd always put WANT (translated as: taking the highest rated player) ahead of NEED (translated: filling the largest hole on your roster) in the first round.  But you better be right in either case.

 If they guys you pick pan out.   You'll eventually win.

 

 

[jim scheurich]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Few issues will create a bigger, nastier Colts.com food fight than drafting BPA or drafting for need.

 

But you throw off your premise by changing it....    people are NOT putting a "want" before a "need"....

 

People are valuing taking the best player regardless of position over taking the highest ranked player at a position of need.       You can agree or disagree,  but it's not hard to understand.

 

Use last year's Colts first round pick as an example.   There have probably been a million posts arguing both sides.

 

We said we wanted defense and we clearly needed defense and instead we took WR Phillip Dorsett.

 

Though it wasn't a position of need Grigson came out and said Dorsett was so far easily the best player on the board that the decision to take him was easy.     Reports surfaced that the Colts had Dorsett ranked in the teens. So, even at the lowest possible teen ranking, Dorsett was ranked 19th.     We took him at 29.     So, he was at least 10 spots higher than his draft slot.     That's a lot.      We addressed defense with our 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and one 6th round pick.   

 

Grigson also said had Dorsett not been available, and had the rest of the players been ranked roughly equally, he would then have taken the player of greatest need.

 

So, Grigson covered both sides of the argument. 

 

At the time Dorsett looked like a luxury pick.     But just one year later,   Dorsett looks like a very smart move because he's going to get a lot of playing time and likely catch a large number of passes....

 

That's often life in the NFL.....

 

 

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of last years 1st round pick, good player, just didn't "need" him. theres that word again.

[jim scheurich]

1 minute ago, jim scheurich said:

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of last years 1st round pick, good player, just didn't "need" him. theres that word again.

PS appreciate your input, I agree with a lot of your points!

[jim scheurich]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

What a bad analogy. You need good players at every position. There are no luxuries on an NFL roster, besides maybe backup QB.

 

The draft is meant to add talent. When you draft the best players you can, the goal is to end up with a bunch of talented players, and over time, that's what happens if you scout well. Along the way, you can address glaring needs in free agency while your young players develop, if necessary. Every once in a while, you can take a big swing at a potential difference maker, whether in free agency or via trade.

 

Too many people make the mistake of thinking that simply drafting a player at a position of perceived need automatically fills that need. In reality, drafted players don't all work out. Logically, by drafting a player that your scouting says isn't as good as a player you're passing on, you are reducing the odds of your player being successful. Two years later, you face the reality that your need isn't filled, and you missed out on the better player who is starting for another team at a position at which you now have a need. Again, logic tells you that over time this will lead to a less talented roster overall. 

 

Don't reach for need. Add the best players you can, and over time, your roster will be better.

FA doesn't always work out either T cole isn't the world beater he was supposed to be. Just one example

[jim scheurich]

4 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

As an aspiring GM who may take over for a team one day (I'm 28 right now), let me explain it to you in an easy way. There are two major ways to improve your team, Free Agency and the Draft (Trades are a 3rd, but they are much more uncommon in football than other sports). Free Agency is used to get players that are older, more experienced, and have been released from their former teams or have had their contract expire and weren't re-signed. Usually this means that they didn't work out with their former team and could mean they are busts (though money can be an issue as well). You use Free Agency to fill needs for your team, whether these are high profile free agents or under the radar free agents is ultimately up to the GM and the cap situation. The point is you are filling needs and making your team whole.

 

The draft is a different animal. The point of it is to get the best available talent and make your team that much better overall. You would like BPA to coincide with need, but it doesn't always work like that. There are extreme instances where we would pass up players that are BPA because of position (we wouldn't take Jared Goff at 18 because we have Andrew Luck), but usually if a player is ranked highest on a draft board and is BPA, then he is the pick. If Ezekiel Elliott is a top 10 pick in Grigson's eyes and he falls to 18, he will probably be the pick. I can't stand Elliott, but I can't deny his talent. You try to improve your team over the long run and make them the best you can overall, the strongest 53 man unit possible. Worst thing you can do is take a player you have 10-15 picks ranked below where you are picking. If you want to do that, you trade down and acquire more picks. Hope this helps you.

Thanks for the explanation. I am mainly talking about this years draft. We "need" Oline IMO. There seems to be several linemen that are rated close to our pick. I'm not saying to take someone that is rated far below where we pick at. Hope you are successful on your career journey!

[jim scheurich]

49 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

 

Depends on whether you are a playoff team and what round it is.

Check Denver and Chicago - 2015, Jim..

 

The NEEDED offensive linemen...but when they had a chance to get Shane Ray....an OLB..rated very highgly .they traded up and got him to load up on defense.

Did it work? Yes and no. They took what they wanted instead fo what they needed and still won the Super Bowl with a shaky O-line. But Ray showed promise and is still in line to replace DeMarcus Ware eventually

 

Check the Bears - 2015....They badly needed linebackers and edge rushers (Or anybody) on defense...or offensive linemen.  They jumped at the chance to sign a top wide receiver at No. 7 (I forget his name) he was hurt early and never played a down. Bears were non playoff losers..but they'd have been short of the playoffs no matter who they drafted. They were building for the future with a new coach.

Like Cleveland this year.

 

Both teams took 'best player available' //Putting want ahead of need...

Unless you have no QB (like Denver) I'd always put WANT (translated as: taking the highest rated player) ahead of NEED (translated: filling the largest hole on your roster) in the first round.  But you better be right in either case.

 If they guys you pick pan out.   You'll eventually win.

 

 

Appreciate your input... I agree with a lot of what your saying

[ColtsBlueFL]

15 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

Explain me this... How is it that people put a want before a need??  Its the same thing as wanting to have a sportscar instead of having food or water.  I just don't understand it...

 

2 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of last years 1st round pick, good player, just didn't "need" him. theres that word again.

 

Here's what I posted in another thread-

 

As far as draft for need vs. BPA, if the need guy is pretty close in grade to the BPA guy, go for the need player.  But if there is a notable difference in grade, you really must go BPA within the first 3 rounds, IMO.  Here is why-

Drafting the best available player over need in at least the draft’s first three rounds leads to an overall higher level of talent for the team roster. Many teams (including Grigson) employ this method, trusting in their scouts and their own scouting capability for playing grade assessment.

    On the other hand is the “need-based” type draft team. I have quite a few issues with this:

 

    1. You will always pass up more talented players (which your opponent greedily accepts) in the name of short term fixes.

    2. Your needs today will not be the same as your needs tomorrow. In a game as violent as professional football, one play, one injury often changes that “needs assessment” drastically.

    3. Draft pick misses are magnified, as your focus was so narrow (1-3 positions), you ignored other players with star potential at other positions.

    4. You limit your trade options, and you limit your flexibility.

 

Dorsett wasn't a 'need' last year.  But this year he might well have been, but we already have him, so we can move on.

[jim scheurich]

17 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

Here's what I posted in another thread-

 

As far as draft for need vs. BPA, if the need guy is pretty close in grade to the BPA guy, go for the need player.  But if there is a notable difference in grade, you really must go BPA within the first 3 rounds, IMO.  Here is why-

Drafting the best available player over need in at least the draft’s first three rounds leads to an overall higher level of talent for the team roster. Many teams (including Grigson) employ this method, trusting in their scouts and their own scouting capability for playing grade assessment.

    On the other hand is the “need-based” type draft team. I have quite a few issues with this:

 

    1. You will always pass up more talented players (which your opponent greedily accepts) in the name of short term fixes.

    2. Your needs today will not be the same as your needs tomorrow. In a game as violent as professional football, one play, one injury often changes that “needs assessment” drastically.

    3. Draft pick misses are magnified, as your focus was so narrow (1-3 positions), you ignored other players with star potential at other positions.

    4. You limit your trade options, and you limit your flexibility.

 

Dorsett wasn't a 'need' last year.  But this year he might well have been, but we already have him, so we can move on.

I agree with this...My main point this year is keeping A. Luck healthy. Need to Have to whatever...I just don't like the idea of picking someone at #18 that has no effect on keeping our most important player healthy.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

FA doesn't always work out either T cole isn't the world beater he was supposed to be. Just one example

 

So what? How does that influence draft strategy?

 

That's actually an example of why you don't reach for need. Imagine passing up a good pass rusher last year because, with Trent Cole, we didn't 'need' pass rushers... That would be bad draft strategy. 

[Superman]

37 minutes ago, jim scheurich said:

I agree with this...My main point this year is keeping A. Luck healthy. Need to Have to whatever...I just don't like the idea of picking someone at #18 that has no effect on keeping our most important player healthy.

 

What about #48? What about #82? 

 

Why act like the only pick that matters is the first pick?

[Superman]

1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

    2. Your needs today will not be the same as your needs tomorrow. In a game as violent as professional football, one play, one injury often changes that “needs assessment” drastically.

 

 

Good post, especially this part.

[ColtsBlueFL]

19 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

I agree with this...My main point this year is keeping A. Luck healthy. Need to Have to whatever...I just don't like the idea of picking someone at #18 that has no effect on keeping our most important player healthy.

 

That is the point.  If an O lineman of the caliber of Dorsett was there in round one, he'd be a Colt right now.  There wasn't.  In fact, they felt Dorsett was rungs above Malcolm Brown (Amongst others), and went with the WR pick.  If Grigs reached and drafted a second or third round grade O lineman in round one, that just  puts good players on the roster while the other teams pick up the elite players.  Keep doing that for apparent needs every year and you begin to wonder why a team you once owned is now battling you and maybe even winning. Especially if that just good need player in round one doesn't work out.

 

Grigs has drafted many o lineman, and signed many more FA o lineman.  Most haven't worked out for various resaons.  That is why I'm glad Philbin is here.  He's been around O lines most of his career.  I do not doubt Pagano, and maybe Irsay and Grigson as well, have gone up to Philbin and said 'who in this draft do you want?  Who can you coach up to be a great O lineman (it may not be even a round one guy) ?  Once he answers, they do what they can to get 'that' guy.  Not someone similar, that guy.  All of these coaches have read all the scouting reports, showed up at combine, pro days, and  senior bowl etc and made their own assessments.  They know exactly who they want, if they can get them. The heartbreak comes if they aren't able to pull it off.

[OffensivelyPC]

Who says needs arent calculated into BPA?

[ColtRider]

2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

Here's what I posted in another thread-

 

As far as draft for need vs. BPA, if the need guy is pretty close in grade to the BPA guy, go for the need player.  But if there is a notable difference in grade, you really must go BPA within the first 3 rounds, IMO.  Here is why-

Drafting the best available player over need in at least the draft’s first three rounds leads to an overall higher level of talent for the team roster. Many teams (including Grigson) employ this method, trusting in their scouts and their own scouting capability for playing grade assessment.

    On the other hand is the “need-based” type draft team. I have quite a few issues with this:

 

    1. You will always pass up more talented players (which your opponent greedily accepts) in the name of short term fixes.

    2. Your needs today will not be the same as your needs tomorrow. In a game as violent as professional football, one play, one injury often changes that “needs assessment” drastically.

    3. Draft pick misses are magnified, as your focus was so narrow (1-3 positions), you ignored other players with star potential at other positions.

    4. You limit your trade options, and you limit your flexibility.

 

Dorsett wasn't a 'need' last year.  But this year he might well have been, but we already have him, so we can move on.

 

Most NFL teams & their boards will try and stick to the formula of :

 

BPA + Need = BGA. By sticking to your scouts, judgment, and overall grading system of your team and not reaching for either one (depending on scale & grade) this usually works out best. Temptations can get to the best of the best. By adhering to your draft plan before the board goes up (barring catastrophe/major change) & staying true to that board from then on, thwarts making mistakes. Very rarely does a pick work out according to need only. The combination of all the variables going into the draft should be recognized beforehand, thus making for a good draft. 

 

Most fans do not realize how much time & effort the entire selection(s) process takes from start to finish. It's a TON of work by the scouts, coaches, GM & owner, to land a common consensus that eventually scripts out the final goal on draft day.

 

By reading Superman, ColtsBlueFL, & NewColtsFan posts in this thread will bode well for all wanting to know how drafts work for most NFL teams.

[Defjamz26]

Lots of good responses in here. My take is this:

 

The argument for this topic usually centers around why you shouldn't draft for need. And using the BPA mod that Superman described, it seems to make sense.

 

However, it would be short sited to say that teams Don't draft for need, and the ones that do end up disappointed. Take the Packers 2015 draft. They drafted 2 CBs back to back in rounds 1 and 2, and their biggest weakness was probably their secondary. So far it seems that payed off. Going into the 2014 draft the Panthers had gotten rid of Lafell, Ginn, and Steve Smith leaving Cam with only Olsen as a reliable pass catcher. Then the first round of that draft they took Kelvin Benjamin. Even if you conclude that Benjamin might have been their highest rated player  on the board, if they hadn't taken him they probably would have taken a WR in the next round. But the fact that they released all those receivers in the offseason and didn't sign anyone, but drafted a WR in the 1st means they probably drafted for need. So drafting for need does happen and isn't always disastrous when it does.

 

BPA is usually the most sensible way to go, but it also can have its faults. If your GM is wrong about the BPA it can set your team back just as much as reaching for need and getting a bust. Maybe that CB that you needed would've been better than the TE that you didn't  really needed. An example of missing on BPA is the Giants. With the exception of ODB, they've drafted terribly the last couple of years which is why they haven't touched the playoffs since last winning the Super Bowl. Hakeem Nicks wasn't good that long, Amukamara was a bust, Damontre Moore never developed, and even before injuries, David Wilson was hot and cold. 

 

So drafting for need and going BPA both have their pros and cons. Drafting BPA is probably the norm that teams generally follow, but there are times when you have to roll the dice and address some needs because you can only have but so many good TEs or 6'3 WRs.

[Buck Showalter]

Just thinking out loud here, but does anyone think the BPA vs. Need drafting approach, alter or shift slightly as the draft proceeds & the gap between the precieved quality and level of player ability begins to close, and players probably have very close grades/evaluatuons...

Sort of applying the bell grade principle...

I would assume that approach would apply heavily as teams create their big board...

 

[BPindy]

18 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Lots of good responses in here. My take is this:

 

The argument for this topic usually centers around why you shouldn't draft for need. And using the BPA mod that Superman described, it seems to make sense.

 

However, it would be short sited to say that teams Don't draft for need, and the ones that do end up disappointed. Take the Packers 2015 draft. They drafted 2 CBs back to back in rounds 1 and 2, and their biggest weakness was probably their secondary. So far it seems that payed off. Going into the 2014 draft the Panthers had gotten rid of Lafell, Ginn, and Steve Smith leaving Cam with only Olsen as a reliable pass catcher. Then the first round of that draft they took Kelvin Benjamin. Even if you conclude that Benjamin might have been their highest rated player  on the board, if they hadn't taken him they probably would have taken a WR in the next round. But the fact that they released all those receivers in the offseason and didn't sign anyone, but drafted a WR in the 1st means they probably drafted for need. So drafting for need does happen and isn't always disastrous when it does.

 

BPA is usually the most sensible way to go, but it also can have its faults. If your GM is wrong about the BPA it can set your team back just as much as reaching for need and getting a bust. Maybe that CB that you needed would've been better than the TE that you didn't  really needed. An example of missing on BPA is the Giants. With the exception of ODB, they've drafted terribly the last couple of years which is why they haven't touched the playoffs since last winning the Super Bowl. Hakeem Nicks wasn't good that long, Amukamara was a bust, Damontre Moore never developed, and even before injuries, David Wilson was hot and cold. 

 

So drafting for need and going BPA both have their pros and cons. Drafting BPA is probably the norm that teams generally follow, but there are times when you have to roll the dice and address some needs because you can only have but so many good TEs or 6'3 WRs.

 

Those examples are just cases when the "need" was close to the BPA. It's been mentioned by Grigs and other GMs...if the need is right behind the BPA, they're likely going to go with need. It's not like the Panthers just randomly pulled Benjamin out of nowhere, he was a highly graded WR 

[Defjamz26]

Just now, bap03Colts said:

 

Those examples are just cases when the "need" was close to the BPA. It's been mentioned by Grigs and other GMs...if the need is right behind the BPA, they're likely going to go with need. It's not like the Panthers just randomly pulled Benjamin out of nowhere, he was a highly graded WR 

Not as highly graded as some of the other WRs that year. There was a considerable amount of people who questioned whether or not he'd be able to separate at the next level. Some people thought he might be converted to TE. I'm not saying they reached for him or passed on a higher rated player for him, but the pick made a lot of sense for them.

[BPindy]

3 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Not as highly graded as some of the other WRs that year. There was a considerable amount of people who questioned whether or not he'd be able to separate at the next level. Some people thought he might be converted to TE. I'm not saying they reached for him or passed on a higher rated player for him, but the pick made a lot of sense for them.

 

Thats true, but every team's board is different. I'm sure Dorsett wasn't ranked in the teens for most teams last year. At the end of the day, Benjamin was the player they wanted and none of us will really ever know if he was a reach that worked out or rated highly by them

[SaturdayAllDay]

4 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Not as highly graded as some of the other WRs that year. There was a considerable amount of people who questioned whether or not he'd be able to separate at the next level. Some people thought he might be converted to TE. I'm not saying they reached for him or passed on a higher rated player for him, but the pick made a lot of sense for them.

It did make a ton of sense. He was on their radar as he was a really good scheme fit, which I think was what made him their BPA. One of the big knocks on Cam Newton is he tends to throw high, so to combat that the panthers went out in search of tall receivers. That is why they also went after Funchess. Between those two and Greg Olsen they really don't have to worry as much about Cam throwing over them. 

 

The biggest thing to remember with BPA is that there are tons of factors that make a player good in the eyes of each individual team. A player with a 1st round grade on one team may be a 3rd round in another. Taking factors like need and scheme fit really change the landscape from one draft board to another. The BPA vs need discussion never really made sense to me, as need is one of the factors that make a player rated higher or lower then other players of similar pedigree. A player that isn't in a position of "need" would therefore have to be head and shoulders above the prospects in areas of need in order to beat them out. I would rather get our 2nd rated OT over our 10th ranked OLB if one is seen as 20-25 picks better based on the board. Just makes sense to me.

[OffensivelyPC]

6 minutes ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

It did make a ton of sense. He was on their radar as he was a really good scheme fit, which I think was what made him their BPA. One of the big knocks on Cam Newton is he tends to throw high, so to combat that the panthers went out in search of tall receivers. That is why they also went after Funchess. Between those two and Greg Olsen they really don't have to worry as much about Cam throwing over them. 

 

The biggest thing to remember with BPA is that there are tons of factors that make a player good in the eyes of each individual team. A player with a 1st round grade on one team may be a 3rd round in another. Taking factors like need and scheme fit really change the landscape from one draft board to another. The BPA vs need discussion never really made sense to me, as need is one of the factors that make a player rated higher or lower then other players of similar pedigree. A player that isn't in a position of "need" would therefore have to be head and shoulders above the prospects in areas of need in order to beat them out. I would rather get our 2nd rated OT over our 10th ranked OLB if one is seen as 20-25 picks better based on the board. Just makes sense to me.

Co-signed.  All draft boards should be BPA driven, but when we are crossing over between positions, when choosing between 2 players in the same tier, need can take precedence. Like you said, if the BPA is 20-25 picks ahead, you either trade down and maximize your draft value and get your guy, or you take the clearly better guy and trade up to get the player thats a position of need if feasible. Obviously you dont want to use the draft only to fill needs, but when the difference between BPA and need is a very small distinction, theres nothing wrong with need. Just depends.

[krunk]

20 hours ago, jim scheurich said:

Explain me this... How is it that people put a want before a need??  Its the same thing as wanting to have a sportscar instead of having food or water.  I just don't understand it...

I dont think you are looking for an explanation in the first place. There's been many explanations given and you keep arguing the same thing. There's really not anything you are trying to understand.

[Buck Showalter]

17 minutes ago, krunk said:

I dont think you are looking for an explanation in the first place. There's been many explanations given and you keep arguing the same thing. There's really not anything you are trying to understand.

Ha, i think you've cracked the code...

[SaturdayAllDay]

57 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Co-signed.  All draft boards should be BPA driven, but when we are crossing over between positions, when choosing between 2 players in the same tier, need can take precedence. Like you said, if the BPA is 20-25 picks ahead, you either trade down and maximize your draft value and get your guy, or you take the clearly better guy and trade up to get the player thats a position of need if feasible. Obviously you dont want to use the draft only to fill needs, but when the difference between BPA and need is a very small distinction, theres nothing wrong with need. Just depends.

The trade down is always a dangerous game in my mind. With every team having different needs and different boards, you never quite know where your guy stacks up to all of the other teams. I have always preferred taking a player and then maybe trading up rather then risk losing both players from that tier. At least you know you end up with one of the guys from that tier.  

[jim scheurich]

!st pick is optimum. Chanches are they are playing day one. I'm drafting that way only me . I'm drafting oline . I don't care about every thing else. Andrew luck is priorty!!!

[jim scheurich]

51 minutes ago, krunk said:

I dont think you are looking for an explanation in the first place. There's been many explanations given and you keep arguing the same thing. There's really not anything you are trying to understand.

U are correct... I have my opinion... but I will say I am always looking for another opinion.

[ColtsBlueFL]

2 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:

Just thinking out loud here, but does anyone think the BPA vs. Need drafting approach, alter or shift slightly as the draft proceeds & the gap between the precieved quality and level of player ability begins to close, and players probably have very close grades/evaluatuons...

Sort of applying the bell grade principle...

I would assume that approach would apply heavily as teams create their big board...

 

 

I think in later rounds the grading doesn't become that different, so less important.  I know some team might group there picks is sets of 5.  Thus if there were 19 players i this draft that earned a round 1 grade, then the ranking would determine what level of ground 1 grade.  the first 5 would be 1A.  Next 5 would be 1B.  The next 5 would be 1C. players 16-19 would be 1D.  Players 20-25 would be grade 2A.  26-30 2B, and so forth.  Yes, this happens a lot, so there are team that must take round 2 grade players in round 1.  Colts and Pats have had to do that often in the last decade.  But later rounds the ranking difference probably isn't there.  Yet if a team sees what they feel is a 4A player still on the big board and they are up and picking from a 5C slot, they will likely go with the 4A player, BPA, and keep their scouts from cursing them out for not doing so.  LOL.

[OffensivelyPC]

1 hour ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

The trade down is always a dangerous game in my mind. With every team having different needs and different boards, you never quite know where your guy stacks up to all of the other teams. I have always preferred taking a player and then maybe trading up rather then risk losing both players from that tier. At least you know you end up with one of the guys from that tier.  

I like the idea of trading up if the right guy is there. I think trading down is dangerous, but if you dont think anyone is worth your current pick, trading down makes sense. You're in a sense playing the odds. Its like playing poker, but with the NFL instead of a stack of cards.

[OffensivelyPC]

57 minutes ago, jim scheurich said:

!st pick is optimum. Chanches are they are playing day one. I'm drafting that way only me . I'm drafting oline . I don't care about every thing else. Andrew luck is priorty!!!

Ive had a glass of whiskey and i think you're off your rocker. 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, krunk said:

I dont think you are looking for an explanation in the first place. There's been many explanations given and you keep arguing the same thing. There's really not anything you are trying to understand.

 

Yup. I responded because I felt like my position was being misrepresented. Hopefully this discussion at least clarifies why some of us feel that reaching for need is bad draft strategy, but there are some who will never accept it.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, jim scheurich said:

I don't care about every thing else

 

That's a bad way to build a roster.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Not as highly graded as some of the other WRs that year. There was a considerable amount of people who questioned whether or not he'd be able to separate at the next level. Some people thought he might be converted to TE. I'm not saying they reached for him or passed on a higher rated player for him, but the pick made a lot of sense for them.

 

I think a lot of GMs are very influenced by workout numbers, especially at skill positions. Grigson seems to be one of them; he can rattle off a guy's 40 time like it's nothing.

 

When Benjamin had an underwhelming Combine, I think a lot of GMs downgraded him, which helps explain why he went eight picks after Brandin Cooks, or even so much lower than Mike Evans (same size, similar tape, different workouts). Most people still considered him to be a solid first rounder, and in reality, he was the fifth WR off the board, so not too shabby. And that WR class is gonna be an all-time great class, I think. 

 

I could see the Panthers having a much higher grade on Benjamin than #28 overall. I think a lot of teams did, and it seems like they were patient and disciplined enough to wait it out. Probably a case of need and BPA lining up perfectly. And even if Benjamin was gone, there were 7 receivers taken in the second round, like Jordan Matthews and Jarvis Landry, who could have justified a late first round pick, IMO (I really liked both of them). 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, bap03Colts said:

 

Thats true, but every team's board is different.

 

Another noteworthy point. And each board is set up by humans with feelings and emotions, some of whom are likely influenced by the needs of their respective rosters. It's likely that one GM has a higher grade on a player than he really should because that player scratches an itch. No one can know for sure how good a player will be, but in a perfect world, you would scout honestly, not under the influence of what your team needs.

 

I think Grigson and Pagano made this mistake with Werner. Either that or they just don't know how to scout pass rushers.

[CR91]

BPA

 

Ill give you a perfect example. the phoenix suns had already eric bledsoe and brandon knight at the guard spots and they go and draft another guard devin booker. not only that hes only 19. fans were irate. I was irate(yes proud suns fan). and what happens? devin booker having one of the best rookie seasons in recent memory.  

[Surge89]

7 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

Here's what I posted in another thread-

 

As far as draft for need vs. BPA, if the need guy is pretty close in grade to the BPA guy, go for the need player.  But if there is a notable difference in grade, you really must go BPA within the first 3 rounds, IMO.  Here is why-

Drafting the best available player over need in at least the draft’s first three rounds leads to an overall higher level of talent for the team roster. Many teams (including Grigson) employ this method, trusting in their scouts and their own scouting capability for playing grade assessment.

    On the other hand is the “need-based” type draft team. I have quite a few issues with this:

 

    1. You will always pass up more talented players (which your opponent greedily accepts) in the name of short term fixes.

    2. Your needs today will not be the same as your needs tomorrow. In a game as violent as professional football, one play, one injury often changes that “needs assessment” drastically.

    3. Draft pick misses are magnified, as your focus was so narrow (1-3 positions), you ignored other players with star potential at other positions.

    4. You limit your trade options, and you limit your flexibility.

 

Dorsett wasn't a 'need' last year.  But this year he might well have been, but we already have him, so we can move on.

 

While I agree with your premise I don't like the Dorsett example. First I have never had any doubt he's gonna be a good player but to say we "need" him this year is utterly rediculous.  Teams need 2 talented wide outs.  After that you can have specialists, TE's, and RB's fill the rest of the roles.

 

Also on my board last year Dorsett was no where near BPA last year.  And what I also didn't understand is we had a chance at the highest rated ILB that not only filled a need but could easily be justified as the BPA  (so need would give him a higher grade in your scenario) and we wouldn't be having a discussion of having to take Ragland or Lee in the first this year...

 

Again I agree with your premise but I highly disagree with Dorsett being any resemblance of good drafting strategy as there were multiple players we could've justified as BPA that need should have increased grades.  But of course I also understand everyone scouts differently and Dorsett has traits that are highly wanted but the lack of size for me immediately eliminates the first round prospect option.  Therefore I just don't agree with the pick.

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I think a lot of GMs are very influenced by workout numbers, especially at skill positions. Grigson seems to be one of them; he can rattle off a guy's 40 time like it's nothing.

 

When Benjamin had an underwhelming Combine, I think a lot of GMs downgraded him, which helps explain why he went eight picks after Brandin Cooks, or even so much lower than Mike Evans (same size, similar tape, different workouts). Most people still considered him to be a solid first rounder, and in reality, he was the fifth WR off the board, so not too shabby. And that WR class is gonna be an all-time great class, I think. 

 

I could see the Panthers having a much higher grade on Benjamin than #28 overall. I think a lot of teams did, and it seems like they were patient and disciplined enough to wait it out. Probably a case of need and BPA lining up perfectly. And even if Benjamin was gone, there were 7 receivers taken in the second round, like Jordan Matthews and Jarvis Landry, who could have justified a late first round pick, IMO (I really liked both of them). 

That's true. That WR class was stacked so it's possible that he was the BPA and fit a need.

 

But I still wonder if they looked at the WR class when they made those cuts and figured they'd get a receiver one way or another. If it wasn't Benjamin maybe they grab Moncrief in the 2nd?

 

 I think one way or another the Panthers planned to draft a WR high that draft. And based on what you said I'm willing to bet the strategy was to draft one when it lined up with need. Benjamin was probably just the right player at the right pick.