BPA Advocates

[EastStreet]

For me, I'm a BPA advocate within reason. A good portion of the time, it makes sense. Some times isn't doesn't. I'm not a big fan of reaching a lot for a need either. 

 

Sometimes, you just do what makes sense. Teams with young true franchise QBs, 99.9% are not going to take a QB in the 1st round if a QB is the BPA. 

 

Needs, questionable character (red flags), depth (of certain positions) or lack thereof, and valued/devalued positions, are all factors. Teams also factor in position group risk (some positions are less risky or more risky when taken early rounds), which factors into the value/devalued aspects. 

 

No way in hell I'd take a RB in the first round based on our needs, and the devalued nature of RBs in a typical draft. TE either. I'm not taking a guy with a lot of red flags either with a top pick.

 

Nobody has taken a generational kicker or punter in the first round for around 20 years :-)

 

Here's good article about where positions are typically taken, and also there success rate. 

http://www.footballperspective.com/which-positions-are-the-safest-to-draft-in-the-first-round/

 

In the above, it might surprise some that TEs and Cs taken in the first round have the highest rate of turning out to be "average" or worse.

 

some decent graphs from another article below as well. 

 

 

 

[pacolts56]

I’d be very happy if we wound up with TJ Hockenson at #26.

 

 

 

[DougDew]

Isn't there some basic common sense to this?  A GM will look at his roster when forming a draft strategy.    Were Nelson and Smith drafted because they were BPA, or because we needed to fix the oline?  Going into last season, OL and ILB were the two biggest needs.  Those needs were filled with the first three draft picks.  It would be pure dumb luck that each player was the absolute BPA at the time they were drafted. That alignment wouldn't be genius, it would be luck.

 

BPA advocates tend to downplay their own thinking of BPA when they say that a certain player may rank higher "on their board" than other players or other boards.   Why would Leonard have rated high on Ballard's board than some other teams' boards?  Purely scheme fit?, like no other team as a use for a rangy LB?  Need factors into how the board is formed, so it seems.

 

If Hockenson was Absolute-BPA at the time, I would have a very hard time drafting him at 26 unless I knew how far away other players were from him at positions of need.  I'd take DE, DT, LB, S, OT, and WR ahead of him even if they were slightly below Hockenson in terms of Absolute-BPA. 

 

Sure, if Hockenson is expected to be an all-pro, I'd take him.  Of course, if that was a reasonable expectation, he would have been taken long before 26.  You'd have to believe that every other team in the top 25 passed on him because they have no use for a do it all TE who is expected to be an All-Pro.

[richard pallo]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Isn't there some basic common sense to this?  A GM will look at his roster when forming a draft strategy.    Were Nelson and Smith drafted because they were BPA, or because we needed to fix the oline?  Going into last season, OL and ILB were the two biggest needs.  Those needs were filled with the first three draft picks.  It would be pure dumb luck that each player was the absolute BPA at the time they were drafted. That wouldn't be genius, it would be luck.

 

BPA advocates tend to downplay there own thinking of BPA when they say that a certain player may rank higher "on their board" than other players.   Why would Leonard have rated high on Ballard's board than some other teams' boards?  Purely scheme fit?, like no other team as a use for a rangy LB?

 

If Hockenson was BPA at the time, I would have a very hard time drafting him at 26 unless I knew how far away other players were from him at positions of need.  I'd take DE, DT, LB, S, OT, and WR ahead of him even if they were slightly below Hockenson, somewhere near, say, BPA 36. 

 

Sure, if Hockenson is expected to be an all-pro, I'd take him.  Of course, if that was a reasonable expectation, he would have been taken long before 26.  You'd have to believe that every other team in the top 25 passed on him because they have no use for an All-Pro do it all TE.

I think Nelson and Smith were both drafted because they were the best player available in a " position of need".  OL and ILB were big needs but so was ER.  If you prioritize needs I can see where OL might have been ahead of ER last year or equal to.  We really don't know.  But OL was a high priority because of the Smith pick.  Ballard said he was the highest player on their board who was considered a starting OL.  BPA in a PON.  This year we can assume ER is still a big need but now maybe WR moves up the list or DT or S.  We don't know.  My guess is he values talent more than anything and he will fit that talent, best he can, into our needs.  If Hockenson is a highly rated player that falls I can see Ballard doing it.  I can see him doing it for Josh Jacobs as well.  We do not know how high our scouts have graded those two.  Are TE and RB considered PON in this draft?  You would think not.  But what if Ballard has those two ranked in his top 15 overall and his staff considers them premier caliber type players.  Then it could easily happen I think.  We don't know our player ranking of course but considering where we are picking if highly rated players drop for some reason then I think we should be ready for anything.  JMO. 

[DougDew]

10 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think Nelson and Smith were both drafted because they were the best player available in a " position of need".  OL and ILB were big needs but so was ER.  If you prioritize needs I can see where OL might have been ahead of ER last year or equal to.  We really don't know.  But OL was a high priority because of the Smith pick.  Ballard said he was the highest player on their board who was considered a starting OL.  BPA in a PON.  This year we can assume ER is still a big need but now maybe WR moves up the list or DT or S.  We don't know.  My guess is he values talent more than anything and he will fit that talent, best he can, into our needs.  If Hockenson is a highly rated player that falls I can see Ballard doing it.  I can see him doing it for Josh Jacobs as well.  We do not know how high our scouts have graded those two.  Are TE and RB considered PON in this draft?  You would think not.  But what if Ballard has those two ranked in his top 15 overall and his staff considers them premier caliber type players.  Then it could easily happen I think.  We don't know our player ranking of course but considering where we are picking if highly rated players drop for some reason then I think we should be ready for anything.  JMO. 

Right.  BPA in position of need.  I think there is miscommunication and over simplification of the concepts when folks talk BPA or reaching for need.

 

Obviously, a GM has to believe that any player drafted is capable of playing in the NFL.  You don't draft for need with the idea that you hope he's good enough to play.  That was Grigson's problem.  Neither Werner or Dorsett could play, but both were positions of need (yes, WR was a need back then.  We were in the same situation then as we are now, except hardly anybody on the forum recognized it).

 

Polian would sometimes draft guys who fit what Dungy wanted, a scheme fit, high on "his board" because of scheme and need, but some of those odd draft picks never amounted to much because they weren't very good players to begin with.

 

So when we talk about BPA vs Need, we have to understand that the player first and foremost has to be good enough to actually play.  When you use that as your floor for talent, IMO, need trumps Absolute BPA because the guy you're getting can actually contribute, both in terms of talent and playing time because there is a hole in the roster.

 

You can't draft all-pros outside of the top 10.  GMs get lucky if a lower drafted guy turns out to be that.  Ballard will get lucky with Leonard.  And that's why you draft with an eye towards need, because guys will become all-pros when nobody expected it, and the BPA you draft but don't need may not become all-pros and just took a spot another player was just as good at.  

[Coffeedrinker]

A good GM does not draft for need.  That is a sure fire way to NEVER build a team.

 

But need does factor into it.

 

The GM gets with the coaches and finds the attributes that are important for each player and they weight those attributes.

 

The GM goes with the scouts and teaches them how to grade players, they watch film and determine, for example, these are the things to look for when grading an olineman's footwork.

 

GM and coaches also sit down and evaluate the current team and they discover what areas they need to improve in, then they evaluate the current roster and project which players will improve, which ones likely won't improve, etc. to develop the position weight or factor

 

Scouts grade the players and turn the grades over to the senior scouts/GM

 

They assign the attribute weight to the scouts grades. They then multiply that number by the position weight factor.  Then they use that final number to set the board.

 

The reason to do it this way is obvious, no team wants to miss out on a multiple year impact player because that was not a position of need THAT year.  If teams drafting only for need for that year, then the Colts would not have drafted players like Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Robert Mathis, Bethea, Garcon... the list goes on.  On the flip side if a team does not factor in positional weight then they run a good chance of never really improving on the teams weaknesses.

 

 

[throwing BBZ]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Isn't there some basic common sense to this?  A GM will look at his roster when forming a draft strategy.    Were Nelson and Smith drafted because they were BPA, or because we needed to fix the oline?  Going into last season, OL and ILB were the two biggest needs.  Those needs were filled with the first three draft picks.  It would be pure dumb luck that each player was the absolute BPA at the time they were drafted. That alignment wouldn't be genius, it would be luck.

 

BPA advocates tend to downplay their own thinking of BPA when they say that a certain player may rank higher "on their board" than other players or other boards.   Why would Leonard have rated high on Ballard's board than some other teams' boards?  Purely scheme fit?, like no other team as a use for a rangy LB?  Need factors into how the board is formed, so it seems.

 

If Hockenson was Absolute-BPA at the time, I would have a very hard time drafting him at 26 unless I knew how far away other players were from him at positions of need.  I'd take DE, DT, LB, S, OT, and WR ahead of him even if they were slightly below Hockenson in terms of Absolute-BPA. 

 

Sure, if Hockenson is expected to be an all-pro, I'd take him.  Of course, if that was a reasonable expectation, he would have been taken long before 26.  You'd have to believe that every other team in the top 25 passed on him because they have no use for a do it all TE who is expected to be an All-Pro.

 

 Someone here was nice enough to post a video explaining how draft boards are set up. It showed a sample of a grading system and how you separate the different layers of grades.

 Hockenson likely has a first round grade along with about 18 others.

He won't be there for us, but if he were, and he was the only first round graded player left on Ballards board, i trust that he would take him. 

 There of course will be a larger group that have similar second round grades so from there you may draft with the idea of picking someone at a position of scarcity 1st. Smith fell into that category last draft.

  So the question is, who will be left on our board that has a first rd grade come pick 26? Remember Ballard said Hooker was the highest graded player on his entire board. 

 My guess today is Wilkins and Tillery will get 1st rd grades with a chance at being there. And Tillery having some special traits, like Turay showed, he would get the nod. CB likes to FIX things, so getting both i believe would work for him.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

A good GM does not draft for need.  That is a sure fire way to NEVER build a team.

 

But need does factor into it.

 

The GM gets with the coaches and finds the attributes that are important for each player and they weight those attributes.

 

The GM goes with the scouts and teaches them how to grade players, they watch film and determine, for example, these are the things to look for when grading an olineman's footwork.

 

GM and coaches also sit down and evaluate the current team and they discover what areas they need to improve in, then they evaluate the current roster and project which players will improve, which ones likely won't improve, etc. to develop the position weight or factor

 

Scouts grade the players and turn the grades over to the senior scouts/GM

 

They assign the attribute weight to the scouts grades. They then multiply that number by the position weight factor.  Then they use that final number to set the board.

 

The reason to do it this way is obvious, no team wants to miss out on a multiple year impact player because that was not a position of need THAT year.  If teams drafting only for need for that year, then the Colts would not have drafted players like Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Robert Mathis, Bethea, Garcon... the list goes on.  On the flip side if a team does not factor in positional weight then they run a good chance of never really improving on the teams weaknesses.

 

 

Agreed with most of your comment.

 

To the bolded, you're putting Mathis, Bethea, and Garcon into the same bucket as Wayne and Clark.  Both Wayne and Clark were first round draft choices who were drafted to contribute immediately.  In fact, Wayne was nearly run out of town his first few years because he couldn't beat out Sean Dawkins and the old vet WR we had.  

 

Mathis, Bethea, and Garcon were drafted in the 5th and 6th rounds.  A GM doesn't inherently draft towards need in those rounds because he can't really expect them to contribute much other than depth.  If Polian/Dungy actually expected them to turn into the players they did, they wouldn't have waited until the 5th and 6th rounds to draft them.  That's where you draft BPA developmental players with an eye towards elevating their game to the point they can earn PT.   That's not the same strategy when picking Wayne, Clark at 25 and 24, or whomever we'll pick at 26.  Players drafted in those positions will be expected to contribute early, and in order to do that, you need to have a hole in your roster either now or one year from now.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Someone here was nice enough to post a video explaining how draft boards are set up. It showed a sample of a grading system and how you separate the different layers of grades.

 Hockenson likely has a first round grade along with about 18 others.

He won't be there for us, but if he were, and he was the only first round graded player left on Ballards board, i trust that he would take him. 

 There of course will be a larger group that have similar second round grades so from there you may draft with the idea of picking someone at a position of scarcity 1st. Smith fell into that category last draft.

  So the question is, who will be left on our board that has a first rd grade come pick 26? Remember Ballard said Hooker was the highest graded player on his entire board. 

 My guess today is Wilkins and Tillery will get 1st rd grades with a chance at being there. And Tillery having some special traits, like Turay showed, he would get the nod. CB likes to FIX things, so getting both i believe would work for him.

GMs hit on less than 60% of their first round picks.  That doesn't meant that 40% of GMs draft 2nd round quality players in the first round because of need, and those second rounders fail. 

 

What it likely means is that they misgrade players a lot.  

 

Why wouldn't Leonard have had a first round grade last year? 

 

My guess is that Wilkins or Tillery would be drafted instead of Hockenson even if they had high second round grades assigned to them.

 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

That's not the same strategy when picking Wayne, Clark at 25 and 24, or whomever we'll pick at 26.  Players drafted in those positions will be expected to contribute early, and in order to do that, you need to have a hole in your roster either now or one year from now.

 

That's general consensus, but I think it's flawed reasoning. Good players get on the field.

[FalseStart]

I would be thrilled with a Hockenson, Rapp or Hockenson, Oruwariye... Hockenson, Lawrence/Simmons...1-2...

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's general consensus, but I think it's flawed reasoning. Good players get on the field.

Not fully understanding your point.

 

If we forego Tillery or Wilkins and draft a TE, when exactly do we fill the hole at DT?  Next year?  (Do we sign Suh after the draft out of need)?

 

Why wouldn't the circumstance that we're faced with now face us again next year.  We kick the can down the road, hoping that some year a DT will be the BPA.

 

Drafting a #37 BPA DT at #26 instead of a #18 BPA TE isn't ideal, but chances are you'll have to make that decision at some point, and the best time to bite the bullett generally is now, not later.  The situation might get worse. 

 

I don't see where letting go of Ebron to make room for Hockenson while playing with a hole at DT for two years is a smart way to build a roster.

[throwing BBZ]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

GMs hit on less than 60% of their first round picks.  That doesn't meant that 40% of GMs draft 2nd round quality players in the first round because of need, and those second rounders fail. 

 

What it likely means is that they misgrade players a lot.  

 

Why wouldn't Leonard have had a first round grade last year? 

 

My guess is that Wilkins or Tillery would be drafted instead of Hockenson even if they had high second round grades assigned to them.

 

 

 Considering there are typically 20 or fewer 1st rd grade pics available each draft it Would mean there are 12 or so second rounders drafted in rd 1, so people are drafting them for need.

 And Leonard had a mediocre 40 and played against 2nd level competition.

He was drafted into the perfect system, which allowed him to pile up big stats last year. When those numbers drop significantly next season people will talk of a sophomore slump. I doubt it will be, he will just have better players around him.

 I could see our opponents continuing to target his zone for those easy 5-6 yards.

 He got a huge number of stat stuffing tackles that way.

  And i see what you are saying, Ballard won't trust his board. 

 MUCH more likely he would trade out to a clamoring team in love with Hockenson.

  And REGGIE was drafted because of his hands and to make MANNING look good.

 It took him some time to hone his craft, and the KING of One and Dones WON his MVP'S.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not fully understanding your point.

 

If we forego Tillery or Wilkins and draft a TE, when exactly do we fill the hole at DT?  Next year?  (Do we sign Suh after the draft out of need)?

 

Why wouldn't the circumstance that we're faced with now face us again next year.  We kick the can down the road, hoping that some year a DT will be the BPA.

 

Drafting a #37 BPA DT at #26 instead of a #18 BPA TE isn't ideal, but chances are you'll have to make that decision at some point, and the best time to bite the bullett generally is now, not later.  The situation might get worse. 

 

I don't see where letting go of Ebron to make room for Hockenson while playing with a hole at DT for two years is a smart way to build a roster.

 

I think you're applying an overly literal interpretation of BPA, especially as it relates to a broad draft strategy. 

 

Once my board is set, if I feel there's a substantial difference between Hockenson and Tillery, I'm not going to pass on Hockenson to draft Tillery because I think DT is a greater perceived need. I want the better player, if there's a substantial difference based on my board. "Stick to your board. Don't reach for need."

 

If I feel like I have to come out of this draft with a DT because it's such a drastic need and I can't realistically fill it with someone on my roster or in FA, then I'm identifying the DT that I think will address that need in the draft, I'm getting a good idea of where I think he'll go in the draft, and if he's out of my range, I'm going to trade up for him.

 

But if I identify that player, and he's the 30th player on my board, and there are still players with substantially higher grades at other positions, including positions of lesser perceived need, I'm not passing on those better players at #26. I'll take the better player, then trade up from #34 for my DT, or trade back from #26 and get more value. 

 

Ideally, I'm not relying on the draft to fill needs. I'm using the draft to add good players, I'm addressing immediate needs in FA and from my own roster, and I'm handling roster mechanics in August, not draft season. 

 

As for the "letting go of Ebron" scenario, I don't see how you get to that conclusion from what I said. More than one TE can play at the same time. And players will eventually be free agents and want more money than the team is willing to pay. I also don't have to settle for having a hole at DT for two years just because I don't draft a DT in 2019.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Considering there are typically 20 or fewer 1st rd grade pics available each draft it Would mean there are 12 or so second rounders drafted in rd 1, so people are drafting them for need.

 And Leonard had a mediocre 40 and played against 2nd level competition.

He was drafted into the perfect system, which allowed him to pile up big stats last year. When those numbers drop significantly next season people will talk of a sophomore slump. I doubt it will be, he will just have better players around him.

 I could see our opponents continuing to target his zone for those easy 5-6 yards.

 He got a huge number of stat stuffing tackles that way.

  And i see what you are saying, Ballard won't trust his board. 

 MUCH more likely he would trade out to a clamoring team in love with Hockenson.

  And REGGIE was drafted because of his hands and to make MANNING look good.

 It took him some time to hone his craft, and the KING of One and Dones WON his MVP'S.

Not sure what you mean that Ballard "won't trust his board"  Sure he will.  He'll have Hockenson graded 18, but will either trade out of the pick or pick a player that is graded lower on his board because it is a need.

 

Again, he has to feel that the player he picks is a very good player.  But taking the 18th guy at 26 over the 37th guy at 26 simply because one is 18 and the other is 37 is not the way it works, IMO.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think you're applying an overly literal interpretation of BPA, especially as it relates to a broad draft strategy. 

 

Once my board is set, if I feel there's a substantial difference between Hockenson and Tillery, I'm not going to pass on Hockenson to draft Tillery because I think DT is a greater perceived need. I want the better player, if there's a substantial difference based on my board. "Stick to your board. Don't reach for need."

 

If I feel like I have to come out of this draft with a DT because it's such a drastic need and I can't realistically fill it with someone on my roster or in FA, then I'm identifying the DT that I think will address that need in the draft, I'm getting a good idea of where I think he'll go in the draft, and if he's out of my range, I'm going to trade up for him.

 

But if I identify that player, and he's the 30th player on my board, and there are still players with substantially higher grades at other positions, including positions of lesser perceived need, I'm not passing on those better players at #26. I'll take the better player, then trade up from #34 for my DT, or trade back from #26 and get more value. 

 

Ideally, I'm not relying on the draft to fill needs. I'm using the draft to add good players, I'm addressing immediate needs in FA and from my own roster, and I'm handling roster mechanics in August, not draft season. 

 

As for the "letting go of Ebron" scenario, I don't see how you get to that conclusion from what I said. More than one TE can play at the same time. And players will eventually be free agents and want more money than the team is willing to pay. I also don't have to settle for having a hole at DT for two years just because I don't draft a DT in 2019.

Teams don't have two pro-bowl TEs on a roster at the same time.  Too much capital in one position.  If Hock is drafted, then Ebron won't get resigned.  So it is a push coming from a TE production standpoint.  And you'll be pushing at a position while a position of need goes unfilled.  Wasting Lucks window, IMO.

 

 I think in this discussion of BPA vs Need, there are different degrees.

 

There is a difference between drafting for need, and reaching for need.  

 

If there is a big drop off from one player to the next, from the 18th rated guy to the rest of the pack, then you pick the 18th guy at 26. 

 

But that's unlikely to happen, because if there is that big of a dropoff , a team between 19 and 25 will likely take him.  If Hockenson is a first round grade and there are only 18 players with first round grades in the draft, the question of whether or not you draft him is sort of moot because he won't even be there.  

 

I would say that if Hockenson is available, its probably because there isn't that great of separation between him and some other players, likely in an area of need.  So while not taking Hock and instead taking a lesser graded player may be drafting for need, it's not "reaching" for need. 

 

If Hock is still on the board at 26, then its very likely Tillery or Wilkins is not that big of a dropoff.  JMO.

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Agreed with most everything.  I think in this discussion of BPA vs Need, there are different degrees.

 

There is a difference between drafting for need, and reaching for need.  

 

If there is a big drop off from one player to the next, from the 18th rated guy to the rest of the pack, then you pick the 18th guy at 26. 

 

But that's unlikely to happen, because if there is that big of a dropoff , a team between 19 and 25 will likely take him.  If Hockenson is a first round grade and there are only 18 players with first round grades in the draft, the question of whether or not you draft him is sort of moot because he won't even be there.  

 

I would say that if Hockenson is available, its probably because there isn't that great of separation between him and some other players, likely in an area of need.  So while not taking Hock and instead taking a lesser graded player may be drafting for need, it's not "reaching" for need. 

 

If Hock is still on the board at 26, then its very likely Tillery or Wilkins is not that big of a dropoff.  JMO.

 

On my hypothetical board, if there's a substantial difference between the two, I take the higher graded player 10 times out of 10, regardless of need.

 

To the bolded, you're assuming everyone's board matches perfectly. You might have a different top 25 than me, another team might be less disciplined in sticking to their board, another team might really want a QB, etc. It's conceivable that my 15th ranked player is still on the board at #26, while my 20th-25th ranked players are taken. So there could be a substantial difference between the player at a position of perceived need and the highest rated player on my board.

[DougDew]

39 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

On my hypothetical board, if there's a substantial difference between the two, I take the higher graded player 10 times out of 10, regardless of need.

 

To the bolded, you're assuming everyone's board matches perfectly. You might have a different top 25 than me, another team might be less disciplined in sticking to their board, another team might really want a QB, etc. It's conceivable that my 15th ranked player is still on the board at #26, while my 20th-25th ranked players are taken. So there could be a substantial difference between the player at a position of perceived need and the highest rated player on my board.

Yes, substantial.  Just like there are different boards, there are different interpretations of substantial.

 

I wouldn't expect the 18th rated player to be available at 26 if he was truly substantially better.  Its a copy cat league and coaches rotate.  I think teams tend to look at the same attributes in players.  Maybe 1 or 2 teams can be off, but not 6.  If CB thinks Hock is special and there is a huge drop off after 18, he'll have to be prepared to trade up a few spots if he expects to get him, IMO.  If Hock is available at 26, I'd have to question if he was truly the 18th best player or if there was truly a substantial drop off, so I would not like the pick given the needs of the team.

 

 

[Hoose]

Interesting discussion. Superman, if, in this draft scenario being discussed, the difference in player rankings between the TE and the DT were, as you said, 18 for the TE and 37 for the DT, you pick the TE. As I understand it, that would be a substantial difference. But what if its 18 for the TE and 28 for the DT?

I do believe that there is a point where BPA and Position of Need converge to make a "slight reach" or "deviation" from the pure Board a sensible move. I'm pretty sure that's how most of these calls are made on draft day. 

Each team obviously has their line in the sand on how far to deviate from the Board, but if the Colts need a DT, and the difference between the TE and DT choices is pretty close, I don't doubt they are going DT, even if the TE is higher on the Board. JMO. 

[DougDew]

52 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

On my hypothetical board, if there's a substantial difference between the two, I take the higher graded player 10 times out of 10, regardless of need.

 

To the bolded, you're assuming everyone's board matches perfectly. You might have a different top 25 than me, another team might be less disciplined in sticking to their board, another team might really want a QB, etc. It's conceivable that my 15th ranked player is still on the board at #26, while my 20th-25th ranked players are taken. So there could be a substantial difference between the player at a position of perceived need and the highest rated player on my board.

Just one other point.  Boards themselves are influenced by need, so drafting for need is sort of baked into each team's board ranking to begin with.

 

Example, a press-man corner won't be ranked highly on CBs board because we don't need one for our D, so the Absolute-BPA could be passed over for the DT who is the 37th Absolute-BP. 

 

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I wouldn't expect the 18th rated player to be available at 26 if he was truly substantially better.  Its a copy cat league and coaches rotate.  I think teams tend to look at the same attributes in players.  Maybe 1 or 2 teams can be off, but not 6.  If CB thinks Hock is special and there is a huge drop off after 18, he'll have to be prepared to trade up a few spots if he expects to get him, IMO.  If Hock is available at 26, I'd have to question if he was truly the 18th best player or if there was truly a substantial drop off, so I would not like the pick given the needs of the team.

 

 

I feel like that's a rationalization, not an analysis. The Bears might have 3 man corners and two stand-up pass rushers on their board in the late teens / twenties that are either not on the Colts board due to scheme fit or lower on the Colts board due to value. Same for power blocking OL vs zone blocking, etc. I don't think it's remotely far-fetched that my 18th graded player is still there at #26, with a substantial gap between that player and the highest graded player at a position of greater perceived need.

 

As for the meaning of substantial, of course that's open for interpretation, just like "several" would be. But I think we know what we're saying. We could quantify it if we had a legitimate grading system and draft board to use as an example, as opposed to just talking in hypotheticals.

 

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Just one other point.  Boards themselves are influenced by need, so drafting for need is sort of baked into each team's board ranking to begin with.

 

Example, a press-man corner won't be ranked highly on CBs board because we don't need one for our D, so the Absolute-BPA could be passed over for the DT who is the 37th Absolute-BP. 

 

 

That's not need, that's value and scheme fit. Semantics, but I don't think "need" accurately describes what you're talking about.

 

I also think that takes us back to the overly literal interpretation of BPA as it relates to draft strategy.

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I feel like that's a rationalization, not an analysis. The Bears might have 3 man corners and two stand-up pass rushers on their board in the late teens / twenties that are either not on the Colts board due to scheme fit or lower on the Colts board due to value. Same for power blocking OL vs zone blocking, etc. I don't think it's remotely far-fetched that my 18th graded player is still there at #26, with a substantial gap between that player and the highest graded player at a position of greater perceived need.

 

As for the meaning of substantial, of course that's open for interpretation, just like "several" would be. But I think we know what we're saying. We could quantify it if we had a legitimate grading system and draft board to use as an example, as opposed to just talking in hypotheticals.

But scheme fit and positional value are fancy words for "need", IMO.  

 

I realize this discussion can come down to semantics.  When I read and think BPA, I think Absolute-BPA regardless of position or scheme.  And a GM would have to have an Absolute-BPA ranking board to have an idea about what players will be taken by which teams as to have an idea if the player he wants will be available.  So yes, the way I look at BPA, he might take the 37th ranked BPA at 26 because of "needs" of the scheme or how difficult it is to find a player at a certain position because of how the NFL values positions, which becomes another form of need.

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, Hoose said:

Interesting discussion. Superman, if, in this draft scenario being discussed, the difference in player rankings between the TE and the DT were, as you said, 18 for the TE and 37 for the DT, you pick the TE. As I understand it, that would be a substantial difference. But what if its 18 for the TE and 28 for the DT?

I do believe that there is a point where BPA and Position of Need converge to make a "slight reach" or "deviation" from the pure Board a sensible move. I'm pretty sure that's how most of these calls are made on draft day. 

Each team obviously has their line in the sand on how far to deviate from the Board, but if the Colts need a DT, and the difference between the TE and DT choices is pretty close, I don't doubt they are going DT, even if the TE is higher on the Board. JMO. 

 

I'm more concerned with the grade of the players we're talking about, vs their numerical ranking on my board.

 

For instance, if I come up with a numerical grading system between 1 and 10 that takes my scheme and values into consideration, it's conceivable that I have a grouping of players very close to each other. In that situation, my #18 player might have a 7.5 grade, and my #37 player has a 7.2 grade, and depending on the board and the range of players from top to bottom, I can justify going with the #37 player at a position of greater need. Although, that's a pretty big range, 18 to 37. I think 18 to 28 would be more likely... 

 

And let's say I do have a big grouping of similarly graded players, and no one is screaming at me near the top of that group, I would probably be looking to trade down 10-12 spots, if possible, and I'd still get a player from that grouping. Maybe even the player at the position of need. 

 

The thing about it is I think of the draft as a way to add good players that my staff can develop, not my primary way of addressing needs and roster holes. I think Ballard leaned toward need more than I like in last year's draft, but to be honest, with our roster issues, it would have been hard not to draft a player who fit a roster hole, at almost any position. And I still think that virtually every position on the roster can stand to be upgraded right now, so whoever we draft will be addressing a perceived need. Even TE, given Doyle's surgery and the fact that he's almost 30 and will be a FA after this season.

[DougDew]

A point about positional value.  LTs are very important.  If a team doesn't have one, they need one.  If you're drafting 20, would you take the LT who is the 30th ranked player?  I say of course you do, because you need a LT and you don't know where you'll be drafting or who will be available next year.  And I'd take that LT over an all-pro TE.

 

But the underlying premise is that any player you take at 18, 20, 26, 30, or 37 has to be able to actually play the game at a competent level.  Oftentimes GMs are criticized for reaching for a player because, ultimately, that player can't play at all.  But if a player contributes at a fairly high level, nobody is getting fired for taking the 30th best player 20th. 

 

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

But scheme fit and positional value are fancy words for "need", IMO.  

 

 

They aren't. That's a gross oversimplification.

 

Ballard has stated he wants to go to draft day with a board of around 175 players. There are 254 picks in this year's draft. That means at least 79 players drafted this year won't be on Ballard's board. You can see already where some of the deviation will come, from one team to the next. Some will be removed due to character, some due to scheme fit, some due to injury, etc. Ballard might believe that there's no value in drafting specialists, so kickers and punters aren't on his board, ever. Etc.

 

So, while the staff will scout several hundred players prior to the draft, they'll whittle their board of draftable players down to ~175, and they'll work from that board. A separate board (or boards) will help them establish every player in the draft to maintain an idea of overall value, and a feel for where other players will be drafted.

 

They won't do a lot of work on Kyler Murray, and he won't be on their draft day board because the value of drafting another QB doesn't make sense, but they'll have a good idea of where he ranks for the rest of the league. This would be useful in trade situations (up or down), and for having an idea of what players might be drafted before their next pick. It won't be exact, but it will help them keep track of highly graded players that aren't on their draft board.

 

As it pertains to scheme fit, a team that runs a zone blocking scheme will probably dramatically downgrade a blocker who is big and powerful but has limited movement ability. A power blocking team might have that player in their top 15, while the zone team has him down in the 50s, or maybe even off their board entirely. Same for a press man coverage team, grading and ranking a corner that struggles with man technique but excels in zone. A 1-gap defense, and a DL who doesn't get penetration; a defense predicated on speed, with a LB who doesn't run well, etc. The Rams might have a first round grade on Brian Burns, whereas the Chiefs don't have him on their board because he doesn't fit their defense (extreme example, but just to illustrate the point).

 

I mean, you can shoehorn the word "need" in, if you want -- our team doesn't need players who don't fit our scheme -- but that's not the kind of need we're talking about. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

A point about positional value.  LTs are very important.  If a team doesn't have one, they need one.  If you're drafting 20, would you take the LT who is the 30th ranked player?  I say of course you do, because you need a LT and you don't know where you'll be drafting or who will be available next year.  And I'd take that LT over an all-pro TE.

 

 

Fundamental difference. I would not. If I need a LT, I'm finding a way to fill that need to a serviceable degree, and I'm drafting the more highly graded player, assuming there's a substantial difference in my grades for the two players. 

[wig]

After FA, a well run team doesn't have any glaring holes.  Weighted with positional value, you'd like to basically have every option position on the table outside of QB in the first round.  Positional value/need should weigh more heavily in later rounds.  But early on, get more studs end of story.

 

If you're a team like the Broncos and the clearly BPA is an edge rusher, then move back a spot or two and gain capital.

 

People who predraft say edge rusher in the 1st, WR @ 34 and then Safety as if they're going to be disappointed if it doesn't follow that exactly are completely off base.

[DougDew]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

They aren't. That's a gross oversimplification.

 

Ballard has stated he wants to go to draft day with a board of around 175 players. There are 254 picks in this year's draft. That means at least 79 players drafted this year won't be on Ballard's board. You can see already where some of the deviation will come, from one team to the next. Some will be removed due to character, some due to scheme fit, some due to injury, etc. Ballard might believe that there's no value in drafting specialists, so kickers and punters aren't on his board, ever. Etc.

 

So, while the staff will scout several hundred players prior to the draft, they'll whittle their board of draftable players down to ~175, and they'll work from that board. A separate board (or boards) will help them establish every player in the draft to maintain an idea of overall value, and a feel for where other players will be drafted.

 

They won't do a lot of work on Kyler Murray, and he won't be on their draft day board because the value of drafting another QB doesn't make sense, but they'll have a good idea of where he ranks for the rest of the league. This would be useful in trade situations (up or down), and for having an idea of what players might be drafted before their next pick. It won't be exact, but it will help them keep track of highly graded players that aren't on their draft board.

 

As it pertains to scheme fit, a team that runs a zone blocking scheme will probably dramatically downgrade a blocker who is big and powerful but has limited movement ability. A power blocking team might have that player in their top 15, while the zone team has him down in the 50s, or maybe even off their board entirely. Same for a press man coverage team, grading and ranking a corner that struggles with man technique but excels in zone. A 1-gap defense, and a DL who doesn't get penetration; a defense predicated on speed, with a LB who doesn't run well, etc. The Rams might have a first round grade on Brian Burns, whereas the Chiefs don't have him on their board because he doesn't fit their defense (extreme example, but just to illustrate the point).

 

I mean, you can shoehorn the word "need" in, if you want -- our team doesn't need players who don't fit our scheme -- but that's not the kind of need we're talking about. 

Conceptually I agree, but that's not the way 85% of the discussions about this topic happen, because your example of BPA is not the way we talk about it either.

 

Most people who talk about BPA aren't discarding 79 NFL caliber college players from the total pool when thinking whether or not a GM reached for a player.  

 

Most people who come on this board, and most pundits, who criticize picks or praise the picks look at the total pool and determine the value of the pick relative to that player's ranking in the total pool.  They don't think about the teams need, or lack of need, for players with attributes suited for a 34 OLB or a 5 tech DL, press man corner, or OL blocking scheme, they just look at overall rank and where that player was drafted.  Shortsighted, yes, but that's how BPA ranking is looked at.

[ColtV]

On 3/18/2019 at 11:11 AM, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

I see a ton of people on this forum advocating for BPA, and that follow the line of thinking that Ballard will also go BPA at 26. My question is that if BPA at 26 is Josh Jacobs or TJ Hockenson, would you be okay with that selection? Neither RB or TE is a glaring need at this moment, though Doyle is coming off of injury and he and Ebron are both nearing the end of their respective contracts. I, personally, would be okay with either selection, because most rankings I've seen have these guys as Top 10 talent within the draft, and don't see how you don't take Pro Bowl talent at 26. Everyone screams for DE help, but we took 2 very capable, albeit raw, prospects last year, and who knows how these guys are going to develop? Now, let me end this by saying if I had my choice of selections with the 1st three picks, they'd be as follows: 1) DE, DT 2) DE, DT, S, CB 2-2) WR, or whichever of the above hasn't been addressed yet. 

To answer the question, yes I would. I don't think there is a position that couldn't use an upgrade on the team. 

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Yes, substantial.  Just like there are different boards, there are different interpretations of substantial.

 

I wouldn't expect the 18th rated player to be available at 26 if he was truly substantially better.  Its a copy cat league and coaches rotate.  I think teams tend to look at the same attributes in players.  Maybe 1 or 2 teams can be off, but not 6.  If CB thinks Hock is special and there is a huge drop off after 18, he'll have to be prepared to trade up a few spots if he expects to get him, IMO.  If Hock is available at 26, I'd have to question if he was truly the 18th best player or if there was truly a substantial drop off, so I would not like the pick given the needs of the team.

 

 

 

Doug,.....   you've conflated several issues.    It's a copy cat league is used for bigger picture issues,  not for rating/evaluating players.   Bigger issues like defense,  4-3 vs. 3-4...    or passing scheme,  move the chains vs. going for bigger chunk plays.

 

But if you could look into the War Rooms of all 32 teams,  you'd see 32 draft boards that pretty quickly don't look as much alike.    It's the ultimate beauty contest.    We all see it differently.   You like the blonde,  I like the red head,  Superman likes the brunet.    With players,  you like the WR with speed you can't teach.    I like the WR with hands and moves to get open.    Everyone values different qualities.     So that means you'll often see the 18th best player on someone's board drop to the 26th spot.   Happens all the time.  

 

The further away any team gets to the top-10 or so,  the more difference of opinion there is on talent.   Some teams are more willing to deal with players with attitude problems because they value talent the most.    Other teams will take the less talented guy who is more team oriented.

What you value impacts how you grade the player.   

 

32 different teams = 32 different big board evaluations.   And they don't look much alike.

 

[DougDew]

49 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Fundamental difference. I would not. If I need a LT, I'm finding a way to fill that need to a serviceable degree, and I'm drafting the more highly graded player, assuming there's a substantial difference in my grades for the two players. 

After I wrote that I realized I said it incompletely and contradictory to my previous statements.  What I meant to point out is that if that TE was thought to truly be All-pro at the time he was drafted, he wouldn't have lasted to pick 20 anyway.   Bad example given because the choice of skipping on an all-pro doesn't really happen past pick 15.

[DougDew]

21 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Doug,.....   you've conflated several issues.    It's a copy cat league is used for bigger picture issues,  not for rating/evaluating players.   Bigger issues like defense,  4-3 vs. 3-4...    or passing scheme,  move the chains vs. going for bigger chunk plays.

 

But if you could look into the War Rooms of all 32 teams,  you'd see 32 draft boards that pretty quickly don't look as much alike.    It's the ultimate beauty contest.    We all see it differently.   You like the blonde,  I like the red head,  Superman likes the brunet.    With players,  you like the WR with speed you can't teach.    I like the WR with hands and moves to get open.    Everyone values different qualities.     So that means you'll often see the 18th best player on someone's board drop to the 26th spot.   Happens all the time.  

 

The further away any team gets to the top-10 or so,  the more difference of opinion there is on talent.   Some teams are more willing to deal with players with attitude problems because they value talent the most.    Other teams will take the less talented guy who is more team oriented.

What you value impacts how you grade the player.   

 

32 different teams = 32 different big board evaluations.   And they don't look much alike.

 

 I think all 32 teams are able to see attributes of players who are suited to either , say, a 5 tech or a 3 tech, YAC or little YAC. etc.  They don't disagree about the degree to which the player possesses the attributes.

 

They disagree upon the degree they need players with those attributes.  So that's why their draft boards are different.

[ColtsBlueFL]

10 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Someone here was nice enough to post a video explaining how draft boards are set up. It showed a sample of a grading system and how you separate the different layers of grades.

 

Yes, how the  'Pros' do it.  Not us fans.

Thanks.  It was me.  And here it is again for the other folks:

 

10 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

{snip}

 

8 hours ago, DougDew said:

GMs hit on less than 60% of their first round picks. 

 

That is what Brian Decker was hired for!!  Yes, the Colts listened!!

 

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/17255219/green-beret-brian-decker-thinks-improve-success-rate-nfl-first-round-draft-picks

 

(and Free Agent Signings too...)

 

8 hours ago, DougDew said:

That doesn't meant that 40% of GMs draft 2nd round quality players in the first round because of need, and those second rounders fail. 

 

What it likely means is that they misgrade players a lot.

 

It happens. IE: Brady was graded late round QB (taken in 6th)

 

 

8 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

Why wouldn't Leonard have had a first round grade last year? 

 

My guess is that Wilkins or Tillery would be drafted instead of Hockenson even if they had high second round grades assigned to them.

 

 

Different teams will have different grades.  Skills that appeal to one team may be less exciting to another (and vice versa, and scheme fit, role, etc...)

 

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

Not sure what you mean that Ballard "won't trust his board"  Sure he will.  He'll have Hockenson graded 18,

 

No, he won't.  He'll have him in a group of similar grade at other positions (if there even are any).  Not a 'finite number'.

 

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

but will either trade out (down) of the pick

 

Possibly, get a player needed and at his value, plus more?  Heck yeah.

 

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

or pick a player that is graded lower on his board because it is a need.

 

Nope.  Taking the higher talent player every time.

 

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

Again, he has to feel that the player he picks is a very good player.  But taking the 18th guy at 26 over the 37th guy at 26 simply because one is 18 and the other is 37 is not the way it works, IMO.

 

Because they don't even assign players a 'number in the draft or talent level like fans do.

Refer to the link above to how the Pro Teams grade ans set up their boards.

 

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

Teams don't have two pro-bowl TEs on a roster at the same time.  Too much capital in one position. 

 

Hardly anybody gets 2 pro-bowl players let alone same position.  But remember Rob Gronkowski/Aaron Hernandez (before he went bat crazy...) duo?  Even Duane Allen/Coby Fleener?

 

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

If Hock is drafted, then Ebron won't get resigned. 

 

Yes, he would.  Reich could/would run many 12 and 13 personnel play formations, at times motioning out and into other formations for mismatches.

 

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

So it is a push coming from a TE production standpoint.  And you'll be pushing at a position while a position of need goes unfilled.  Wasting Lucks window, IMO.

 

Pfffttt. There will be someone at every position, and weakest positions getting backup substitutions more often, and upgrade via other teams practice squad, trade, FA signing, etc...

 

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

 I think in this discussion of BPA vs Need, there are different degrees.

 

There is a difference between drafting for need, and reaching for need.  

 

If there is a big drop off from one player to the next, from the 18th rated guy to the rest of the pack, then you pick the 18th guy at 26. 

 

But that's unlikely to happen, because if there is that big of a dropoff , a team between 19 and 25 will likely take him.  If Hockenson is a first round grade and there are only 18 players with first round grades in the draft, the question of whether or not you draft him is sort of moot because he won't even be there.  

 

What really happens is there are a couple/few guys at nearly the exact same grade (or real close), but at different positions.  Here a player may get a nod over the same or slightly perceived higher graded guy because of position of need. It's still essentially BPA (because of closeness of grade) pick.

 

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

I would say that if Hockenson is available, its probably because there isn't that great of separation between him and some other players, likely in an area of need.  So while not taking Hock and instead taking a lesser graded player may be drafting for need, it's not "reaching" for need. 

 

This would depend solely on exactly how much (via grade) a lesser player he is. And the GM's mindset.

 

I'm just not sure if some GM's succumb to temptation and veer away from their board at such times.  Did Grigson crumble off his higher graded player on the board to take Bjorn Werner, because he (they thought) filled a position of higher need?  We may never know for sure...

 

I think Ballard stays true to the board though. No matter what transpires.

 

 

 

[ColtsBlueFL]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

But scheme fit and positional value are fancy words for "need", IMO.  

 

I realize this discussion can come down to semantics.  When I read and think BPA, I think Absolute-BPA regardless of position

 

Yes

 

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

or scheme.

 

No! 

 

Players that don't fit the scheme just do not get graded nearly as high. Specifically because their (maybe amazing) talent doesn't fit the team 'system'. This is not a whatever talent show.  It's a what talent do you have for us show.

 

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

  And a GM would have to have an Absolute-BPA ranking board to have an idea about what players will be taken by which teams as to have an idea if the player he wants will be available. 

 

Yes, they have a board that accounts for other teams systems/schemes and who might fit - thus taking one of the board earlier than 1 team hoped, yet letting another player slide that wasn't expected to 'slip'.

 

Along with lack of character/psychiatric and medical reports, it forms the triangle of why media and fans can't ever predict the draft right.  Oh they may get Most of) the players names in on round 1 nearly all correct.  But never in the right order, or even going to the correct teams.

 

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

So yes, the way I look at BPA, he might take the 37th ranked BPA at 26 because of "needs" of the scheme

 

I don't look at it that way, though.

 

 

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

or how difficult it is to find a player at a certain position because of how the NFL values positions, which becomes another form of need.

 

[DougDew]

28 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Yes, how the  'Pros' do it.  Not us fans.

Thanks.  It was me.  And here it is again for the other folks:

 

 

 

That is what Brian Decker was hired for!!  Yes, the Colts listened!!

 

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/17255219/green-beret-brian-decker-thinks-improve-success-rate-nfl-first-round-draft-picks

 

(and Free Agent Signings too...)

 

 

It happens. IE: Brady was graded late round QB (taken in 6th)

 

 

 

Different teams will have different grades.  Skills that appeal to one team may be less exciting to another (and vice versa, and scheme fit, role, etc...)

 

 

No, he won't.  He'll have him in a group of similar grade at other positions (if there even are any).  Not a 'finite number'.

 

 

Possibly, get a player needed and at his value, plus more?  Heck yeah.

 

 

Nope.  Taking the higher talent player every time.

 

 

Because they don't even assign players a 'number in the draft or talent level like fans do.

Refer to the link above to how the Pro Teams grade ans set up their boards.

 

 

Hardly anybody gets 2 pro-bowl players let alone same position.  But remember Rob Gronkowski/Aaron Hernandez (before he went bat crazy...) duo?  Even Duane Allen/Coby Fleener?

 

 

Yes, he would.  Reich could/would run many 12 and 13 personnel play formations, at times motioning out and into other formations for mismatches.

 

 

Pfffttt. There will be someone at every position, and weakest positions getting backup substitutions more often, and upgrade via other teams practice squad, trade, FA signing, etc...

 

 

What really happens is there are a couple/few guys at nearly the exact same grade (or real close), but at different positions.  Here a player may get a nod over the same or slightly perceived higher graded guy because of position of need. It's still essentially BPA (because of closeness of grade) pick.

 

 

This would depend solely on exactly how much (via grade) a lesser player he is. And the GM's mindset.

 

I'm just not sure if some GM's succumb to temptation and veer away from their board at such times.  Did Grigson crumble off his higher graded player on the board to take Bjorn Werner, because he (they thought) filled a position of higher need?  We may never know for sure...

 

I think Ballard stays true to the board though. No matter what transpires.

 

 

 

To many things wrong with your post to comment.  But if you read my comments carefully, I'm the guy who is saying that GMs do not look at rank the same way pundits/fans do.  They have attributes they value.  Whether or not they put them on the the board with an assigned number is mechanics of the process that is not relevant to the point. Whether or not you want to semantically equate attributes with needs of the roster, that's not the point either.

 

The point is, what they don't do is take the college rankings of players regardless of specific attribute, then take the 26 th ranked player over the 37 th ranked player simply because the guy is 26 and the other guy is 37. 

 

That's how people talk about BPA, and how they evaluate reach.

 

BTW, Aaron Henrandez was drafted in the 4th round.  BB got lucky he turned out as good as he did.  If BB thought he was going to be that good, he wouldn't have waited until the 4th round.

 

Taking that concept to the Hockenson example, if Bill Polian had pro-bowler Ebron under contract and playing the recieving TE role, he wouldn't have taken Dallas Clark at 25, no matter where Clark was was ranked.  But maybe he takes someone in the 4th round who ends up being as good as Hernandez was.

[ColtsBlueFL]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

To many things wrong with your post to comment. 

 

Point them out, or don't make that comment at all.  Can't have a rebuttal/discussion to that statement.

 

Quote

But if you read my comments carefully, I'm the guy who is saying that GMs do not look at rank the same way pundits/fans do. 

 

Of course they don't, and they have a lot more information in many areas, reports, and really good film/tape from multiple angles fans never get.

 

Quote

They have attributes they value.  Whether or not they put them on the the board with an assigned number is mechanics of the process that is not relevant to the point. Whether or not you want to semantically equate attributes with needs of the roster, that's not the point either.

 

The point is, what they don't do is take the college rankings of players regardless of specific attribute, then take the 26 th ranked player over the 37 th ranked player simply because the guy is 26 and the other guy is 37. 

 

That's how people talk about BPA, and how they evaluate reach.

 

None of this translates to how real team GM's operate.

 

Quote

 

BTW, Aaron Henrandez was drafted in the 4th round.  BB got lucky he turned out as good as he did.  If BB thought he was going to be that good, he wouldn't have waited until the 4th round.

 

Once he found he was good, he should have traded him for immediately for a position of need then, I guess. Not.

 

Quote

 

Taking that concept to the Hockenson example, if Bill Polian had pro-bowler Ebron under contract and playing the recieving TE role, he wouldn't have taken Dallas Clark at 25, no matter where Clark was was ranked.

 

You do not know this for fact.  If I ever get lucky enough to get throjugh, I'll call in to his Late Hits radio show and ask him directly.

 

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bill-polian-signs-on-with-siriusxm-nfl-radio-138200544.html

 

[EastStreet]

BTW, Hernandez slipped to the 4th round because he had a chronic habit with the chronic, and Urban basically kicked him off the team. Urbs wanted him gone earlier, but supposedly Tebow talked him out of it. NFL coaches knew that if Urbs wanted to throw you out, there was something really wrong. His talent/skill grades were 1st/2nd round. His flags moved him to 4th. 

 

Simple and clear example of red flag value, but risk, in the later rounds.

[Coffeedrinker]

18 hours ago, DougDew said:

Agreed with most of your comment.

 

To the bolded, you're putting Mathis, Bethea, and Garcon into the same bucket as Wayne and Clark.  Both Wayne and Clark were first round draft choices who were drafted to contribute immediately.  In fact, Wayne was nearly run out of town his first few years because he couldn't beat out Sean Dawkins and the old vet WR we had.  

1

A couple of items, Wayne was not nearly run out of town, fans don't have that power   yes quite a few considered him a wasted draft pick.  Also Sean Dawkins did not play for the Colts after the 97 season, so I don't think Wayne had any trouble beating him of r a position.  But mixed memories aside, that is exactly my point, WR was not considered a need for the Colts that year.  Listening to Polian at the time he was not expecting Wayne to be a starter his rookie year.  But the Colts drafted the BPA available on their board and even though it didn't provide any benefit that year it proved to be the correct choice.

Same with Clark.. TE was not considered a need and most who thought the Colts may look at a TE, thought it would be more of a blocking TE in the later rounds. But the Colts drafted the BPA on their board and it seemed to be the correct choice (although I had the Colts drafting Witten in the Draft contest on the Indy star forum that year)

18 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

Mathis, Bethea, and Garcon were drafted in the 5th and 6th rounds.  A GM doesn't inherently draft towards need in those rounds because he can't really expect them to contribute much other than depth.  If Polian/Dungy actually expected them to turn into the players they did, they wouldn't have waited until the 5th and 6th rounds to draft them.  That's where you draft BPA developmental players with an eye towards elevating their game to the point they can earn PT.   That's not the same strategy when picking Wayne, Clark at 25 and 24, or whomever we'll pick at 26.  Players drafted in those positions will be expected to contribute early, and in order to do that, you need to have a hole in your roster either now or one year from now.

Sure they do, but it for the need they see a couple three years in the future

[DougDew]

22 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

A couple of items, Wayne was not nearly run out of town, fans don't have that power   yes quite a few considered him a wasted draft pick.  Also Sean Dawkins did not play for the Colts after the 97 season, so I don't think Wayne had any trouble beating him of r a position.  But mixed memories aside, that is exactly my point, WR was not considered a need for the Colts that year.  Listening to Polian at the time he was not expecting Wayne to be a starter his rookie year.  But the Colts drafted the BPA available on their board and even though it didn't provide any benefit that year it proved to be the correct choice.

Same with Clark.. TE was not considered a need and most who thought the Colts may look at a TE, thought it would be more of a blocking TE in the later rounds. But the Colts drafted the BPA on their board and it seemed to be the correct choice (although I had the Colts drafting Witten in the Draft contest on the Indy star forum that year)

Sure they do, but it for the need they see a couple three years in the future

Yes, as far as Wayne, BPA played into the decision, as the cornerback we wanted (and needed) was taken by the NYG a few picks before Wayne, IIRC, but Polian never said that.  Dawkins aside, I don't think the complimentary WR to Harrison was a probowler under contract, so in the context of taking Hockenson while we have Ebron, the Wayne analogy isn't perfect.  When Wayne was taken, we needed an upgrade to that position more so than we do with Ebron under contract (and first dibs at resigning, etc.).

 

I agree about Whitten over Clark, one of the few who probably agreed with you at the time.  Part of this thread is about Hockenson, and in previous threads about Ebron, my opinions comes from an inherent bias against "receiving" TEs who are looked at as deep-ish threats.  I prefer the Whitten's, Dilger's, and Doyle's who do everything well, and would leave my third deep-ish/YAC threats to actual receivers like Tyler Lockett or Deebo Samuel.  If Hockenson is the all around guy, but maybe not so much the pure receiving threat like Ebron or Clark, I don't see him as a first rounder.  Dilger was a second and Whitten a third, not that you can expect to get that longevity of production out of anybody, but that's about the right value for TEs like that, IMO.  If we know that Hock is the next Gronk, he won't last to 26 anyway.  If he's there at 26, then nobody expects him to be Gronk, and I question whether he is truly BPA.

 

 

[Superman]

14 hours ago, DougDew said:

Conceptually I agree, but that's not the way 85% of the discussions about this topic happen, because your example of BPA is not the way we talk about it either.

 

Most people who talk about BPA aren't discarding 79 NFL caliber college players from the total pool when thinking whether or not a GM reached for a player.  

 

Most people who come on this board, and most pundits, who criticize picks or praise the picks look at the total pool and determine the value of the pick relative to that player's ranking in the total pool.  They don't think about the teams need, or lack of need, for players with attributes suited for a 34 OLB or a 5 tech DL, press man corner, or OL blocking scheme, they just look at overall rank and where that player was drafted.  Shortsighted, yes, but that's how BPA ranking is looked at.

 

And that's why I shrug off most comments about need, BPA, and especially grading draft picks from pundits who get paid to post grades the day after the draft. Those grades and comments are overwhelmingly based on perceived need, which again is a fundamental departure from the way GMs explain their draft process.

 

The execution of their draft process is a different story, but there's no way to accurately discuss that because we don't see their draft boards. We only know what they tell us.