re: NFL Draft - BPA Argument

[jimmyz]

What was Ernie Accorsi's draft philosophy?  It must have been BPA at the WR or CB position.  For a team that had so many holes on both sides, he sure was determined to find a WR or CB no matter how many busts he ended up with.

[Painter]

I agree with todge both in respect of the notion of BPA, and in what we might consider to be a "reach". Even using terms like reach and steal, assuming we can quantify their meaning, is problematic given how inaccurate the initial forecasts and predictions are so often.

There perhaps was a time before Free Agency, when rosters were as contractually stable as they could get, and when a team might draft a player based on its rating of his talent and potential irrespective of the position he plays. The thought was that while they might already have talented players at that position, such player would add talent and upgrade the roster overall. If he beat out the incumbent starter, they would then have a starter quality backup behind him; if not, he would nevertheless represent high quality depth. They were looking to optimize the roster as a whole, its overall talent, age, and experience.

That remained viable until first the Rozelle Rule barring players moving to another team without onerous compensation was eliminated in 1977, and foremost in 1989 following an antitrust suit when a meaningful system of free agency was bargained in exchange for a salary cap. Since then, it is rare for a team to not have had net player losses due to free agency and retirement which have not created at least one and often several well-identified needs at particular positions. Accordingly, while teams always look to draft the best player available, it always must be, and is, qualified by addition of the phrase, "at a position of need" Thus the continued use of the term, best player available (BPA) if unqualified is both an anachronism and a misnomer.

Today, the term BPA becomes confused by the putative ranking by pundits and fans of players in some order from say, 1 to 100. Even if we assume that that reflects a firm consensus, and that the teams themselves are in accord with those who don't have to make the decision, the investment, and to live with the decision, it still misses the point. Teams are not necessarily seeking the best player available- as defined however by whomever- but rather the best value available. That's should be evident in the fact that we refer to a team's Value Board, and see teams trading up or out of a slot.

Have you ever thought as to why Adrian Peterson who many, perhaps even a consensus, rated as best player in the '07 Draft wasn't selected until the 7th pick by Minnesota? You might attribute it to concerns by some about his durability, but the reality of it has much more to do with relative value based on teams needs.

Oakland was in desperate need of a franchise QB and had invested some big bucks in their RB, LaMont Jordan. So they took big, rocket-armed JaMarcus Russell, which we only now know was a mistake.

Detroit had a 1st Round RB in Kevin Jones and traded for Tatum Bell. While they already had one top pick WR in Roy Williams, and so a better value pick might have been the late Gaines Adams, Calvin Johnson was too rare a talent for WR-obsessed Matt Millen to pass up.

Cleveland had a compelling need for a Left Tackle so they took Joe Thomas, brought in a Free Agent RB Jamal Lewis, and passed on Peterson.

Tampa Bay had Cadillac Williams, Michael Pittman and Earnest Graham at RB, but needed a pass rusher. They chose Gaines Adams although they admitted that they had Peterson rated higher. However, they viewed Adams as turning an area of weakness into a strength, and thus representing greater value to them.

Arizona had invested heavily in Edgerrin James. What they most needed was a pass protector for Leinart's blindside. They took OT, Levi Brown.

Washington has Clinton Portis but needed a Safety. They chose LeRon Landry.

When Minnesota's turn came at 7, they saw better value in Peterson than others they were considering such as Ted Ginn and Brady Quinn. Smart move; not a hard choice.

Whether we think Peterson was a BPA, the fact remains that each of the above teams chose players to meet specific needs.

And what about the '08 Draft when 7 Left Tackles were taken in Round 1. Is there a BPA vs need question there?  

Why did the Giants take William Joseph in '03 to fill a need at 3-tech DT, and not Larry Johnson? Joseph may have slid in the draft but he carried a 1st Round grade into it. He was hardly considered to be a reach at 25. The Chiefs actually traded down while getting Larry Johnson who was considered iffy based on only one good college season. Charlie Casserly described the '03 draft as the weakest at RB in recent history. The Giants did have Barber and Dayne at the time. If you choose to engage in counterfactual history- for which there ought to be a vaccine like those for Swine Flu and Shingles-then should we assume that Johnson and not Barber would have become the Giants all-time leading rusher?


Too many fans; fans in general focus almost exclusively on the first round bust and ignore the fact that the majority of first rounders become starters, play well, contribute considerably, and in many cases become Pro Bowlers and All-Pros. But I guess we find less satisfaction in that than we do in finding fault and pointing to mistakes. Perhaps, that makes us feel that we could do better.

Certainly when it comes to wildass guesses, we probably could do as well as the pundits in matching players to teams in our mock drafts. And when it comes to second-guessing after the fact, we might even be better at it.

In any case, when we start speculating on the Giants 2010 Draft starting with pick 15, we ought to think in terms of best value rather than the outdated, best player in an effort to arrive at choices which might turn their several areas of weakness into areas of strength.

For example, if we look only at the defense, I think we can agree that they need to improve coverage in the Secondary at Safety; Phillips's status adding weight to it. They may feel a need to improve their pass rush at DT, and they may be looking for an impact MLB. However we might choose to weigh and prioritize those needs, they can't all be satisfied in the 1st Round of the Draft.  Thus, in looking for best value it would make more sense to think in terms of both picks 15 and 46, not to mention whatever they might cobble up in FA. For me, at least, it makes more sense than debating whether the choice of a player at 15 should address a "best" irrespective of position versus one who plays a position of current weakness and need.

Cheers!  
 

[tomeee]

Great post Painter well said.

[todge]

What was Ernie Accorsi's draft philosophy?  It must have been BPA at the WR or CB position.  For a team that had so many holes on both sides, he sure was determined to find a WR or CB no matter how many busts he ended up with.

The team that "had so many holes on both sides" won a Super Bowl where 2/3 of the players were drafted or signed under Ernie's regime. The Giants made one Super Bowl appearance as under Accorsi in Super Bowl XXXV,  won two NFC East division titles (2000, 2005) while making the playoffs four times (2000, 2002, 2005, 2006).

We also have Ernie to thank for delivering a franchise QB and training a GM in Jerry Reese to take his place.

We should only have such an incompetent GM again, right jimmyz?

[troyfan]

I think it's a false choice under most circumstances.  Unless you have a top 5 pick, there typically are 3 - 4 guys of roughly equal ability at any draft position.  Minimum.  When we draft at 15, it wouldn't surprise me to have a TE, LB, S and maybe one or two others who grade out approximately equal.  But more importantly than grading out is that they probably are of about equal ability.

Draft grades are very rough and fallible measures.  If a GM is being honest with himself, he has to recognize that a guy who grades 12 is in all probability no better than a guy who grades out at 18.  Otherwise, there wouldn't be busts.

Bottom line, don't be a slave to draft grades. But don't reach either.

[jimmyz]

What was Ernie Accorsi's draft philosophy?  It must have been BPA at the WR or CB position.  For a team that had so many holes on both sides, he sure was determined to find a WR or CB no matter how many busts he ended up with.

The team that "had so many holes on both sides" won a Super Bowl where 2/3 of the players were drafted or signed under Ernie's regime. The Giants made one Super Bowl appearance as under Accorsi in Super Bowl XXXV,  won two NFC East division titles (2000, 2005) while making the playoffs four times (2000, 2002, 2005, 2006).

We also have Ernie to thank for delivering a franchise QB and training a GM in Jerry Reese to take his place.

We should only have such an incompetent GM again, right jimmyz?

Sooooo......you're saying you agree with me?

[state_property]

I feel that drafting BPA in the first round is moreso "for need" than for just BPA.  The last 3 years, the Giants drafted BPA for need:

In 2007, they NEEDED a corner, drafted Aaron Ross
In 2008, they NEEDED a safety, drafted Kenny Phillips
In 2009, they NEEDED a receiver, drafted Hakeem Nicks

All 3 players are still with the team..all three players are either starting or contributing quite nicely and all are either impact or soon-to-be.

With that kind of track record of success, I see no reason to indicate why the Giants would stray from that formula this year.  With a #15 pick and needs @ MLB, SLB, Safety, and possibly DT (unless you guys are convinced that the current crop of Robbins, Alford, Coefield, and Canty can get it done)...you cant tell me the BPA at one of those positions wont be there at #15! 

If the Giants draft a DE on the first round, they fell in love with that particular player somehow and or play to move someone else later...but I really don't see that happeneing.

[bamagiantfan]

State, I agree with your post but only to a point. Many would argue they needed a MLB in all three of those drafts, yet the position was ignored early, which is the norm. The Giants seem to be content to bring in a MLB in Free Agency and then draft guys to be backups. It's a philosophy I've never liked and I wonder if the starting MLB position on this team will evr be replaced via the draft.

[state_property]

Bama,

I think we have a jinx on drafting LB...i think Jessie Armstead was the last one we drafted that ever amounted to something.  How long ago was that?

We seem to draft DEs at a premium.  And, yes, we did need a Mike since 2007 but I'm thinking JR thought we could dodge that bullet with a fantasy front four...this year, we got caught with our pants down.

I would hope that if a stud Mike is there @ 15, we would be all over it.  If not, there definately will be a Sam, Safety or DT there. 

[jerseyguy]

I'm wondering how much Mara's press conference and his overall mood about the state of the team and his apparent unhappiness with everybody will effect the draft and what we do in Free Agency this year.

[todge]

I never understood the concept of "ignoring" certain positions.  For starters - can we give management some credit in recognizing that certain positions need to be upgraded? But trying to fill those gaps is just not that easy. Does anyone really believe that when the Giants look to fill the position that during personnel meetings they all collectively say "let's ignore the Middle Linebacker position"!!!???

The Giants were "all set" for many years with Pierce at LB.  Yet the past few years when it became evident that Pierce was slowing down, the Giants certainly knew that upgrading the position needed to be done. Signing players and/or drafting them can be complex .... yet can be simple as well.  In any given year, there are only so many players available at certain positions in Free Agency.  It is a two-way street though ... sure, the Giants can make overtures to the player but the player has to be interested in coming to the Giants as well.  Bottom line is that there have not been any MLBs in Free Agency that were available and/or wanted to come to the Giants in the past few years.

So now it is on to the Draft to fill the position.  When it is time to make a selection, the Giants (like most smart teams do) pick the player with the highest grade at a position of need.  Teams that force selections to fill certain positions almost always invariably fail at building a winning program.  So yes, it has evolved over the past few Drafts, that there was not a high rated MLB on their Board when it came time to make the selection.  All a team can do is to be patient and wait ... which they did until Goff showed up on their Value Board.

The Giants are one of the NFL's best run franchises.  Pro Football Weekly recently cited the Giants (along with the Colts and Chargers) as having the best Draft record in the NFL for the past five years.  So let's try to understand that smart teams don't "ignore" certain positions ... sometimes it just evolves that there are not prudent opportunities available to fully stock each and every position with Pro Bowlers.

[GiantFD]

The BPA draft logic is one of the easiest things to argue both side of. Their are so many examples to use for either.
As Painter pointed out, the draft game has changed with free Agency and most teams have used a combination of BPA and need to guide them in making the right choice in the early rounds.
Later in the draft it's a lot easier to just go BPA.

Would you take Sam Bradford at 15 if he were still there and there were no trade prospects?
How about Dez Bryant?

Most of us would say no to either but in 5 years who knows what the right choice would be.

As far as this years draft, there is enough up the middle defensive talent to pick need and BPA.

At least three of the following will be there at 15
Suh DT
Berry S
Willaims DT
McCoy DT
Mclain LB
Thomas S
Mays S
Spikes LB
Price DT

I would be satified with any of these at 15 and there may be a Hall of Famer or two in the group.
 

[dasher]

I think the better drafting teams utilize a value based distribution system. As Painter points out, they all have a value board and identify the round or slot that a player is identified or presumed to belong in. They know their most pressing needs and draft accordingly. Let's assume Linebacker and Safety are the most critical 1st round needs and their time to select is upon them. If they have identified two safeties with 1st round grades, 2 as 2nd rounders and 3 as 3rd rounders, but 3 LBers as 1st rounders, 6 as 2nd rounders and 7 as 3rd rounders they will draft the safety as best value knowing they still have a larger pool of LBers to draft from in the 2nd (or maybe even third round if events break right for them) and maybe even a 1st rounder might slip to them. They could do this even if the highest rated player is a LB and there for the picking unless his name is LT.
This concept works unless there is a run on a identified position of need and you are forced to draft an identified value but a reach never the less. Does anyone remember the name Jeff Hatch? That is how we got him in the 3rd round a few years back. He may have made it, but hurt his back and turned out to be quite a wasted pick.
In terms of moving up, you usually find more teams trying to trade down from the top five because of the slotting approach to paying the draftees. EA paid a healthy price to acquire Eli, but he has been proven correct in his evaluation and move to acquire him.

[Painter]

Again, I tend to agree with todge's characterization. That's not to say that I haven't wondered about the Giants philosophy or, at least, their habit over the past two decades of looking for Linebacker starters in FA, and backup talents in the later draft rounds.  Aside from Jesse Armstead who in his 4th year turned into an 8th Round steal, they were drafting guys like Gaylon, Monty, Phillips, Mallard, Monk, Buckley, Lewis, Maxwell, Holliwell, Greisen, Short, Torbor et al, and more recently: Blackburn, De Ossie, Wilkinson, Goff, and Kehl. Over that period, they added FAs like Barrow, Green, Emmons, Arrington, and finally, Pierce, Mitchell, Clark, and Boley. Except for Sintim, they never spent higher than a 4th Round pick on a LB.  Is that a matter of circumstance, or of the value they have placed on the position when it came time for them to pick. Probably, a little of both, but the results/consequences haven't been all that impressive.

Cheers! 

[jerseyguy]

I'm not so sure I agree that we need a SLB in this draft at any point, didn't we just use a 2nd round pick on Sintim in the last draft. We have to find out if this guy can play football in the pros before we draft another LBer at the same position, we have other glaring needs to fill..