re: NFL Draft - BPA Argument

[Philosophers]

I was thinking about the folks who argue the Best Player Available theory when it comes to the NFL Draft.  It got me thinking about it.  Let's say you think your defense needs more fixing than your offense and that your biggest holes are at LB and S (sound familiar).  If it comes time to draft and the player on your draft board is say a DE, would you pick him because at least he is on the defensive side of the ball and that side should arguably get better because of the insertion of a better player (at a position of less need)?  What if the BPA at the time you draft is a fullback?  It is a position of less need on the other side of the ball.  For the BPA advocates, would you be indifferent whether he was a DE or fullback since he is the BPA?

It seems to me that BPA is a good approach to building a team as the team with the largest number of the best players usually does well, however, that assumes two things.  First, if you draft the BPA and he is number 3 on your depth chart due to good fortune that you are so deep at one position, then can you trade him and get a better player?  Second, if you draft the BPA , can you move him in such a way that he takes another position yet still maintains the high level of play that he has done in the past?  I think of the Giants drafting Carl Banks when we already had Lawrence Taylor and Harry Carson.  Did we really need another LB?  I think the answer is that our coaches found a way to play him simultaneously and they built a defensive philosophy around the strength of their LBs corps.

I guess my conclusion is that in a perfect world, I'd like to see the BPA be a LB or a S when the Giants draft, but if that doesn't happen, I would be happy if that BPA pick is someone on the defense as my next preference and then BPA be an offensive player as my last preference.  Aside from drafting a BPA LB or safety, my argument is that if we draft someone say a DE that gets us 14 sacks and is effective against the run, I have to think we will be a better defense, assuming we can take our existing DEs and redeploy them in a way that keeps them equally effective as they were say two years ago.

Finally, I think to win, you generally need balance on both offense, defense and special teams.  You can't have a 4th ranked offense and a 30th ranked defense and expect to play games in January.  Too much disparity between offense and defense results in an imbalance that puts too much pressure on the good side of the ball.     

[jerseyguy]

I think that BPA is a luxury we can't afford with the shape our defense is in based on last seasons performance, I feel that BPA is the way to go for teams who are set with their starters and can afford to draft and wait for the talent to develop, right now we can't and should draft BPA at a position of need...

[babywhales]

In short I say it is a decision that should be made at the time of each particular pick through out each and every draft.   Drafting is a shot in the dark of which getting a starter is the ultimate goal.  Few teams have so much personnel in such depth that attaining a starter or quality starter can be passed over despite their depth chart.

To provide an example (Just running through this):

1. If the BPA is a position of need then it is a no brainer.

2. However if the BPA is not a postion as an identified need:

2-A. Determine how far down the board is the next postion of need relative to the BPA
2-A1. Determine the draft value of difference
2-A2.  Determine if a potential trading partner agrees with your perceived value and desires to trade down

2-B1. Determine the  time at which the BPA is projected to conttribute vs. the others on the Draft Board up to the highest ranking player of need
2-B2. Determine the short term upside and long term upside for the BPA vs. the others on the Draft Board  up to the highest ranking player of need

2-C. If potential to trade down exist determine which of the three  (BPA / BP of need / trading down) presents highest value to team for that specific pick
2-C1. If no potential to trade down exist determine if BPA significantly out weighs the BP of need

and make a guess for that moment in time....

All things are equal when the next  pick comes around

To make things interesting, imagine the rational used to brake the pick protocol to determine risk/reward of trading up?

[tomeee]

Nice discussion, I would just like to add that you can also trade up if you feel the BPA at the position of need will not fall to you.

[expatriot]

When all else fails draft to a strength.

[todge]

With the current Collective Bargaining Agreement - teams no longer have the luxury of drafting BPAs because after they develop them, the player becomes eligible for Free Agency.  So comparing Drafts of years ago with today isn't a legitimate comparison.

The mantra on Draft Day for just about every team is "Best Player Available ... at a position of need".  Not yet knowing what positions will be filled via Free Agency - you can almost guarantee that the Giants will be selecting the highest rated player on their Value Board from the following positions:  MLB, SLB, S, C, CB and ORT.  The first two to three Rounds will probably focus on defense - because that is where teams hope to draft instant starters.

[MightyGiants]

When you start talking about drafting for need I think back to the 2003 draft where the team reached for William Joseph, to fill a desperate need at DT.   In the process they passed on former KC running back Larry Johnson and Packers ILB Nick Barnett.

[babywhales]

When you start talking about drafting for need I think back to the 2003 draft where the team reached for William Joseph, to fill a desperate need at DT.   In the process they passed on former KC running back Larry Johnson and Packers ILB Nick Barnett.

Exactly Rich,
Your example highlihgts the flaw when drafting for need.  The draft pool is reduced, thus reducing the odds of picking a player that will start yet alone become a fixture on the team.

   

[jimmyz]

There are very few positions on this team where there doesnt exist at least a perception of need.  One may say we dont need a RB but during the season there were many that disagreed.  That being said, I think there are positions on this team that we can reasonably expect an improvement from pre-existing players.

So if on the one hand we've got a blue chip RB prospect and a LB prospect with some question marks...who do you go with?

[tomeee]

Exactly Rich, Your example highlihgts the flaw when drafting for need.  The draft pool is reduced, thus reducing the odds of picking a player that will start yet alone become a fixture on the team.

There are just as many examples of the BPA being a bust. The draft is what it is a crap shoot whether it be BPA or need.

[nygsem]

Didn't BPA get the Giants Carl Banks in '84, even though they already had Pro Bowlers Carson and Taylor?  Worked out pretty good for them I think.

[jerseyguy]

I don't really think it matters too much whether you go BPA or BPA at a position of need, what matters most in the draft is how well you done your homework and how throughly you've scouted the players on your list, if we've done that then its all you can do....

[babywhales]

Yes of course assuming the scouting department has done the research and created a ranking chart that is solid....

When you limit the draft to certain positions you limit the pool.  That should be inherently obvious I hope.

Now if the players available happen to be deep at your postion of need your odds might increase, if not they probally decrease.  If the BPA is ranked significantly higher than the player from a position of need your approach of best player froma  position of need is designed to do you a disservice in the big picture.

Assuming BPA is not the player from a position of need.
For every player of need that has been selected there will always be multiple players  that were considered a solid pick in the same slot despite not being chosen. As such the ratio representing, player of need: BPA, this will always be   1: >1.  And this simple reflects the odds associated with the two approaches.  

As a general rule IMO, draft talent not positions. But as I said many variables must be determined for each specific pick.  

Luck is just that and will happen with either approach.  So go with the odds.  

When you go after  a player in a position of need while passing over players ranked significantly higher IMO you have created an approach that is ultimately going to hurt you.  If the ranking difference is not significant then pick whomever, it is a best guess format.





 

[todge]

A "reach" is defined as picking a player well ahead of where he should be selected given his rating.  It is generally not used to iinclude picking players with slightly lower grades because of a need at that position.

William Joseph carried late First Round grades - so granted, not a very good player, but he was not deemed a reach in Draft circles.

[bamagiantfan]

I think if you are in the bottom 10 in the league then best player available makes sense. For teams that seem to be only a player or two away, and some might argue the Giants are in that place, then getting a player that fills a critical need makes more sense.

We said two years ago that the Giants were a true team. A team that played together and did the things they had to do with few pro bowlers and marginal stars, save perhaps Strahan. Last year, they looked like a team without stars. They need an impact player somewhere. Anywhere.