Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

So I was reading through some threads, looking at who people think will be good picks this upcoming year, and it struck me that very few people were saying "BPA ALL THE WAY". This is good, an improvement upon last year. Let me show you why.

 

Say we go around 6-10 or 7-9 and have the tenth pick. Draft day comes and some predictable players go, in fact all our top nine rated players are gone with the exception of, say Marcus Mariota, who, due to his newfound obsession with the free Hawaii movement, affection for ponies, and history as a mafia member (obvious sarcasm here) is still available. We think, if he can put these things behind him, he will be an effective QB - not nearly as good as Bortles though.

 

So you know what BPA does in this situation? Takes the player high on your board regardless of his off-field and your status at the situation. Here, the BPA drafter would take Marcus Mariota and plant him firmly on the bench to watch Bortles do great things.

 

Why would you do that? Here are some common arguments for BPA:

 

1) "You can always use more talent at every position." This is true. Also true is that success in the NFL is not solely predicated on talent. Talented people come into the league and either flame out (David Carr) , are forced to sit (Rodgers, Bortles), or play based on the depth chart around them. To put it in Madden terms : If you have a 99 OVR QB, there is no point to having a 98 OVR QB. He'll never see the field and you have a wasted draft pick and a wasted roster spot.

 

2) "You can use him for depth." While also true, this has to be one of the more ridiculous arguments. So you're telling me, we take this top ten pick at QB, sit him behind Blake Bortles (who doesn't look like he'll be injured any time soon), just in case Blake gets hurt. No, that's silliness. Drafting well means maximizing the effective, applied talent out of your draft slot. Taking someone for depth in the upper rounds is foolishness. The later rounds are obviously a different story.

 

3) "You can use him for trade bait." If 2 was up there on the ridiculousness scale, this point has to be at the top. Some people, even in this past draft in fact, argued for selecting a player in the draft to force other teams to trade for him. The chances of this working are miniscule. You have to find another team willing to part with multiple selections to take your guy, and then you have to hope that the player you want (who you had the opportunity to take beforehand) will still be there when your trade partner comes a-calling. The old phrase about birds in bushes and hands still rings true here. If there is a guy you like and you are convicted about him, you take him. Simple.

 

And so these arguments are pretty easily defeated. And the thing is, when you draft well (see the definition above) you're going to win games. You can't draft just talent. You can't draft just for needs. You need effective, applicable talent.

 

And see this year we're not gonna have to take a QB, so that actually puts us in position to do well by our other spots. And that's where BPA comes in. Say we're sitting at that tenth pick and can choose (two of my favorites in this class) Collins, the stud Bama FS or Grasu, the athletic C from Oregon. You can't lose there. You're taking talent that will be able to be applied wherever you go.

 

So I guess to sum up this rant... BPA doesn't work. Neither does needs drafting. Our standard of drafting well should be maximizing effective, applicable talent out of our draft slot.

In this scenario if he is your highest rated guy there are a few things you could do.


1. Draft him and then trade him. Maybe work a deal out with some team ahead of time.


2. Trade out of the spot. If you think you can get really good value out of trading the pick and wherever you wind up, still get a player you want, you make the move.


3. Keep in mind that when making your rankings in the first place, need is factored in. If center is a dire need and you have a DT rated skill wise very closely, I'm sure the center gets a bonus for the need factor.


So if in this situation, the QB is still on top of your rankings that must mean his value is very high. Or maybe the other talent just isn't very good. If the jaguars were a pure BAP team, then they would probably also have to explore trading bortles.


Mariota is a bad example because he plays the most important position in football. If he is there in that situation, guaranteed the jaguars could make a trade.


Regardless though the jaguars don't appear to be that kind of team anymore and Caldwell seems like an excellent drafter. I'm glad we have a good front office now.

Good posts.


In the past, this topic invariably generated lots of debate.


Let's see if it develops similarly this time.

Regardless of draft philosophy, as the OP points out, maximizing value with your pick is the ultimate goal. BAP or needs drafting in the purest sense are flawed concepts. Marrying the two philosophies in order to maximizing value is the real goal of every team in the NFL. I think the whole "BAP vs. Needs" argument is pretty much dead and we've gone through it too many times here to count.

Quote:So I was reading through some threads, looking at who people think will be good picks this upcoming year, and it struck me that very few people were saying "BPA ALL THE WAY". This is good, an improvement upon last year. Let me show you why.

 

Say we go around 6-10 or 7-9 and have the tenth pick. Draft day comes and some predictable players go, in fact all our top nine rated players are gone with the exception of, say Marcus Mariota, who, due to his newfound obsession with the free Hawaii movement, affection for ponies, and history as a mafia member (obvious sarcasm here) is still available. We think, if he can put these things behind him, he will be an effective QB - not nearly as good as Bortles though.

 

So you know what BPA does in this situation? Takes the player high on your board regardless of his off-field and your status at the situation. Here, the BPA drafter would take Marcus Mariota and plant him firmly on the bench to watch Bortles do great things.

 

Why would you do that? Here are some common arguments for BPA:

 

1) "You can always use more talent at every position." This is true. Also true is that success in the NFL is not solely predicated on talent. Talented people come into the league and either flame out (David Carr) , are forced to sit (Rodgers, Bortles), or play based on the depth chart around them. To put it in Madden terms : If you have a 99 OVR QB, there is no point to having a 98 OVR QB. He'll never see the field and you have a wasted draft pick and a wasted roster spot.

 

2) "You can use him for depth." While also true, this has to be one of the more ridiculous arguments. So you're telling me, we take this top ten pick at QB, sit him behind Blake Bortles (who doesn't look like he'll be injured any time soon), just in case Blake gets hurt. No, that's silliness. Drafting well means maximizing the effective, applied talent out of your draft slot. Taking someone for depth in the upper rounds is foolishness. The later rounds are obviously a different story.

 

3) "You can use him for trade bait." If 2 was up there on the ridiculousness scale, this point has to be at the top. Some people, even in this past draft in fact, argued for selecting a player in the draft to force other teams to trade for him. The chances of this working are miniscule. You have to find another team willing to part with multiple selections to take your guy, and then you have to hope that the player you want (who you had the opportunity to take beforehand) will still be there when your trade partner comes a-calling. The old phrase about birds in bushes and hands still rings true here. If there is a guy you like and you are convicted about him, you take him. Simple.

 

And so these arguments are pretty easily defeated. And the thing is, when you draft well (see the definition above) you're going to win games. You can't draft just talent. You can't draft just for needs. You need effective, applicable talent.

 

And see this year we're not gonna have to take a QB, so that actually puts us in position to do well by our other spots. And that's where BPA comes in. Say we're sitting at that tenth pick and can choose (two of my favorites in this class) Collins, the stud Bama FS or Grasu, the athletic C from Oregon. You can't lose there. You're taking talent that will be able to be applied wherever you go.

 

So I guess to sum up this rant... BPA doesn't work. Neither does needs drafting. Our standard of drafting well should be maximizing effective, applicable talent out of our draft slot.

Best available player doesn't always come out to the top rated player...Each team has different ratings on players which would mean (for example) The Falcons could have Mariota ranked as their BAP, while The Saints could have him ranked as their fourth best player, the Jags could have him ranked as their 6th best player, the Pats could have him rated as their second best player etc... This is supported by the Bortles third round pick...The Jags had him rated as their highest rated player while no one else ranked him that high...BAP is not the same for each team...The other part of the story is, If I remember correctly, I believe Caldwell has said best available player according to need, I could be mistaking that for a posters comment on this board though...The moral of this story is BAP is different to every GM

oops I didn't mean 3rd round pick I meant first round 3rd pick

You should always leave better players on the board for your competition while taking a lesser player just because he fits a need. That's the best way to win the NFL, just ask Shack Harris about his experience in not drafting Big Ben since we had Lord Byron of the Windmill Windup.

Quote:You should always leave better players on the board for your competition while taking a lesser player just because he fits a need. That's the best way to win the NFL, just ask Shack Harris about his experience in not drafting Big Ben since we had Lord Byron of the Windmill Windup.

 

That's the evaluation part, not the drafting part.

 

Gene Smith swore he took BAP, and there is no question he allowed superior talent to go to the competition.

I dont think draft philosophy matters at all.  In fact I think thats even in my sig.  Just scout well.  Thats all you have to do.  Just scout well.  And you'll draft good players.  

 

I guess if you are a Nostradamus and know that a QB is going to be Peyton Manning, you obviously dont want to leave that player for others.  However thats such a rare case.  


And not to turn this into a Marcus Marriotta (spelling?) thread, I dont get the love for him as an NFL QB.  I watched that Michigan St game and I didnt see an NFL QB.  I saw a great college QB who can make a ton of plays with his feet and is good enough to hit wide open WRs.  But when forced to make timing throws in tight coverage he wasnt good.  Maybe he is so athletic and so talented he could become the next Colin Kaep.  But I think that is his ceiling.  And I dont think it is a sure thing he even gets there.

Very few positions (QB, P, K, LS, FB, MLB) can you not use two or even three great players. If you have a rare talent sitting in front of you, you have to concoct a pretty radical scenario for it not to be worth taking him. You've outlined one such scenario above. Once you're out of the top few rounds and there isn't any rare talent left, by all means fill your needs. But if I have MJD in his prime and I have a choice of Gurley or a decent starting center in the first round when the center position is deficient, I'm taking Gurley.

 

Obviously an outlandish scenario, but the point is even in most "need" front offices, need is only the deciding factor when the talent is close. I'm not so tied to BAP that I want to take a stacked position instead of one with dire need when the talent levels are fairly close. Aside from a few hypotheticals involving Nostradamus level predictive abilities I don't think anyone has been advocating that.

The issue with BAP is simple:  It doesn't take into account what will be available later.


Going with LOLMADDEN ratings for a second:


At pick 9 the two best players available are:

WR 88 OVR

DE 86 OVR


You project the Top 5 players available in the second round will be:

WR 83 OVR

CB 83 OVR

DT 83 OVR

OG 83 OVR

DE 80 OVR


The drop in talent between the WR's is smaller than the drop in talent between the DE's.  


Then in the third round you might have:

WR 79 OVR

CB 80 OVR

OG 72 OVR

DT 78 OVR

DE 74 OVR


Pure BAP you might go WR/CB/CB 


But from an evaluation stand point you might want to go DE/OG/CB


Of course philosophy matters little when your evaluations are off.


EXAMPLE: (Again using madden ratings to demonstrate)


2010 Draft:

Gene's Board:

Tyson Alualu - 97 OVR


Reality: 

Tyson Alualu - 75 OVR


2011 Draft:


Gene's Board:

Blaine Gabbert - 99 OVR

 

Reality:

Blaine Gabbert - 40 OVR

The other problem with BAP is that the entire point of it is to maximum value.  But I can easily come up with an example where BAP doesnt maximize value.  

Quote:The issue with BAP is simple: It doesn't take into account what will be available later.


Going with LOLMADDEN ratings for a second:


At pick 9 the two best players available are:

WR 88 OVR

DE 86 OVR


You project the Top 5 players available in the second round will be:

WR 83 OVR

CB 83 OVR

DT 83 OVR

OG 83 OVR

DE 80 OVR


The drop in talent between the WR's is smaller than the drop in talent between the DE's.


Then in the third round you might have:

WR 79 OVR

CB 80 OVR

OG 72 OVR

DT 78 OVR

DE 74 OVR


Pure BAP you might go WR/CB/CB


But from an evaluation stand point you might want to go DE/OG/CB


Of course philosophy matters little when your evaluations are off.


EXAMPLE: (Again using madden ratings to demonstrate)


2010 Draft:

Gene's Board:

Tyson Alualu - 97 OVR


Reality:

Tyson Alualu - 75 OVR


2011 Draft:


Gene's Board:

Blaine Gabbert - 99 OVR


Reality:

Blaine Gabbert - 40 OVR

Lol a 40? Damn.

BAP pretty much died when FA started, as well as the cap.


You have to always be contemplating replacing, or actually replacing, and the band aid theory doesn't work.

Quote:The issue with BAP is simple:  It doesn't take into account what will be available later.


Going with LOLMADDEN ratings for a second:


At pick 9 the two best players available are:

WR 88 OVR

DE 86 OVR


You project the Top 5 players available in the second round will be:

WR 83 OVR

CB 83 OVR

DT 83 OVR

OG 83 OVR

DE 80 OVR


The drop in talent between the WR's is smaller than the drop in talent between the DE's.  


Then in the third round you might have:

WR 79 OVR

CB 80 OVR

OG 72 OVR

DT 78 OVR

DE 74 OVR


Pure BAP you might go WR/CB/CB 


But from an evaluation stand point you might want to go DE/OG/CB


Of course philosophy matters little when your evaluations are off.


EXAMPLE: (Again using madden ratings to demonstrate)


2010 Draft:

Gene's Board:

Tyson Alualu - 97 OVR


Reality: 

Tyson Alualu - 75 OVR


2011 Draft:


Gene's Board:

Blaine Gabbert - 99 OVR

 

Reality:
Blaine Gabbert - 40 OVR

 

That's a generous 40 TED.

I'd like to take a QB early in the draft, bench him for a couple of years, then trade him for a 7th rounder.   If Belichik is doing it, then it must be smart -- right ?

 

Regarding BPA -- it's a weight of measurement.  Everything has to be considered.  If an Andrew Luck falls to #5 just because the top 4 teams fill other positions then you use that selection as trade bait.

Clarification -- Gene took BAP based on his evaluation of You Tube highlights.

I don't think you should have a draft philosophy.   I think every situation should be evaluated on its own merits. 

 

"Having a philosophy" is just a way to avoid thinking.   Your philosophy is really just a filter through which you force every situation, try to get an answer from your philosophy without thinking about it.   It's a dogma.   It's a religion.  

 

"I'm a BAP guy.  What does BAP say about this?"  

"I'm a needs-based drafter.  What does needs-based drafting tell me to do here?"  

 

You're trying to pre-cook your answer before you even know the facts.  

Quote:Very few positions (QB, P, K, LS, FB, MLB) can you not use two or even three great players. If you have a rare talent sitting in front of you, you have to concoct a pretty radical scenario for it not to be worth taking him. You've outlined one such scenario above. Once you're out of the top few rounds and there isn't any rare talent left, by all means fill your needs. But if I have MJD in his prime and I have a choice of Gurley or a decent starting center in the first round when the center position is deficient, I'm taking Gurley.

 

Obviously an outlandish scenario, but the point is even in most "need" front offices, need is only the deciding factor when the talent is close. I'm not so tied to BAP that I want to take a stacked position instead of one with dire need when the talent levels are fairly close. Aside from a few hypotheticals involving Nostradamus level predictive abilities I don't think anyone has been advocating that.

 

That is a perfect example of what I was saying above.  You are evaluating the situation on its own merits without adhering to some pre-cooked philosophical decision. 

 

No one does strict BAP, and no one does strict needs-based drafting.  

 

Vic Ketchman used to say he was a strict BAP guy.   He said, if the BAP on the board is not a position of need, then you try to trade down.   And then he went off the rails when he said, if you can't trade down, take the BAP.   What he was doing was avoiding thinking.   You can't have such a strict philosophy as either BAP or needs-based drafting.   It's lazy.   Every situation needs to stand on its own and get thought through all the way to the end.  No philosophical filtering. 

The current state of the Pittsburgh Steelers roster show why BAP drafting is dead.