Quote: I'm not sure you understand what "value" means. In this case, it's not "value" as in "value menu" (cheap.) It's getting the most (best player available) out of your pick. BAP gets you best bang for the buck, especially at the highest picks. If you can't move your pick to match the pricetag, you're paying more for less even if the player's a hit. You're right, it isn't always possible... but that's the exception, not the rule. You still do everything you can to make it possible. Otherwise, you're Gene Smith picking Alualu... passing on BAP just because you thought you needed the other guy.
The problem with pure BAP drafting is that if you're evaluations are flawed you still end up not getting the proper value for your pick. Who's to say the Alualu pick wasn't BAP by nature and Gene's highest rated prospect remaining on his big board?
Quote:5 on 5 is more reasonable but why wouldn't you get the best player period? Who can't be upgraded? Who is that good? If you don't have a HOF at the spot the BAP is how to go.
Just because a player isnt HoF quality, doesn't mean he doesn't have value. Marcedes Lewis isn't a hall of famer, doesnt mean we want a TE with our first 3 picks.
Quote:I'm not following. That's the very definition of BAP.
Because a first round pick wasting away on the pine is not value.
Quote:This isnt madden. Players don't come with neatly packaged rankings and even if they did, is the 82 overall DT you don't need more valuable to you than the 79 overall CB that you do need?
Obviously you trust your rankings, you don't force things that aren't there and you dont look gift horses in the mouth, but to just rank'em and then pick'em regardless is foolish.
Nice lecture, but yes - the vast majority of the work is done well in advance of the pick. Yes, it is "rank 'em and pick 'em," but it's not like your Madden fantasy. GMs are open about how they do rank players and that there's usually a nice gap between players at the top, or at least only very few players that are relatively equal to choose from. Once you get to the fourth round or so, your pools of relatively equal value are bigger and bigger. If you look at the draft failures both here and elsewhere, they're defined by going with players who weren't the best available. Whether that was due to them straying from their own board or flat out poor ranking, the result is the same. They guy they chose clearly wasn't the best available based on the results.
Quote:The problem with pure BAP drafting is that if you're evaluations are flawed you still end up not getting the proper value for your pick. Who's to say the Alualu pick wasn't BAP by nature and Gene's highest rated prospect remaining on his big board?
That's a problem that sinks any drafting. In the end, you didn't select BAP even if you intended to. Gene drafted need and called it BAP. It doesn't matter what you call it if the results prove you didn't select BAP.
Quote:Just because a player isnt HoF quality, doesn't mean he doesn't have value. Marcedes Lewis isn't a hall of famer, doesnt mean we want a TE with our first 3 picks.
Because a first round pick wasting away on the pine is not value.
You've got the best players. That's how you win. Unless you're not into that whole winning thing... You can keep going with the best available strawman, but it's still not standing up.
I think Kharn might have mentioned this, but BAP is basically all opinion. No one really knows who the Best Available Player is. In this draft at 3 if Clowney is there, it would be him May 9th, but might be someone completely different in 5 years.
Quote:That's a problem that sinks any drafting. In the end, you didn't select BAP even if you intended to. Gene drafted need and called it BAP. It doesn't matter what you call it if the results prove you didn't select BAP.
Lol
The results prove Gene Smith picked bad players not whether he picked them through need or because he thought they were BAP.
Quote:That is literally the exact logic Gene Smith put out there for drafting Anger.
If you've got a bunch of guys graded similarly and one of them would be of immediate use while others are mid-ceiling developmental types, yeah, take the guy who fills a need. If there's a guy with a high ceiling buried in there, I don't care what position the guy plays, take him.
Unless his career arc involves a ball hitting his foot. Then take the damn guard.
No logical person thinks a Punter helps your team a lot.
Quote:That's a problem that sinks any drafting. In the end, you didn't select BAP even if you intended to. Gene drafted need and called it BAP. It doesn't matter what you call it if the results prove you didn't select BAP.
How do you know they werent his BAP, did you see Gene's board? He just sucked at scouting.
Quote:I'm not sure you understand what "value" means. In this case, it's not "value" as in "value menu" (cheap.) It's getting the most (best player available) out of your pick. BAP gets you best bang for the buck, especially at the highest picks. If you can't move your pick to match the pricetag, you're paying more for less even if the player's a hit. You're right, it isn't always possible... but that's the exception, not the rule. You still do everything you can to make it possible. Otherwise, you're Gene Smith picking Alualu... passing on BAP just because you thought you needed the other guy.
I am quite certain you are completely limiting your own perception of "value."
It is one of the major faults of the BAP crowd. If you aren't getting production and utility on the field, then you lose.
You are looking at value only in terms of the draft, as if you can win the draft based upon getting some value score and then it will translate to winning on the field.
Simply not true, and this is exactly why it cannot and has not been employed in the NFL for decades. Perhaps it is used in college for recruiting, just not in a league with a salary cap and free agency.
If you have WRs who are some awesome draft value, and don't fill a need by having a stable Oline, then you lose.
I know, I know, stop gap with free agency blah blah blah.
Guy whimper, anyone?
The notion that it is the exception rather than the rule to not be able to trade down is also just not reality. Every single year you hear teams moan that they couldn't trade out of a pick. More teams are always trying to trade down then trade up, especially in the high rounds, and rarely does it play out.
Quote:Lol
The results prove Gene Smith picked bad players not whether he picked them through need or because he thought they were BAP.
I really don't think smith had much of a philosophy to begin with. One year one thing, like the Green Bay approach of solving one position group (drafting a bunch of receivers and hoping you've solved the issue one player or another) and another year doing something else entirely different.
This can best be displayed by the Anger pick.
No one would reasonably dispute he is a very good punter. No one would dispute that Matt Turk was an abomination and cost us at least a game by himself.
But to say--even if you are a need guy-- that you need a punter that bad, freaking A.
Or, the contrary, if you look at your board and are a supposed BAP guy and see he's at the top and say, "well guys, we have to stick to our board." is just inexcusable.
Even the most BAP crazed guy would go, "nahhhhh, can't do it." I would think. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
That pick just reeked of unplanned desperation that was illogical in the moment in any sense.
And I love the player, don't get me wrong, but that is beyond any theory.
Quote:Just because a player isnt HoF quality, doesn't mean he doesn't have value. Marcedes Lewis isn't a hall of famer, doesnt mean we want a TE with our first 3 picks.
Because a first round pick wasting away on the pine is not value.
You missed my point. Any player on our team currently can be replaced. That's the better way to say it. We can afford to draft the same player we have because no one has shown the level of ability that would warrant them to be a fixture for the next 10 years.
Lewis is okay but still can be upgraded. If you were to tell me we had Jimmy Graham or Gates at TE then I would say there is no need to draft a TE but that's not the case. We can certainly get better at the position. That's the point I'm making
Quote:I'm not following. That's the very definition of BAP.
But not everyone drafts from the same board. This is something I always complained about with Gene, although part of his problem was lousy scouting. But lets say we've got two picks in the 4th. One early in the round and one late. And when the first of those two picks is up, there are two guys we've got 2nd round grades on still available followed by a big drop off to the next group. Lets say one of those players is a big named player everyone talked about overnight stunned he was still available. And the other guy is some small school player that we absolutely love but know he isnt as highly thought of by others or even not known by many. Maybe we rank the smaller school guy slightly higher and if we were picking true BAP he would be our selection. But if we feel pretty confident the bigger named player wouldnt be available by the time our 2nd pick in the round approaches but the smaller school guy most likely would be, it would be dumb of us to go BAP. Odds are we can get two players with 2nd round grades by ignoring BAP and using common sense to maximize our value.
Maybe somewhat of an extreme example but its something Gene was guilty of repeatedly. And its probably something of a frequent occurrence especially later in the draft when many teams abandon "value" and are going after specific players who fill needs or fit their particular system.
If you read up on the preparations teams make leading up to the draft, a big piece of it is trying to figure out what other teams are doing and who other teams like. Many teams share scouts so they have an idea which teams like which players and which players are getting a lot of love and which one's arent. I remember reading something about the Ravens draft preparations and by the end of it they only have a 100 or 150 players even on their board. The Patriots apparently only have like 75! A guy we may have a 2nd round grade on another team may not even have listed. Point is teams dont draft from the same board so BAP to me is completely different than BAP to you. Which means BAP doesnt necessarily maximize value.
The recipe for draft success is 90% scouting well, 5% common sense, and 5% luck. Drafting philosophy is irrelevant.
Quote:That's a problem that sinks any drafting. In the end, you didn't select BAP even if you intended to. Gene drafted need and called it BAP. It doesn't matter what you call it if the results prove you didn't select BAP.
No...what people have been trying to get you to see is that maybe Alualu actually WAS BAP in Gene's board. You can't just call it a need pick because it was a bad pick.
BAP is not infallible. Need is not infallible.
You MUST evaluate properly. Everything else is secondary.
Quote:Nice lecture, but yes - the vast majority of the work is done well in advance of the pick. Yes, it is "rank 'em and pick 'em," but it's not like your Madden fantasy. GMs are open about how they do rank players and that there's usually a nice gap between players at the top, or at least only very few players that are relatively equal to choose from. Once you get to the fourth round or so, your pools of relatively equal value are bigger and bigger. If you look at the draft failures both here and elsewhere, they're defined by going with players who weren't the best available. Whether that was due to them straying from their own board or flat out poor ranking, the result is the same. They guy they chose clearly wasn't the best available based on the results.
That's a simplistic analysis.
Sometimes players can be drafted into the wrong scheme and fail. The Colts drafted Jerry Hughes in the first round a few years back and he did nothing for them. He went to Buffalo last year and put up 10 sacks.
Sometimes players are immature. Brett Favre was supposedly a party animal in Atlanta. Glanville was so dismayed with his second rounder he traded him to Green Bay. Under your rationale, Brett Favre was not the best available player when Atlanta picked him in the second round in 1991. Vernon Davis didn't really start to thrive in San Francisco until Mike Singletary called him out, then Harbaugh put him in the right scheme.
Sometimes players get injured. Steve Emtman was an unquestioned stud DT in 1992. In his rookie year, he demonstrated many times he was worth that pick. But two blown knees later, he was finished.
Players fail and succeed for many different reasons beyond simply not being the best available player.
Hes a very simple person.
Quote:That's a simplistic analysis.
Players fail and succeed for many different reasons beyond simply not being the best available player.
That's something people are afraid to contemplate.
Quote:That's a simplistic analysis.
...
Players fail and succeed for many different reasons beyond simply not being the best available player.
Quote:That's something people are afraid to contemplate.
Amen and amen.
I just want to throw this in here to reinforce what has already been said: "I don't care how you do it, just get it right."
Quote:That's something people are afraid to contemplate.
I don't think anyone is afraid of contemplating anything. The point is when you start moving guys ahead of players that grade out measurably better from a position agnostic system you're introducing another point of failure and another variable.
Sure it works sometimes, but the for anyone that wants to control their chance of success to the greatest degree then always taking the player that actually measures out as better by whatever system a GM is using should result over time in achievement of his greatest degree of success.