To me it appears the true draft strategy of the best talent evaluators seems to be:
Need+Bap in the first and second round. The top two rounds are basically plug and play guys so you can fill immediately needs with the top two rounds with starting caliber players.
Then bap for rounds three through seven. Since it’s practically a crap shoot from here on, no reason to try and aim for a particular need. Just get the highest rated guys on your board. At this point. Usually the higher rated players are guys with off the feild concerns/medical issues in these rounds. That’s how you end up with players like Telvin, Colvin and Westbrook. Players who had much higher grades on them but fell because of the stated issues. It it works out then you are a genius.
Fun fact: Cody Kesslers 20 yard shuttle time was faster than every RB and WR this year and would have ranked 5th overall. 4 seconds flat. Was pretty dismal everywhere else.
Also fun fact, Cody Kessler has 10 7/8" hands. 98th percentile. For comparison , Cam Robinson has 10 1/4" hands at 6'6 325.
(03-29-2018, 04:14 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (03-29-2018, 02:14 PM)JUNGLE CAT 2017 Wrote: [ -> ]"You typically go for the best-available player, and in this situation, we've been able to match up a need with the best-available player," Coughlin told NFL Network on Saturday. "So it's worked out well for us in that capacity. It doesn't always work that way, especially as you well know, when you're waiting to pick 32nd."
What Tom is saying is BAP has flexibility so that you may have options.
Yeah, ummm, he's saying exactly what I'm saying. He's preaching BAP strategy but selecting the best available player that meets a need - which is exactly what I said usually happens.
I even spelled out that many GMs won't admit it but clearly do it. You've handed me a perfect example of that.
Pure BAP selection regardless of need happens, but it's so rare it's practically a myth.
I wish I could find the video clip again. Tom was still with the Giants and it was just before the draft. He was addressing the press. His statement was bap DOES have flexibility due to the fact that players with similar grades may play different positions. So you identify the BAP, and, you consider if another player - at a position you might not be so strong at - is close enough in grade that there is not significant talent drop off.
The reason there are multitudes of first round busts and first round underachievers relates directly to the needs approach.
(03-30-2018, 09:17 AM)JUNGLE CAT 2017 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-29-2018, 04:14 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, ummm, he's saying exactly what I'm saying. He's preaching BAP strategy but selecting the best available player that meets a need - which is exactly what I said usually happens.
I even spelled out that many GMs won't admit it but clearly do it. You've handed me a perfect example of that.
Pure BAP selection regardless of need happens, but it's so rare it's practically a myth.
I wish I could find the video clip again. Tom was still with the Giants and it was just before the draft. He was addressing the press. His statement was bap DOES have flexibility due to the fact that players with similar grades may play different positions. So you identify the BAP, and, you consider if another player - at a position you might not be so strong at - is close enough in grade that there is not significant talent drop off.
The reason there are multitudes of first round busts and first round underachievers relates directly to the needs approach.
What you are describing is a combination of BAP and "need" strategies. Which is what I've been saying is the norm.
There are obviously varying degrees of the combination, and those who lean too hard toward need instead of BAP are taking greater risk.
I feel like I just keep saying the same thing, only differently worded, and you keep accidentally agreeing with me. LOL
I'll just leave you a little graphic and leave this dead horse to rest. Imagine Pure BAP all the way to the left and Pure Need all the way to the right and everything in between is a combination of the two. The further left - the more "BAP" - the further right - the more "NEED"
The boxed areas along the scale denote where GMs might combine the two concepts to varying ratios in their choices.
![[Image: ScreenShot2018-03-30at9.27.29AM.png]](http://pichost.org/images/2018/03/30/ScreenShot2018-03-30at9.27.29AM.png)
The only way to facilitate "pure BAP" is to:
1. Have a roster with no holes
2. Be willing, flexible, and capable of trading out of any pick
Most teams just reach if they have a player they prefer at a need position, rather than trade or select the better overall player. Reaching, ironically, rarely works out.
So, if you want to be in position to be able to take and use the BAP in all instances... build a roster without holes, trade out when your card tells you to if you're targeting a player, or select BAP if you can't.
If your roster has no holes, you'll be better off for it. If you do have holes and you target, you're better off trading to the correct position (up or down) to get your guy. You'll always lose value reaching, even if you get your guy.
Also, strategy changes with round.
Rounds 1 and 2 is where you find day one starters. 3 and 4 potential starters and contributors. 5 and later are fliers. So, you're likely to see targets (BAP that fit needs) in 1-4. 5 and later may be BAP, but at this point the pools of candidates with relatively equal grades are very large, so BAP is nearly a moot point by then. You pick up players who fell who may be higher on your board than others, or you're backfilling depth with wildcard candidates and special teamers (all likely bubble players at best regardless.)
If you have a lot of players making your team in the 5th round and below, you likely have a roster full of holes and/or depth issues.
Another Kessler thought - was he Caldwell’s “plan A” as backup QB?
Kessler has presumably been available for trade for some time and Henne had gone to KC well before this move was made. Plus, Caldwell told the media he has his “plan” some time before this deal was done.
Now, I accept it might take some time to agree a trade like this, even one which was in Caldwell’s mind for a while. But this seems a little longer than usual.
I think the extended time-gap might tell us there was someone else they were also interested in.
An option they wanted to pursue before turning to Kessler.
Or perhaps it simply indicates they wanted to see who else might become available after the initial free-agency frenzy.
Whatever, I think the timing is interesting.
I guess we’ll never be told though.
(03-30-2018, 02:54 PM)Andy G Wrote: [ -> ]Another Kessler thought - was he Caldwell’s “plan A” as backup QB?
Kessler has presumably been available for trade for some time and Henne had gone to KC well before this move was made. Plus, Caldwell told the media he has his “plan” some time before this deal was done.
Now, I accept it might take some time to agree a trade like this, even one which was in Caldwell’s mind for a while. But this seems a little longer than usual.
I think the extended time-gap might tell us there was someone else they were also interested in.
An option they wanted to pursue before turning to Kessler.
Or perhaps it simply indicates they wanted to see who else might become available after the initial free-agency frenzy.
Whatever, I think the timing is interesting.
I guess we’ll never be told though.
I think the Kessler acquisition could just be cheap insurance against not getting the QB they want in the draft.
I'd like to see the question asked to the club what, if any, impact analytics had on the decision to pursue Kessler.
His completion and turnover numbers are pretty impressive, and seem to fit the qualities Coughlin likes in a backup QB (protects the football.)
It could be a case where Coughlin (team goals) + Tony/data (identifies targets that fit goals) + Dave (selects and proposes/executes trade) produced this football decision.
Maybe something worth asking the Ozone or call in show?
(03-30-2018, 03:58 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]I'd like to see the question asked to the club what, if any, impact analytics had on the decision to pursue Kessler.
His completion and turnover numbers are pretty impressive, and seem to fit the qualities Coughlin likes in a backup QB (protects the football.)
It could be a case where Coughlin (team goals) + Tony/data (identifies targets that fit goals) + Dave (selects and proposes/executes trade) produced this football decision.
Maybe something worth asking the Ozone or call in show?
Depending who you ask around here... if it is a good signing/trade, it was all Tom.
If you're not a fan of the acquisition then it's probably all Dave Caldwell sucking.
(03-30-2018, 02:12 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]The only way to facilitate "pure BAP" is to:
1. Have a roster with no holes
2. Be willing, flexible, and capable of trading out of any pick
Most teams just reach if they have a player they prefer at a need position, rather than trade or select the better overall player. Reaching, ironically, rarely works out.
So, if you want to be in position to be able to take and use the BAP in all instances... build a roster without holes, trade out when your card tells you to if you're targeting a player, or select BAP if you can't.
If your roster has no holes, you'll be better off for it. If you do have holes and you target, you're better off trading to the correct position (up or down) to get your guy. You'll always lose value reaching, even if you get your guy.
Also, strategy changes with round.
Rounds 1 and 2 is where you find day one starters. 3 and 4 potential starters and contributors. 5 and later are fliers. So, you're likely to see targets (BAP that fit needs) in 1-4. 5 and later may be BAP, but at this point the pools of candidates with relatively equal grades are very large, so BAP is nearly a moot point by then. You pick up players who fell who may be higher on your board than others, or you're backfilling depth with wildcard candidates and special teamers (all likely bubble players at best regardless.)
If you have a lot of players making your team in the 5th round and below, you likely have a roster full of holes and/or depth issues.
I wonder if there is such as thing a true BAP, since there is no purely objective way to grade players?
(03-30-2018, 04:05 PM)I am Yoda Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2018, 02:12 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]The only way to facilitate "pure BAP" is to:
1. Have a roster with no holes
2. Be willing, flexible, and capable of trading out of any pick
Most teams just reach if they have a player they prefer at a need position, rather than trade or select the better overall player. Reaching, ironically, rarely works out.
So, if you want to be in position to be able to take and use the BAP in all instances... build a roster without holes, trade out when your card tells you to if you're targeting a player, or select BAP if you can't.
If your roster has no holes, you'll be better off for it. If you do have holes and you target, you're better off trading to the correct position (up or down) to get your guy. You'll always lose value reaching, even if you get your guy.
Also, strategy changes with round.
Rounds 1 and 2 is where you find day one starters. 3 and 4 potential starters and contributors. 5 and later are fliers. So, you're likely to see targets (BAP that fit needs) in 1-4. 5 and later may be BAP, but at this point the pools of candidates with relatively equal grades are very large, so BAP is nearly a moot point by then. You pick up players who fell who may be higher on your board than others, or you're backfilling depth with wildcard candidates and special teamers (all likely bubble players at best regardless.)
If you have a lot of players making your team in the 5th round and below, you likely have a roster full of holes and/or depth issues.
I wonder if there is such as thing a true BAP, since there is no purely objective way to grade players?
Sure there is.
You make a board...
1. player a
2. player b
3. player c
etc
and you pick the player on the top of your board regardless of position.
Your BAP may not match someone else's. But pure BAP picking would be making your board and selecting the guy at the very top, every time.
To many people's point, I doubt many if any GMs do this... as player a and b may be very close in value and so you would select the player that fits a higher need.
(03-30-2018, 04:13 PM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2018, 04:05 PM)I am Yoda Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if there is such as thing a true BAP, since there is no purely objective way to grade players?
Sure there is.
You make a board...
1. player a
2. player b
3. player c
etc
and you pick the player on the top of your board regardless of position.
Your BAP may not match someone else's. But pure BAP picking would be making your board and selecting the guy at the very top, every time.
To many people's point, I doubt many if any GMs do this... as player a and b may be very close in value and so you would select the player that fits a higher need.
Yes. That's why I asked the question. A gm/scout can assign a value to a player, but someone else will rank him just a little differently (or maybe quite differently). It's got art to it as well as science. I don't think anyone should stress over choosing a player at a position of need as long as consensus doesn't rank some other player wildly higher. I guess I'm saying there are reaches and then there are REACHES. (Not being argumentative.)
For example do we really need to draft another DL just because we have him ranked ahead of a LB that we'd like to have and LB is a thinner position depth-wise?
Everyone grades differently. Some may even calculate "bonus points" for need, impact, "explosiveness," "big arm," "elite traits," and other qualitative (scientifically immeasurable or non-quantitative) traits.
Need may be already factored into the grade. If so, that would be making picking top of the list that much easier.
(03-30-2018, 05:10 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Everyone grades differently. Some may even calculate "bonus points" for need, impact, "explosiveness," "big arm," "elite traits," and other qualitative (scientifically immeasurable or non-quantitative) traits.
Need may be already factored into the grade. If so, that would be making picking top of the list that much easier.
That makes sense. I didn't think about them factoring need into the grade.
(03-29-2018, 09:34 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (03-29-2018, 08:43 PM)Jags02 Wrote: [ -> ]With Church and Jerrod Wilson, I feel like the SS spot is set. We do need a backup for Gip tho at FS.
At QB, I like Kessler enough to go with just him and Bortles at the position. I don't see a dire need to get a QB in the draft unless you truly think he's capable of taking over the starting spot as early as mid-2019. Rudolph, Jackon or Falk can all maybe do as much, but I'd rather pass on them all and just go with the two QBs.
It was a list of options - not needs.
And Cody Davis is a great backup at FS.
The suggestion at SS was about drafting a premier 2019 replacement at SS not promoting a backup like Wilson.
I agree Church is no spring chicken, but I don't even see him losing a step out there. He looks like he still has two full tanks.
Church has a reasonable contract running through 2020, and I see no reason he shouldn't play that out. So if we're thinking replacement you probably want to think 2021.
Depth of talent is also a factor. While you might have a guy at the top of your board , you may also have several guys at the same position rated close to him that you know for a fact will be around in later rounds.
Conversely, you might have a position of need with very few players you consider "starting caliber" in the draft class. In that scenario you might take a guy further down your overall board because you won't get a chance at landing another.
They are just 2 examples. The BAP Vs need debate is pointless to me because BOTH factor into most picks.
(03-30-2018, 04:05 PM)I am Yoda Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if there is such as thing a true BAP, since there is no purely objective way to grade players?
I remember Coughlin in one of his last drafts talking about how for the first time he made a pick that was strictly BAP. I believe it was a lineman in the sixth round, although I don't think he actually made the final roster.