And here's the right answer.

There's no such thing, which is why is the wrong answer.

Either you're taking (one of if more than one grades out the same)  the best player or you're taking a lesser player and letting your opponent have the better player.

Putting need into the equation is how you end up with Fowler, a guy that will never make a pro bowl instead of someone like Amari Cooper or Leonard Williams, and then you end up having to trade for or sign players for those same positions that you thought you were set at in the near future, and that's in addition to getting nothing of value for the pick.

No, when you start thinking about need before you think about player ability you're doing it wrong.

I got this straight from T.C. in a recent interview asking the same question.  His response made alot of sense to me so I thought I'd regurgitate it here.

---

You Gotta Be Able To Run Da' Rock~

An admissions officer at Stanford was asked whether he would rather have a student that got an A in a regular class or a B in an advanced class.  He responded that he wanted the student who got the A in the advanced class.  It's a false choice.  I want BOTH need and value.

You may say that isn't your choice.  What if need and value don't match at your position?  My response is then CHANGE YOUR POSITION!  It's called trade.  Every position is going to be a need for some team.  Why not trade your spot to a team that needs that position and move to a spot where value does equal your need?  Again, I want need and value.

Let's put aside trade for the moment.  What if you do have to choose between need and value?  To me, it comes down to how significant.  In these debates, the "BAP" people always give ridiculous examples of you having a choice between a guaranteed pro bowler and a bust.  Really?  Is that realistic?  If there was a guaranteed pro-bowler, he's not going to be available at #29.  Is your only other option a bust?  No.

I would present the example more along the lines of this.  You are deciding between two players and your scouts say that "Player A" has a 51% chance of being a better player and "Player B" has a 49% of being the better player.  However, Player A is a non-need while Player B would fill a big need.  Who do you choose?  I would take Player B.  If you truly believe in BAP, you take Player A.  Now, what if it is 55% or 60% or higher?  You got to decide.  The bottom line is you need balance the two and then make a decision.  My philosophy would be that if there's a SIGNIFICANT difference in projected value, yes, I go with the BAP player.  If it's an insignificant difference, I go with need.  I would say insignificant is the more common scenario.  If the teams ahead of you are drafting BAP, there's not going to be a projected steal.  Even if they are drafting for need, teams have different needs and often multiple needs.  In all likelihood, it won't be that many picks before you find a team where that position is a need and the player will be gone.  In addition, even if those team hypothetically ahead of you don't have a need at that position, some NFL team will and they will look to trade up for it if they see a player whose value is significantly higher than the spot.

Here's another way of looking at it.  Using school letter grades, what if you choice is between a B and a B-?  The "BAP" people would blindly take the B.  However, what if the B player plays a position where you already have an A while the B- player plays at a position where you have an F?  Value is very, very important, but playing time matters too.  A player doesn't win you games by sitting the bench.  If that B player sits the bench as a backup, how many games did he win you?  None.  Ok, let's say on average, the starter is likely to miss a couple of games.  Still, is the B player going to do enough in those TWO games to win your more games than the B- minus player who is a starter and upgrading your on-field talent for SIXTEEN games?  No, don't be ridiculous.  In this case, need would be the smarter pick.

The bottom line is you want both.  Value is very important, but it's not smart to blindly ignore needs either.   Finding the right balance is the key.  Actually, proper player evaluations is the key under either strategy, but that should be common sense.

Really great post.  The ridiculous BAP absolutes haven't made sense since FA and the cap started.  You absolutely want to put yourself in the best position possible to not have needs - but if you do have them, they have be a factor.

Teams don't deal in absolutes or principles like "if you are looking at need, you are doing it wrong."

Each team has a plan in relation to position groups, what positions in will spend on, where they will be in each upcoming year  ad the years after, and need OBVIOUSLY factors in.  

That doesn't mean you don't strive to not have needs to begin with.

Let's not forget these are subjective evaluations done by humans.

Bias is part of human psychology. Having a need can affect who you determine is "best" at a subconscious level.

The universal desire to have the best player fit a need can unintentionally skew how players are ranked on your board.

You see this phenomena on this very board with players widely regarded from outside sources being at a certain ability level are suddenly viewed as having a higher talent level by people on this board because they fit a need.

---

If we draft a RB with our last pick, unless he truly is the best player on the board at the time of the pick, it would prove that BAP is not 100% BAP

---

of course we'd never know

---

You Gotta Be Able To Run Da' Rock~

If we draft a RB with our last pick, unless he truly is the best player on the board at the time of the pick, it would prove that BAP is not 100% BAP

---

of course we'd never know

We drafted a punter.

What does that mean?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

If we draft a RB with our last pick, unless he truly is the best player on the board at the time of the pick, it would prove that BAP is not 100% BAP

---

of course we'd never know

We drafted a punter.

What does that mean?

ummm... that means... ummm... #stumped

---

Come on. Let's talk UDFA's- GO JAGS!

---

You Gotta Be Able To Run Da' Rock~

I'm in.

You don't take Reggie Williams over Rothlisburger. You don't draft Gabbert over JJ Watt. Or Anger over Wilson, and the list goes on.

There are times where need does play a key factor. But good teams have the luxary of picking the very best player available. The bad teams 'seem' to draft for need.

Aaron Rodgers wasn't needed in 2005 up in Green Bay...but man that pick sure paid off.

---

I'm in.

You don't take Reggie Williams over Rothlisburger. You don't draft Gabbert over JJ Watt. Or Anger over Wilson, and the list goes on.

There are times where need does play a key factor. But good teams have the luxary of picking the very best player available. The bad teams 'seem' to draft for need.

Aaron Rodgers wasn't needed in 2005 up in Green Bay...but man that pick sure paid off.

This is typical BAP 2nd guessing.

---

If we draft a RB with our last pick, unless he truly is the best player on the board at the time of the pick, it would prove that BAP is not 100% BAP

---

of course we'd never know

We drafted a punter.

What does that mean?

It means someone let Gene Smith into the draft room.

---

We drafted a punter.

What does that mean?

It means someone let Gene Smith into the draft room.

They must have got a buggy to bring him from his cabin in the woods in Montana he surely is holed up in.

---

Tom was asked about drafting the punter vs waiting for him as a UDFA; his response was basically that "we saw some punters go"- So I guess they didn't wanna take a chance of not getting him. Nortman is set to make 2 and a quarter this year. Wonder if they're considering cutting him for the new guy to save a lil bread. I mean, barring the rook getting beat out by the vet.

---

You Gotta Be Able To Run Da' Rock~

It means someone let Gene Smith into the draft room.

They must have got a buggy to bring him from his cabin in the woods in Montana he surely is holed up in.

Coughlin: "Come on guys! Who left the door open?"

---

you get a high priced good punter like norman when your 3-13 and need to use the punter alot and keep you out of trouble. If your a 10-6 team and score on most drives and use punter only a few times less money spent on a decent College punter is good.

---

A little offended that there isn't a non team generated thread regarding the punter. Equally offended that there is next to no highlights of his undoubted stellar career. I demand a punter thread, and I'm not starting it!!!!!!

---

We drafted a punter.

What does that mean?

It means someone let Gene Smith into the draft room.

That was my first thought after seeing the Jags draft a punter.

Hmm, wasn't TC a big proponent of Gene Smith?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

They must have got a buggy to bring him from his cabin in the woods in Montana he surely is holed up in.

Coughlin: "Come on guys! Who left the door open?"

I am imagining the Fight Club narrator..."I am Gene Smith's smiling revenge..."

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Depends, this year yes! we have the luxury of drafting BAP right now.

No we don't. We are a year or so away from being able to do that. We have immediate needs at OG, TE and LB.

It's great to be back in 2008. If only we had bet the house on Harvey again.

---

It will never cease to amaze me the lengths some will go to deny BAP.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I think what trips people up is that need doesn't have to mean immediate need.

Teams draft with the next 3/4/5 years in mind.

---

Not only that, grades/pools flatten exponentially as the draft progresses.

Sixth and seventh round strategy can become draft to protect right of first refusal. Taking a guy to ensure you don't lose in UDFA. In return, you can pass over a guy you would draft being confident he would sign in UDFA. Don't some even get better contracts than late draftees?

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I'm in.

You don't take Reggie Williams over Rothlisburger. You don't draft Gabbert over JJ Watt. Or Anger over Wilson, and the list goes on.

There are times where need does play a key factor. But good teams have the luxary of picking the very best player available. The bad teams 'seem' to draft for need.

Aaron Rodgers wasn't needed in 2005 up in Green Bay...but man that pick sure paid off.

This is typical BAP 2nd guessing.

Common knowledge at the time said that Gabbert was a likely franchise QB. Some pundits even rated him the top QB in the draft. Watt wasn't even rated the top DE. Of course it didn't turn out that way. Sometimes you draft who you think is BAP, but you end up wrong. In another example, Joeckel was a clear BAP, not a need since we had Monroe playing at a Pro Bowl level in 2012.

The Reggie Williams pick was a clear reach for need; Roethlisberger was in a completely different and higher tier at the time.

Wilson turned out better, but he was no BAP at the time. Even so, picking a punter there was idiotic. But that had nothing to do with BAP.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"