I'm confused here. None of those picks were BAP. Matt Jones was a QB for God's sake and both Gabbert and Alualu were virtually unheard of.

 

Gabbert was projected to be the #1 pick by the Panthers at one point. The fact that he dropped to #10 surprised everybody. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

Jaguar Kick is saying we had poor talent evaluators, not talking about anyone being the BAP.

---

I'm confused here. None of those picks were bap. Matt Jones was a qb for gods sake and both gabbert and alualu were virtually unheard of.

BAP doesn't mean BAP on the media board

---

BAP is the only way your team will ever reach competitive strength.

 

It keeps each unit on the roster full. It provide your coaching staff the most talented players possible.

 

BAP isn't insane, only the outrageous scenarios contrived to counter-argue BAP are.

 

Needs drafting doesn't work. Look at us.

 

Taking a less talented player to fill a need over a more talented football player at another position is awful.

 

No...BAD drafting doesn't work.  Look at us.  Gene Smith declared he was a BAP drafter.

 

TC was a needs drafter, as was Jimmy Johnson.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

It actually has nothing to do with BAP at all, as no one employs it and hasn't for well over a decade.


The article does an awesome job at pointing out that guys are completely factored out based upon the need of the team, and its scheme and philosophy. This further illustrates that BAP is barely a recognizable theory, much less something teams employ.

 

Great article, nate.  Thanks.

 

As to the text in bold...I've been saying this for years.

 

A guy that doesn't fit your scheme may well be a better player overall than the ones on your team's board that do fit your scheme.  But a team isn't going to draft a player that, in no way, matches their schemes/philosophies, etc.

 

That's why BAP is a theoretical message board fiction.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

BAP is the only way your team will ever reach competitive strength.

 

It keeps each unit on the roster full. It provide your coaching staff the most talented players possible.

 

BAP isn't insane, only the outrageous scenarios contrived to counter-argue BAP are.

 

Needs drafting doesn't work. Look at us.

 

Taking a less talented player to fill a need over a more talented football player at another position is awful.

 

Then address the point in the article about the 6-2, 330 lb nose tackle.

 

The Bears reached the conference championship not too long ago by excluding from their board NTs with those dimensions, even though they could have been better players overall than the DTs they DID have on their board.

 

Is a "Best available player" who doesn't fit your scheme at all truly a "Best available player"

 when they will be less effective in your scheme?

 

Is a BAP who IS a PERFECT scheme fit for you but actually inferior to a player who doesn't fit your scheme truly a BAP?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

A value board is a very subjective thing.

 

The front office of a team is nothing more than a group of people, and like all people, are subject to certain biases such as overvaluing things of need. You see people doing that very thing on this board all the time. What an outsider may consider a need pick may be actually, due to this bias, the person that the front office genuinely believes is the best available.

 

That is what makes these need vs BAP arguments so pointless. There is no way to quantify who is using what strategy unless the front offices come out and tell you.

---

I'm going to leave this here, since it's something that I really believe in when it comes to draft philosophy. It speaks to the idea that the higher priority item, which runs above the BAP versus NEED idea, is that you have to be a good evaluator of talent above all else. If you can evaluate talent properly, everything else will fall into place.


 

"I don't care how you do it, just get it right."

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Best available hot girl will vary immensely based on our own personal preferences.

---

Best available hot girl will vary immensely based on our own personal preferences.

I'm with lovie avoiding the 6-2 330s

---

No...BAD drafting doesn't work.  Look at us.  Gene Smith declared he was a BAP drafter.

 

TC was a needs drafter, as was Jimmy Johnson.

 

I read somewhere that Jimmy Johnson also thought drafting offensive lineman in the top 5 is very foolish.

 

I tend to agree with him.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

There is no way to quantify who is using what strategy unless the front offices come out and tell you.

 

And even then, they can just be lying to you anyway.

 

It's pointless, I agree, but it's fun to talk about.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

I read somewhere that Jimmy Johnson also thought drafting offensive lineman in the top 5 is very foolish.

 

I tend to agree with him.

 

Well...as you can see he never did it, and wound up building a pretty good OL for Dallas.  In fact, he didn't draft an OL higher than the 3rd round when he was with Dallas.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I think Vic sold everyone on the BAP philosophy.  The problem with the philosophy is obvious however -- like a lot of things, BAP works in theory.  However the draft requires luck and scouting.  If your scouting isn't any good, it doesn't matter what your draft philosophy is.  If your luck is bad... then BAP is someone who never lives up to their potential.

 

The best philosophy, and I think it's close to what Caldwell's is, I'd probably call "Availability Drafting."  In which you determine who will be available later, and work towards building the roster best.

 

Let's say that WR is a very deep class.  BAP is WR in the 1st round, but in the 3rd round you can get someone who will still be a good WR. On the other hand the TE class isn't very deep.  You need a TE, and the player isn't going to last the rest of the round.  Then you take the TE over the WR.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

...

 

The best philosophy, and I think it's close to what Caldwell's is, I'd probably call "Availability Drafting."  In which you determine who will be available later, and work towards building the roster best.

 

Let's say that WR is a very deep class.  BAP is WR in the 1st round, but in the 3rd round you can get someone who will still be a good WR. On the other hand the TE class isn't very deep.  You need a TE, and the player isn't going to last the rest of the round.  Then you take the TE over the WR.

 

Because that way, your roster becomes stronger overall and not in just one area. So what if you have four stud OT's if your TE's can't even get off of a jam. I'd rather have serviceable yet productive players all over the roster instead of enormous strength at just one or two positions.

 

This does not preclude the need for playmakers, I was simply making a point.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

I think Vic sold everyone on the BAP philosophy.  The problem with the philosophy is obvious however -- like a lot of things, BAP works in theory.  However the draft requires luck and scouting.  If your scouting isn't any good, it doesn't matter what your draft philosophy is.  If your luck is bad... then BAP is someone who never lives up to their potential.

 

The best philosophy, and I think it's close to what Caldwell's is, I'd probably call "Availability Drafting."  In which you determine who will be available later, and work towards building the roster best.

 

Let's say that WR is a very deep class.  BAP is WR in the 1st round, but in the 3rd round you can get someone who will still be a good WR. On the other hand the TE class isn't very deep.  You need a TE, and the player isn't going to last the rest of the round.  Then you take the TE over the WR.

 

That is why I have spent all year screaming for a quarterback at #3 even if Jadeveon Clowney is available and the BAP. You can get a good defensive end later but not a great quarterback.

 

How does the BAP philosophy work "in theory" if no two teams have the same draft board? BAP for Team A is not the BAP for Team B. That is why BAP is a myth.

 

My draft strategy would be "best available player at need" - BAPAN. That means if my choices are Teddy and Johnny, I will pick Teddy.

---

I think Vic sold everyone on the BAP philosophy.  The problem with the philosophy is obvious however -- like a lot of things, BAP works in theory.  However the draft requires luck and scouting.  If your scouting isn't any good, it doesn't matter what your draft philosophy is.  If your luck is bad... then BAP is someone who never lives up to their potential.

 

The best philosophy, and I think it's close to what Caldwell's is, I'd probably call "Availability Drafting."  In which you determine who will be available later, and work towards building the roster best.

 

Let's say that WR is a very deep class.  BAP is WR in the 1st round, but in the 3rd round you can get someone who will still be a good WR. On the other hand the TE class isn't very deep.  You need a TE, and the player isn't going to last the rest of the round.  Then you take the TE over the WR.

 

I pretty much agree with this, and it's why I think QB may be our target in round one, with the possibility of some moderate to good DEs later on.  It's also why I believe we will pass on Watkins.

---

BAP "gone"... lol.

 

There would be no reason to grade or group players at all if they weren't trying to determine the better players among those still available.

---

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

BAP "gone"... lol.

 

There would be no reason to grade or group players at all if they weren't trying to determine the better players among those still available.

 

Wrong. We need a quarterback and defensive end, so whether we pick Bridgewater or Clowney could come down to who has the higher grade because both would be need picks.

---

Wrong. We need a quarterback and defensive end, so whether we pick Bridgewater or Clowney could come down to who has the higher grade because both would be need picks.

 

No reason for you to be so uppity... but by your own admission, you're saying grade (the BAP) is the deciding factor.

 

Clowney is widely seen as the best available player in the draft.  That's why the Texans are considering taking him regardless of "needing" of a pass rusher.

 

Regardless... at the top of the draft where we are (and as many needs as we have) yours is a self fulfilling prophecy, as the best players are still available.

---

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

No reason for you to be so uppity... but by your own admission, you're saying grade (the BAP) is the deciding factor.

 

Clowney is widely seen as the best available player in the draft.  That's why the Texans are considering taking him regardless of "needing" of a pass rusher.

 

Regardless... at the top of the draft where we are (and as many needs as we have) yours is a self fulfilling prophecy, as the best players are still available.

 

I am saying the best available player at a need position should be the deciding factor. Meaning if Jake Matthews and Teddy Bridgewater have similar grades, pick Teddy. Why? Because we don't need a left tackle and do need a quarterback.

---