If you want to get historical, the needs concept got the best of us in 1995.

 

Boselli was the best player available? Wasn't the BAP Warren Sapp instead? In the second, Brian DeMarco was drafted based on a need for two top-notch offensive tackles to make the "bookends" deal. 

 

In between those two picks a "run" on running backs happened. Fearing they'd miss out of selecting one, the Jaguars traded a boat-load of picks. Ron Hill and the rest traded 1995 first round pick (#31), 1995 third round pick (#97), 1995 fourth round pick (#134), 1996 fourth round pick (#113) to Chiefs for the 19th pick.

 

At 1995 #19, the Jaguars selected RB James Stewart - Tennessee - losing four draft picks on a running back fourth or fifth on positional rankings. In essence, they took the best running back available, not the best player available regardless of position.

 

In a humorous side to another ridiculously bad example of needs drafting in this same 1995 NFL draft, the Philadelphia Eagles traded up for DT Mike Mumula. They gave Tampa Bay the number twelve, and two second round picks for the seventh over-all and a third round pick. 

 

The Bucs used the number twelve pick to take Warren Sapp, who many considered to be one the top two or three players available in the first round.

 

The Bucs then packed their newly acquired second round pick with their own second round pick and sent them to the Dallas Cowboys for the twenty-eighth pick of the draft. The Bucs selected FSU OLB Derrick Brooks, who many looked at as the best player in college football that year.

 

If you draft well, you are always selecting the absolutely best football player you possibly can. Regardless of position, you must continually select the players with the most talent.

 

Sapp and Brooks were puzzle pieces for the Tampa Bay organization that went on to win a Super Bowl.

---

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi

 

http://s6.postimg.org/vyr2ycdfz/Teddy_Br...cked_4.gif

The fact is, under a conservative 4-3 defense like Jauron's, an OLB isn't going to put up big sack numbers.  Why penalize Hardy in the analysis because of it? 

This might be the best "Hardy didn't suck" argument I've ever seen. Jauron ran a defense that used the linebackers as coverage guys who would attack run or pass in their zone. Capers ran a 4-3 base, but he incorporated a lot of 3-4 looks and principles that allowed Hardy to thrive as a pass-rusher.

 

If you want to get historical, the needs concept got the best of us in 1995.

 

Boselli was the best player available? Wasn't the BAP Warren Sapp instead? In the second, Brian DeMarco was drafted based on a need for two top-notch offensive tackles to make the "bookends" deal. 

Granted, we're going back 19 years here, but I seem to recall the general feeling being that Ki-Jana Carter was unquestionably the best player in the draft, with a few guys (including Boselli) grouped up behind him?

---

If you think picking the guy at the top of your draft board is BAP, then you don't understand the philosophy of BAP.

---

This might be the best "Hardy didn't suck" argument I've ever seen. Jauron ran a defense that used the linebackers as coverage guys who would attack run or pass in their zone. Capers ran a 4-3 base, but he incorporated a lot of 3-4 looks and principles that allowed Hardy to thrive as a pass-rusher.

 

Granted, we're going back 19 years here, but I seem to recall the general feeling being that Ki-Jana Carter was unquestionably the best player in the draft, with a few guys (including Boselli) grouped up behind him?

 

Precisely!

 

Hardy can't be blamed for not racking up a bunch of sacks when he was dropped into coverage the first three years of his career.

 

The top of that 1995 draft was impressive on it's face.  Ki-Jana Carter, Boselli, Steve McNair, Kevin Carter and Warren Sapp were in the top of that draft.  Kerry Collins as well.

 

The Jaguars had a lot of good options that first draft.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I


In a humorous side to another ridiculously bad example of needs drafting in this same 1995 NFL draft, the Philadelphia Eagles traded up for DT Mike Mumula. They gave Tampa Bay the number twelve, and two second round picks for the seventh over-all and a third round pick. 

 

The Bucs used the number twelve pick to take Warren Sapp, who many considered to be one the top two or three players available in the first round.

 

The Bucs then packed their newly acquired second round pick with their own second round pick and sent them to the Dallas Cowboys for the twenty-eighth pick of the draft. The Bucs selected FSU OLB Derrick Brooks, who many looked at as the best player in college football that year.

 

If you draft well, you are always selecting the absolutely best football player you possibly can. Regardless of position, you must continually select the players with the most talent.

First, it's "Mamula," and he was a DE/OLB, NOT a DT.

 

Second, it isn't a cautionary tale about needs drafting.  It's a cautionary tale about the ridiculousness of overvaluing underwear practices known as the combine.

 

Mamula had average college production and tested off the charts at the combine.

 

Regarding the Bucs moves...yes they made some great moves.  But there were reasons those players were available.

 

Sapp had questions regarding alleged positive marijuana tests and conditioning.

 

Brooks had questions regarding his slight frame.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

First, it's "Mamula," and he was a DE/OLB, NOT a DT.

 

Second, it isn't a cautionary tale about needs drafting.  It's a cautionary tale about the ridiculousness of overvaluing underwear practices known as the combine.

 

Mamula had average college production and tested off the charts at the combine.

 

Regarding the Bucs moves...yes they made some great moves.  But there were reasons those players were available.

 

Sapp had questions regarding alleged positive marijuana tests and conditioning.

 

Brooks had questions regarding his slight frame.

 



 

We needed the fourth or fifth ranked running back available completely relating to his position. Four picks for Stewart. We needed him really bad.

---

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi

 

http://s6.postimg.org/vyr2ycdfz/Teddy_Br...cked_4.gif

I think there's a lot of arguing across each other. BAP doesn't ignore need, it just puts the better player first. If two players are judged roughly equal, then by all means take the guy who fits a need. Don't reach for a position, but if the evaluation is very close then fill the need. Likewise, need drafting usually factors in more than one position of need, and also factors in how long a position will still be set. MJD was a need pick even though Fred Taylor was still going strong and the Jags had other holes. The Jags were very interested in RB Deangelo Williams that year, and would have taken him in Rd 1 had he not been picked by Carolina.


 

In 2004, there was a huge drop off in value after Roethlisberger. This wasn't an evaluation problem, The Jags had Roethlisberger rated that highly. Reggie Williams was listed as the next WR taken on every mock I saw that year, and it was considered a WR-rich draft. Lee Evans was behind him because of a previous knee injury. In 2004 picking need instead of BAP was the failure.


 

Gene Smith's problem was not BAP/need. Evaluation was poor at times, but that was only part of it. Gene had a tendency to fall in love with a player and then do everything he could to avoid the risk of having him picked first. Gene also poorly estimated what other teams would do with their picks.


 

And Nate, in spite of what some pundits say it's not all that difficult to make a trade to maximize value. There are lots of trades made every draft. Shack Harris was a very good trader.

---

                                                                          

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

 

We needed the fourth or fifth ranked running back available completely relating to his position. Four picks for Stewart. We needed him really bad.

Dude, 1995 was an expansion team's inaugural season.

 

EVERY pick was a need pick!

 

There wasn't a single position of non need on the team.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Would you draft Matthews with the #3 pick overall?

If the GM believes he is clearly the best player available at that selection then I would expect him to trade back or take him.

---

If you think picking the guy at the top of your draft board is BAP, then you don't understand the philosophy of BAP.

 

The first word in BAP is "best"....a purely subjective descriptor. BAP differs from person to person, and team to team. 

---

I think there's a lot of arguing across each other. BAP doesn't ignore need, it just puts the better player first. If two players are judged roughly equal, then by all means take the guy who fits a need. Don't reach for a position, but if the evaluation is very close then fill the need. Likewise, need drafting usually factors in more than one position of need, and also factors in how long a position will still be set. MJD was a need pick even though Fred Taylor was still going strong and the Jags had other holes. The Jags were very interested in RB Deangelo Williams that year, and would have taken him in Rd 1 had he not been picked by Carolina.


 

In 2004, there was a huge drop off in value after Roethlisberger. This wasn't an evaluation problem, The Jags had Roethlisberger rated that highly. Reggie Williams was listed as the next WR taken on every mock I saw that year, and it was considered a WR-rich draft. Lee Evans was behind him because of a previous knee injury. In 2004 picking need instead of BAP was the failure.


 

Gene Smith's problem was not BAP/need. Evaluation was poor at times, but that was only part of it. Gene had a tendency to fall in love with a player and then do everything he could to avoid the risk of having him picked first. Gene also poorly estimated what other teams would do with their picks.


 

And Nate, in spite of what some pundits say it's not all that difficult to make a trade to maximize value. There are lots of trades made every draft. Shack Harris was a very good trader.

 

Have you got a copy of 2004s draft board just lying about the house? Even if you do and it says what you say, Big Ben being top of the board doesn't mean he was streets ahead of where they had Williams or if they thought he was better than Leftwich. You're using 20/20 hindsight when trying to guess what happened in a secret room 10 years ago.

 

Even Vic, the grand wizard of BAP himself says QB is a position where you make an exception for when drafting BAP (especially back in the old CBA days) and seeing as we had a 1 year guy who had just cost a first round pick a heck of a lot of $ and who had shown some flashes in his less than ideally prepared for rookie year, there was no way we were taking Roethlisberger. Another thing to consider is that if he was that lusted after, there is no doubt we could have traded the pick for him, but we and all the teams behind us didn't. Did we really love Reggie Williams that much that we wouldn't have taken a trade down? I really doubt it.

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

I think there's a lot of arguing across each other. BAP doesn't ignore need, it just puts the better player first. If two players are judged roughly equal, then by all means take the guy who fits a need. Don't reach for a position, but if the evaluation is very close then fill the need. Likewise, need drafting usually factors in more than one position of need, and also factors in how long a position will still be set. MJD was a need pick even though Fred Taylor was still going strong and the Jags had other holes. The Jags were very interested in RB Deangelo Williams that year, and would have taken him in Rd 1 had he not been picked by Carolina.


 
In 2004, there was a huge drop off in value after Roethlisberger. This wasn't an evaluation problem, The Jags had Roethlisberger rated that highly. Reggie Williams was listed as the next WR taken on every mock I saw that year, and it was considered a WR-rich draft. Lee Evans was behind him because of a previous knee injury. In 2004 picking need instead of BAP was the failure.


 
Gene Smith's problem was not BAP/need. Evaluation was poor at times, but that was only part of it. Gene had a tendency to fall in love with a player and then do everything he could to avoid the risk of having him picked first. Gene also poorly estimated what other teams would do with their picks.


 
And Nate, in spite of what some pundits say it's not all that difficult to make a trade to maximize value. There are lots of trades made every draft. Shack Harris was a very good trader.

Exactly how do you state as a fact that "it's not all that difficult..."


How do you know? Are you saying that you're on the phone and can make that determination that an opportunity presents itself in each instance, and one in which the otherside is ripe to be taken (hence maximizing value, getting the better end of the deal?).


I honestly think the BAP cult believes this. It is all sooooo easy. However, not one GM is a member of this cult, so there is that.


And also, if Gene is falling in love with a player, do you think that may have something to do with evaluating him as the BAP( btw, I agree that he did fall in love with certain players. I also think that it was transparent.)

---

If the GM believes he is clearly the best player available at that selection then I would expect him to trade back or take him.

The problem with that approach is that it takes two to tango. If you're sitting at third overall with Jake Matthews on top of your board and the best offer you can get is a third-round pick to trade down to six, you've got a tough decision. You've probably got a couple of other players with about the same grade and perceived career potential as Matthews on your board, but what if it's only two guys, and they're the next two guys off the board? You've screwed yourself out of a top-level prospect, and all you've got to show for it is an extra third-round pick that will almost certainly not return the type of player you would have gotten at three overall.

 

In that situation, yeah, my "best available player" would be the guy with a similar grade to Matthews who plays a position of need. If it was something like Matthews had an 8.0 on my board and the next nearest player was a 7.3, then taking Matthews makes the most sense, much as it seems like a bad idea on the face of things to load up another tackle. I personally don't believe we're in the type of draft where you've got a clearly-defined top three, and then everyone else. There are going to be a handful of players with very similar grades at the top of the board. I would venture to say that I don't see any scenario in which drafting Matthews at three would make sense this year. No matter who the top two picks are, there will be several players available who make sense at three, even if it means drafting a 7.6 over a 7.7 to plug the holes at QB, WR or DE/LB.

---

The problem with that approach is that it takes two to tango. If you're sitting at third overall with Jake Matthews on top of your board and the best offer you can get is a third-round pick to trade down to six, you've got a tough decision. You've probably got a couple of other players with about the same grade and perceived career potential as Matthews on your board, but what if it's only two guys, and they're the next two guys off the board? You've screwed yourself out of a top-level prospect, and all you've got to show for it is an extra third-round pick that will almost certainly not return the type of player you would have gotten at three overall.

 

In that situation, yeah, my "best available player" would be the guy with a similar grade to Matthews who plays a position of need. If it was something like Matthews had an 8.0 on my board and the next nearest player was a 7.3, then taking Matthews makes the most sense, much as it seems like a bad idea on the face of things to load up another tackle. I personally don't believe we're in the type of draft where you've got a clearly-defined top three, and then everyone else. There are going to be a handful of players with very similar grades at the top of the board. I would venture to say that I don't see any scenario in which drafting Matthews at three would make sense this year. No matter who the top two picks are, there will be several players available who make sense at three, even if it means drafting a 7.6 over a 7.7 to plug the holes at QB, WR or DE/LB.

 

I didn't say if he had a few players with the same grade to take the guy at the position you feel like you're deep at, I said if the GM sees a guy who he believes will be the better player he needs to take that better player or trade out. And if no one else wants to trade out you don't do like Shack and Gene did and constantly give up value to get some guy higher than he should be drafted.

 

In addition if he actually does take a BAP when teams think he won't trade out then it'll increase the regard for him as a hardball negotiator around the league who won't just give away value.

---

 I personally don't believe we're in the type of draft where you've got a clearly-defined top three, and then everyone else. There are going to be a handful of players with very similar grades at the top of the board. I would venture to say that I don't see any scenario in which drafting Matthews at three would make sense this year. No matter who the top two picks are, there will be several players available who make sense at three, even if it means drafting a 7.6 over a 7.7 to plug the holes at QB, WR or DE/LB.

 

I think this true in most drafts.  You may have one small select tier of players at the very top and if you arent picking from that upper tier, I'm not sure the difference in value is all that great.  Not enough to warrant taking a guy at a position where he would rarely see the field versus a guy who would get immediate and potentially impactful playing time.

 

Pick any number in the draft.  Lets say #10.  Go look at the last 15 years of the 10th selection and tell me how many times there is a more impactful player taken within the next 5 picks after. I bet you could find one almost every year.  The real difference in value between the 10th pick and the 15th pick isnt that high.  You just arent going to see huge gaps in talent in the first round unless you are at some extreme upper tier.  Like a Luck/RG3 tier and then everyone else.  Last year there really wasnt an upper tier.  And this year that tier is Clowney and then everyone else... and even thats debatable. 

 

I think where BAP makes the most sense is later in the draft.  3rd, 4th, 5th rounds, etc...  if you are sitting there middle of the 3rd and there is some guy you had borderline first round talent still available.  Even if he doesnt fit a need, who cares.  Take the borderline first rounder.  If you are sitting there in the 5th and youve got a borderline late 2nd, early 3rd rounder sitting there.  Take that guy.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

I didn't say if he had a few players with the same grade to take the guy at the position you feel like you're deep at, I said if the GM sees a guy who he believes will be the better player he needs to take that better player or trade out. And if no one else wants to trade out you don't do like Shack and Gene did and constantly give up value to get some guy higher than he should be drafted.

 

In addition if he actually does take a BAP when teams think he won't trade out then it'll increase the regard for him as a hardball negotiator around the league who won't just give away value.

 

Once again, we are just going to assume we know what Gene and Shacks draft boards looked like or is there a website where these get published which i don't know about?

 

People will also know you as the second coming of Matt Millen, but thats ok if you negotiate hardball!

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

I didn't say if he had a few players with the same grade to take the guy at the position you feel like you're deep at, I said if the GM sees a guy who he believes will be the better player he needs to take that better player or trade out. And if no one else wants to trade out you don't do like Shack and Gene did and constantly give up value to get some guy higher than he should be drafted.

 

In addition if he actually does take a BAP when teams think he won't trade out then it'll increase the regard for him as a hardball negotiator around the league who won't just give away value.

 

That seems to be working under the rather ridiculous presumption that all teams work off the same board.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

That seems to be working under the rather ridiculous presumption that all teams work off the same board.  

 

Could you elaborate on how you came to that conclusion?

---

Could you elaborate on how you came to that conclusion?

 

Well how would it earn him a reputation as a hardball to take the 'bap' if other teams don't share the same grade of that BAP?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Well how would it earn him a reputation as a hardball to take the 'bap' if other teams don't share the same grade of that BAP?

 

Okay. I understand.

 

Sometimes teams won't share the evaluation, which means Caldwell will need to be correct in his evaluations and have the strength of conviction to actually select those players who are actually better rather than pulling a 2004 Jaguars and letting a hall of fame QB fall to your former division rival.

---