It's NOT STUPID.  It's the natural and obvious response to the argument BAP proponents have made ad nauseam that BAP drafting precludes drafting busts.

 

It doesn't!

 

Superior scouting minimizes busts.

 

I have maintained for YEARS that you can "rank em and pick em" all you want.  If the evaluations that lead to the ranking are flawed, you'll get busts whether you draft BAP or need.

 

You guys seem to be operating under the impression that it's otherwise.

You guys???

 

What it looks like to me is that you feel everyones board is the same. Obviously superior scouting helps minimize busts but you never know... Should you be yelling at the Seahawks because they drafted Aaron Curry who was the only "can't miss prospect"?

 

I'm sure most teams select the player who they feel will be the best player for their team but sometimes, it just doesn't work out.

---

No sensible person considers a punter a starter.

 

That's patently silly.

 

What matters is proper scouting and evaluations.  Without that, it doesn't matter how your construct your board or where you pick from that board.  If you have an idiot like Gene Smith ranking them, and he's a BAP drafter, he's going to have bad picks.

 

Yes, scouting an evaluation is the first half of the equation. The other half is actually accepting that the evaluation is right and that the player that evaluates as best needs to be taken or a trade needs to be made.

 

The draft is about the future, free agency is about the now. Don't waste the future trying to fill starter slots for the now.

---

You guys???

 

What it looks like to me is that you feel everyones board is the same. Obviously superior scouting helps minimize busts but you never know... Should you be yelling at the Seahawks because they drafted Aaron Curry who was the only "can't miss prospect"?

 

I'm sure most teams select the player who they feel will be the best player for their team but sometimes, it just doesn't work out.

 

Not at all.

 

In no way do I operate under the assumption that everyone's board is the same, because there are different factors that go into the formulation of a draft board.

 

The competence of the scouting departments and FOs are the main factor.

 

Aside from that, the schematic needs/player paradigms of the team will factor in.  A 3-4 team will arrange it's board differently from a 4-3 team.

 

Some organizations place a higher/lower priority on character than others.

 

But no matter how your formulate your draft board, the evaluations better be correct.

 

BAP advocates here have LONG operated under the assumption there is no way a BAP team can produce busts, because every bad pick is automatically determined to be a "need pick."

 

And no, even though Seattle is the reigning Super Bowl champion and their FO has done a great job building their team, they are not immune from picking busts, either.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Not at all.

 

In no way do I operate under the assumption that everyone's board is the same, because there are different factors that go into the formulation of a draft board.

 

The competence of the scouting departments and FOs are the main factor.

 

Aside from that, the schematic needs/player paradigms of the team will factor in.  A 3-4 team will arrange it's board differently from a 4-3 team.

 

Some organizations place a higher/lower priority on character than others.

 

But no matter how your formulate your draft board, the evaluations better be correct.

 

BAP advocates here have LONG operated under the assumption there is no way a BAP team can produce busts, because every bad pick is automatically determined to be a "need pick."

 

And no, even though Seattle is the reigning Super Bowl champion and their FO has done a great job building their team, they are not immune from picking busts, either.

 

No one ever said that BAP can't produce busts. What BAP proponents say is that you're literally giving up talent and forming a team with players that you believe are less talented by passing on Roethlisberger for Reggie Williams.

---

Well, it's not as if the Steelers didn't have needs along the DL when Heyward was picked. 

 

Brett Kiesel was 33 the year they added Heyward, and Casey hampton was 31.  They needed youth along the DL.

 

My argument was based upon the argument Oklahomie made.

 

Regarding your closing point, do you really think Dalton Or Kaepernick (taken picks 35 and 36 respectively in 2011) represents reaches from the 31st overall pick where heyward was chosen?  If so, why?  What made them reaches at 31 but not at 35 or 36 where they were taken?

 

Regarding whether Wilson or Foles as 3rd round picks represents a reach over Adams, the second round pick, do you deny at this point that at least Russell Wilson is a better player than Adams (irrespective of position)?

 

If not, whether Wilson in the second round might have been considered a reach at the time is immaterial.  The fact is, BAP is supposed to distinguish the true value from true reaches.  If it can't, what makes it any different than needs drafting?

 

There was also no player standing out at 31, so BAP philosophy says choose the player you want. They wanted to get younger on the DL so they went with Heyward. Kaepernick or Dalton at 31 is not a reach, I didn't say that.

 

Adams has played well enough for them so far, but Foles and Wilson both have done better. No doubt about that. However, irrespective of position, all three have done well.

 

 

BAP is about understanding where guys will go. If you were somehow privy to Tom Brady's career back in 2000, you don't draft him in the first 3 rounds. You'd draft him where you know he'll still be available. If the Steelers wanted Foles or Wilson they would have waited until the third round.

 

 

Also, which is extremely important to understand, the QB position is the only exception for the BAP philosophy in every major sport. It is the only sport where it's just one guy. Using QB's as examples is not the best way to comprehend how BAP works.

---

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d8...-draft-day

 

Nothing really to add.

---

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

Can we argue that?

 

DeCastro and Adams have been disappointments.  You could argue Alshon Jeffery was a better player than DeCastro.  You could also argue Mercilus was better than DeCastro, and Dewayne Allen, TJ Graham, Russell Wilson, and Nick Foles were better players than Adams.

 

In 2011, you could  argue Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick, and kyle Rudolph were better than Cameron Hayward.  In fact, those examples bolster the argument that the Steelers are not the pure BAP team you guys suggest.  Oklahomie has argued that QBs are more valuable than any other position, and that whenever you have the chance to take one, irrespective of need, you should do so.  There, even though the Steelers had Roethlisberger, you had two QBs on the board capable of leading teams to the playoffs when they took Cameron Heyward. 

 

Did the Steelers draft either of those QBs? 

 

No.

 

They took Heyward.  Heyward didn't become a starter until his 3rd year, and for his career, he has mustered 7.5 sacks.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/pl...ywCa01.htm

 

Why would they take Heyward in bottom of the first round over two QBs who have subsequently proven able to win in the league?

 

For that matter, why would they take DeCastro AND Adams over Russell Wilson and Nick Foles?

 

I cna come up with one of two possible reasons:

 

1)  They didn't need to spend a first round (or second round pick) on a QB who would ride the pines behind a still in his prime Ben Roethlisberger who has QBed the Steelers to two Super Bowl championships and three Super Bowl appearances;

 

2)  They actually had Heyward rated as BAP on their board and allowed superior players at more important positions to go to competitors, which isn't supposed to happen according to BAP proponents.

 

In 2010, the Steelers took Emmanuel Sanders in the draft, over guys like Eric Decker, Navorro Bowman and Daniel Graham.

 

Can anyone honestly say Sanders is better than ANY of those guys?!?  Maybe you could argue he is Decker's equal as a receiver, but there is NO WAY anyone can argue Sanders is a better player than either Bowman or Graham.

 

So again, if the Steelers are a BAP team, and BAP precludes teams from taking inferior players and allowing superior players to go to the competetion, how does that happen?

 

In 2009, the Steelers took DT Ziggy Hood in the first round.  Superior players that came off the board after Hood include Jairus Byrd, James Laurinaitis, Max Unger and LeSean McCoy.  How did that happen? 

You have to also take into account projection at the time. Really we all know the draft is a crap shoot. The idea though is that the draft is about projected ability. Using hindsight is killing the argument. At the time those players most likely were rated higher than the players you named. For various reasons some players played better than others. Should Tom Brady have been the number 1 overall pick in 2000? Of course not because he was a horrible prospect but he had drive and determination which allowed he to develop. Coupled with a top defense and great coach he became one of the greatest qbs ever.

 

Hindsight cannot play a part of it because there are numerous guys, Jimmy Graham, Montana, Browner, Sherman, Asante Samuels etc... that have out played their respective draft selection or lack off. It still doesn't mean as prospects they were not selected where they should have been. You are going to miss in the draft period. To me though, BAP is what would at least cut down on missing the most. Their are obvious exceptions but over time BAP should yield the best team possible. 

---

The draft is about the future not the immediate present and I think people tend to see the draft as extended free agency instead of "pick from a pool of unknown prospects." Especially with the new rookie wage scale, I think BAP drafting will be at its highest because a team will able to afford two first round qbs or draft a guard in the top 15 if they truly are the best prospect.  

---

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d80fe53bf/article/best-available-vs-need-philosophies-clash-on-draft-day'>http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d80fe53bf/article/best-available-vs-need-philosophies-clash-on-draft-day</a>


Nothing really to add.

Pretty much sums up this thread.

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

If players are of equal perceived value and a trade can't be completed (which I reject because as a GM you should always be planning several possible moves ahead) I'd select the more premium position over non premium position, especially higher in the draft.


If at that point we're still talking similar players/ same positions, etc, etc (unlikely) then its pretty cut and dry - take the player that you feel will be a better player, encompassing variables such as talent/ scheme/ character etc.



I think Bridgewater is or will be slightly better at his position than Clowney will be at his; I believe that Bridgewater will be more productive at his position than Clowney will be at his.

From prospect point of view, not sure how you can have Bridgewater over Clowney. I realize this is your opinion but Clowney is an elite prospect where as Bridgewater is not.

---

 

 

 

BAP advocates here have LONG operated under the assumption there is no way a BAP team can produce busts, because every bad pick is automatically determined to be a "need pick."

 

 

This is nonsense. Any pick can turn out to be a bust, BAP or not, and the BAP advocates realize that. Leftwich and Mattloaf were BAP picks. Alualu and Gabbert were probably BAP picks. And Reggie Williams, Reggie Nelson, and Derrick Harvey were need picks. A team has to be correct in its scouting before the BAP/need argument even matters. That's way more important than draft philosophy.


 

What I see in this is that BAP nets the team, on average, an extra 4th round pick each year by not reaching for need. Think of it as getting the chance to occasionally trade down. That's nice, but nowhere near as important as a successful vs. a blown 1st round pick.

---

                                                                          

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

Hey, so who is up for another one of these in say... 1 year, about a month from the draft?

---

Hey, so who is up for another one of these in say... 1 year, about a month from the draft?

 

It's what we do.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kerUbfOQTW0

---

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

Quite.

 

What we have are two sides arguing. One side says drafting is all about filling your roster with as much elite talent as possible, that's the BAP side.

 

The other side says elite talent isn't what matters, getting starters is what matters. That's the drafting Bryan Anger side.

Except nobody has said elite talent doesn't matter have they. You're making thing things up now.

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

If that's all you understand about it, then you don't understand it at all.

Then please explain what im missing in the most condicending way possible. Thanx xx


BTW. The link you posted, I agree with every word.

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

It's what we do.

Your post and the one to which you responded nailed it.


Every year we have this same debate. Every year vigorous debate happens from both sides about it in threads of double digit pages.


What do you think it is about this particular topic that causes this? I might attribute it to some of the particular individuals involved, but it was a constant topic in Ask Vic, too.


In all the years I have been on this board, I have never known more reliable topic of debate, except perhaps Leftwich.


I'm not complaining about it, mind you, because I end up in it every year like clockwork. Just wondering.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Your post and the one to which you responded nailed it.


Every year we have this same debate. Every year vigorous debate happens from both sides about it in threads of double digit pages.


What do you think it is about this particular topic that causes this? I might attribute it to some of the particular individuals involved, but it was a constant topic in Ask Vic, too.


In all the years I have been on this board, I have never known more reliable topic of debate, except perhaps Leftwich.


I'm not complaining about it, mind you, because I end up in it every year like clockwork. Just wondering.

 

It seems that's just the nature of a philosophical debate.

---

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

Your post and the one to which you responded nailed it.


Every year we have this same debate. Every year vigorous debate happens from both sides about it in threads of double digit pages.

What do you think it is about this particular topic that causes this?
I might attribute it to some of the particular individuals involved, but it was a constant topic in Ask Vic, too.


In all the years I have been on this board, I have never known more reliable topic of debate, except perhaps Leftwich.


I'm not complaining about it, mind you, because I end up in it every year like clockwork. Just wondering.

 

Apologies for butting in here, but I wanted to speak to this question. I really think that the conversation is repeated year after year because it is something that simply can't be proven right or wrong. If a team drafts a player and he is successful, then it works and either side can say that they were right. The same thing for the opposite result. And the beauty of it is that there are so many players that fall on either side of the "bust" line that there is fertile ground for endless debate.

 

Where you and I agree about the scouting being the most important part, is kind of outside of the argument. BAP and Needs guys both understand that, but it seems as if they don't give it the proper gravity to it's role in building a roster. It's why I always chime in with my tired little statement of "do it any way you want, just get it right." I feel that if you have the rare ability to evaluate properly, you can build your roster using either method and still build a winning program. Then again, I'm a little loopy at times.

---

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!

You can't use BAP in today's environment, and not one team does.


30 years ago? Absolutely, it was the best method, without question, although both could still be employed.


The salary cap and FA have made BAP obsolete and irrelevant, unless you want to pull at particular aspects of it.

---

On the other hand, how many successful first-rounders were regarded as reaches for need at the time? Not, "Eh, maybe he is the BAP, maybe he isn't," but, "Wow, what a reach!"?

 

Not a rhetorical question, just genuinely curious. 

---