(03-28-2018, 10:17 PM)knarnn Wrote:

(03-28-2018, 10:12 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: Both BPA and need factor into it for every GM. Some claim they are BPA, some claim they draft for need, but mostly they try their best to combine the two. 

Interestingly, Shack Harris claimed to be a BPA, but his 1st round picks were never BPA, always need. Caldwell claimed to be a needs drafter, but LT was the Jags most solid position when he drafted Joeckel.

The idea is to find the medium where BPA meets a need. That’s why I always find it funny when BPA proponents always feel the need to justify why drafting 5 DT’s in a row makes sense. I think Caldwell has done a decent job at finding that balance.

Anti-BAP people always hit you with the BOMBASTIC five OTs in a row or now five DTs in a row.

Taking the best player available regardless of position is not like that mythical stuff.

BAPRP is predicated upon the truth you want to draft the absolute best football players to be on your side. Just like in the school yard, you know which kids can play football and which ones might be better at Chess. So you pick the best football players you can and hope the Chess guy lands on the other captain's team. If you want to shock that system by picking the Chess kid, just remember you by-passed a guy who in ten minutes of school yard play is gonna tackle you so hard he knocks the breath out of you. 

Perhaps then BAPRP might make sense? Probably not.

Scouts observe players. They grade players based upon their talent, skills perfection, and athleticism. Higher grading players at the top. Less talented at the bottom. The NFL helps teams that are lousy by inverting the draft order so that bad teams have access to top quality players. It's a no brainer that teams destitute of talent will hopefully grab the best talent the college ranks. It works until a lousy team fools itself into thinking, "we ain't so bad," and they continue to ignore higher caliber talent for what players they identify as filling a need.

This "needs" drafting leads a team to decline drafting a highly talented football player at one position for a significantly less talented player they usually claim fills a team need or provides "depth" at a position they deem to be talented enough.

Drafting the best player available regardless of position stimulates competition within the team. The ONLY way a team gets better is through spirited competition battles for starting players. Once a team becomes competitive from within that team reaches a point where they can begin to compete within their division. Winning a division leads to the playoffs, etc. When the team is talent-ladened they become Super Bowl contenders on a year in year out basis.

As mentioned, scouts grade players. On almost every draft board there are "clusters" of players who draw the same draft grade. This can be exactly the same grade or it can be near enough to the same scouting score that a team may consider drafting a 6.8 with the same conviction of cluster-busting a gaggle at 6.9 or 7.0, but probably not a 6.7 or lower. If there is one player at 7.1, however, you draft that player regardless of what position he plays. 

Eddie Edface OG 7.3
Will McBilly DT 7.1
Tom Tosser QB 6.3
Cash Money CB 5.9

If you "need" a OG, take Eddie. If you "need" a DT, take Billy. If you need a QB, you take either OG or DT because they are much more talented than the QB. If you "need" a CB, you do NOT draft Cash Money. That's over-drafting to fill a need and it does two things. First it cheapens the value of the draft pick the NFL has given you. Second, your team is less talented than if you take Eddie or Will. Cash Money has a value of a third round pick. Drafting him takes a first round pick and devalues it significantly. If Cash moves along in three years all you can possibly do is trade him away for a far less valuable draft pick. 

If you view value boards which share the scouting grades at any typical grade such as 6.2 you will find more than two players earned that grade, but they play diverse from each other. You might see a OT, OT, OG, CB, LB, or QB at the same grade, or, a grade near enough. Well? If you have just drafted a 7.4 QB in the first round, you can draft a second QB in this round, if you need two, or you have the flexibility to avoid drafting FIVE OTs in a row due to the fact that scouting grades almost always spawn small clusters of equally talented players at diverse positions.

Taking the best player available regardless of position isn't a plague, it's the most logical approach to filling out a roster. As Vic Ketchman always said, "Why would I not want the most talented player I can find on my team? I don't care what position he plays, I want talented football players." I probably read that twenty times before I realized he is correct.

---