Login

Jaguarmeister · 04-21-2014, 12:33 AM

Quote:You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are the one who doesn't get it. I think many confuse "BAP" with "good scouting". They have nothing to do with each other. If you do a poor job at player evaluations, no strategy will work. That's what overwhelmingly sinks teams. However, no one purposely takes busts. When it happens, it's because the team misevaluated the player. Keep in mind that a team can misevaluate a non-need position just as easily as a need position. There are plenty examples of teams taking the presumed "BAP" only to have the player turn out to be a bust. Then you have neither value nor need. That's worst of all possible worlds.

I also think Vic & O-zone Man try to convince people that "need" means "reach" or "bust". It means no such thing. "Need" is short for "need to win". The goal is to win. If you need something to win, that's pretty darn important. I want to win. If you take someone other than what you need to win, aren't you trying to lose? I like the auto repair shop analogy. If you car won't run because the ignition is broken and the shop tells you that can either buy a new ignition for full price or you can buy tires at 5% off (and you already have virtually new tires), which do you buy? Do you really buy the tires because they are a better "value" and then walk home because you still have a car that doesn't run? Need can be more important than value.

I'm assuming this response was to me, though you didn't quote anyone. Regardless, you're stating the obvious above as if it's a revelation which it isn't. Scouting isn't exact. All you can hope to be is better than all or at least better than most. You're going to get it wrong sometimes. Proper scouting, however, wasn't the premise of your original post and you're dragging it in now as an attempt to support your original argument when it's actually irrelevant to the BAP vs Need debate. It is a separate issue. No one would argue that a terrible scouting department is more desirable than a good one and accurate scouting doesn't specifically support either side.

And you're welcome to criticize Vic or Oehser, but at least do so with out straw man arguments which your post is littered with. And the kindest thing I can say about your analogy is it is incredibly weak. If the ignition doesn't work, the car doesn't work. If a position on a team is manned by a weak link, the team still plays and can still win. I can't believe I'm having to type out why that analogy is terrible, it's that bad and it's that obvious.

Quote:I also think there's a misconception that "need" and "value" have to be two separate things. I want both. Put it this way, isn't "need and value" better than "non-need and value"? Why settle for anything less? I heard the story of an admissions coordinator at one of the top universities in the country who was asked whether he wanted the student got an "A" in a regular class or a "B" in the advanced class. He responded by saying "I want the guy who got the A in the advanced class." Me too. I want both need and value. A draft pick is only a win if it accomplished both. Ok, you might ask "what happens if the two aren't the same at a draft spot?" You are basically asking "what if you are in unwinnable situation"? I'm no Star Trek fan, but there is great wisdom in the second movie that relates to it. How can you avoid losing in an unwinnable situation? Stop right now and think about it. How can you avoid losing in an unwinnable situation? I only know of one way. In Star Trek, there's a simulator where it is impossible to win. Captain Kirk is the only one to ever beat it. How did he do it? He went in to the computer and changed the simulation. The answer to our question is that the only way to avoid losing in an unwinnable situation is to not be in that situation in the first place! If you're only choice at a draft position is need or value, then CHANGE YOUR POSITION! As I stated in my original post, I think in most cases outside of the first couple of rounds that you get multiple players with similar values and then you take the one that's a need. If that's not the case and your need isn't there, then TRADE IT. Keep in mind that one man's junk is another man's treasure. In the NFL, every position is going to be a need for some team. Trade your non-need player to the team that needs it and then draft your need where it does equal value. Don't take a non-need, shrug you shoulders, and say "BAP". That's accepting defeat. Good GM's combine need with value.

Ok Capt. Kirk, it's great that you want Need to meet Value every time, but you're literally living in lala land. There are 11 different players on the field for you on offense and 11 different on defense. Most of these positions are not interchangable. When you factor in players that come in for specific packages like Nickel Corner, there are even more. When Value and Need meet at your time to draft, it's more by coincidence than anything else which is also assuming your scouting is completely accurate. No one is arguing that if you have your franchise QB for instance and the highest rated player at your time to draft is QB that trading back would be a bad idea. It's just another example of you using straw man arguments to justify your position. Here are two points to keep in mind: There aren't always trade partners to trade back with or who will offer sufficient value to do so and depth is just as much of a need as any individual position by itself is. And the bad analogies just keep on rolling... Star Trek? Really?

Quote:Now why is purely BAP a bad idea? Let me give some examples. Let's say that the BAP in the late rounds is at a complete non-need. As a result, the BAP doesn't make the team. A BAP player does you no good if he doesn't make the team. However, a player with slightly less value at a need position may make your team and upgrade a roster spot. The "need" helped you improve your team while the "BAP" did not. That's the goal, isn't it?

As for the early rounds, a player's impact isn't determined solely by value but also by playing time. Has a player ever scored a touchdown while sitting on the bench? Let's use the school grading system of 1 to 100 with 100 being the best. Ok, an 81 is better than 80. BAP says that the 81 player should be the pick -- no "if's", "and's", or "but's". However, what if the 81 is at a position where you already have a 95 while the 80 is at a position where you are currently starting a 40? What's the result? The 81 sits the bench. Meanwhile the 80 is a huge upgrade over the 40. Which helps you win more games? Clearly the 80. Once again, the "need" helps your team win more games than the "BAP". The goal is to win games, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, value is very, very important and will be the main factor in your draft. However, as I stated in my original post, I don't think there's going to be a world of difference between the 110th best projected player and the 111th best player. Vic would want you to think that there were 110 pro-bowlers in the draft and the next 100 would all be busts. That's not realistic. Realistically, if you asked all 32 teams, probably 16 would pick one and 16 would pick the other. If that's the case, why not take the need? At this point, we have no reason to suspect (particularly outside of the first couple of rounds) that the draft will go in any order other than value. As such, need becomes the factor and thus my message with position preference for the draft.

No one that understands BAP has ever advocated that you're still implementing it later in the draft or that anyone's boards would have the players graded that distinctly differently later in the draft. I'm not going to pretend as if I know in what round the transition takes place, but no one that is on the other side from you is saying what you're saying they are above. So it appears we have another straw man.

You can try to disguise Need as Value, but you'd only be doing your team a disservice. Value is how the players grade out, not whether he starts right away and plays more because you're team has a hole there. That's need. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, but as I illustrated above, more often than not it is.

I might agree in the scenario that a player graded as an 80 and is a need would be taken ahead of one that is an 81 and isn't a great need, but it's an over simplified example designed to fit your argument and not one that actually plays out like that in real life. For instance, a player that graded out as a 40 wouldn't be in the league, much less, the current starter on your roster. An example that's closer to reality might be someone that grades out as a 75 is your current starter and do you take the 80 to start in front of him or the 81 to sit behind someone else. Even that is still too simplified because we're not taking into account the contracts of the players in the example to know whether the 81 might be starting next year anyway due to the player in front of him having left in free agency.

I don't think Vic ever said what you're saying he said above or anything close to it. I'm not here to defend Vic, but I am pointing out straw man arguments when you use them which this is another example. I'm not against taking a QB at 3 if he's the highest rated player. I'm against forcing a QB at 3 which you seem to have no problem with. I get it, we all want to see better QB play. We haven't had it in a very long time. But your position reeks of desperation as a result of that. A good GM who has an owner that enables him to draft properly, should be drafting for the future a few years down the road and not focusing on filling needs for this year through the draft. The best way to serve the future is to take the best available player on your board. Free Agency is the channel that should be and is used to focus on the needs of this year. Can you find rookies in the draft that start right away and even excel? Yes, but that shouldn't be the expectation. The expectation is that these rookies, even those that start right away, are going to go through a learning curve for the first year or two before they fully develop and reach their full potential.

Caldwell is still early in his tenure here and should be given the leeway to draft properly without the fear that if the team is still relatively bad this year that he'll be fired next year. If Khan is a good owner and allows him to do his job, he's not going to force any pick and will be allowed to focus on the future by taking the best player available in the early rounds. If he does take a QB at 3 or even trades back and takes him a little later then I'll trust his judgement and will cheer on whoever is at QB when they take the field later in the year but I don't think that's the scenario that's going to play out. I believe if we are to get one of the top quarterbacks, it will be by standing pat in the 2nd or by trading back up into the late 1st round. If we don't get a QB in the first or 2nd I won't be upset either. I'm more interested in seeing how it unfolds than being emotionally invested in whether my mancrush gets drafted by my team. Only time will tell whether the decisions made in this year's draft will be good ones, but I can say with certainty that your "plan" isn't. If Caldwell's plan is to get fired, then you have an excellent blueprint for him. I can picture him sliding that across the desk to Khan now and the cheery eyes of Khan slowly shifting to a bloodrage.
Hopefully Caldwell won't use the Star Trek analogy. Khan might paint his office walls in Caldwell's blood if so.