Quote:So I was reading through some threads, looking at who people think will be good picks this upcoming year, and it struck me that very few people were saying "BPA ALL THE WAY". This is good, an improvement upon last year. Let me show you why.

 

Say we go around 6-10 or 7-9 and have the tenth pick. Draft day comes and some predictable players go, in fact all our top nine rated players are gone with the exception of, say Marcus Mariota, who, due to his newfound obsession with the free Hawaii movement, affection for ponies, and history as a mafia member (obvious sarcasm here) is still available. We think, if he can put these things behind him, he will be an effective QB - not nearly as good as Bortles though.

 

So you know what BPA does in this situation? Takes the player high on your board regardless of his off-field and your status at the situation. Here, the BPA drafter would take Marcus Mariota and plant him firmly on the bench to watch Bortles do great things.

 

Why would you do that? Here are some common arguments for BPA:

 

1) "You can always use more talent at every position." This is true. Also true is that success in the NFL is not solely predicated on talent. Talented people come into the league and either flame out (David Carr) , are forced to sit (Rodgers, Bortles), or play based on the depth chart around them. To put it in Madden terms : If you have a 99 OVR QB, there is no point to having a 98 OVR QB. He'll never see the field and you have a wasted draft pick and a wasted roster spot.

 

2) "You can use him for depth." While also true, this has to be one of the more ridiculous arguments. So you're telling me, we take this top ten pick at QB, sit him behind Blake Bortles (who doesn't look like he'll be injured any time soon), just in case Blake gets hurt. No, that's silliness. Drafting well means maximizing the effective, applied talent out of your draft slot. Taking someone for depth in the upper rounds is foolishness. The later rounds are obviously a different story.

 

3) "You can use him for trade bait." If 2 was up there on the ridiculousness scale, this point has to be at the top. Some people, even in this past draft in fact, argued for selecting a player in the draft to force other teams to trade for him. The chances of this working are miniscule. You have to find another team willing to part with multiple selections to take your guy, and then you have to hope that the player you want (who you had the opportunity to take beforehand) will still be there when your trade partner comes a-calling. The old phrase about birds in bushes and hands still rings true here. If there is a guy you like and you are convicted about him, you take him. Simple.

 

And so these arguments are pretty easily defeated. And the thing is, when you draft well (see the definition above) you're going to win games. You can't draft just talent. You can't draft just for needs. You need effective, applicable talent.

 

And see this year we're not gonna have to take a QB, so that actually puts us in position to do well by our other spots. And that's where BPA comes in. Say we're sitting at that tenth pick and can choose (two of my favorites in this class) Collins, the stud Bama FS or Grasu, the athletic C from Oregon. You can't lose there. You're taking talent that will be able to be applied wherever you go.

 

So I guess to sum up this rant... BPA doesn't work. Neither does needs drafting. Our standard of drafting well should be maximizing effective, applicable talent out of our draft slot.

Best available player doesn't always come out to the top rated player...Each team has different ratings on players which would mean (for example) The Falcons could have Mariota ranked as their BAP, while The Saints could have him ranked as their fourth best player, the Jags could have him ranked as their 6th best player, the Pats could have him rated as their second best player etc... This is supported by the Bortles third round pick...The Jags had him rated as their highest rated player while no one else ranked him that high...BAP is not the same for each team...The other part of the story is, If I remember correctly, I believe Caldwell has said best available player according to need, I could be mistaking that for a posters comment on this board though...The moral of this story is BAP is different to every GM

---