Quote:Very few positions (QB, P, K, LS, FB, MLB) can you not use two or even three great players. If you have a rare talent sitting in front of you, you have to concoct a pretty radical scenario for it not to be worth taking him. You've outlined one such scenario above. Once you're out of the top few rounds and there isn't any rare talent left, by all means fill your needs. But if I have MJD in his prime and I have a choice of Gurley or a decent starting center in the first round when the center position is deficient, I'm taking Gurley.

 

Obviously an outlandish scenario, but the point is even in most "need" front offices, need is only the deciding factor when the talent is close. I'm not so tied to BAP that I want to take a stacked position instead of one with dire need when the talent levels are fairly close. Aside from a few hypotheticals involving Nostradamus level predictive abilities I don't think anyone has been advocating that.

 

That is a perfect example of what I was saying above.  You are evaluating the situation on its own merits without adhering to some pre-cooked philosophical decision. 

 

No one does strict BAP, and no one does strict needs-based drafting.  

 

Vic Ketchman used to say he was a strict BAP guy.   He said, if the BAP on the board is not a position of need, then you try to trade down.   And then he went off the rails when he said, if you can't trade down, take the BAP.   What he was doing was avoiding thinking.   You can't have such a strict philosophy as either BAP or needs-based drafting.   It's lazy.   Every situation needs to stand on its own and get thought through all the way to the end.  No philosophical filtering. 

---