No...what people have been trying to get you to see is that maybe Alualu actually WAS BAP in Gene's board.  You can't just call it a need pick because it was a bad pick.

 

BAP is not infallible.  Need is not infallible.

 

You MUST evaluate properly.  Everything else is secondary.

 

Of course. The original question must be premised on the assumption that the evaluation is accurate. That doesn't mean that the BAP will turn out to be the best player, since evaluation is statistical. But that's the way to bet.

---

                                                                          

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

I don't think anyone is afraid of contemplating anything. The point is when you start moving guys ahead of players that grade out measurably better from a position agnostic system you're introducing another point of failure and another variable.

 

Sure it works sometimes, but the for anyone that wants to control their chance of success to the greatest degree then always taking the player that actually measures out as better by whatever system a GM is using should result over time in achievement of his greatest degree of success.

And every ounce of this premise is why BAP is no longer employed, by any GM.


You simply must have both need and value in the equation. All teams get this. BAP is an antiquated notion that would only work in a vacuum or perhaps Madden. It is based upon assumptions that are faulty, if not unrealistic, such as "JUST TRADE DOWN" or "JUST FILL THE NEED WITH A STOPGAP" (until the BAP is that position, I guess)


The notion that any team in the league in need of sayyyyyy a LT would take a QB they have rated, for argument's sake a 91, when they have a Top 10 QB when there is a LT prospect they have rated a 90 is just laughable.


Oh I know.....Just trade down......I'm sure that is just that easy or reliable.


Except playing Madden. Just don't save and start over until it gets right for you.

---

And every ounce of this premise is why BAP is no longer employed, by any GM.


You simply must have both need and value in the equation. All teams get this. BAP is an antiquated notion that would only work in a vacuum or perhaps Madden. It is based upon assumptions that are faulty, if not unrealistic, such as "JUST TRADE DOWN" or "JUST FILL THE NEED WITH A STOPGAP" (until the BAP is that position, I guess)


The notion that any team in the league in need of sayyyyyy a LT would take a QB they have rated, for argument's sake a 91, when they have a Top 10 QB when there is a LT prospect they have rated a 90 is just laughable.


Oh I know.....Just trade down......I'm sure that is just that easy or reliable.


Except playing Madden. Just don't save and start over until it gets right for you.

 

I'm thinking GMs likely factor position into the grade from the start. A good D-lineman is more valuable than a good punter, for instance, but if a guy is going back after he's done grading everyone out in an objective way including their position and then takes the lower rated guy because he thinks he needs to fill a roster spot then he's making a wrong move. Always making the good move doesn't insure success, but abandoning your own ability to order talent reveals someone as a guy that can't even follow his own convictions.

---

I'm thinking GMs likely factor position into the grade from the start. A good D-lineman is more valuable than a good punter, for instance, but if a guy is going back after he's done grading everyone out in an objective way including their position and then takes the lower rated guy because he thinks he needs to fill a roster spot then he's making a wrong move. Always making the good move doesn't insure success, but abandoning your own ability to order talent reveals someone as a guy that can't even follow his own convictions.

But doesn't this presume on some level that the inferior graded player isn't productive?

 

Player A carried a 7.5 grade

Player B carried a 7.47 grade but plays a position of immediate need.

 

If player B is productive and fills a vital, immediate need, how can it be a mistake to have drafted the player?

 

Say we are in the second round.  We have NO guard and Xavier Su'a Filo is on the board.  Right above him is a SS with a marginally higher grade.

 

Why would it be a mistake to take Su'a Filo and plug him in at G over a SS that might not beat out Cyprien?

 

If Su'a-Filo helps open holes for Gerhart, et al, and provides a clean pocket for whomever is our QB, how is it a mistake to take him over a hgher graded guy who may not beat out the incumbent and provided nothing but depth?

 

If you take the SS, you have the message board satisfaction of taking BAP, but you do so at the risk of bogging your offense down because you still don't have anyone in the middle of the line.

 

The above typical scenario is what if the BAP in successive rounds happens to be at a position of strength.  That is an extreme scenario.  However, you don't need that unlikely a scenario to see the problem with pure BAP.  Suppose the BAP on your board is NEVER G just based upon the way the draft falls.  While perhaps unlikely, that is certainly more plausible than the repeated BAP being a position of strength.  BAP never being a position of obvious weakness is damaging, too.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

But doesn't this presume on some level that the inferior graded player isn't productive?

 

Player A carried a 7.5 grade

Player B carried a 7.47 grade but plays a position of immediate need.

 

If player B is productive and fills a vital, immediate need, how can it be a mistake to have drafted the player?

 

Say we are in the second round.  We have NO guard and Xavier Su'a Filo is on the board.  Right above him is a SS with a marginally higher grade.

 

Why would it be a mistake to take Su'a Filo and plug him in at G over a SS that might not beat out Cyprien?

 

If Su'a-Filo helps open holes for Gerhart, et al, and provides a clean pocket for whomever is our QB, how is it a mistake to take him over a hgher graded guy who may not beat out the incumbent and provided nothing but depth?

 

If you take the SS, you have the message board satisfaction of taking BAP, but you do so at the risk of bogging your offense down because you still don't have anyone in the middle of the line.

 

The above typical scenario is what if the BAP in successive rounds happens to be at a position of strength.  That is an extreme scenario.  However, you don't need that unlikely a scenario to see the problem with pure BAP.  Suppose the BAP on your board is NEVER G just based upon the way the draft falls.  While perhaps unlikely, that is certainly more plausible than the repeated BAP being a position of strength.  BAP never being a position of obvious weakness is damaging, too.

 

What you're saying is it's fine to draft Reggie Williams and pass on Ben Roethlisberger because Leftwich is the future and he needs awesome WRs so that everyone can know that.

 

We already know where that road leads. If a GM picks someone because he's afraid to pick someone better at a different position he's making a wrong movie.

 

If he just botched the evaluation then okay, but if he's like Gene Smith then he's either always botching evaluations or taking lesser players on purpose.

 

What a team needs is a guy that always takes the best player and makes it all fit together.

---

And every ounce of this premise is why BAP is no longer employed, by any GM.

 

False assumption, rendering the following drivel entirely moot.

---

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

And every ounce of this premise is why BAP is no longer employed, by any GM.


You simply must have both need and value in the equation. All teams get this. BAP is an antiquated notion that would only work in a vacuum or perhaps Madden. It is based upon assumptions that are faulty, if not unrealistic, such as "JUST TRADE DOWN" or "JUST FILL THE NEED WITH A STOPGAP" (until the BAP is that position, I guess)


The notion that any team in the league in need of sayyyyyy a LT would take a QB they have rated, for argument's sake a 91, when they have a Top 10 QB when there is a LT prospect they have rated a 90 is just laughable.


Oh I know.....Just trade down......I'm sure that is just that easy or reliable.


Except playing Madden. Just don't save and start over until it gets right for you.

 

That isn't BAP. BAP says take the LT or find a team that wants the QB and will overpay for the pick. Just because you read an article from a misinformed scout doesn't mean you know what draft BAP means.


 

---

Say we are in the second round.  We have NO guard and Xavier Su'a Filo is on the board.  Right above him is a SS with a marginally higher grade.

I believe that need is part of BAP, and that the definition of "best available player" is changing. I don't think that BAP refers to simply the best player left on the board anymore. I think it has evolved to mean the best combination of playing ability and fit for the team and scheme, and that "fit for the team" part includes need. Su'a Filo might have a 7.3 grade as a player to Mosley's 7.5, but because he plays a position of need, he trumps Mosley in that area and is the "best player available".

---

I believe that need is part of BAP, and that the definition of "best available player" is changing. I don't think that BAP refers to simply the best player left on the board anymore. I think it has evolved to mean the best combination of playing ability and fit for the team and scheme, and that "fit for the team" part includes need. Su'a Filo might have a 7.3 grade as a player to Mosley's 7.5, but because he plays a position of need, he trumps Mosley in that area and is the "best player available".

This isn't what others refer to as BAP.


I totally agree with your point and especially your conclusion.


However, others would have you believe you stack your board and no matter what you pick the top ranked guy.

---

That isn't BAP. BAP says take the LT or find a team that wants the QB and will overpay for the pick. Just because you read an article from a misinformed scout doesn't mean you know what draft BAP means.

Again, because it is just that easy. You know, just find them. Especially considering they know you don't want the LT.


And tell me in any way how the scout is misinformed, or is it just that he simply lays out that BAP theory nonsense was correctly tossed to the side decades ago?

---

What you're saying is it's fine to draft Reggie Williams and pass on Ben Roethlisberger because Leftwich is the future and he needs awesome WRs so that everyone can know that.

 

We already know where that road leads. If a GM picks someone because he's afraid to pick someone better at a different position he's making a wrong movie.

 

If he just botched the evaluation then okay, but if he's like Gene Smith then he's either always botching evaluations or taking lesser players on purpose.

 

What a team needs is a guy that always takes the best player and makes it all fit together.

First off, it is extremely rare that a team has taken QBs in back to back first rounds.  The Colts did it in 1982 and 1983- Art Schlichter and John Elway, and they wound up trading away Elway.  Dallas wound up doing it in 1989, taking Aikman first overall, then later that summer using a supplemental pick (costing them their first round pick in 1990) on Steve Walsh.  Those are the only two instances in the last 35 years that has happened.  Again, the Roethlisberger example is popular with BAP advocates on a message board, but it simply does not reflect NFL reality.

 

Secondly, need based drafting is just as dependent upon proper evaluation as BAP.  It wasn't because MJ was a need pick that the team missed.  Had Shack rated Roddy White above Matt Jones, and for that matter, Lee Evans above Reggie Williams, the whole analysis changes.  Conversely, had Shack made a BAP QB pick of Craig Krenzel instead of Roethlisberger, the BAP analysis differs.

 

Furthemore, the BAP argument presumes a comparative pre draft grade equates to comparative post draft productivity.  You can have a slightly lesser graded player equally productive to the higher graded player on a given board.  It's not an either or proposition.  Without question, there were CBs that carried higher grades than Richard Sherman.  Without question, Sherman is now among the very best CBs in the league.  A given draft board can have two good back to back players.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I believe that need is part of BAP, and that the definition of "best available player" is changing. I don't think that BAP refers to simply the best player left on the board anymore. I think it has evolved to mean the best combination of playing ability and fit for the team and scheme, and that "fit for the team" part includes need. Su'a Filo might have a 7.3 grade as a player to Mosley's 7.5, but because he plays a position of need, he trumps Mosley in that area and is the "best player available".

 

That's not BAP. That's reaching, it's something Gene Smith did a lot of.

---

First off, it is extremely rare that a team has taken QBs in back to back first rounds.  The Colts did it in 1982 and 1983- Art Schlichter and John Elway, and they wound up trading away Elway.  Dallas wound up doing it in 1989, taking Aikman first overall, then later that summer using a supplemental pick (costing them their first round pick in 1990) on Steve Walsh.  Those are the only two instances in the last 35 years that has happened.  Again, the Roethlisberger example is popular with BAP advocates on a message board, but it simply does not reflect NFL reality.

 

Secondly, need based drafting is just as dependent upon proper evaluation as BAP.  It wasn't because MJ was a need pick that the team missed.  Had Shack rated Roddy White above Matt Jones, and for that matter, Lee Evans above Reggie Williams, the whole analysis changes.  Conversely, had Shack made a BAP QB pick of Craig Krenzel instead of Roethlisberger, the BAP analysis differs.

 

Furthemore, the BAP argument presumes a comparative pre draft grade equates to comparative post draft productivity.  You can have a slightly lesser graded player equally productive to the higher graded player on a given board.  It's not an either or proposition.  Without question, there were CBs that carried higher grades than Richard Sherman.  Without question, Sherman is now among the very best CBs in the league.  A given draft board can have two good back to back players.

 

Like I said, when a guy reaches for someone he evaluated lower he's basically saying his own ranking is no good. Personally I don't want a guy like that.

---

Seems like Caldwell is a BAP guy, from this article (and numerous other articles on similar topics.)

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000...t-backlash

 

Not sure why there's so much petty angst about it, other than some choosing to cling to old debates.

---

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

What you're saying is it's fine to draft Reggie Williams and pass on Ben Roethlisberger because Leftwich is the future and he needs awesome WRs so that everyone can know that.

 

We already know where that road leads. If a GM picks someone because he's afraid to pick someone better at a different position he's making a wrong movie.

 

If he just botched the evaluation then okay, but if he's like Gene Smith then he's either always botching evaluations or taking lesser players on purpose.

 

What a team needs is a guy that always takes the best player and makes it all fit together.

They did botch the evaluation, that's the thing. Potentially a null argument if you draft Lee Evans or Byron doesn't end up injury plagued.


Who knew Reggie Williams would end up a head case, after not having any problems in college at all?


He came from a good family, great parents, and supposedly did good in school. Was it the money? Was it the lifestyle? Who knows. I don't think it is the GMs fault all of the time when these things happen. It is, for sure, their responsibilty.


I don't know that BAP V need V a logical approach used by every GM anyway can prevent Reggie Williams or Roy Williams from being bad picks.


And wow, was that a bad, bad draft, overall.

---

Seems like Caldwell is a BAP guy, from this article (and numerous other articles on similar topics.)

 
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000326570/article/dave-caldwell-jags-not-worried-about-draft-backlash'>http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000326570/article/dave-caldwell-jags-not-worried-about-draft-backlash</a>

 

Not sure why there's so much petty angst about it, other than some choosing to cling to old debates.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://sports.yahoo.com/news/clock-jaguars-needs-based-drafting-163936784--nfl.html'>http://sports.yahoo.com/news/clock-jaguars-needs-based-drafting-163936784--nfl.html</a>


Now you are just making stuff up and fabricating words.


This is the man's own words, instead of fabrication:



“You never know. You’ve got to go through the process. We’ll see. Maybe one identifies himself for us. It’s too early. Sometimes it may not look like there’s a quarterback now and you go through the process and you find a guy,’’ Caldwell said.


When he was asked if he thinks a team should draft a quarterback every year until it hits on one, he said, “I don’t disagree with that. You look at where your team is and what your needs are. We are a needs-based (drafting) team. To take a quarterback and see if you can develop him is a good philosophy.’’

---

Like I said, when a guy reaches for someone he evaluated lower he's basically saying his own ranking is no good. Personally I don't want a guy like that.

Disagree.


It is a guy looking at 2 closely ranked players and saying this guy can help the team more than the other guy on Sundays.

---

Disagree.


It is a guy looking at 2 closely ranked players and saying this guy can help the team more than the other guy on Sundays.

 

"I wanted to get a starter"

Gene Smith on Bryan Anger

 

Other teams over the last decade have loved seeing the Jaguars drafting ahead of them. It meant some good players were getting pushed down the draft order.

---

Like I said, when a guy reaches for someone he evaluated lower he's basically saying his own ranking is no good. Personally I don't want a guy like that.

Not necessarily.

 

He could also indicate there is something to be said for immediate impact, a balanced team, etc.

 

Another popular argument amongst BAP advocates is Jon Ogden.  The argument goes that TC would have been better off had the Jaguars taken Ogden over Kevin Hardy.

 

I do not malign Ogden in finding that to be a dubious proposition on many levels.  First drafting Ogden destroys the value arguement.  If you drafted Ogden #2 overall in 1996, either he or Boselli (the 2nd overall pick the year before) gets moved to RT.  It's rare to find a RT worth the #2 overall pick, those are typically found later.  It wouldn't be like the instance with Monroe and Joeckel because Monroe was a long time veteran player who Caldwell found to be expendable.  Boselli was a young guy already in place and was a cornerstone.  One of them would have to be moved to RT and you go from getting good value to dramatically overpaying for a RT.  Furthermore, earlier in the year, the team signed Searcy in free agency prior to the draft to play RT.  If you draft Ogden, either Ogden, Boselli, or most likely Searcy moves inside to guard.  You'd have 2 second overall picks (and commensurate salaries) and a high profile free agent (with commensurate salary) playing one premium position.  When you consider history is replete with dominant NFL offensive lines stocked with mid to late round draft picks, such an expenditure on one area of the team is incomprehensible.

 

Continuing on that theme, even if you stocked the OL with all of those guys, there was still a huge need on the defensive side of the ball.  The Jaguars defense in 1995 was an expansion defense, and was among the very bottom.  The LBs at the time were awful.  If the Jaguars were going to have any semblance of a balanced team...if there was to be any hope of the team stopping anyone, there needed to be investment on the defensive side of the ball.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Not necessarily.

 

He could also indicate there is something to be said for immediate impact, a balanced team, etc.

 

Another popular argument amongst BAP advocates is Jon Ogden.  The argument goes that TC would have been better off had the Jaguars taken Ogden over Kevin Hardy.

 

I do not malign Ogden in finding that to be a dubious proposition on many levels.  First drafting Ogden destroys the value arguement.  If you drafted Ogden #2 overall in 1996, either he or Boselli (the 2nd overall pick the year before) gets moved to RT.  It's rare to find a RT worth the #2 overall pick, those are typically found later.  It wouldn't be like the instance with Monroe and Joeckel because Monroe was a long time veteran player who Caldwell found to be expendable.  Boselli was a young guy already in place and was a cornerstone.  One of them would have to be moved to RT and you go from getting good value to dramatically overpaying for a RT.  Furthermore, earlier in the year, the team signed Searcy in free agency prior to the draft to play RT.  If you draft Ogden, either Ogden, Boselli, or most likely Searcy moves inside to guard.  You'd have 2 second overall picks (and commensurate salaries) and a high profile free agent (with commensurate salary) playing one premium position.  When you consider history is replete with dominant NFL offensive lines stocked with mid to late round draft picks, such an expenditure on one area of the team is incomprehensible.

 

Continuing on that theme, even if you stocked the OL with all of those guys, there was still a huge need on the defensive side of the ball.  The Jaguars defense in 1995 was an expansion defense, and was among the very bottom.  The LBs at the time were awful.  If the Jaguars were going to have any semblance of a balanced team...if there was to be any hope of the team stopping anyone, there needed to be investment on the defensive side of the ball.

 

If the Jaguars had drafted Ogden they may have been able to win the Superbowl in 1999. Not having Boselli against the titans was a big problem. Ogden could have filled in for him and when Boselli got injured we'd still have a pro bowl left tackle to take over for him.

 

Hardy was another guy that didn't have any impact. Taking role players over play makers is how the Jaguars got to be so bad.

---