Nothing wrong with this. This phrase, written earlier this week by one of our experts, continues to resonate in my head: "waves and waves of pass rushers".

---

Season Ticket holder since 2004.

 

        

I'm a fan of the junction, where top end talent meets need

And here's the right answer.

There's no such thing, which is why is the wrong answer.

Either you're taking (one of if more than one grades out the same)  the best player or you're taking a lesser player and letting your opponent have the better player.

Putting need into the equation is how you end up with Fowler, a guy that will never make a pro bowl instead of someone like Amari Cooper or Leonard Williams, and then you end up having to trade for or sign players for those same positions that you thought you were set at in the near future, and that's in addition to getting nothing of value for the pick.

No, when you start thinking about need before you think about player ability you're doing it wrong.

---

And here's the right answer.

There's no such thing, which is why is the wrong answer.

Either you're taking (one of if more than one grades out the same)  the best player or you're taking a lesser player and letting your opponent have the better player.

Putting need into the equation is how you end up with Fowler, a guy that will never make a pro bowl instead of someone like Amari Cooper or Leonard Williams, and then you end up having to trade for or sign players for those same positions that you thought you were set at in the near future, and that's in addition to getting nothing of value for the pick.

No, when you start thinking about need before you think about player ability you're doing it wrong.

Tony Boselli, Kevin Hardy, Fred Taylor, Marcus Stroud, John Henderson, Marcedes Lewis, Jalen Ramsey, and Leonard Fournette all prove your thesis wrong.

As long as two players are in the same talent tier, picking the one whose position needs upgraded is smart drafting regardless of whether one is a few points higher within the tier.

---

Fix the O-Line!

100% Yes.

---

BORTLES ISN'T A FRANCHISE QB. FOURNETTE WILL BE A BUST.

And here's the right answer.

There's no such thing, which is why is the wrong answer.

Either you're taking (one of if more than one grades out the same)  the best player or you're taking a lesser player and letting your opponent have the better player.

Putting need into the equation is how you end up with Fowler, a guy that will never make a pro bowl instead of someone like Amari Cooper or Leonard Williams, and then you end up having to trade for or sign players for those same positions that you thought you were set at in the near future, and that's in addition to getting nothing of value for the pick.

No, when you start thinking about need before you think about player ability you're doing it wrong.

Most picks involve a mix of need and BAP. 
The proper combination of the two is called value. 

Even the Bryan and Harrison picks involve need because the Jags really "need" to clear cap space in 2019.

---

You apparently need to replace Coughlin as well. He said "we had 8 or 9 players that we coveted at that spot - and of the ones remaining he was the highest rated player."

RJ Soward. He loved that guy.

Great talent evaluator.

This wasn't a 'Bama one year starter where they are guaranteed amazing. This is a Florida one year starter... ugh.

Why bring up R. J. Soward? Show some class. He failed. It was a mistake to draft him. Sip some water and move on.

---

RJ Soward. He loved that guy.

Great talent evaluator.

This wasn't a 'Bama one year starter where they are guaranteed amazing. This is a Florida one year starter... ugh.

Why bring up R. J. Soward? Show some class. He failed. It was a mistake to draft him. Sip some water and move on.

No.  It's a fair point.  Folks on the board engage in a lot of binary thinking.  You're either 100% for every move the FO makes or you're a hater.  It leaves no room for the fan who says, "I really love TC and the team.  But I didn't surrender my brain to them."

It's ok to call both balls AND strikes.  And it's ok that the perspective varies from fan to fan.

---

Fix the O-Line!

There's no such thing, which is why is the wrong answer.

Either you're taking (one of if more than one grades out the same)  the best player or you're taking a lesser player and letting your opponent have the better player.

Putting need into the equation is how you end up with Fowler, a guy that will never make a pro bowl instead of someone like Amari Cooper or Leonard Williams, and then you end up having to trade for or sign players for those same positions that you thought you were set at in the near future, and that's in addition to getting nothing of value for the pick.

No, when you start thinking about need before you think about player ability you're doing it wrong.

Most picks involve a mix of need and BAP. 
The proper combination of the two is called value. 

Even the Bryan and Harrison picks involve need because the Jags really "need" to clear cap space in 2019.

Value is what the pick has, the player has ability. If you're taking a player with less ability because you want to fill a roster hole then you're getting less value, not more. It's why organizations like the Steelers have success over decades instead of over a few seasons. Even when they didn't have a QB they were good, and teams like the Jaguars have a decade of horrific losing, it's because the Jaguars kept thinking they just need to use their draft picks to fill roster spots. That's what brought on guys like Matt Jones and Reggie Williams. Anyone citing Marcedes as successfully matching need to value needs their head checked. When a team's own second round pick is a better player than their first round pick that's a bad first round pick. After the moronic Leftwich pick the Jaguars spent three consecutive years trying to prove that mistake correct by reaching for more questionable talent instead of taking Rodgers or Roethlisburger.

---

Most picks involve a mix of need and BAP. 
The proper combination of the two is called value. 

Even the Bryan and Harrison picks involve need because the Jags really "need" to clear cap space in 2019.

Value is what the pick has, the player has ability. If you're taking a player with less ability because you want to fill a roster hole then you're getting less value, not more. It's why organizations like the Steelers have success over decades instead of over a few seasons. Even when they didn't have a QB they were good, and teams like the Jaguars have a decade of horrific losing, it's because the Jaguars kept thinking they just need to use their draft picks to fill roster spots. That's what brought on guys like Matt Jones and Reggie Williams. Anyone citing Marcedes as successfully matching need to value needs their head checked. When a team's own second round pick is a better player than their first round pick that's a bad first round pick. After the moronic Leftwich pick the Jaguars spent three consecutive years trying to prove that mistake correct by reaching for more questionable talent instead of taking Rodgers or Roethlisburger.

If need didn’t factor into 90% of the draft picks in the early rounds you’d have 20 teams with rosters loaded with OTs, CBS, and pass rushers they can’t get on the field. 

Teams consider need with nearly every pick to some degree (the genre varies widely) and it results in some great picks. Not just bad ones.

---

Value is what the pick has, the player has ability. If you're taking a player with less ability because you want to fill a roster hole then you're getting less value, not more. It's why organizations like the Steelers have success over decades instead of over a few seasons. Even when they didn't have a QB they were good, and teams like the Jaguars have a decade of horrific losing, it's because the Jaguars kept thinking they just need to use their draft picks to fill roster spots. That's what brought on guys like Matt Jones and Reggie Williams. Anyone citing Marcedes as successfully matching need to value needs their head checked. When a team's own second round pick is a better player than their first round pick that's a bad first round pick. After the moronic Leftwich pick the Jaguars spent three consecutive years trying to prove that mistake correct by reaching for more questionable talent instead of taking Rodgers or Roethlisburger.

If need didn’t factor into 90% of the draft picks in the early rounds you’d have 20 teams with rosters loaded with OTs, CBS, and pass rushers they can’t get on the field. 

Teams consider need with nearly every pick to some degree (the genre varies widely) and it results in some great picks. Not just bad ones.

Of course most teams do it wrong, which is really what you're saying. Also the idea that only offensive tackles can be the best player is ridiculous.

Was Ramsey the best player when he was taken? Clearly he was. Would you pass up another player like Ramsey to take a guy like Reggie Williams because you want a #1 WR and you already have a future Hall of Fame defensive back in Ramsey?

---

If need didn’t factor into 90% of the draft picks in the early rounds you’d have 20 teams with rosters loaded with OTs, CBS, and pass rushers they can’t get on the field. 

Teams consider need with nearly every pick to some degree (the genre varies widely) and it results in some great picks. Not just bad ones.

Of course most teams do it wrong, which is really what you're saying. Also the idea that only offensive tackles can be the best player is ridiculous.

Was Ramsey the best player when he was taken? Clearly he was. Would you pass up another player like Ramsey to take a guy like Reggie Williams because you want a #1 WR and you already have a future Hall of Fame defensive back in Ramsey?

You are both misquoting me (really badly) and ignoring the fact that tons of players have been selected at glaring need spots and turned out to be excellent picks. 

It happens ...
All.
The.
Time.

---

Draft philosophy doesnt matter. Being a good judge of talent does.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

Draft philosophy doesnt matter.  Being a good judge of talent does.

They are intertwined to some degree - but if you get the evaluation right - strategy definitely wanes in importance

I agree for the most part

Strategy comes in when you’ve evaluated a number of guys very similarly

---

Of course most teams do it wrong, which is really what you're saying. Also the idea that only offensive tackles can be the best player is ridiculous.

Was Ramsey the best player when he was taken? Clearly he was. Would you pass up another player like Ramsey to take a guy like Reggie Williams because you want a #1 WR and you already have a future Hall of Fame defensive back in Ramsey?

You are both misquoting me (really badly) and ignoring the fact that tons of players have been selected at glaring need spots and turned out to be excellent picks. 

It happens ...
All.
The.
Time.

Sure it does, just like unappealing guys that never work out and have little drive in life sometimes marry very desirable women. Of course doing things like working out and working hard to be successful in life increase your chances of landing whatever your version of a 'ten' is, though you still might not always be with your ideal partner, and bap drafting is the equivalent of doing it the right way to maximize your chances for success.

---

yup

---

Simple question. Are you in or out after our BAP 1st round?

Absolutely!  It feels good to be in this position to be able to do so.  Damn good!

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

You don’t draft a player based on his college stats or career or school he played in. you draft him based on what you think he can or will become.

And that's how teams fail.

He wasn't even impressive in his highlight reel. Against scrubs.

The Steelers have been the best franchise at drafting BAP consistently in my lifetime.  How many rings to they have again?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

An admissions officer at Stanford was asked whether he would rather have a student that got an A in a regular class or a B in an advanced class.  He responded that he wanted the student who got the A in the advanced class.  It's a false choice.  I want BOTH need and value.

You may say that isn't your choice.  What if need and value don't match at your position?  My response is then CHANGE YOUR POSITION!  It's called trade.  Every position is going to be a need for some team.  Why not trade your spot to a team that needs that position and move to a spot where value does equal your need?  Again, I want need and value.

Let's put aside trade for the moment.  What if you do have to choose between need and value?  To me, it comes down to how significant.  In these debates, the "BAP" people always give ridiculous examples of you having a choice between a guaranteed pro bowler and a bust.  Really?  Is that realistic?  If there was a guaranteed pro-bowler, he's not going to be available at #29.  Is your only other option a bust?  No.

I would present the example more along the lines of this.  You are deciding between two players and your scouts say that "Player A" has a 51% chance of being a better player and "Player B" has a 49% of being the better player.  However, Player A is a non-need while Player B would fill a big need.  Who do you choose?  I would take Player B.  If you truly believe in BAP, you take Player A.  Now, what if it is 55% or 60% or higher?  You got to decide.  The bottom line is you need balance the two and then make a decision.  My philosophy would be that if there's a SIGNIFICANT difference in projected value, yes, I go with the BAP player.  If it's an insignificant difference, I go with need.  I would say insignificant is the more common scenario.  If the teams ahead of you are drafting BAP, there's not going to be a projected steal.  Even if they are drafting for need, teams have different needs and often multiple needs.  In all likelihood, it won't be that many picks before you find a team where that position is a need and the player will be gone.  In addition, even if those team hypothetically ahead of you don't have a need at that position, some NFL team will and they will look to trade up for it if they see a player whose value is significantly higher than the spot.

Here's another way of looking at it.  Using school letter grades, what if you choice is between a B and a B-?  The "BAP" people would blindly take the B.  However, what if the B player plays a position where you already have an A while the B- player plays at a position where you have an F?  Value is very, very important, but playing time matters too.  A player doesn't win you games by sitting the bench.  If that B player sits the bench as a backup, how many games did he win you?  None.  Ok, let's say on average, the starter is likely to miss a couple of games.  Still, is the B player going to do enough in those TWO games to win your more games than the B- minus player who is a starter and upgrading your on-field talent for SIXTEEN games?  No, don't be ridiculous.  In this case, need would be the smarter pick.

The bottom line is you want both.  Value is very important, but it's not smart to blindly ignore needs either.   Finding the right balance is the key.  Actually, proper player evaluations is the key under either strategy, but that should be common sense.

---

Yes BPA and need are BOTH involved with pretty much every draft pick.

Don't really get the boards obsession with one vs the other. The evaluation and draft process is too nuanced.

---

An admissions officer at Stanford was asked whether he would rather have a student that got an A in a regular class or a B in an advanced class.  He responded that he wanted the student who got the A in the advanced class.  It's a false choice.  I want BOTH need and value.

You may say that isn't your choice.  What if need and value don't match at your position?  My response is then CHANGE YOUR POSITION!  It's called trade.  Every position is going to be a need for some team.  Why not trade your spot to a team that needs that position and move to a spot where value does equal your need?  Again, I want need and value.

Let's put aside trade for the moment.  What if you do have to choose between need and value?  To me, it comes down to how significant.  In these debates, the "BAP" people always give ridiculous examples of you having a choice between a guaranteed pro bowler and a bust.  Really?  Is that realistic?  If there was a guaranteed pro-bowler, he's not going to be available at #29.  Is your only other option a bust?  No.

I would present the example more along the lines of this.  You are deciding between two players and your scouts say that "Player A" has a 51% chance of being a better player and "Player B" has a 49% of being the better player.  However, Player A is a non-need while Player B would fill a big need.  Who do you choose?  I would take Player B.  If you truly believe in BAP, you take Player A.  Now, what if it is 55% or 60% or higher?  You got to decide.  The bottom line is you need balance the two and then make a decision.  My philosophy would be that if there's a SIGNIFICANT difference in projected value, yes, I go with the BAP player.  If it's an insignificant difference, I go with need.  I would say insignificant is the more common scenario.  If the teams ahead of you are drafting BAP, there's not going to be a projected steal.  Even if they are drafting for need, teams have different needs and often multiple needs.  In all likelihood, it won't be that many picks before you find a team where that position is a need and the player will be gone.  In addition, even if those team hypothetically ahead of you don't have a need at that position, some NFL team will and they will look to trade up for it if they see a player whose value is significantly higher than the spot.

Here's another way of looking at it.  Using school letter grades, what if you choice is between a B and a B-?  The "BAP" people would blindly take the B.  However, what if the B player plays a position where you already have an A while the B- player plays at a position where you have an F?  Value is very, very important, but playing time matters too.  A player doesn't win you games by sitting the bench.  If that B player sits the bench as a backup, how many games did he win you?  None.  Ok, let's say on average, the starter is likely to miss a couple of games.  Still, is the B player going to do enough in those TWO games to win your more games than the B- minus player who is a starter and upgrading your on-field talent for SIXTEEN games?  No, don't be ridiculous.  In this case, need would be the smarter pick.

The bottom line is you want both.  Value is very important, but it's not smart to blindly ignore needs either.   Finding the right balance is the key.  Actually, proper player evaluations is the key under either strategy, but that should be common sense.

Really great post.  The ridiculous BAP absolutes haven't made sense since FA and the cap started.  You absolutely want to put yourself in the best position possible to not have needs - but if you do have them, they have be a factor.

Teams don't deal in absolutes or principles like "if you are looking at need, you are doing it wrong."

Each team has a plan in relation to position groups, what positions in will spend on, where they will be in each upcoming year  ad the years after, and need OBVIOUSLY factors in.  

That doesn't mean you don't strive to not have needs to begin with.

---