BPA vs BPN, the pros and cons

[LittleBoyBlue]

I know it typical wisdom to go with BPA.... But,...

QUESTION 1: You can do that and have that BPA. But a need is left void. Few years go buy and best player has to get paid. Bye bye.

QUESTION 2: You draft the BPN and it works out. Then you paid a little less and have $$ to play with.


I know there is more to it so I defer to the football experts on this forum.

Not looking to be controversial. (But I am believer in change, whether it is strategy or SOP) I like to learn on this board. Good info from lots of members.

Shouldn't it be best player needed for "team".... Not simply BPA? Not always...but sometimes?

 

[Direwolf63]

Determine your 3 or 4 biggest weaknesses on your team.
Draft the highest ranked player on your board filling one of those weaknesses.

It's not an either-or situation. It's a little bit of both.

 

[Idgit]

You maneuver to get into positions where availability meets need, but you always take the best player available.

The trick comes in when there's real talent available but not at a position of need, and you know that trading down to get to where need matches availability is going to net you a significantly lesser player. If you're lucky, you can leverage that best player into equivalent value from a team that really needs him. If not, you have a decision to make. For my part, I opt to go with the best player there because you really never do know when you're going to get hit at any position group. Safer to have as many very good players as you can get, but I understand the notion of trading back in those situations, too.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

It's best player available at a position worth drafting at that point in the draft. If the best player in relation to other players at his position is a punter, do you take him in the 1st round? That's why the 1st round is typically reserved for impact players that are hard to find: QB, O-line, edge rusher, CB, WR.

 

[DBOY3141]

I don't think any team goes strictly BPA when drafting. Need is a big factor.

Take the Bucs, they have lots of needs. Winston, Fowler, Williams, Gurley could all fill those needs. I don't think Winston is the best of that bunch, but more than likely they take him.

 

[BlindFaith]

I look at the draft as building for the future.

FA is filling in the gaps for the upcoming season. If you've done well with the draft, you have less gaps to fill.

The draft should be about getting the best talent available when you're on the clock. Regardless of position. Now in many cases, there are multiple players and multiple positions that would warrant the BPA pick at that time. So you mix in a little of who do you need more. If you don't really need any of those players, then look to trade back.

Need isn't and shouldn't be confined to what you need at the moment either. Need could be, and should be, more centered around filling gaps for next year. It takes most rookies a year to really solidify themselves as a pro anyway. It's the rare exception that one steps in and plays like a vet.

I think where you run into problems is when you reach for a player because you need him for the now. Now you are losing out in value. Sacrificing the future for the now.

 

[LandryFan]

Determine your 3 or 4 biggest weaknesses on your team.
Draft the highest ranked player on your board filling one of those weaknesses.

It's not an either-or situation. It's a little bit of both.

This. It's never all about one or the other, it's about BPA that fits a need.
(I should never say "never"...I should instead say "the vast majority of the time")

 

[jrumann59]

Best Player Available in an area of Need. If BPA is WR I do not expect this team to select a WR. If the BPA is an OT/OG I would not bemoan the pick. Going by need makes you move a guy up because he is need that is how you end up with Shante Carver/Kivika Pittman/Ekuban. If a high 1st round talent falls to 27 and he RB/DL/CB/LB even OL take him. The olnly positions I would consider no go are WR/P/K/QB/TE

 

[xwalker]

I know it typical wisdom to go with BPA.... But,...

QUESTION 1: You can do that and have that BPA. But a need is left void. Few years go buy and best player has to get paid. Bye bye.

QUESTION 2: You draft the BPN and it works out. Then you paid a little less and have $$ to play with.


I know there is more to it so I defer to the football experts on this forum.

Not looking to be controversial. (But I am believer in change, whether it is strategy or SOP) I like to learn on this board. Good info from lots of members.

Shouldn't it be best player needed for "team".... Not simply BPA? Not always...but sometimes?

It does not have to be a need. You could draft to replace an upcoming free agent and use the money save on that FA on another position.

If Odell Beckham had been available in 2014, they could have drafted him and he could have replaced Dez this year or next. The money that will go to Dez could have then gone to a FA defensive player.

 

[TheEnigma]

BPA isn't always a clear cut single player. You might have a group of players rated close together. In this case you take the one that is closest to your needs.

Sometimes however, one player is clearly better than the others and you take that player unless it's a qb and you have Aaron Rodgers as your qb already.

 

[AsthmaField]

Common sense applies, IMO. Clearly the team wouldn't draft QB if they have Aaron Rogers in his prime, but they might try to trade back to get value there if the QB is BPA by a long shot. For Dallas, a TE who is BPA isn't going to be picked, I don't think, and probably not a WR. A CB, LB, DT, DE, S, OL, and RB are probably all fair game though.

Some might not call that strictly BPA drafting, but I would. Every team out there won't draft any more pure BPA than that because it makes no sense otherwise. Nobody wants a QB in round 1 when you have a Tom Brady in his prime. Nobody wants to draft RB in round 1 when you have AP in his prime.

It is common sense and it is how Dallas does it these days. And they have been damn good at it for a while now.

Zero complaints since 2010.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Common sense applies, IMO. Clearly the team wouldn't draft QB if they have Aaron Rogers in his prime, but they might try to trade back to get value there if the QB is BPA by a long shot. For Dallas, a TE who is BPA isn't going to be picked, I don't think, and probably not a WR. A CB, LB, DT, DE, S, OL, and RB are probably all fair game though.

Some might not call that strictly BPA drafting, but I would. Every team out there won't draft any more pure BPA than that because it makes no sense otherwise. Nobody wants a QB in round 1 when you have a Tom Brady in his prime. Nobody wants to draft RB in round 1 when you have AP in his prime.

It is common sense and it is how Dallas does it these days. And they have been damn good at it for a while now.

Zero complaints since 2010.

You keep saying "common sense" ... "Common sense"... There's more to it than that.

What percentage of BPA work out?
What percentage of late round picks work out?

So, in addition to common sense. Some look for the hidden gems or take a chance on player approach too.

Has little to do with common sense.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Need isn't and shouldn't be confined to what you need at the moment either. .

I don't think you can make an absolute statement like and have it be true.

Players are drafted and used right away. It's not the old nfl.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

This. It's never all about one or the other, it's about BPA that fits a need.
(I should never say "never"...I should instead say "the vast majority of the time")

Ok fair enough. Understood.

 

[BlindFaith]

Common sense applies, IMO. Clearly the team wouldn't draft QB if they have Aaron Rogers in his prime, but they might try to trade back to get value there if the QB is BPA by a long shot. For Dallas, a TE who is BPA isn't going to be picked, I don't think, and probably not a WR. A CB, LB, DT, DE, S, OL, and RB are probably all fair game though.

Some might not call that strictly BPA drafting, but I would. Every team out there won't draft any more pure BPA than that because it makes no sense otherwise. Nobody wants a QB in round 1 when you have a Tom Brady in his prime. Nobody wants to draft RB in round 1 when you have AP in his prime.

It is common sense and it is how Dallas does it these days. And they have been damn good at it for a while now.

Zero complaints since 2010.

That shouldnt always be the case. It depends a lot on current contracts. Lets say there is an Andrew Luck type QB thaf some how slid to 27. Would you pass on him even though we had Romo? I think you'd be stupid to pass.
And why not WR? If one of the top WRs drop to 27 Id strongly consider it. Let Dez walk and save those cap dollars. Outside of Center, I cant think of a position we shouldnt consider as long as its the best player at that point.

Now some positions are easier to find and fill than others. And that comes down to how you rate the players. TEs and Guards, to me, have to be exceptional to be considered taking with premium picks. But if there was an exceptional TE, Id consider it. Letting Witten walk would save us a big chunk of money as well.

 

[BlindFaith]

I said confined. Meaning not limited to.

 

[AsthmaField]

That shouldnt always be the case. It depends a lot on current contracts. Lets say there is an Andrew Luck type QB thaf some how slid to 27. Would you pass on him even though we had Romo? I think you'd be stupid to pass.
And why not WR? If one of the top WRs drop to 27 Id strongly consider it. Let Dez walk and save those cap dollars. Outside of Center, I cant think of a position we shouldnt consider as long as its the best player at that point.

Now some positions are easier to find and fill than others. And that comes down to how you rate the players. TEs and Guards, to me, have to be exceptional to be considered taking with premium picks. But if there was an exceptional TE, Id consider it. Letting Witten walk would save us a big chunk of money as well.

I don't really disagree. Like I said, common sense. If a guy like Luck fell to 27, then yes, of course you take him. Particularly with Romo's age. Things like that almost never happen though.

Your point about taking a player and letting the star walk and save the free agency money is a valid one. Most of the time that won't happen but it wouldn't be a terrible idea if the rookie is good enough.

 

[AsthmaField]

You keep saying "common sense" ... "Common sense"... There's more to it than that.

What percentage of BPA work out?
What percentage of late round picks work out?

So, in addition to common sense. Some look for the hidden gems or take a chance on player approach too.

Has little to do with common sense.

I'm not quite sure what part of my post you disagree with. And I'm not sure what you're saying has little to do with common sense.

Are you saying that teams will bypass the BPA to take a hidden gem or a risky player? Not trying to be a smart ***, I'm just not sure where you're going with this.

Please note that I'm trying to work while I'm doing this so I haven't read every post in it and certainly could have missed something.