Drafting for need results in odd draft scenarios

[Verdict]

Teams drafting for need (especially when several teams do it in a row) can cause a player at a given position to fall much lower than he is rated. Aaron Rodgers is an example of a player falling much lower than he was expected to fall. Green Bay stopped that skid by selecting him based on value and the results turned out to be a good move for Green Bay, even though he sat on the bench a few years. It is hard to argue that it was a wasted pick.

I realize that needs cannot be totally ignored, but the probability that a player sticks is much higher when you draft using BPA rather than drafting for need, which is a reactionary strategy.

With that being said, it is arguable that we took Frederick higher than where we thought he should go last year based in part, on need, and that worked out pretty well. We also took players OUT OF ORDER on our draft board and got both players, possibly due to the fact that we took them out of order. This is obviously an inexact science ..... Ha ha.

 

[Hardline]

Always go BPA regardless of position or need.

 

[tm1119]

Going BPA only works for successful and established teams. If you're not a playoff team and have glaring holes that need to be upgraded in order to improve how can you justify taking bpa? Especially a team that didnt do much in free agency.

Sounds cool to say on the internet but just not practical in real life. At least not for teams like the cowboys

 

[Hardline]

Drafting BPA for successful and established teams is exactly why they are successful and established.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Going BPA only works for successful and established teams.

I think you have the causality arrow pointing the wrong way. Successful and established teams got that way by drafting BPA. Teams that don't draft BPA don't get to be successful and established.

 

[JD_KaPow]

We also took players OUT OF ORDER on our draft board and got both players, possibly due to the fact that we took them out of order. This is obviously an inexact science ..... Ha ha.

The picking order thing isn't about BPA vs. need, it's just about draft dynamics. If you know that you value a player higher than other teams do, by all means wait to pick him or trade down.

 

[tm1119]

I think you have the causality arrow pointing the wrong way. Successful and established teams got that way by drafting BPA. Teams that don't draft BPA don't get to be successful and established.

Explain the rest of my post to me. How are you supposed to get good if you ignore the positions that are keeping you from being good?

 

[daschoo]

Always go BPA regardless of position or need.

There has to be a balance between the two. Just as a demonstration exercise, and because I was bored in work last night, I did a 5 round mock on fanspeak taking the highest ranking player with each pick.
1 Sammy Watkins WR
2 Jason Verrett CB
3 Cameron Fleming OT
4 Terrance West RB
5 Brett Smith QB
Would you be ok with that scenario?

 

[Fredd]

There has to be a balance between the two. Just as a demonstration exercise, and because I was bored in work last night, I did a 5 round mock on fanspeak taking the highest ranking player with each pick.
1 Sammy Watkins WR
2 Jason Verrett CB
3 Cameron Fleming OT
4 Terrance West RB
5 Brett Smith QB
Would you be ok with that scenario?

If they had already signed FAs Melton and Joseph for the DL, then I might be OK with this....although, I can't see Watkins falling to 16....Verrett is going to be good

 

[DFWJC]

You match BPA with need as best you can by trading up or down.

No team drafts purely one way or the other. Luckily, they don't have to, because there are 31 other team participating as well.

No team operates solely on a list. You have list but look at players in tiers of talent (so BPA tiers) to give yourself, in part, position flexibility.
If not, theoretically you draft 7 CBs in one draft going BPA

 

[DuDa]

BPA sounds like a great idea but it just isn't practical. What happens if these are the best players available in the first couple of rounds?

1. Eric Ebron, TE
2. Marcus Martin, Center
3. Keith McGill, CB


This is just an example. I am not saying Ebron is that highly rated by us. With this draft, we have some awesome depth but it won't equal more wins. In the first 4 rounds or so, it's almost always been BPA at a position of need.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

BPA sounds like a great idea but it just isn't practical. What happens if these are the best players available in the first couple of rounds?

1. Eric Ebron, TE
2. Marcus Martin, Center
3. Keith McGill, CB


This is just an example. I am not saying Ebron is that highly rated by us. With this draft, we have some awesome depth but it won't equal more wins. In the first 4 rounds or so, it's almost always been BPA at a position of need.

People take "BPA" wwaayy too literally. You rank your board based on value, and then you consider a range of players. So, if your board is ranked 11. Ebron, 12. Martin 13. Evans, you take Martin. If value truly in no way aligns with need (which is hardly ever the case), you try to trade down. It's really not that complicated.

 

[visionary]

There has to be a balance between the two. Just as a demonstration exercise, and because I was bored in work last night, I did a 5 round mock on fanspeak taking the highest ranking player with each pick.
1 Sammy Watkins WR
2 Jason Verrett CB
3 Cameron Fleming OT
4 Terrance West RB
5 Brett Smith QB
Would you be ok with that scenario?

Works great for internet GM s

 

[visionary]

People take "BPA" wwaayy too literally. You rank your board based on value, and then you consider a range of players. So, if your board is ranked 11. Ebron, 12. Martin 13. Evans, you take Martin. If value truly in no way aligns with need (which is hardly ever the case), you try to trade down. It's really not that complicated.

I guess we do agree on something

This is how teams should draft

 

[xwalker]

Teams drafting for need (especially when several teams do it in a row) can cause a player at a given position to fall much lower than he is rated. Aaron Rodgers is an example of a player falling much lower than he was expected to fall. Green Bay stopped that skid by selecting him based on value and the results turned out to be a good move for Green Bay, even though he sat on the bench a few years. It is hard to argue that it was a wasted pick.

I realize that needs cannot be totally ignored, but the probability that a player sticks is much higher when you draft using BPA rather than drafting for need, which is a reactionary strategy.

With that being said, it is arguable that we took Frederick higher than where we thought he should go last year based in part, on need, and that worked out pretty well. We also took players OUT OF ORDER on our draft board and got both players, possibly due to the fact that we took them out of order. This is obviously an inexact science ..... Ha ha.

How do you define BPA? Is it highest upside, most ready or is it the player that you're the most confident is a can't miss pick? You also have to consider position value.

I think the Cowboys saw Frederick as a can't miss pick that also filled their top need. His position value was also very high because quality Centers rarely if ever hit free agency. It's probably the hardest position to fill in free agency other than QB and there's only 1 or 2 quality Centers per draft.

 

[supercowboy8]

Going BPA only works for successful and established teams. If you're not a playoff team and have glaring holes that need to be upgraded in order to improve how can you justify taking bpa? Especially a team that didnt do much in free agency.

Sounds cool to say on the internet but just not practical in real life. At least not for teams like the cowboys

That one player to feel a need isn't going to put a terrible team in the superbowl. There is always next year's draft. Drafting players to early to feel a need still leaves you with a need because you didn't get a good enough player to play that position.