BPA vs. Need rant

[Lavarleap56]

No. Not quite. Considering the way this team has been for the last 15 years you couldn't pay me to waste my time attending a game. Though I do tend to scream and swear at the television a lot when they're actually on TV in this part of the country.

The difference between me and the fans in that movie, is that just winning isn't good enough for me. But that's been discussed before.

just pulling your chain a little bit dude.

[Dirk Diggler]

The apperance is that the DL contingant believe if we take Branch or a DE we automaticaly have fixed our line issues and are on our way back to a top 5 defense.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Most people on this board believe we are more than one player away on the Dline from getting to where we need to be.

[XxSpearheadxX]

Damn, Art is dropping ridiculous knowledge on fools.

This is one of the best threads in a while, and I really didn't think it was heading that direction.

[s0crates]

Why do we keep talking about CJ? There is no way that he will fall to us, and there is no way we can trade up. So, there is really no way we can get him.

Right?

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Why do we keep talking about CJ? There is no way that he will fall to us, and there is no way we can trade up. So, there is really no way we can get him.

Right?

Anything and everything is possible on Draft Day. That's why it's so exciting I suppose!

I still feel that we need to trade down and fill 3 needs (DE, DT, best of G/SS/CB avail) with a very good, a good, and a decent player vs filling 1 need with a potential stud. We can't rely on picks from rounds 5/6/7 to contribute right away, much less stick to the roster after the final cuts are made.

That way we fill needs AND probably draft the BPA at that point in the draft.

[Gamebreaker]

Although I doubt Calvin Johnson will fall to us, I've seen stranger things happen. I'm a supporter of the BPA philosophy, but I wouldn't be disappointed if we traded down. No use in reaching for a need when you could get the same player later.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Although I doubt Calvin Johnson will fall to us, I've seen stranger things happen. I'm a supporter of the BPA philosophy, but I wouldn't be disappointed if we traded down. No use in reaching for a need when you could get the same player later.

Precisely- which is why you trade down to the slot where the guy you want ie. need, happens to also be the BPA.

[Mooka]

I'm always for taking the best player avaliable...

except skill positions. No WR's please. Even it's CJ. I'm sorry, but how much is a WR going to help this team? Drafting WR's in the first round is risky business.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Precisely- which is why you trade down to the slot where the guy you want ie. need, happens to also be the BPA.

The problem is that the moment you trade DOWN, you greatly increase the likelyhood that somebody between the current selection and where you've moved down to will select the guy you want. At which point you've been screwed... BY YOURSELF. Additionally, when you trade down you generally get more draft picks, which I feel is akin to adding bullets to the revolver while playing Russian Roulette.

Personally, I'd be all for a draft philosophy that says.... We'll use our First Round pick, and maybe our Second Rounder (depending on where it is), and trade everything else (including possibly the Second Rounder) to get another First Round or high second round pick, specifically to limit the number of opportunities we have to screw up in the draft.

[fansince62]

The Bowie vs. Jordan example is one people always use to prove that "you should always take the BPA". It's also an extreme case, and one that you need to go back over two decades, and into another sport, to find. It ignores the premium that NBA teams put on Cs, and that Portland's big error was likely not that they drafted for need, but that they severely underrated Jordan (or overrated Bowie, or both).

In reality, every team needs to balance need vs BPA. If there is a player that's rated well above everyone else, then teams know they need to take them, or make a trade to get extra value.

The more likely scenario is that a team has two players rated closely with one filling a need and one not. To use the Skins as an example, what if Quinn and Branch were our two top rated prospects available when we're on the clock? Say, on a scale of 1-100, we have Quinn rated an 85, and Branch an 84? Do we take Quinn because he's "the best player available"? Of course not.

Your point with CJ seems to be that we "need a WR as much as a DL", which is debatable, but pretty much negates your rant up until then anyway. Johnson, who I think will certainly be gone by #6 anyway, may be the best player in the draft, and he may fill a big need for us, but those are points that can be discussed at another time. My point is just that the "BPA vs. Need" debate is a completely overblown argument that exists almost exclusively on message boards and at bars. I don't believe there is an NFL Front Office where people are actually discussing it.

rufus...good post and I agree that it's a mixed bag. but I stil lrefer back to the Sean Payton interview on NFL network in which he bluntly stated that with a high pick in the first round you go with a BPA - his explanation for why Bush was drafted even though not a need. So...I think your point is valid if you mean this all has to fit into a strategy that fits the situation/comditions in which the decision is made (i.e., there is no fixde rule).

[Tastes Like Chicken]

The problem is that the moment you trade DOWN, you greatly increase the likelyhood that somebody between the current selection and where you've moved down to will select the guy you want. At which point you've been screwed... BY YOURSELF. Additionally, when you trade down you generally get more draft picks, which I feel is akin to adding bullets to the revolver while playing Russian Roulette.

Well, that's the chance you have to take in order to not overpay for the same player. Trading down gives you more opportunities with more players, as opposed to putting all of your eggs in one basket (which may contain Heath Shuler, Desmond Howard, Rod Gardner, etc).

Does it work all the time? Course not. Sometimes you hope that the player you want will fall to you, but there are no guarantees there, either. Back in '83 we planned on drafting Marino, but our 2nd choice (Darrell Green) didn't turn out so bad.

Personally, I'd be all for a draft philosophy that says.... We'll use our First Round pick, and maybe our Second Rounder (depending on where it is), and trade everything else (including possibly the Second Rounder) to get another First Round or high second round pick, specifically to limit the number of opportunities we have to screw up in the draft.

We are in no position to do that. Teams that can do that are young and have depth. Part of our current problem is that we have thrown away so many draft picks, which usually form the depth on your roster. If we were poised for a SB run and were one, maybe two impact players away then maybe I'd agree. But our roster is so much swiss cheese right now.

Take a look at the Redskins 1st round draft picks since, forever. I'd argue the opposite, that we need to trade down and pick up additional picks in the mid to low rounds where we seem to fare much better.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Well, that's the chance you have to take in order to not overpay for the same player. Trading down gives you more opportunities with more players, as opposed to putting all of your eggs in one basket (which may contain Heath Shuler, Desmond Howard, Rod Gardner, etc).

I'd rather overpay for a player we need rather than giving up the opportunity to get that player. It doesn't always work out, but I'd rather have the guy I think is going to be a key ingredient on my team than to hope I might get something useful later on in the draft. A bird in the hand is worth 100 in the bush.

Does it work all the time? Course not. Sometimes you hope that the player you want will fall to you, but there are no guarantees there, either. Back in '83 we planned on drafting Marino, but our 2nd choice (Darrell Green) didn't turn out so bad.

I don't have any interest in hope or potential. DG is my favorite player of all time, but I'll tell you right now there's no way on the planet I would have ever drafted him. Nor would I have ever looked at Jerry Rice for the same reason.

We are in no position to do that. Teams that can do that are young and have depth. Part of our current problem is that we have thrown away so many draft picks, which usually form the depth on your roster. If we were poised for a SB run and were one, maybe two impact players away then maybe I'd agree. But our roster is so much swiss cheese right now.

Teams that would do that realize that it's better to have 2 or 3 players who can actually play rather than a whole bunch of camp fodder and mediocre talent on the roster. The bigger problem is what we have done with the selections we have still had.... Patricia Ramsey, Carlita Rogers, Rhonda McIntosh, and Shawna Taylor & Juanita Campbell (to lesser degrees) to name a few.

Take a look at the Redskins 1st round draft picks since, forever. I'd argue the opposite, that we need to trade down and pick up additional picks in the mid to low rounds where we seem to fare much better.

I agree that our First Round Draft Picks haven't been great. I would suggest that's because we haven't had an institutional philosophy to guide those selections more than because we've tried to find great players rather than selecting a larger number of mediocre players like some other teams seem to do.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'd rather overpay for a player we need rather than giving up the opportunity to get that player. It doesn't always work out, but I'd rather have the guy I think is going to be a key ingredient on my team than to hope I might get something useful later on in the draft. A bird in the hand is worth 100 in the bush.

Except that there are no guarantees that the "player you need" is going to be great either. Courtney Brown has not exactly set the league on fire.

I don't have any interest in hope or potential. DG is my favorite player of all time, but I'll tell you right now there's no way on the planet I would have ever drafted him. Nor would I have ever looked at Jerry Rice for the same reason.

Well..that's super, I guess. Not sure what your point is here, but ok.

Teams that would do that realize that it's better to have 2 or 3 players who can actually play rather than a whole bunch of camp fodder and mediocre talent on the roster. The bigger problem is what we have done with the selections we have still had.... Patricia Ramsey, Carlita Rogers, Rhonda McIntosh, and Shawna Taylor & Juanita Campbell (to lesser degrees) to name a few.

It's really not. Teams with 2 or 3 great players are called the Browns. Teams with 30 really good players are called the Bears. You need depth.

I agree that our First Round Draft Picks haven't been great. I would suggest that's because we haven't had an institutional philosophy to guide those selections more than because we've tried to find great players rather than selecting a larger number of mediocre players like some other teams seem to do.

You've totally lost me here. I know you hate the Pats, but you don't really believe that they drafted Laurence Maroney in the hopes that he would be average.

What the Pats try to do is minimize the risk. Basically, it's the same as having a diverse stock portfolio instead of putting all your money in, like, shrimp boats or something.

Waiting for diatribe on how the stock market is immoral is 3...2...1....

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Just to get a late piggyback on the Bowie versus Jordan issue, Bobby Knight had maybe the best line about the issue. He said that after he coached Jordan on the '84 Olympic Team, Portland called him. They asked how good he was and Knight basically said that he was the best player he ever saw. Portland responded that they already had a great 2-guard in Drexler and needed the center.

Knight responded, "Hell...play Jordan at Center then."

I do think that there needs to be a balance between BPA and need. But I don't think a team should ever ever ever reach on a first rounder. If you find yourself taking the third or fourth best player at his position in the top ten of the draft, you probably don't want to do that.

You need impact out of the first round, regardless of where it is.

The only position I would not take BPA is obviously quarterback if you already have a strong starter in place. I think you can always find a way to get your most talented players on the field.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

I'd rather overpay for a player we need rather than giving up the opportunity to get that player. It doesn't always work out, but I'd rather have the guy I think is going to be a key ingredient on my team than to hope I might get something useful later on in the draft. A bird in the hand is worth 100 in the bush.

Sometimes this works, sometimes not. How do you know how much is too much? Maybe if you're fairly certain that the player you like will not be picked for X number of picks later, because those teams in line are enamoured with someone else. Did Houston really need to draft Mario W. first overall, or would he have been there at #2, 3, 4 etc? And maybe that extra pick turns into a solid lineman to shore up their pathetic O-line?

I don't have any interest in hope or potential. DG is my favorite player of all time, but I'll tell you right now there's no way on the planet I would have ever drafted him. Nor would I have ever looked at Jerry Rice for the same reason.

Well, I'm not sure what your point is there.

Teams that would do that realize that it's better to have 2 or 3 players who can actually play rather than a whole bunch of camp fodder and mediocre talent on the roster. The bigger problem is what we have done with the selections we have still had.... Patricia Ramsey, Carlita Rogers, Rhonda McIntosh, and Shawna Taylor & Juanita Campbell (to lesser degrees) to name a few.

Not all players selected in rounds 3-7 are camp fodder or mediocre.

Charles Mann, Kelvin Bryant, Jay Schroeder, Barry Wilburn, Terry Orr, Raleigh Mackenzie, Alvin Walton, Mark Rypien, Kurt Gouveia, Timmy Smith, Stan Humphries, Mark Schlereth, Brian Mitchell, Ricky Ervins, Keenan McCardell, Frank Wychek, Gus Frerotte, Stephen Davis, Rock Cartwright, Derrick Dockery, Chris Cooley, Kedric Golston.

I agree that our First Round Draft Picks haven't been great. I would suggest that's because we haven't had an institutional philosophy to guide those selections more than because we've tried to find great players rather than selecting a larger number of mediocre players like some other teams seem to do.

Huh?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Except that there are no guarantees that the "player you need" is going to be great either. Courtney Brown has not exactly set the league on fire.

No he hasn't' date=' but I would rather take a chance on a player at a position of need rather than one at a position where there isn't need. Obviously not every draft pick is going to work out; hell most are busts; which is part of why I HATE the draft in general; but when one does work out, I'd rther have it be at a position where we NEED a player rather than one where the need is significantly less.

Well..that's super, I guess. Not sure what your point is here, but ok.

The point is that the ends do not always justify the means. Darrell Green and Jerry Rice are a HOF caliber players, but I wouldn't have taken a chance on either player considering where they played their college ball. Potential and Hope don't win football games.

It's really not. Teams with 2 or 3 great players are called the Browns. Teams with 30 really good players are called the Bears. You need depth.

Teams that acquire great players every year are called the 1991 Redskins. Teams that acquire marginal players every year and win through mediocrity are called the 2001 New England Patriots. One of those teams was GREAT. The other was sub-human. At least so far as I'm concerned.

You've totally lost me here. I know you hate the Pats' date=' but you don't really believe that they drafted Laurence Maroney in the hopes that he would be average.[/quote']

I KNOW that they didn't draft him expecting him to be an ALL-PRO caliber player. They don't look for players like that. They look for average to above-average players who are willing to sell their souls for the betterment of "the team".

What the Pats try to do is minimize the risk. Basically' date=' it's the same as having a diverse stock portfolio instead of putting all your money in, like, shrimp boats or something.[/quote']

They minimize the risk all right. They do it by not trying to be Great. They do it by attempting to only get a minimal return on investment instead of a BIG one. Personally, I'm of the GO BIG OR GO HOME mentality instead.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Teams that acquire great players every year are called the 1991 Redskins. Teams that acquire marginal players every year and win through mediocrity are called the 2001 New England Patriots. One of those teams was GREAT. The other was sub-human. At least so far as I'm concerned.

All right...it's time this was addressed.

The 1991 Redskins and the 2001 Patriots are essentially the same team. Both were very good, very deep teams with Hall of Fame coaches who took advantage of a league that was probably in a transition year.

The Redskins had very few truly great players on that team but a ton of very good player. Grimm and Jacoby were great at one point, but they were in decline by then. Rypien is never going to be considered an all-time great. Certainly not Byner, Ervins or Riggs. Monk and Clark were great as was Lachey, Green, and maybe Wilbur Marshall (I also loved Marshall). Mann was very good. The rest of the team was mostly role players. It's just that they had depth at every position you could imagine.

Isn't that the Patriots approach? Few stars (Brady, Law, Milloy, Seymour, McGinnest, and Vinatieri). A ton of very good players. Great coaches.

I think the only teams that meet your criteria for greatness are the Steelers of the 70s who literally had Hall of Famers in each unit.

[Veretax]

The problem is that the moment you trade DOWN, you greatly increase the likelyhood that somebody between the current selection and where you've moved down to will select the guy you want. At which point you've been screwed... BY YOURSELF. Additionally, when you trade down you generally get more draft picks, which I feel is akin to adding bullets to the revolver while playing Russian Roulette.

Personally, I'd be all for a draft philosophy that says.... We'll use our First Round pick, and maybe our Second Rounder (depending on where it is), and trade everything else (including possibly the Second Rounder) to get another First Round or high second round pick, specifically to limit the number of opportunities we have to screw up in the draft.

Trading down is a calculated risk, thats why they look at a lot of folks they would never draft normally, because you just never know.

[Seabee1973]

Trading down is a calculated risk, thats why they look at a lot of folks they would never draft normally, because you just never know.

Any draft pick is a risk any free agent is a risk.

[[[ghost]]]

You make it seem like he's destined to usurp Jerry Rice as the greatest Wide Reciever ever. He could just as easily be worse than Michael Westbrook.

And if you draft best player availible ever single year, and you coincidentally end up drafting 20 Wide receivers and tight ends, what have you accomplished?

Drafting best player availible every year is stupid. Doing it once in a while, especially the later rounds, is smart. Drafting best player availible when that position can be a strength is ludicrous.

[Aston]

All right...it's time this was addressed.

The 1991 Redskins and the 2001 Patriots are essentially the same team. Both were very good' date=' very deep teams with Hall of Fame coaches who took advantage of a league that was probably in a transition year.[/quote']Totally agree. This game is all about depth. As as Dirk pointed out, this team needs more than 1 player along the D-line to make a difference.

Mass, as a whole, I agree with what you're saying. However, some of your logic is a bit confusing and has been noted as such. Still, I agree with your ultimate point (or at least the point most related to this thread) - If we don't start fixing the defensive line now, WHEN?

Art, yes if CJ (or whoever the drafts best player was at the time) fell to #6 you take him, no questions asked. We'd all agree that he won't be available, so do you take the 6th BPA? Or the 9th BPA that's the player you need?

Jbooma, I have to disagree about your idea that CBs help the DL. From what I've seen, it's works the other way around. I admit that our secondary in ain't exactly the best I've seen, but the DL is 2006 is EXACTLY the worst I've seen, and it's the first domino in a crappy defensive mess.

Veretax, your point about we can start 5 WR at one time as opposed to 2 DT is interesting, but one might argue that because there's less DT, there are of more value. 1 WR gets hurt, you lost 20% of the starters, but if 1 DT gets hurt, that's half! Plus, I think the one big hole in the WR argument (CJ aside) is that we have a stud WR already. We need a stud DL, whether its DE or DT. And we need that NOW. Tom Brady got to the AFC championship game last year with crappy receivers, and Jason Campbell, while not Brady (yet) can compensate for lack of receiver depth. On the defensive line, only King Kong could have made up for how poorly that group did.

My final point - Here's was I learned today (because my mind isn't cement!) ... taking the BPA is generally a good idea under normal circumstances, and when you have the opportunity to get the best player in the draft, you'd be foolish not to. But when you're 5-11, and have lots of needs, and have only 1 draft pick in the first 4 rounds to fulfill those needs, you'd be foolish to blindly take the BPA without some long, careful thought.

That and it's going to take more than one year, one player, and one draft to turn this thing around.

HTTR

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Sometimes this works, sometimes not. How do you know how much is too much? Maybe if you're fairly certain that the player you like will not be picked for X number of picks later, because those teams in line are enamoured with someone else. Did Houston really need to draft Mario W. first overall, or would he have been there at #2, 3, 4 etc? And maybe that extra pick turns into a solid lineman to shore up their pathetic O-line?

I deal with CERTAINTIES in situations like this, not hopes or potentials. If the guy I want is the #32 rated guy in the draft and I have the #1 pick, He's going #1 because I cannot be 100% CERTAIN that he'll be there at #33.

Extra picks are simply additionall opportunities to screw things up so far as I am concerned.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

All right...it's time this was addressed.

The 1991 Redskins and the 2001 Patriots are essentially the same team. Both were very good' date=' very deep teams with Hall of Fame coaches who took advantage of a league that was probably in a transition year.[/quote']

We'll disagree on that, but it's not worth trying to explain it to you so I won't waste my time.

[Skinsinparadise]

In all likelihood we are will have to trade next year's #1 to trade up to get him. Aren't we tired of giving away high picks and mortgaging our future? Johnson isn't going to fall to us at #6. And it isn't a need position to boot.

I remember reading about Braylon Edwards being a tall and fast WR, can't miss, and well so far he's nothing special. Yeah Johnson is more likely to be the real deal but to miss an opportunity to upgrade our team's weakness and give up next years #1 for a position that isn't of need seems a reach. I'd only do it if Gibbs is convinced this guy is the be all and end all receiver and the next Jerry Rice.

I agree with your thought of taking the best player available but not if it means trading up. If we could trade down a few spots and get lets say Landry who is touted for his position in a bigger way than any defensive lineman propspect AND with that pick obtain a defensive lineman lower in the draft -- I like that idea. We'd upgrade our secondary -- which needs it -- and our defensive line at the same time.

To me 2 exciting players on defense AND keeping next year's 1st is a better move then getting one exciting player on offense and LOSING next year's #1 to boot. Unless again Gibbs thinks he's the next Jerry Rice but am not sure if I can trust his instincts with this considering he traded up for Desmond Howard and said this guy is "a can't miss".

[Seabee1973]

I deal with CERTAINTIES in situations like this, not hopes or potentials. If the guy I want is the #32 rated guy in the draft and I have the #1 pick, He's going #1 because I cannot be 100% CERTAIN that he'll be there at #33.

Extra picks are simply additionall opportunities to screw things up so far as I am concerned.

so you would give a guy a 6 yr 60 million contract when he should recieve a 4 yr 12 million contract?