TSO Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Teams are generally wary of trading into a top 5 pick.Contrary to popular opinion, trading down from the #5 pick isn't something that just happens. There needs to be very special sets of circumstances so that both sides can benefit. Really, the only exceptions are teams that make a play for QB's. However, there are no QB's in this years draft that I can see any team wanting to trade up to #4 to take This is definitely a valid point, and usually it's true with no exceptions, however, I think we might need to factor in the uncapped financial aspect of the season here. The biggest reason teams don't trade up into top 5 picks, or even top 10 ones, is because of the high cost with high risk combination those picks entail. If you take that away, which having an uncapped season would to a certain degree, then I think you have to figure that it would be easier to trade down this year, moreso than any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaBeachRedskin Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Apparently Vinnius's version of BPA is the only version Redskins fans know about and thus there is always dissatisfaction because the IMPLIES OLinemen won't be drafted. For the last freaking time, O-LINEMEN CAN BE THE BPA!!!!! That hinges on there being an offensive lineman that is actually the BPA and there are no offensive lineman that are deserving of a top 10 pick this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 This is definitely a valid point, and usually it's true with no exceptions, however, I think we might need to factor in the uncapped financial aspect of the season here. The biggest reason teams don't trade up into top 5 picks, or even top 10 ones, is because of the high cost with high risk combination those picks entail. If you take that away, which having an uncapped season would to a certain degree, then I think you have to figure that it would be easier to trade down this year, moreso than any other. Actually, that's not a factor. The rookie cap will still be in effect for 2010. Which means there is no way to structure a deal that counts a large chunk of a rookie contract in the first year. Rookie contracts have to be done in a way that gives a lot of guaranteed money but don't count enough to blow up the team's rookie cap (example. Matthew Stafford 6 years/ $72 mil/ $41.75m guaranteed/ first year cap figure-3.1 mil). The way to do that is thru a signing bonus, plus guaranteeing money in year 2 of the deal onward. None of that is helped or affected by the uncapped season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dg28daman Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 That hinges on there being an offensive lineman that is actually the BPA and there are no offensive lineman that are deserving of a top 10 pick this year. Exactly. Think about how pissed off people would be if we drafted Okung, and he turned out to be Robert Gallery or Tony Manderich. You don't draft for need, thats how you end up being burned. Ravens draft BPA. It hasn't hurt them any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Actually, that's not a factor. The rookie cap will still be in effect for 2010. Which means there is no way to structure a deal that counts a large chunk of a rookie contract in the first year. Rookie contracts have to be done in a way that gives a lot of guaranteed money but don't count enough to blow up the team's rookie cap (example. Matthew Stafford 6 years/ $72 mil/ $41.75m guaranteed/ first year cap figure-3.1 mil). The way to do that is thru a signing bonus, plus guaranteeing money in year 2 of the deal onward. None of that is helped or affected by the uncapped season. Ahhh, ok... I'm not a cap guy myself, so thanks for the info. That's what I get for assuming it's all the same. I clearly didn't know what I was talking about and hope I didn't mislead anyone, lol. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Hey, as long as Snyder has no say in any of it, I'm fine with whoever they pick or if they wanna trade down, etc. Just as long as the midget has no say, I'll trust the professionals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Full Monty Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share Posted January 11, 2010 That hinges on there being an offensive lineman that is actually the BPA and there are no offensive lineman that are deserving of a top 10 pick this year. People are high on Okung but really? I need to do more homework on the guy but I guess it comes down to how highly they grade him compared to the QBs. All I know is outside of Okung, I don't think there's another OL worthy of top 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Full Monty Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share Posted January 11, 2010 Exactly. Think about how pissed off people would be if we drafted Okung, and he turned out to be Robert Gallery or Tony Manderich. You don't draft for need, thats how you end up being burned.Ravens draft BPA. It hasn't hurt them any. Exactly - and the one time they drafted for need by reaching for Kyle Boller after Leftwich slipped through their hands, they got BURNED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 That hinges on there being an offensive lineman that is actually the BPA and there are no offensive lineman that are deserving of a top 10 pick this year. That's what you think. And the possibility to trade down is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Apparently Vinnius's version of BPA is the only version Redskins fans know about and thus there is always dissatisfaction because the IMPLIES OLinemen won't be drafted. For the last freaking time, O-LINEMEN CAN BE THE BPA!!!!! If you need Offensive lineman then drafting one wouldnt realy be BPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 I'm just wondering since Cerrato is working on the draft, who will select the players, Allen, Shanahan or Snyderato ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 If you need Offensive lineman then drafting one wouldnt realy be BPA Yes, drafting D'Anthony Batiste in the FIRST ROUND is exactly the same as drafting Chris Samuels in the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Ahhh, ok... I'm not a cap guy myself, so thanks for the info. That's what I get for assuming it's all the same. I clearly didn't know what I was talking about and hope I didn't mislead anyone, lol. :doh: LOL. Don't be so hard on yourself. It's something I've tried to point out a few times in deifferent threads, as it seems to be a common (and understandable) misconception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darc Requiem Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Dont even waist your breath, EVERYONE saw how GARBAGE our offense was this season, now of course, it's offseason time, and now as soon as some of these people see a couple highlight reels, we absolutely have to draft a dam DT or Safety. Ain't that the truth. The same people clamoring for Suh or Berry will be the first ones deriding the FO for not addressing the offensive line. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Ravens draft BPA. It hasn't hurt them any. No, they don't. They claim to, but do what every team does- balance BPA and need. Look at all their high picks and they almost always fit one of their biggest needs. The Patriots last couple of drafts are pretty textbook. With probably the league's best D-Line for years, they had spent only two picks in 4 years there (a 4th and a 6th), but with Seymour, Wilfork and Green all nearing free agency, all of a sudden they take 3 of them this year. At CB, they lose Samuel, Gay and Hobbs and they have spent 2 2nds and a 4th the last two drafts to replace them. They lose Rodney Harrison, their top pick is Pat Chung. The LB corps aging and leaving, they spend a 1st and 2 3rds there. They needed some youth on the O-Line so they drafted Volmer and Ohrnberger. They even spent a 6th for a Long Snapper after Paxton signed with Denver. But you haven't seen them spending many picks at WR, QB, C or RB the last few years. They are filling needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerpSkin Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Exactly. Think about how pissed off people would be if we drafted Okung, and he turned out to be Robert Gallery This is a pretty strange example to use as evidence that you should take BPA. Robert Gallery, at the time of the draft, was considered a can't miss talent and many people had him as the single BPA. I think if anything this goes to show that you should NEVER be so confident in your judgment of a rookie prospect that you let your perceived BPA evaluation trump finding the best value added. That said, we could debate Gallery specifically, or go back and forth offering example and counter-example of BPA approaches that succeeded/failed and need-based approaches that succeeded and failed. The bottom line is, when your talking about drafting somebody at a need who ranks in the vicinity of your draft position even if he is not the single BPA -- the success/failure rate in terms of eventually-realized talent for that prospect on average is probably pretty close to that of the BPA. However, if you draft for need, you do not compound that risk with the risk that the player never finds a role due to over-crowding of talent at that position. Moreover, even if the BPA is a huge success, if that huge success has come at the expense of playing a veteran who was also a huge success, then you haven't improved your team much. On the other hand, if a draft pick is only a marginal success, but is a marginal success at a position where you were HORRIBLE, then you have improved your team by A LOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 BPA always incorporates some level of need... You rank your board according to BPA, need, and depth at any particular position... If OL is weak, you may rank OL higher... If WR is deep, you may rank WR lower. If your team needs a bunch of OL and OL is weak, you will rank the best OL higher than best other positions... Nobody drafts specifically on need... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 BPA always incorporates some level of need... You rank your board according to BPA, need, and depth at any particular position... If OL is weak, you may rank OL higher... If WR is deep, you may rank WR lower. If your team needs a bunch of OL and OL is weak, you will rank the best OL higher than best other positions... Nobody drafts specifically on need... No one drafts specifically for either is my point. They balance the two, and I think even the extent to which different franchises apply that balance gets wildly overstated in these discussions. Bad drafts happen because teams aren't assessing players correctly, not because they are intentionally taking worse players to fill a need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerpSkin Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 BPA always incorporates some level of need... You rank your board according to BPA, need, and depth at any particular position... If OL is weak, you may rank OL higher... If WR is deep, you may rank WR lower. If your team needs a bunch of OL and OL is weak, you will rank the best OL higher than best other positions... Nobody drafts specifically on need... What you just described is exactly what I mean by drafting according to need, and is radically different from what many (including Vinny Cerrato) described as the BPA. Now I agree with those who say that GMs just give lip-service to BPA -- as they should. But since so many come on these boards clammering that BPA should be the approach, I can't help myself but to point out the flaws in that thinking. As soon as you "rank you board" with need in mind, you are deviating from BPA. BPA means drafting only according to your assessment of the player (talent/work ethic/character/etc) regardless of the team's weaknesses. Nobody has ever suggested taking the 10th best talent available at a position of need. That is obviously not what drafting for need means. That is why I like to say, best value-added available. You want to see what prospect upgrades your teams current situation the most. And of course by current, I do believe you need to take the next few years in mind. If you have a great QB close to retirement age, by all means look closely at QB in the 1st round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Full Monty Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share Posted January 11, 2010 TerpSkin is dead-on. Drafting for need is pretty much what Smoot Point described, whereby you weight a player higher or lower based on whether they address a team weakness or not. Besides, teams reach for need all the time. Alex Smith was not the best player in the 2005 draft. The 49ers were hot for a young franchise QB, and he was there. Mario Williams probably wasn't the top player in the 2006 draft but Casserly was obsessed with putting a pass rush on the Colts, you can look up everything he said about that pick and it was all about needing a pass rush. The pick has turned out ok, not great, in hindsight. He probably was not ranked atop most draft boards. As I mentioned before the Ravens are usually BPA (2001 they drafted Tood Heap even though Sharpe was still producing) but they reached for Boller in 2003 or so when they failed to get Leftwich... Hell, we took Carlos Rogers in 2005 as the 9th overall pick. I call that reaching for need. Vinny really took BPA took its logical extent in 2008. Except for Rinehart - I don't know what the heck that was or who else graded him as a 3rd round pick. Hopefully he can thrive in Shanny's system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peeping Wizard Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 I'm all for BPA unless it is at a position where you are stacked like TE for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 What I'm saying is that nobody says they draft for "need"... The question is stupid. You create a draft board based on value and it incorporates a bit of need, BPA, depth of draft pool, etc... Overall, it's a dumb question to ask any GM. They all say BPA! Find me one who says: "need". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 This is so ridiculous. If the BPA was a TE every single round you pick, do you pick them? With Cooley and Davis on the roster, too? Yeah, riiiiiight. The Skins will select a QB. They have to, because I don't see any way around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 TerpSkin is dead-on. Drafting for need is pretty much what Smoot Point described, whereby you weight a player higher or lower based on whether they address a team weakness or not.Besides, teams reach for need all the time. Alex Smith was not the best player in the 2005 draft. The 49ers were hot for a young franchise QB, and he was there. Mario Williams probably wasn't the top player in the 2006 draft but Casserly was obsessed with putting a pass rush on the Colts, you can look up everything he said about that pick and it was all about needing a pass rush. The pick has turned out ok, not great, in hindsight. He probably was not ranked atop most draft boards. As I mentioned before the Ravens are usually BPA (2001 they drafted Tood Heap even though Sharpe was still producing) but they reached for Boller in 2003 or so when they failed to get Leftwich... Hell, we took Carlos Rogers in 2005 as the 9th overall pick. I call that reaching for need. Vinny really took BPA took its logical extent in 2008. Except for Rinehart - I don't know what the heck that was or who else graded him as a 3rd round pick. Hopefully he can thrive in Shanny's system. I dont think the rogers pick was a need it was more of a BPA/ panick mode pick because we didnt resign smoot same thing with Landry the next time we drafted in the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 This is so ridiculous. If the BPA was a TE every single round you pick, do you pick them? With Cooley and Davis on the roster, too? Yeah, riiiiiight.The Skins will select a QB. They have to, because I don't see any way around it. Your updated signature is fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.