Draft Philosophy: Filling Needs vs. Building a Foundation

[88Comrade2000]

I would say it's a mix of both.   If you are drafting in the Top 10 of round one, odds are you end up drafting for need. 

 

2012. The Redskins opted to trade up for a need and take QB.  We could've stayed where we were at and taken

the BPA or need; Tannehill would've still been available.

 

 

The higher in the draft, you tend to draft players who could fill a need but would definitely start right away.  I would

expect that from players drafted in Rounds 1,2 and maybe even round 3.  In this salary cap era, you don't have the

luxary to wait.  That player drafted could be filling a need or could be the best player available but is so good, he

displaces someone else.  Beyond Round 3, if's basically for depth.  Occasionally, you will find a player who rises

and becomes a starter right away. 

 

I don't think you can be a rigid BPA or Fill the Need; it depends on the how the draft flows.

 

 

All, I know; I fully expect around second and third round picks; whether they were filling a need or just the BPA, to make

the starter roster.

[Darth Tater]

I go with BPA as BPA by definition includes modification based on the player's potential contribution.  In any case, BPA gives you depth and most positions can use depth, protects you if your starters fall of the cliff (they often do), enbables you able to entertain trades without sacrificing too much quality, creates some leverage in contracts and is one of the few ways to get quality long-term backups.

[drowland]

Just think about drafting Jordan Reed last year. Fans were complaining because we had Sleepy Davis. Tremendous draft pick which really wasn't thought of as a "need" but absolutely was..

 

TE was a need last year.  Davis was coming off a serious injury, and Paulson and Niles aren't starting material.  With Reed's concussion issues I wouldn't be against a TE at #34 if they're the BPA.  

 

I'm for BPA within reason.  Obviously they're not going to take a QB high in this draft.  Otherwise they could and should take any position if the player is BPA.

[Commander -JB-]

TE was a need last year. Davis was coming off a serious injury, and Paulson and Niles aren't starting material. With Reed's concussion issues I wouldn't be against a TE at #34 if they're the BPA.

I'm for BPA within reason. Obviously they're not going to take a QB high in this draft. Otherwise they could and should take any position if the player is BPA.

I was perfectly fine with the pick. A lot of fans were not in 3rd round TBH

[Sea Bass]

I don't think this is an example of drafting based purely on need. Landry had great draft stock and wasn't a reach where we drafted him. I think it only looks like a need pick in hindsight. Landry was a fortunate circumstance where he was both highly rated AND filled a need. He was considered the best defensive player in the draft by many.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/historical/414963 Landry, pre-draft compared to elite NFL safeties.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft07/columns/story?id=2847400

 

Peterson was a great prospect but did have an injury concern, WIllis and Revis were not rated as highly as Landry by most draft people. In fact, Okoye, Gaines Adams, and Jamal Anderson were all higher rated defensive players than those two. If we had truly drafted by need that year we would have taken DE Jamal Anderson or DT Okoye, as many projected us to do.

 

IMO 2008, Malcolm Kelly is a much better example of a need, reach pick. Cerrato wanted a better WR corp since El and Lloyd were flops, so after Thomas takes a WR with injury concerns because he feels it's a need and is enamored with the guy. 

 

Landry wasn't a reach, but he wasn't BPA either. Adrian Peterson was picked by most to go to the Browns at #3.  Have you seen anyone who rated Landry above Peterson?  I haven't, but I've seen Peterson above Landry.

 

Okoye and Anderson didn't really have a better career than Landry, so the point still stands.

 

I agree.  Malcolm Kelly was a reach.  Good example.

[chipwhich]

BPA is so overused when it comes to the first round.  If you are drafting in the top 10 and don't need a running back, you don't pick a running back.  Same goes with a quarterback.

[KDawg]

BPA is so overused when it comes to the first round. If you are drafting in the top 10 and don't need a running back, you don't pick a running back. Same goes with a quarterback.

BPA with positional weighting answers that question.

[elkabong82]

Landry wasn't a reach, but he wasn't BPA either. Adrian Peterson was picked by most to go to the Browns at #3.  Have you seen anyone who rated Landry above Peterson?  I haven't, but I've seen Peterson above Landry.

 

Okoye and Anderson didn't really have a better career than Landry, so the point still stands.

 

I agree.  Malcolm Kelly was a reach.  Good example.

 

True, but that would be PURE BPA. BPA with some need factored in would justify going with the best rated defensive player over RB. The pick wasn't a pure need pick, it was actually one that would fall in line with the methods mentioned by Kdawg. AD wasn't a "miles ahead" of Landry prospect.

 

The point of Anderson and Okoye was in reference to you saying we should have taken Willis or Revis instead of Landry but that he was a need pick. Only in hindsight is that true. In terms of "at draft time' Anderson and Okoye. You are advocating BPA and bashing the Landry pick over it, but with BPA at the time WIllis and Revis would not have been picked over Landry who was the highest rated defensive player in the draft.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I agree with kdawg almost 100% But there are some nuances where teams draft for need, and it's ok or understandable.  Though, if you're trying to build your team that way, you're going to fail. 

 

The reason that teams generally trade UP in the draft is to target a player that they have highly rated at a position of need.  

 

Let's take this scenario: You've got the 20th pick in the 4th round, and currently they're on pick 10.  There is an OLB that you have a 2nd round grade on.  Very good value.

 

Situation 1: You're completely set at OLB. You've got your starters and your depth, and everything is good. Even though there's value in moving up, you're probably not going to do it. Now, if that player falls to you at your pick, you might select them as the BPA.  But you're not going to move up to get him, under most circumstances.  

 

Situation 2: You've got a hole at OLB.  Either starter or depth. Because there is a player available at a position of need, and you've got a high grade on the player, you don't know if that player will fall to you at your pick, you might trade up to get them.  That would be drafting for need, but could be understandable.

 

I don't think anything is ever completely black or white.  Heck, the RGIII trade/draft was drafting for need. 

[KDawg]

Agreed. As I said in OP, nothing is ever concrete.

[chipwhich]

Well if anyone could actually tell you the BPA, they would be a multi-millionaire.  BPA is a crap shoot.

 

The Redskins seem to always draft by need rather than BPA.

 

And they HATE picking lineman.

[TSO]

My solution to this problem is to trade the pick to where Landry is the BPA. In this case, it is a pretty extreme difference in their career outputs, and I don't know what picks I would have gotten and what I would have taken if they would have balanced out, but we are also having the conversation in the context of an extreme cherry picked case.

For those of you supporting extreme BPA, who thinks our first pick in the draft should be a QB?

Who thinks our first two picks should be a QB?

What happens if at the time of our first two picks, the clear BPA is a QB?

(An extreme cherry picked hypothetical situation, but I think it makes the point.)

 

You're assuming that, in that case, there would be a suitor for that pick and that they'd give fair value. We see often enough that it's not as simple as that.

 

As far as your question about extreme BPA goes, it wouldn't apply to me, cuz I stated my "extreme" version would be exclusively BPA in the draft with the exception of three positions: QB, K, P. If you have your guy at any of those positions, you certainly don't pick them. So maybe I'm not as extreme as others, lol. I will say, however, that if your backup QB situation is iffy, than yeah, I think at some point you do take a QB if he's the BPA. 

 

And even in my extremist version, I wouldn't draft a TE if I had three young studs there. That'd be silly. But when does that happen, lol? I mean, if there's a position that is filled from top to bottom relative to the amount of roster spots that position usually takes up on a football team, that's obviously going to change this whole "Extreme BPA" I'm talking about. But, yeah, I think that's clearly rare. 

 

 

True, but that would be PURE BPA. BPA with some need factored in would justify going with the best rated defensive player over RB. The pick wasn't a pure need pick, it was actually one that would fall in line with the methods mentioned by Kdawg. AD wasn't a "miles ahead" of Landry prospect.

 

The point of Anderson and Okoye was in reference to you saying we should have taken Willis or Revis instead of Landry but that he was a need pick. Only in hindsight is that true. In terms of "at draft time' Anderson and Okoye. You are advocating BPA and bashing the Landry pick over it, but with BPA at the time WIllis and Revis would not have been picked over Landry who was the highest rated defensive player in the draft.

 

I like how we're defining terms better here to differentiate the philosophies properly. Now we've got "Pure BPA" and "Extreme BPA", lol. Shows how nuanced the topic is. 

 

 

I would get into exactly how I'd weigh positions in my "extreme BPA" philosophy, but it'd take forever and I don't feel like thinking that hard right now, lol. 

[PeterMP]

You're assuming that, in that case, there would be a suitor for that pick and that they'd give fair value. We see often enough that it's not as simple as that.

 

As far as your question about extreme BPA goes, it wouldn't apply to me, cuz I stated my "extreme" version would be exclusively BPA in the draft with the exception of three positions: QB, K, P. If you have your guy at any of those positions, you certainly don't pick them. So maybe I'm not as extreme as others, lol. I will say, however, that if your backup QB situation is iffy, than yeah, I think at some point you do take a QB if he's the BPA. 

 

I think it is very unlikely that I'm not drafting BPA at a position and somebody else wouldn't be interested in the pick.

 

If people won't give up the proper "value" to move up and take the guy that is BPA, he probably isn't really BPA.  Though, I think people get stuck on the "value" idea.

 

What evidence is there that the "draft chart" makes any actual sense?

 

If I want to move back two slots in the 1st round and take a guy at 7 rather than 5 and all I can get for it is a 7th rounder, then that's what I get.

[Sea Bass]

 it was actually one that would fall in line with the methods mentioned by Kdawg. AD wasn't a "miles ahead" of Landry prospect.

 

The gap between pick 3 (where AP was projected) and pick 6 (where Landry was drafted) is pretty substantial.

 

SI graded AP at 4.89, Calvin Johnson at 5.05, and Landry at 4.34.  According to their grading system, AP is close to being a "Franchise Prospect" with multiple Pro Bowl appearances.  Landry is closer to being a "First-Year Contributor", who starts, but doesn't really go to the Pro Bowl.

 

I think that's as close to being "miles ahead" as you are going to get, when it's that high in the draft.

 

Landry never appeared above pick 6 in the mock drafts.  It was between Joe Thomas and AP for pick 3.  Most mock drafts had Landry going to Atlanta with pick 8.

 

Regardless of hindsight, we did ignore better players, who didn't fill a position of need, for a player who did.  That's the type of thing that can happen when a team drafts for need, whether it actually happened to us or not.  The example is still valid, even if it's only hypothetical.

 

[chipwhich]

The gap between pick 3 (where AP was projected) and pick 6 (where Landry was drafted) is pretty substantial.

 

SI graded AP at 4.89, Calvin Johnson at 5.05, and Landry at 4.34.  According to their grading system, AP is close to being a "Franchise Prospect" with multiple Pro Bowl appearances.  Landry is closer to being a "First-Year Contributor", who starts, but doesn't really go to the Pro Bowl.

 

I think that's as close to being "miles ahead" as you are going to get, when it's that high in the draft.

 

Landry never appeared above pick 6 in the mock drafts.  It was between Joe Thomas and AP for pick 3.  Most mock drafts had Landry going to Atlanta with pick 8.

 

Regardless of hindsight, we did ignore better players, who didn't fill a position of need, for a player who did.  That's the type of thing that can happen when a team drafts for need, whether it actually happened to us or not.  The example is still valid, even if it's only hypothetical.

 

 

 

This post is such nonsense.  If anyone, including SI could post the 10 best BPA for any draft they would be in everyones draft war room.

 

Who knows who the Redskins had as BPA.  Nobody.

 

Taking any draft and using that draft as an example is nonsense.

BPA is a myth.  If it was legit, every draft in the history of the NFL would be rewritten.

[elkabong82]

The gap between pick 3 (where AP was projected) and pick 6 (where Landry was drafted) is pretty substantial.

 

SI graded AP at 4.89, Calvin Johnson at 5.05, and Landry at 4.34.  According to their grading system, AP is close to being a "Franchise Prospect" with multiple Pro Bowl appearances.  Landry is closer to being a "First-Year Contributor", who starts, but doesn't really go to the Pro Bowl.

 

I think that's as close to being "miles ahead" as you are going to get, when it's that high in the draft.

 

Landry never appeared above pick 6 in the mock drafts.  It was between Joe Thomas and AP for pick 3.  Most mock drafts had Landry going to Atlanta with pick 8.

 

Regardless of hindsight, we did ignore better players, who didn't fill a position of need, for a player who did.  That's the type of thing that can happen when a team drafts for need, whether it actually happened to us or not.  The example is still valid, even if it's only hypothetical.

 

 

Peterson didn't go 3rd though, he went 7th, also SI is not a great source. Some believe AD slipped because of the injury concerns. Besides, position does play into draft pick projections and grading, hence Jamarcus was a #1 prospect even though many could see he had bust written on him. Safeties typically don't go top ten, so even when a great prospect comes along he's still not going to crack top 3, whereas a RB can, and that's position bias (though it can be argued position bias has some merit due to contribution levels). Sean Taylor was a once-in-a-generation prospect and he went 5th, so by the SI standards AD would have been miles ahead of him, which isn't true so you shouldn't be viewing Landry and AD the way you are. 

 

As pure prospects themselves, just looking at the players, Peterson was a fantastic RB prospect and Landry was the top rated defensive player by many experts. So if you're going pure BPA, and not considering position (which you'd have to do to say Landry was a need pick), the two are very close. If you want to consider that RB starter has more contribution likely than a safety because of the positions they play, well then you also have to consider who you already have at RB and how much your draft pick will contribute vs. a SS when you don't have one. So then you are looking at BPA w/ need factored in to a degree, in which case Landry made more sense for us at the time he was picked.

 

I agree with chip that people don't follow pure BPA. Need and position/contribution factor in. I agree with Kdwag that BPA should be the main factor and need just a small factor. If you're picking 3rd overall and an amazing QB prospect is available, but you have an elite QB in his prime, then you're either going to trade down or take someone else. If you are looking at 2 players rated closely and one is a position locked down already and the slightly lower ranked one is a need, then I'd go with the slightly lower one. However, if you're looking at a player rated significantly higher than anyone else available then you almost always have to take him regardless. That, IMO, is why we took Cousins, for example.

[TSO]

This post is such nonsense.  If anyone, including SI could post the 10 best BPA for any draft they would be in everyones draft war room.

 

Who knows who the Redskins had as BPA.  Nobody.

 

Taking any draft and using that draft as an example is nonsense.

BPA is a myth.  If it was legit, every draft in the history of the NFL would be rewritten.

 

I get what you're saying, but I think what the intent Sea Bass had in posting that was that there's probably a consensus there where the majority of scouts view a certain player as elite, or more elite, than other guys. I'd be shocked to learn that the Redskins didn't have AP as an overall higher prospect but he was devalued because of the lack of need for a RB.  

 

I think you're right, however, in that there's no real consensus as to what BPA is. It's going to be different for every team. That being said, I don't think scouts who study guys all year are going to come to such wildly different conclusions. Like, I don't think all the scouts grading, say, Phillip Thomas last year had him far from a 4th rounder one way or another, you know? That's where the whole BPA thing comes into focus... like, did we grab Phillip Thomas in the 4th even though we had him graded as an early 5th but because he was at a position of need we took him?

 

But, yeah, this debate is really about "Redskins BPA" more than just "BPA", lol. I think that's what you're getting at there. Maybe.    

[KDawg]

I didn't think it needed to be pointed out that BPA is different from everyone. And yes, there probably is some cases where there is WILD variation among teams.

 

I didn't even think to point that out as part of the debate as it seems fairly obvious. Different schemes mean different grades. You don't necessarily grade people based on general talent unless that talent is thought to be universal. You grade according to what you do with a slant on general skill.

 

Putting it in a different way, most of the "top tier" guys in a draft should be pretty versatile. As the draft gets deeper, schematic fits become more important. Alfred Morris is a perfect example of that. He fit our scheme.

 

Now, this is again where Peter's trade back style comes into play...

 

If I have a guy ranked as a BPA as the top guy on my board, but my thought and the general consensus among the people I've talked to is that he's going to be able to had a round later, NOW I trade back.

 

Basically, I believe grading is a complex system.

 

You have to have a schematic/team grade, a talent grade and a round grade and you have to figure out a way to make those things all fit together to compile your board.

[pjfootballer]

I think if I were a GM, I have my team ignore every media member putting a grade on players and go with my own system. I feel like some teams at the top get pressured into players. Jamarcus Russell for example. I'm not an expert, but by my own eyes, I could see from his days at LSU, he was far from being a franchise QB. I feel like Oakland either listened to the media too much and felt pressured to take him because of their situation and because of Kiper/Mayock type hype.

[KDawg]

I think if I were a GM, I have my team ignore every media member putting a grade on players and go with my own system. I feel like some teams at the top get pressured into players. Jamarcus Russell for example. I'm not an expert, but by my own eyes, I could see from his days at LSU, he was far from being a franchise QB. I feel like Oakland either listened to the media too much and felt pressured to take him because of their situation and because of Kiper/Mayock type hype.

 

I wouldn't ignore the media. I'd listen.

 

Think about where they're getting their info from? Themselves, sure. Especially the more knowledgeable guys. But they talk to several GMs. They have their finger on the pulse. You can really get a feel for what everyone thinks of a player by listening to what the media (Mayock, Kiper, McShay) has to say about a player. That's how you help to form your "General Board" and your "Round Grades". That will help you to determine if you can trade back to get a player. Sure, it's not 100%. It never will be. Teams don't share everything... But it's certainly a good way to get a ball park gauge on value of a player.

 

My own board would be based on schematic fit.

 

But if the general/round grade board has my BPA as a late second and I'm sitting in the mid first, I now know I have options.

 

1) I can acquire more picks and trade back and still get my guy and maybe another.

2) I can risk my guy being off the board when I get my second round pick and draft someone on my BPA board who has an overall first round universal grade, who is an excellent player, but isn't a perfect schematic fit... I'm banking on my BPA being there later.

3) I can reach for my BPA.

[DogofWar1]

Tiered BPA with respect to need.

The most important part, of course, is good scouting so that your tiers are accurate.

[darrelgreenie]

I know most teams make a board by ranking the players at each position.

I would guess that teams also have a separate draft board based on gathered information blesto/other teams scouts/gms coaches/agents and yes sometimes media. This board is used to guage where players on their draft board are in relation to the "national conesus" which helps them assess "value" and when/if to pull the trigger.

btw-I'm a BPA guy

[Sea Bass]

I agree with Kdwag that BPA should be the main factor and need just a small factor.

 

Then we agree.

[DeaconBlue]

 I generally agree on the BPA shaded towards need philosophy. How much "better" than others  a BPA is can make things a bit muddy though. If inexplicably a player that you and reasonably most of the rest of the league grades out as a solid 1st rounder falls to you somewhere in the 2nd yes its almost a no brainer. What if however the BPA only grades 5 to ten slots higher that the player of need. You can see how what on the face seems like simple rule can become a difficult decision. I just hope folks keep that in mind when the choices aren't so clear cut.

[CommanderDOOM]

BPA all the way.... Easy to say with our roster though.