1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

BPA vs. NEED

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by His'nBeatYour'n, Feb 22, 2013.

  1. pocoloco

    pocoloco I'm your huckleberry Club Member

    8,444
    5,721
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    North Chicagoland
    If I remember correctly, Merling and Vontae Davis slipped down from their original draft projection and we drafted them. They were, arguably, the BPAs on Mel Kiper's board or something.
     
  2. AdamC13

    AdamC13 Well-Known Member

    2,148
    1,398
    113
    May 3, 2010
    I am a big believer if you have a high 1st round pick then taking the BPA is the sound strategy. There are only so many blue-chip players available, passing on one for a player at a position of "need" does not pay off in the long run.

    After the blue-chip talent is gone then need becomes a bigger factor when making a selection.
     
    His'nBeatYour'n likes this.
  3. miamiron

    miamiron There's always next year

    2,354
    1,402
    113
    Jan 4, 2008
    or
    Mike Iupati
    Maurkice Pouncey
    Demaryius Thomas
    Dez Bryant
    Jermaine Gresham
    Devin McCourty
    Earl Thomas
     
  4. LBsFinest

    LBsFinest Banned

    3,972
    2,062
    0
    Jul 24, 2012
    I'll volunteer.
     
  5. LBsFinest

    LBsFinest Banned

    3,972
    2,062
    0
    Jul 24, 2012
    I was always under the impression that when you draft "best player available" most of the time that guy does play a position of need, just maybe not your top need. for example lets say your top needs are WR, pass rusher, and S...and OT is also a need but not as high up on the list at those other positions, and somehow your top rated tackle unexpectedly falls to you, then you take him. well you filled a need, it just wasn't as glaring a hole as some other positions.

    someone mentioned the TE Travis Kelce at 12 could be an example of BPA...well guess what, TE is a need.

    there's a good chance one of the DT's (Floyd, Richardson, Star) could be available at 12 and they'll be the PERCEIVED (key word) best player available...but if we get a long term deal done with Starks, would you be content with taking one of them? over say Patterson or Keenan Allen? or even over a Chance Warmack or Jonathan Cooper, because at least OG is considered a need whereas defensive tackle at that point wouldn't be, you have Soliai, Starks, a former 1st round pick in Odrick for depth, etc. i dont think I would be okay with that decision.

    I'm pretty sure Ireland's logic as to why he waited until the 6th round last year to take a wideout was because every time we were on the clock, no WR was the best player available in his mind. well we saw the repercussions of that line of thinking...can we say Vontae Davis was the BPA when Clay Mathews was still available? probably not, but that was an example of the opposite in my opinion, that was need taking precedent over BPA.

    but I'm damn sure Egnew wasn't the BPA in the 3rd over TY Hilton. I don't think Josh Kaddu was the BPA in the 5th over Marvin Jones. was John Jerry the BPA when Jimmy Graham was still on the board? sometimes you just need to say "okay this guy might not be the highest rated player left, but I can't neglect this massive hole we have at WR or tackle or TE anymore."
     
  6. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    So i'm clear...you thought in the decision of BPA vs. Need that BPA was the pretty much the same thing as need?

    [​IMG]
     
  7. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    Good points. I'd tend to agree. Some drafts have no obvious blue chippers, like in 2005 when Alex Smith, Ronnie Brown, Braylon Edwards, Cadillac Williams, and Cedric Benson were the best BPA in the top 5.

    But I don't think the debate necessarily exists with only blue chip players in mind.
    The three best players out of that draft are Aaron Rodgers (24), Demarcus Ware (11), and Frank Gore (65).

    The Dolphins at that point had AJ Feely, and Gus Frerrote. They needed a QB. Should have drafted Rodgers instead of going BPA with Brown. (in hindsight)
     
  8. His'nBeatYour'n

    His'nBeatYour'n Glass Ceiling Repairman

    4,454
    1,910
    0
    Dec 10, 2007
    New York
    Good points, though I think you make the mistake of assuming that Matthews, Hilton, Jones, and Graham, were on the top of the BPA list at the time, when only hindsight tells you that. That is my main point, BPA is only a guess. The top 20 players from any given draft class are found in every round and free agency. But need is accurate.
     
    Larryfinfan likes this.
  9. Triggercut

    Triggercut Well-Known Member

    717
    388
    63
    Aug 12, 2011
    Funny, just watched part of a show on the draft that Brady was chosen in. No other pick by NE worked, they all sucked except for one. That's all it takes, only one- other than this show, no one cares who else was taken that year, who else failed.

    you choose best player available at a position of weakness/need, however, you must choose a player that for some incomprehensible reason is still available far past his due.
     
  10. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    Need is the most over used term in the draft dictionary IMO. We need WRs and that's about it. We have starter quality players at every other position. Depending on which FAs we bring back, CB, TE and OT could join the list. Even then there is a well established hierarchy for slotting players based on position. Premium positions are QB, LT, DE and CB will always be more sought after bc of supply and demand. Next are DT and LB, then C, TE, WR, OG, S.

    IMO reaching is using a premium pick on a non premium position, especially if the player lacks home run potential.

    Picking at 12, if there is no WR who offers good value (home run potential) then either trade down, take a starter caliber guy at a premium position or a pro bowl caliber guy at a non premium position. Warmack is a great prospect who doesn't play a premium position, meaning there will be starting caliber prospects at his position available in the later rounds. Since we already have 2 starter caliber OG I'd be hesitant to take him. For a guy like Patterson he makes sense if you think he has home run potential bc we have crap at WR. If not, pass bc there are starter caliber players at his position who will be available later on. You can't say the same about CB, pass rusher, LT or QB. You typically wont find many starter types with non premium picks and the home run guys rarely last past the top 20 or so picks. We have RT so QB is off the list at 12, but CB, DE and OT should get a hard look before we think about any other position, unless its a home run type of prospect.
     
  11. CANDolphan

    CANDolphan Well-Known Member

    1,006
    546
    113
    Feb 18, 2012
    I'd go ahead and say no, DE is a pretty heavy need.

    I'm just stunned at reading this thread. Absolutely stunned. GMs don't know more than the average fan? Is that for real?
     
  12. Triggercut

    Triggercut Well-Known Member

    717
    388
    63
    Aug 12, 2011
    your name is crazy
     
  13. GMJohnson

    GMJohnson New Member

    14,291
    5,841
    0
    Jan 27, 2010
    If DE is a need then we are in good shape this year.

    I'm constantly stunned by that. A fan is who thinks he is on par with a GM is average at best.
     
  14. If miami had drafted Joe Flacco in 08 and it was their turn to draft and Andrew Luck and Cecil shorts were both available. If you were the GM who would you pick n why? Need or BPA?
     
  15. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Poco is the world's huckleberry. :yes:
     
  16. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin Premium Member Luxury Box Club Member

    42,442
    24,982
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    A team full of need-based picks is likely a team that doesn't have the overall talent level capable of being competitive. You don't become great by being average, and average is pretty much what you're settling for when drafting for need than talent.

    Drafting for need is kinda of an oxymoron really b/c how many draftees will step in as rookies and perform at a level better than a stop gap FA? not many.

    With rookie contracts being shortened it makes more sense to draft BPA with a faster turnover rate involved. Plus, if you draft BPA you have a better chance of not needing to dish out big contracts to re-sign players b/c the talent behind them will be more capable of stepping in to fill the void. Then there's injuries to worry about; BPA obviously provides you with more talented depth than need-based drafting.


    Bottom line is- you use the draft to build for the future & improve the overall talent level and use FA to fill immediate needs b/c a bandaid veteran on a 1 year contract will likely outperform most rookies.

    The problem I saw with Parcells' drafting was he seemed to care too much about need, doubling up at positions and costing himself value in the process, and seemingly having certain predetermined players he would draft even if it meant reaching a round or two. IMO that's a big reason we're sitting at below .500 right now.

    2008: Shawn Murphy was a big reach in the 4th round.... and we doubled up at guard & running back and tripled at 3-4 DE.

    2009: Pat White, Parcells' masturbatory selection, was well over-drafted. Parcells wasn't gonna leave the draft w/o him even if it foolishly meant using 2a. He skipped addressing big holes at corner in FA (despite having the cap space available) which forced us to take 2 in the draft despite there being some great talent on the board at our picks (Hakeem Nicks being one) which I thought was a terrible move b/c we were also in bad shape at WR, which we also took two of. I read where we essentially allotted our 3rd round pick to Pat Turner ahead of time, and Parcells obviously over-drafted his hometown boy John Nalbone in the 5th round when we could've easily moved up a few spots for the more highly regarded James Casey.

    2010: Koa Misi was more of a need pick and it cost us Gronkowski. Jerry seems like he was a needs pick, and it cost us Jimmy Graham (whom Parcells actually thought was loaded in talent but obviously had a problem with drafting a one dimensional TE) or Eric Decker who was tremendous 3rd round value at the time.
     
  17. The only way to really do it is to do a complete talent evaluation of your team, the players in the draft, and the ones available in FA. Then you chose who to add based on who is going to have the most impact on your team. Sometimes that means doubling up on talent at a postion and sometimes it means filling a void on your roster.
     
  18. Larryfinfan

    Larryfinfan 17-0...Priceless Club Member

    I agree with you on what defines a 'reach', but we are never privy to (even after the drafts) the teams' draft board so under that guise, any player we as fans deem a 'reach' is invalid since we never really know where that guy was on the teams' original board.... We have to trust that the team had a certain guy ranked highly as to why they took him.

    I think we'd find that each team's board is skewed towards each team's needs and MO. If the group is an offensive minded group, we'll see they lean towards picking skill players and if they are a defensive minded group, we'll see them lean towards those players... I see Ireland as more of D minded guy or at least that's been his mo so far.

    As to strictly BPA vs Need, I think that also depends on where the personnel on the team is at the point of the draft...For example, all the draftniks pretty much have us taking Cordarelle Patterson, but if we sign Wallace in FA, that dramatically changes what they might want to do with #12....maybe it's then an edge rusher or if one of the TEs suddenly look to be top 20 players... If we lose Long and don't replace him, OL could be a way they want to go...

    Another issue is what the draft offers... Tannyhill pick was absolutely a pick of need, but it was a QB rich draft so it made sense to do so. This draft is not so much, we likely won't see KC taking a QB even tho they have a need there.

    There is a balance of need and BPA that each team has to agree on in each particular draft... I think we all may have a better 'guestimate' of which direction Ireland may be going in after FA...like that isn't stating the obvious... There are very few teams that can pick strictly on BPA...each team has some holes and needs that could be filled...even the 49ers... I don't believe any team has a hard fast rule that says "we pick the BPA on our board at our spot no matter whether our dire need of (you name the position) who is near and or who we may not be able to fill later in the draft is available or not...
     

Share This Page