Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

For everyone who constantly screams BPA!
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Dallas Cowboys
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Baixis


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 1477
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 1:48 pm    Post subject: For everyone who constantly screams BPA! Reply with quote

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130507/baltimore-ravens-nfl-draft/?sct=uk_t12_a5

I've said it several times in several posts this spring, and I will ALWAYS say it - BPA IS OVERRATED! And if you've actually watched ANY drafts, you will have to admit this. Every year we see teams pick players (EVERY team and EVERY GM does this) who the 'experts' say was a great reach or a great value, but regardless of what those 'experts' say, each and every team has their own boards that none of the experts and none of us fans know about. So as soon as you start screaming (before the draft or during the draft) that we HAVE TO go BPA, or else Jerry and company are just the dumbest things in the world, remember what I've said and articles like the one above. Ozzy has done great for the Ravens, and he has gone NEED many, many times! As has EVERY team/GM in the league!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WizardHawk


Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 9050
Location: Hawkeye State
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not a big fan of BPA either. Pretty good article and no one can argue Newsome's success. He is in Ron Wolf's area as far as all-time great GMs.

BPA is OK for teams loaded or void of talent. Overall there aren't that many teams on those ends of the spectrum.

I'll take BPA at position of need everyday.
_________________

Kiltman on avy Pepper90 on sig
George Selvie Fan Club
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Baixis


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 1477
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WizardHawk wrote:
Not a big fan of BPA either. Pretty good article and no one can argue Newsome's success. He is in Ron Wolf's area as far as all-time great GMs.

BPA is OK for teams loaded or void of talent. Overall there aren't that many teams on those ends of the spectrum.

I'll take BPA at position of need everyday.


Exactly! I said it in another post that the REAL BPA is much closer to:

"BPA, who fits our system, most likely at a position of need"

I think it all comes down to how well the scouts do their jobs really.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flyingmonkey30


Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 6057
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baixis wrote:
WizardHawk wrote:
Not a big fan of BPA either. Pretty good article and no one can argue Newsome's success. He is in Ron Wolf's area as far as all-time great GMs.

BPA is OK for teams loaded or void of talent. Overall there aren't that many teams on those ends of the spectrum.

I'll take BPA at position of need everyday.


Exactly! I said it in another post that the REAL BPA is much closer to:

"BPA, who fits our system, most likely at a position of need"

I think it all comes down to how well the scouts do their jobs really.


I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about BPA. I agree with this to an extent. I am about to give a very extreme example to show why I don't entirely agree with the bolded statement above.

Lets say I am running a 3-4 system. I have the 2nd pick in the 2014 draft, and Teddy Bridgewater goes first, just for arguments sake. According to the bold statement, I would pass on Jadeveon Clowney to draft someone who fits my scheme better, because Clowney is a much better fit in a 4-3. Obviously, this is a crazy example, and Clowney is one of very few players who you build a scheme around. But the principle that you draft to fit a system bothers me, personally. I see where you're coming from with this argument, though.
_________________


Check out my draft thread!
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=490478t=447580&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baixis


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 1477
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flyingmonkey30 wrote:
Baixis wrote:
WizardHawk wrote:
Not a big fan of BPA either. Pretty good article and no one can argue Newsome's success. He is in Ron Wolf's area as far as all-time great GMs.

BPA is OK for teams loaded or void of talent. Overall there aren't that many teams on those ends of the spectrum.

I'll take BPA at position of need everyday.


Exactly! I said it in another post that the REAL BPA is much closer to:

"BPA, who fits our system, most likely at a position of need"

I think it all comes down to how well the scouts do their jobs really.


I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about BPA. I agree with this to an extent. I am about to give a very extreme example to show why I don't entirely agree with the bolded statement above.

Lets say I am running a 3-4 system. I have the 2nd pick in the 2014 draft, and Teddy Bridgewater goes first, just for arguments sake. According to the bold statement, I would pass on Jadeveon Clowney to draft someone who fits my scheme better, because Clowney is a much better fit in a 4-3. Obviously, this is a crazy example, and Clowney is one of very few players who you build a scheme around. But the principle that you draft to fit a system bothers me, personally. I see where you're coming from with this argument, though.


Obviously I think there are outliers and extreme cases and that might be one of them. However, look at this year. Many had Floyd as a top 3-5 pick, and we did exactly what you just said! The only difference was that we traded down, but ultimately, we PASSED on him in large part because our coaches didn't think he fit our system. Look at how the RBs got drafted this year. Everyone had Lacy going first, and Bell going in the 4th, or maybe 3rd. Surprise! I think you just have to take each instance/event on it's own, and consider it at the time. I'm not sure what I would do in your scenario. Clowney is a freak! But he's only a freak if used properly, and it's hard to scrap an ENTIRE defensive unit to mold around one guy.Hopefully we don't end up in that position!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WizardHawk


Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 9050
Location: Hawkeye State
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flyingmonkey30 wrote:
Baixis wrote:
WizardHawk wrote:
Not a big fan of BPA either. Pretty good article and no one can argue Newsome's success. He is in Ron Wolf's area as far as all-time great GMs.

BPA is OK for teams loaded or void of talent. Overall there aren't that many teams on those ends of the spectrum.

I'll take BPA at position of need everyday.


Exactly! I said it in another post that the REAL BPA is much closer to:

"BPA, who fits our system, most likely at a position of need"

I think it all comes down to how well the scouts do their jobs really.


I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about BPA. I agree with this to an extent. I am about to give a very extreme example to show why I don't entirely agree with the bolded statement above.

Lets say I am running a 3-4 system. I have the 2nd pick in the 2014 draft, and Teddy Bridgewater goes first, just for arguments sake. According to the bold statement, I would pass on Jadeveon Clowney to draft someone who fits my scheme better, because Clowney is a much better fit in a 4-3. Obviously, this is a crazy example, and Clowney is one of very few players who you build a scheme around. But the principle that you draft to fit a system bothers me, personally. I see where you're coming from with this argument, though.


There is certainly exceptions to every rule. The Andrew Lucks and Jadeveon Clowneys of the world fit that mold.
_________________

Kiltman on avy Pepper90 on sig
George Selvie Fan Club
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Baixis


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 1477
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WizardHawk wrote:
flyingmonkey30 wrote:
Baixis wrote:
WizardHawk wrote:
Not a big fan of BPA either. Pretty good article and no one can argue Newsome's success. He is in Ron Wolf's area as far as all-time great GMs.

BPA is OK for teams loaded or void of talent. Overall there aren't that many teams on those ends of the spectrum.

I'll take BPA at position of need everyday.


Exactly! I said it in another post that the REAL BPA is much closer to:

"BPA, who fits our system, most likely at a position of need"

I think it all comes down to how well the scouts do their jobs really.


I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about BPA. I agree with this to an extent. I am about to give a very extreme example to show why I don't entirely agree with the bolded statement above.

Lets say I am running a 3-4 system. I have the 2nd pick in the 2014 draft, and Teddy Bridgewater goes first, just for arguments sake. According to the bold statement, I would pass on Jadeveon Clowney to draft someone who fits my scheme better, because Clowney is a much better fit in a 4-3. Obviously, this is a crazy example, and Clowney is one of very few players who you build a scheme around. But the principle that you draft to fit a system bothers me, personally. I see where you're coming from with this argument, though.


There is certainly exceptions to every rule. The Andrew Lucks and Jadeveon Clowneys of the world fit that mold.


You could definitely say that about stud QBs, but I just don't know if there are any single, defensive players that I would change my entire defense for. I might have packages for sure, and I don't know if I would actually pass on someone like Clowney, BUT, I think I would probably try to work him into the system first, before I started changing everything. Truly great players, Like Ware and Ray Lewis, can and will be great in different systems. So if Clowney, or anyone, is truly THAT great, we could make it work. IMO though, there's no way Floyd was/is that great. Clowney? IDK.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flyingmonkey30


Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 6057
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baixis wrote:
flyingmonkey30 wrote:
Baixis wrote:
WizardHawk wrote:
Not a big fan of BPA either. Pretty good article and no one can argue Newsome's success. He is in Ron Wolf's area as far as all-time great GMs.

BPA is OK for teams loaded or void of talent. Overall there aren't that many teams on those ends of the spectrum.

I'll take BPA at position of need everyday.


Exactly! I said it in another post that the REAL BPA is much closer to:

"BPA, who fits our system, most likely at a position of need"

I think it all comes down to how well the scouts do their jobs really.


I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about BPA. I agree with this to an extent. I am about to give a very extreme example to show why I don't entirely agree with the bolded statement above.

Lets say I am running a 3-4 system. I have the 2nd pick in the 2014 draft, and Teddy Bridgewater goes first, just for arguments sake. According to the bold statement, I would pass on Jadeveon Clowney to draft someone who fits my scheme better, because Clowney is a much better fit in a 4-3. Obviously, this is a crazy example, and Clowney is one of very few players who you build a scheme around. But the principle that you draft to fit a system bothers me, personally. I see where you're coming from with this argument, though.


Obviously I think there are outliers and extreme cases and that might be one of them. However, look at this year. Many had Floyd as a top 3-5 pick, and we did exactly what you just said! The only difference was that we traded down, but ultimately, we PASSED on him in large part because our coaches didn't think he fit our system. Look at how the RBs got drafted this year. Everyone had Lacy going first, and Bell going in the 4th, or maybe 3rd. Surprise! I think you just have to take each instance/event on it's own, and consider it at the time. I'm not sure what I would do in your scenario. Clowney is a freak! But he's only a freak if used properly, and it's hard to scrap an ENTIRE defensive unit to mold around one guy.Hopefully we don't end up in that position!!!


I think that part of why guys get graded differently by every team is that scouts are biased. You can try to be as unbiased as you want to be, but you know the system you have, and, either subconsciously or not, you probably grade players according to how they fit your scheme to some degree. Not sure if that made any sense, I am partially studying for a final and partially thinking about this Laughing
_________________


Check out my draft thread!
http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=490478t=447580&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GeneralDissaray


Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 5133
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

True BPA is unrealistic and illogical. What if TE was the BPA in rounds 2, 3, and 4? I think the player has to fit an immediate need, or is at a position, where the current starter has 2 years or less left on the contract. I think you need to rank players in order of BPA, then decide if the player that is BPA does not fit an immediate need, is he better than the next player that does fit a need by a little, or by leaps and bounds. I think need should have a higher importance from rounds 1-3, round 4-7 should have a much higher BPA weighting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baixis


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 1477
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flyingmonkey30 wrote:
Baixis wrote:
flyingmonkey30 wrote:
Baixis wrote:
WizardHawk wrote:
Not a big fan of BPA either. Pretty good article and no one can argue Newsome's success. He is in Ron Wolf's area as far as all-time great GMs.

BPA is OK for teams loaded or void of talent. Overall there aren't that many teams on those ends of the spectrum.

I'll take BPA at position of need everyday.


Exactly! I said it in another post that the REAL BPA is much closer to:

"BPA, who fits our system, most likely at a position of need"

I think it all comes down to how well the scouts do their jobs really.


I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about BPA. I agree with this to an extent. I am about to give a very extreme example to show why I don't entirely agree with the bolded statement above.

Lets say I am running a 3-4 system. I have the 2nd pick in the 2014 draft, and Teddy Bridgewater goes first, just for arguments sake. According to the bold statement, I would pass on Jadeveon Clowney to draft someone who fits my scheme better, because Clowney is a much better fit in a 4-3. Obviously, this is a crazy example, and Clowney is one of very few players who you build a scheme around. But the principle that you draft to fit a system bothers me, personally. I see where you're coming from with this argument, though.


Obviously I think there are outliers and extreme cases and that might be one of them. However, look at this year. Many had Floyd as a top 3-5 pick, and we did exactly what you just said! The only difference was that we traded down, but ultimately, we PASSED on him in large part because our coaches didn't think he fit our system. Look at how the RBs got drafted this year. Everyone had Lacy going first, and Bell going in the 4th, or maybe 3rd. Surprise! I think you just have to take each instance/event on it's own, and consider it at the time. I'm not sure what I would do in your scenario. Clowney is a freak! But he's only a freak if used properly, and it's hard to scrap an ENTIRE defensive unit to mold around one guy.Hopefully we don't end up in that position!!!


I think that part of why guys get graded differently by every team is that scouts are biased. You can try to be as unbiased as you want to be, but you know the system you have, and, either subconsciously or not, you probably grade players according to how they fit your scheme to some degree. Not sure if that made any sense, I am partially studying for a final and partially thinking about this Laughing


That's exactly right actually. Most every team, if not all, tell their scouts to find players that fit their system, so in most cases, those players will have higher grades. And that's how it should be IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baixis


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 1477
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GeneralDissaray wrote:
True BPA is unrealistic and illogical. What if TE was the BPA in rounds 2, 3, and 4? I think the player has to fit an immediate need, or is at a position, where the current starter has 2 years or less left on the contract. I think you need to rank players in order of BPA, then decide if the player that is BPA does not fit an immediate need, is he better than the next player that does fit a need by a little, or by leaps and bounds. I think need should have a higher importance from rounds 1-3, round 4-7 should have a much higher BPA weighting.


That's exactly how I feel too. In the first 3 rds, I want guys who are as sure bets as they possibly can be, and will be around, contributing, for a long time. In rds 4-5, that's when I start looking at 'potential' and start swinging away in hopes of finding that diamond.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DKDALfan


Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 2259
Location: Denmark
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My opinion is that if you have a couple of guys rated very close to each other on the top of your board and one of them fills a need, then you take the guy who fills the need even tho he's ranked like #5 or something.

But if a guy is ranked clearly above everyone else, then you take the guy even tho he doens't fit a need. So for me it is a combination, going solely after need is just plain stupid and going BPA means that you risk investing ressources in a player who doesn't see the playing time that his picked slot warrants.
_________________
The lonely supporter of Phil Costa..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Northland


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 3780
Location: Ajax, Ontario
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sometimes I think we take these terms too literally. For me it's one of two options: Best Player Available that fills a need on your team, and Best Player Available that will fill a roster spot when we cut a veteran who is too expensive.
_________________
Northland
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Texas_OutLaw7


Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

FF Fanatic

Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 23296
Location: Cowboys Forum ROH Class of '12
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GeneralDissaray wrote:
True BPA is unrealistic and illogical. What if TE was the BPA in rounds 2, 3, and 4? I think the player has to fit an immediate need, or is at a position, where the current starter has 2 years or less left on the contract. I think you need to rank players in order of BPA, then decide if the player that is BPA does not fit an immediate need, is he better than the next player that does fit a need by a little, or by leaps and bounds. I think need should have a higher importance from rounds 1-3, round 4-7 should have a much higher BPA weighting.


Si.

BPA and Drafting for Need are absolutes. And are never a good practice for long term success.

What you need to do is create a board free from prejudice. Then, depending how closely prospects are ranked, you favor weaknesses more than strength. But you must ensure value is there.
_________________


In Redball I Trust!
The price of progress is trusting the process.
Heart. Leadership. Passion. Will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dboys88-82


Joined: 12 Jan 2011
Posts: 1761
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nearly every position could have been classified as a "need" for us this season. BPA was the right course of action. They stuck to their board fairly well. Ill judge the picks after i get a chance to see them in action. From what i can tell, we got some pretty good talent during the draft this season.
_________________

^^Thanks to Kempes for the sig.^^
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Dallas Cowboys All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group