Skip to main content

BPA vs Need: Old Argument; New Concept

It isn't that you don't always want to get the best player; you do. However, a team can't just draft the BPA and ignore all their weaknesses. It is a balance. Too much on one side tips the scale.

Talent on one side and need on the other. If they have a lot of talent, but the team doesn't have any need to place on that scale, it wont do the team any good. Likewise if the team has a great need, but they take a much lesser player it doesn't do the team any good.

You want it to be as balanced as possible. Certainly if it leans a little more one way, you want it to learn towards talent as you can find ways to use a little extra talent in a place you don't need it as much. Such as a talented RB you could split wide as a receiver or a you may be able to use the player on special teams, etc.

Like football, you want to be balanced. Offenses with very poor defenses don't historically (There are some exceptions) do well and vice versa.

Using this strategy doesn't rule out getting a flashy talent or getting a guy that fills a position of great need, instead it ensures that you get a little of both.

Applying this concept to our situation:
McFadden: Scale tipped towards talent 3:1
Jake Long: Scale tipped towards need 1:3
Chris Long / Vernon Gholston: Scale balanced
Glenn Dorsey / Sedrick Ellis : Scale tipped towards talent 3:2
Matt Ryan: Scale tipped towards talent 4: .1

This is just an example, the numbers are just examples so don't get upset about where I might have someone.

If you subscribe by the BPA philosophy, you might end up with a team strong in several areas and weak in others OR you might say you can draft for need in later rounds, which ensures overall talent level to be lower and therefore the team weaker.

If you subscribe by picking for needs, you end up with a roster that isn't good enough in any area to carry the team. Switching the strategy to BPA late helps, but the talent level isn't high enough to recoup what was lost. The flaw in the system is it relies heavily on the talent in the draft. Meaning a team needing offensive help in an offensively weak draft might have a worse draft than a team looking for defense in a defensively deep draft, as an example.

Using the balanced approach you not only have a chance to fill needs, but you also get the best possible players to fill those needs. You aren't going to fall prey to inconsistencies in the talent of the draft and you will get the best possible players in the areas you most need. Maybe you wouldn't fill as many holes as the "need" picks or get as high of an upper echelon talent as draft "BPA", BUT you would get closer to doing both.

Keep in mind, McFadden would still fit into this philosophy as one could perceive the need to be pretty high (Fargas 29, Bush unknown, Rhodes backup material). It just depends on what the team thinks.

Addition: So much goes into these player evaluations that the team considers talent, need, X's and O's, off the field issues, scheme fit, injury history, etc into them. For each and every pick they have to decide who is the best player to take based on all of the evaluations they have done. I think too many people think BPA or Need are the strategies when in fact teams consider a whole lot more. To suggest NFL teams use BPA or NEED as strategies is humorous. So to suggest we draft BPA or to fill a NEED is just as humorous if not more so. The goal should be to draft the best player we can, but that might not be the "BPA" (Which is arbitrary) or the guy at the biggest "Need."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oakland Raiders Swing for the Fences in 2016 NFL Draft

[embed align="center"]http://gty.im/153039819[/embed] These aren't your daddy's Oakland Raiders or even your younger self's Raiders. If anything, these are your newborn's Raiders or your puppy's Raiders. These are the Raiders we've never seen before. Indicative of the freshness of the franchise was their 2016 NFL Draft. No longer slave to a high draft pick and desperate needs, the theme of the draft for the Raiders was upside. It's as if general manager Reggie McKenzie got so used to hitting his draft picks out of the park that he started swinging for the fences. We'll have to wait a couple of years before we know if he struck out or if he'll continue his Ruthian ways. First, McKenzie boldly went with a safety at No. 14 overall. Kyle Joseph is coming off a torn ACL and fills a major need, but safety isn't a premium position. Only a handful of safeties have been drafted in the first 14 picks in the last 15 years and include names like Ea

2012 NFL Strength of Schedule

  Disclaimer Some strength of schedule models calculate strength of schedule based on the opponents the team has faced to date.  My model calculates strength of schedule based on all the opponents on a team's schedule.  The reason for this is because it reduces weekly fluctuations. For example, when a team plays their Week 17 game, in the traditional model their strength of schedule would change by 31 games...their Week 17 opponent's 16 games plus the additional game played by each of their prior 15 opponents.  In my model, when a team plays their Week 17 game their strength of schedule will only change by 15 games...one additional game for each of the opponents on their schedule.

The Raiders aren't who we thought they were....they're better

The Oakland Raiders are tired of being the team that will be good in a year or two. The team expects to win now and it is winning now. We thought the Raiders needed more talent. We thought that being in the playoff hunt was a year away for this team, but we were wrong. This isn't the team we thought they were, they're better. On Sunday, they moved to 3-3 on Sunday with a 37-29 win over the San Diego Chargers that wasn't close until the final minute. It was also the Raiders second road win of the season. The last time the Raiders had two road wins by their sixth game was 2011. Before that, a five-year streak from 1998-2002. The Raiders went 8-8 in 1998, 1999 and 2011 and narrowly missed the playoffs each year.  They made the playoffs in 2000, 2001 and 2002. They didn't have a losing record in any of those seasons because teams that can win on the road are usually pretty good. As the season matures, there is more and more evidence that some of the "best-case scenario