Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)

Just for the record I am in no way wanting to reach for needs. Im simply saying if there is a wr sitting at 21 that grades out slightly higher than a Defensive player we need than imo go with the need.
And yea the entire draft is a crapshoot.

you don't choose to draft 100% for need or 100% for bpa. it's a mix, it's always a mix. if the bpa ends up being a WR in all 7 rounds, then 4 of those guys aren't making the roster.

in a way it's all semantics, but i think as long as you go for the highest total projected value with your picks, you'll end up alright. it's not like baseball where you can have 25 pitching prospects and trade them away 3 or 4 years down the line. roster slots are limited, nfl careers are short, and trades are very very rare. if you take bpa to the point where you overload a position, that's lost value in that draftees will either have to be cut or have a very limited role that hurts their progression over the course of the contract (or possibly limit their willingness to resign).

drafting a wr makes sense since 2017 is a year where it'd add a lot of flexibility in regards to PG and DJ and what the future WR corp is going to look like. so even though there's not much need in 2016, it'd still project as a spot with high potential value over the entire rookie contract (which is all that's guaranteed to the team).

last year our RG pick tended more towards the traditional need than bpa (of course they'll always say he was the highest our their board), but again, high value. we needed someone to start right away, and he was able to do that and do it pretty well. since we had already signed like 14 guys on the DL in free agency, drafting there would have had smaller dividends, especially when you consider the depth of talent that was going to be available the next year (and scot is very big on plotting out draft plans and potential/positional draft/FA availability 1-2 years in advance).

First I think Scott and most GM process the draft independent from future drafts. There is simple to much fluctuation between prospects from year to year.

Second and maybe more importantly is BPA includes your team. That's why a BPA draft wouldn't result in drafting 7 WRs. If your honest view is that BPA ignores your own team then I believe your understanding is flawed. BPA means the prospect is both the BPA in the draft at the time AND also the BPA (higher graded) at that position on YOUR team.

It's not semantics for me because I disagree that passing over a higher rated prospect for a lesser rated prospect can never be called BPA. As in the case of punch it in 2 posts ago. But there are several ways to skins a cat.

First I think Scott and most GM process the draft independent from future drafts. There is simple to much fluctuation between prospects from year to year.

Second and maybe more importantly is BPA includes your team. That's why a BPA draft wouldn't result in drafting 7 WRs. If your honest view is that BPA ignores your own team then I believe your understanding is flawed. BPA means the prospect is both the BPA in the draft at the time AND also the BPA (higher graded) at that position on YOUR team.

It's not semantics for me because I disagree that passing over a higher rated prospect for a lesser rated prospect can never be called BPA. As in ghetto case of punch it in 2 posts ago. But there are several ways to skins a cat.

if you're including your team (ie guys on the last year of their deal) then it's not really about getting the best player period. green bay took aaron rogers because he was the best player available, even though they had brett favre (who started for 3 more years). that's bpa. he added exactly 0 value for 3 years and did not improve his team at that position, so i think your understanding may be flawed, or a convenient way to deflect criticism. by that logic we would take 0 WRs this year, cause none will be better than PG or DJ, and then in 2017, we'd potentially end up with crowder as our #1 and nothing else. you can't just look at things in a vacuum, which means you're accounting for need in some respect.

and scot does look at future years. he's said so, that's why he didn't really look at CBs last year, because he thought this year's crop was better. same for FA. for future drafts he's looking more at positional availability than at specific guys.

There is no exact science. If there is one it has been proven wrong a million times. Scot will evaluate everything from team needs to bpa in his opinion. Judging by our needs and this upcoming draft Id say Defense is what's for dinner.

Second and maybe more importantly is BPA includes your team. That's why a BPA draft wouldn't result in drafting 7 WRs. If your honest view is that BPA ignores your own team then I believe your understanding is flawed. BPA means the prospect is both the BPA in the draft at the time AND also the BPA (higher graded) at that position on YOUR team.

When did McLovin say this?

if you're including your team (ie guys on the last year of their deal) then it's not really about getting the best player period. I can't imagie (other then Vinnie-Dannny) that any FO evaluates their team in a 1 year vacuum.

...by that logic we would take 0 WRs this year, cause none will be better than PG or DJ, and then in 2017, we'd potentially end up with crowder as our #1 and nothing else. you can't just look at things in a vacuum, which means you're accounting for need in some respect.To be clear, the above is based on some 1 year vacuum logic that you invented. Not my view.

When a team evaluates the BPA they are doing so against their own team not just this year but headed into the future. And maybe for you none of the WR prospects are grade out higher then our current WRs but that is not the case for me in the slightest.

and scot does look at future years. he's said so, that's why he didn't really look at CBs last year, because he thought this year's crop was better.Looking at future years and basing draft day decisions on future drafts are 2 completely separate things. I don't claim to know why Scott did or didn't make certain draft decisions. I think that type of speculation is pointless not to mention unknowable.

its strange how your warped version of bpa includes looking at current and future needs. that'd mean it's not just about picking the best player period and accounts for need. which means your ever changing definition has no relation to its common usage and generally agreed upon meaning. bpa is generally choosing the best player available at your spot in a vacuum with regard to your team. like aaron rogers or detroit taking WRs year after year. needs is "we need a NT, so let's take an NT."

obviously no one is 100% bpa or 100% needs, it's a mix, and good gm's use game theory and value propositions (over average) to determine the best pick, while accounting for external information like future contract expirations, possibly lower perceived value among other teams, etc. i don't know why you keep trying to redefine bpa as something it's not while also insisting that you're mangled view of the term is somehow the right one.


as to your other points:

-which wr prospects are better than PG or DJ in 2017? who should we take? lets not be vague. otherwise it comes off as a premature i told you so without actually telling us anything. so, let's hear it.

-things that scot has said are not speculation or unknowable, so i have no idea where that response is even coming from.

They really took a huge step forward in 2015. Indeed best days are ahead.

its strange how your warped version of bpa includes looking at current and future needs. that'd mean it's not just about picking the best player period and accounts for need. which means your ever changing definition has no relation to its common usage and generally agreed upon meaning.
Classic. My definition of BPA is different from yours therefore mine is warped? Okay.

My definition of BPA has not changed. These are from previous draft philosophy conversations:
Why? (actual question because im curious how other people view the draft)

The only caveat I have 4 best player available isn't really a caveat. But best player available applies not only to the drafted prospect but to the players on your own team. Meaning if the player you have on your team is better than the player that's available in the draft then that player cannot be the best player available because he's not better than the player that you currently have. But for me that is the only caveat the best player available.
BPA would not result in drafting 9 WRs. But I think you know that. BPA prevents a team from having to draft from need. Which to me is a good thing. BPA allows an organization to take the draft as it comes and build the best team possible. Imo when a team allows need into the draft process it skews evaluations because a team will always 'need' something and just because you 'need' something doesn't mean that 'something' will be there when you pick so you reach.

But you know who will be there? The BPA. It might not be what you "need" but getting the BPA will improve the team. A need team can tell themselves ~'well the difference between these 2 players isn't 'that' large or outright skew the evaluations altogether and rank players higher then others due to position. Which opens the door to selecting inferior players. Also I believe a good FO needs to have a forward mindset, you also have to look into the future as you project not just the current team but the team going forward. So while WR might not be "need" this year what are you gonna next year? Draft a WR in the 1st round next year and reach a little because you "need" a WR and end up selecting a WR that is slighty worse then BPA ILB/DL/S/CB because you "need" one?

What you're doing is building a team only 'slightly' worse then the team that could have been built via BPA. And in the NFL the difference between winning and losing is the accumulation of 'slight' differences in quality.

bpa is generally choosing the best player available at your spot in a vacuum with regard to your team.I'm not going to call your view warped or wrong, just different. I don't believe NFL GM that follow the BPA philosophy approach the draft in the manner you describe it.

-things that scot has said are not speculation or unknowable, so i have no idea where that response is even coming from.....This...that's why he didn't really look at CBs last year, because he thought this year's crop was better..