Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)

Is warped different than "flawed"?
Edit: you say you are going to call his opinion of bpa "different". Not wrong or warped. You clearly though called it flawed which is what spawned all of this.

Is warped different than "flawed"?
Edit: you say you are going to call his opinion of bpa "different". Not wrong or warped. You clearly though called it flawed which is what spawned all of this.You mean this?... If your honest view is that BPA ignores your own team then I believe your understanding is flawed.

you can't arbitrarily redefine understood terms using the same name and just assume it's a good idea.

water - that gooey yellow stuff that comes out of trees. "why are you guys drinking water, water's not for drinking." go onto four other boards and ask them what bpa means, and i promise none of them are going to mention team needs, positional weaknesses, expiring contracts and all of that. I called it warped because it differs from basically everyone that's not you. I mean, come on, you're saying bpa prevents you from drafting for need, while at the SAME TIME saying that you consider needs (team weaknesses would increase the value over average of draftees at that position. you use team strengths reducing the value of draftees instead, but it's literally the exact same thing) while figuring out what the bpa actually is. it's speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

and again, i don't know how something scot actually said in an interview last year somehow becomes "speculation or unknowable" in your mind. that's just weird.

you can't arbitrarily redefine understood terms using the same name and just assume it's a good idea.



water - that gooey yellow stuff that comes out of trees. "why are you guys drinking water, water's not for drinking." go onto four other boards and ask them what bpa means, and i promise none of them are going to mention team needs, positional weaknesses, expiring contracts and all of that. I called it warped because it differs from basically everyone that's not you.



and again, i don't know how something scot actually said in an interview last year somehow becomes "speculation or unknowable" in your mind. that's just weird.


Simple. He will just redefine redefine therefore he is not really redefining.

So I guess that settles it.

No point in discussing different draft philosophies and what they entail.

BPA takes only the current year into account and completely ignores your own team.

BPA GMs could result in them drafting 7 WRs or 7 QBs.

Good discussion.

the problem is you kept using the term bpa, but your definition of bpa is closer to needs based drafting than an actual bpa strategy. it makes things really confusing, especially when mentioning that GMs use a mix gets met with "no, you always use bpa, while accounting for team needs, which is totally bpa."

matt millen used bpa and kept taking skill players in detroit and it worked out horribly for him (he/the lions may also just be bad at talent evaluation). green bay used it to trade up and steal rogers, which worked out great for them. new york used it in the 2000's when they drafted DL guys they had no place for... turns out you really can't ever have too many pass rushers.

true bpa picks aren't really that common though, because it can leave you in a hole, and coaches aren't interested in total talent over a 20 year span, they care about winning games this year, cause that's the only way they can stay employed. and most GMs do listen to their coaches, since everyone wants to win and giving coaches guys they don't want is generally a bad idea.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Redskins/status/702644307627343873?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp %5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Wow...gotta get this guy back on the field. Good to see him workin and training

https://mobile.twitter.com/Redskins/status/702644307627343873?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp %5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet



Wow...gotta get this guy back on the field. Good to see him workin and training


This guy is the wildcard rite now. Huge glaring weakness is the passrush and we might have the answer.

the problem is you kept using the term bpa, but your definition of bpa is closer to needs based drafting than an actual bpa strategy. it makes things really confusing, especially when mentioning that GMs use a mix gets met with "no, you always use bpa, while accounting for team needs, which is totally bpa."....

matt millen used bpa and kept taking skill players in detroit and it worked out horribly for him (he/the lions may also just be bad at talent evaluation). green bay used it to trade up and steal rogers, which worked out great for them. new york used it in the 2000's when they drafted DL guys they had no place for... turns out you really can't ever have too many pass rushers.
We have different views of BPA and drafting and my view of BPA isn't needs based.

Needs based drafting means you can potentially pass on higher rated/graded prospect to draft a player that fits a need; in the manner punch it in outlined.

That is nothing like how I think a GM with a BPA would approach a draft. A BPA GM would always take the higher rated prospect. Needs based, as outlined by punch the higher rated prospect may be passed over in favor of addressing a need.

Another and really the key area where we disagree is I don't think GMs that are BPA advocates ignore their own team and I think they have longer focus then a 1 year snapshot of their team. So when a GM espouses a BPA philosophy its not gonna result in drafting 7 WRs or 7 QBs. In my view they're gonna ask themselves is this prospect the BPA on my team?
For example the Vikings when they had Chester Taylor, he was a 1,000 yard RB but Adrian Peterson was still a better prospect. Or when it was rumored that Scott would have taken Gurley even though we had Alfred.

I have no idea what Matt Millen's draft philosophy was; all I know is he wasn't good at drafting players regardless of his strategy.

And when it comes to pass rushers I think any GM regardless of BPA or need based will agree that you can never have enough. And depending on scheme you could potentially have anywhere from 4-7 positions where you could have a pass rusher from DL to LB to DBs.

To each there own, when I look at drafting history for GM's that I know espouse BPA (Scott, Casserly, Wolf, Thompson,Schneider) I think it bears out that they take into account whether the BPA prospect is also the BPA on their own team.

Don't paint me as a strictly drafting for needs guy though. If we get into the third round for example and the safety pool is all but dried up I certainly do not suggest reaching for a safety over taking the "damn good", (there are those words again), wr prospect sitting there. Even though imo we "need" a safety over a wr at this very moment. Its just not that black and white. There are so many things that go into the equation. How far off is your team from competing for a championship? After all - that is the goal of all of this. At this moment , imo, we are a few defensive players away from competing from said championship. So, again, if there is, for example, a wr who grades out SLIGHTLY higher than a ILB sitting at, for example, pick number 21 or 42, based on our teams chances of making some noise next year, I am pulling for the ILB or the BPA on the defensive side of the ball - secondary, dline, ilb - whatever. That doesn't mean I am drafting for need to the point that im going ilb at all cost at any point in the draft. That would be silly.