Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)

[punch it in]

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.

[That Guy]

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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by That Guy

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:

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

Originally Posted by 30gut

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..

[JPPT1974]

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

[punch it in]

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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by punch it in

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?

Originally Posted by 30gut

... If your honest view is that BPA ignores your own team then I believe your understanding is flawed.

[That Guy]

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.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by That Guy

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.

[30gut]

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.

[That Guy]

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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by That Guy

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.

[Chico23231]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Redskins/...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

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

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

https://mobile.twitter.com/Redskins/...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.

[punch it in]

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.

[kingj]

Rappoport says skins are keeping all options open including tagging cousins and trading him