Better days ahead. (Off season part 1 thread)

[That Guy]

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).

[30gut]

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.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by That Guy

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.

[DYoungJelly]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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?