I have a question for all of the BPA thinkers.

[Stymietee]

I'm confused as well...trying to figure out which dimension I am in...and how to get back...

What would be refreshing here is not having posters in the ready to attack mode. If neither of you are BPA regardless type guys the question really doesn't apply to you. It is not a theoretical question for people who want to select that player, and that player is one who plays at a position not of current pressing need. Again I'll say that there are plenty of folks like that here, give them a chance to respond as I cannot nor will not defend their reasoning, just their right to have that train of thought. All I'm asking of them is some clarity.

BTW: KBSO 83432 posted a link that might help both of you.

 

[j_y19]

What would be refreshing here is not having posters in the ready to attack mode. If neither of you are BPA regardless type guys the question really doesn't apply to you. It is not a theoretical question for people who want to select that player, and that player is one who plays at a position not of current pressing need. Again I'll say that there are plenty of folks like that here, give them a chance to respond as I cannot nor will not defend their reasoning, just their right to have that train of thought. All I'm asking of them is some clarity.

BTW: KBSO 83432 posted a link that might help both of you.

I read the link. How is that supposed to help? Do you know the author? Or what research he has done on all of the prospects? Or what reach he might have into the Redskins? These are the first questions I ask when I read speculative blogs like this. So, in short, I don't put much stock in most of these blogs. So I dont know how this is supposed to help.

As for am I BPA regardless, I'd bet I come as close as anyone on this forum. But I also don't believe you are going to have big gaps in BPA evaluation between picks 5-8 or so. So need can play a part when you have a choice between a couple of players worthy of your pick.

Finally, you need to look at you own postings as a clue to why people might be in attack mode with you. Veiled statements like "I am fortunately not a BPA" implies that those of us that believe in BPA are somehow less fortunate (or less enlightened). Cmon sty, you knew exactly what you were writing and what it's intent was. So to not expect a rebuttal is disengeous at best.

 

[Stymietee]

If we are to trade down...acquire multiple picks...and then address the O-line (which i agree is a bigger need than WR) then yes...I would be ok with that...BUT...this isn't the question you asked...and you avoided your own question to boot.


BTW What does "Fortunately for me Im not a BPA kind of thinker" mean? How does your line of thinking about a sport...make you fortunate? Does your ideas on a sport effect your daily life? Seems weird to me your thoughts on the business of a sport you watch...not partake or work in...would somehow make you fortunate. It effects you in no way...and by saying that you are either knowingly and unknowingly implying those who disagree with you are somehow unfortunate...which makes me laugh.

You have got to be kidding....right? Or are you just not able to keep up? There was a question asked of me as to what I would do if Williams was there at 5. My response was specific to that question. If it is your concern that my specific answer to that specific question does not address my original question....seek therapy!

Now let me respond to your second point. People draw conclusions based on a whole host of intrinsic and extrinsic stimuli. Some as is the case in my opening piece, become locked into a BPA type of thinking. While I am reluctant to say that taking such a rigid position is wrongheaded, I feel fortunate that for me it is not how I personally draw conclusions. I posted the question in order to get a better understanding into how they would justify that specific scenario because of the conundrum that it presented. It is something that some people do in consideration of others. Hench the thread title "A question for all of the BPA thinkers." Now that you know, at least be honest enough to realize for yourself since the question didn't apply to you that you jumped into this with a specific agenda in mind albeit with no understanding that I was not seeking clarification from you or anyone else not locked into a BPA regardless type thinking.

 

[obibyn]

You have got to be kidding....right? Or are you just not able to keep up? There was a question asked of me as to what I would do if Williams was there at 5. My response was specific to that question. If it is your concern that my specific answer to that specific question does not address my original question....seek therapy!

Now let me respond to your second point. People draw conclusions based on a whole host of intrinsic and extrinsic stimuli. Some as is the case in my opening piece, become locked into a BPA type of thinking. While I am reluctant to say that taking such a rigid position is wrongheaded, I feel fortunate that for me it is not how I personally draw conclusions. I posted the question in order to get a better understanding into how they would justify that specific scenario because of the conundrum that it presented. It is something that some people do in consideration of others. Hench the thread title "A question for all of the BPA thinkers." Now that you know, at least be honest enough to realize for yourself since the question didn't apply to you that you jumped into this with a specific agenda in mind albeit with no understanding that I was not seeking clarification from you or anyone else not locked into a BPA regardless type thinking.

 

[Sleepy T]

Fortunately for me Im not a BPA kind of thinker. My focus is now as always for players in the trenches where games are won and loss. Right now we have got to address the OL period. If that means trading down, even if Williams is there, that's what has to be done.

This is very true. To me, drafting a player not at an immediate position of needfor the future when you have so many holes on the team is ludicrous, even if you have to reach for a player (At a position of need) a little bit. The game is centered around the QB position, you are only going to go as far as your QB takes you. That is why QB protectors (OL) and QB pass rushers (DL, OLB) are at a premium. These positions are the ones you draft to build the core of your team.

A WR at #5??? Please. There will be another Amari Cooper in the draft next year, and the one after that, and so on. That guy won't make this team better day 1. When Wash. Is a playoff team, has a solid foundation and a Top 10 player slips to them at 20 or you fall in love with him and trade up a bit to get him.. Then you make that "luxury" pick for BPA. That's JMHO.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Here's my take

BPA seems to be the primary strategy used by teams that succeed and are contenders, year after year.

Of course the talent evaluation has to be solid.

What else needs to be said? Teams that stray from that strategy seem to perennially have holes in their roster because they never have players they've chosen appropriately and developed from the draft.

The draft is supposed to be about choosing and developing your team into the future. FA is about complementing holes on your team with appropriate choices, namely younger and reasonable contract players.

We are not going to fix everything this year on this team. We hired SM, a known Draft BPA strategist for exactly that.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

The '83-'84 Bulls were crap but they had one good player, Quinton Dailey who averaged over 18 pts/game. So entering the draft shooting guard was the only thing they did not need but they drafted the BPA, Michael Jordan

Now Cooper ain't no Micheal Jordan but the idea remains the same. Unless it's a special circumstances such as the Colts having a QB the BPA on their board, you take the best player every time. George Young said it best: you leave your depth chart out of the draft room if you want to maximize your picks.

 

[Stymietee]

The '83-'84 Bulls were crap but they had one good player, Quinton Dailey who averaged over 18 pts/game. So entering the draft shooting guard was the only thing they did not need but they drafted the BPA, Michael Jordan

Now Cooper ain't no Micheal Jordan but the idea remains the same. Unless it's a special circumstances such as the Colts having a QB the BPA on their board, you take the best player every time. George Young said it best: you leave your depth chart out of the draft room if you want to maximize your picks.

This is why I started this thread, so hang with me for a moment or two DGF. Here's my question about BPA. At what point do you not take BPA? Does it make a difference if BPA is exactly the same position two years running? three years? Yesterday on 980 I heard some talk about DC selecting a WR at 5, (doesn't have to be Cooper, just a WR) if he is their BPA do they take him or address other needs? Thanks!

 

[Caliskinsfan]

This is why I started this thread, so hang with me for a moment or two DGF. Here's my question about BPA. At what point do you not take BPA? Does it make a difference if BPA is exactly the same position two years running? three years? Yesterday on 980 I heard some talk about DC selecting a WR at 5, if he is their BPA do they take him or address other needs? Thanks!

If the WR is the BPA on their draft board, yes.

 

[Stymietee]

If the WR is the BPA on their draft board, yes.

Really? So despite the needs elsewhere, draft him? Care to give me a bit more insight as to why? I would appreciate it.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Really? So despite the needs elsewhere, draft him? Care to give me a bit more insight into why? I would appreciate it.

Yep. BPA means you go for the best player on your board. That board you trust your talent evaluator to create and implement.

What you may see as a 'need' this year is a short term strategy in the draft. Hopefully you can address those needs in FA.

If you go for talent and don't reach for need, you are more likely to win in the long term. Drafting is about long term strategy and development.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

@Stymietee

Here's a response on Hogs Haven to the exact scenario you laid out here that explains the thinking much more eloquently than I can




One issue is that "need" changes rapidly in the NFL


Last season the team didn’t need an OLB since they had Kerrigan & Orakpo… till Orakpo injured his pectoral muscle again.

The team’s need for a CB wasn’t as great during the draft as it was after DHall ruptured his Achilles.

Prior to the team’s last playoff game against Seattle, it looked like the quarterback position was set for the following 10 to 15 years.

In my opinion, your articles and comments have a tendency to put too strong an emphasis on short term need in draft strategy. In fact, you typically discuss BPA as though it were a myth, like unicorns and leprechauns. In fact, I believe that a firm commitment to a BPAstrategy will fill a team with talent — occasionally over-emphasizing a position — but in the end, building a strong organization.

A team is not built like a piece of engineered machinery, where having the right number of the right quality parts results in an efficient machine. There are too many intangibles involved. The nature of the NFL exaggerates this truism; it’s a rare team that goes from season’s start to season’s end with all the players in place and uninjured.

In the scenario you’ve painted in your article, there’s really only one clear choice, as I see it. The team drafts Amari Cooper. If nothing unexpected occurs, the Redskins are receiver-rich, or perhaps they trade a veteran. On the other hand, if Jackson or Garcon (or both) get injured during the season then an unanticipated need has been filled. With Jackson’s contract, I’ll be surprised if he’s here in 2016, and the same may be true of Garcon, so "need" also depends on the time frame you’re discussing.

Sure — if the franchise gets to a draft pick and they’ve got three guys who are all rated about equal on the board, the team will favor the one where the current talent or depth is the weakest. But drafting should be team-building for the long haul, not plugging holes for the coming season.

Some will say that only strong, playoff caliber teams can afford to think that way; but NOTthinking that way is the path to being perennial doormats.

Basically, you’ve written a short article with a premise (We already discussed why the Redskins shouldn’t be so quick to jump on either BPA at 5(Cooper or Mariotta)")

I disagree with the premise, so I disagree with the article and I come to a completely different conclusion.

Scot might surprise me and do the things you are talking about. If he does, I’ll be disappointed.

However, If he does what he’s said he will do, and what I expect him to do, then if we can’t trade out of #5 in the draft, I’ll look forward to cheering for Amari Cooper in Burgundy and Gold next season, and for many seasons after that.

One night in Bangkok and the world's your oyster

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need," McCloughan said on Friday. "You draft the best available football player on the board.... You can never have enough good football players on your team. If you take the best player, you’re not living in year one, it’s living in the future as well. He’ll help you in year one, but he’ll also help you year two and on."

by Bill-in-Bangkok on Mar 15, 2015 | 11:24 AM up reply

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Continued



Hmmmm
So the player really means very little to you? Say you saw a desperate need for Player A, and he also happened to be a very good player(may around 10ish). Would you champion for him over a slightly better prospect that we didn’t need as much?

Pain is just weakness leaving the body

Follow on Twitter: @PSUHomer

by Mark Tyler on Mar 15, 2015 | 11:43 AM up reply


So the player really means very little to you?
^^This is an accurate statement in the context that you made it. In other words, if the team had a vertical list of players numbered 1 – 300 that they had spent months developing, and the Redskins went on the clock, I would expect them to take the name at the top of the list — especially early in the draft when the players should be elite players expected to contribute to the franchise for many years (where the skills of those players are head & shoulders above nearly everyone else in the draft).

In my opinion of how NFL drafting should work, if the team believes that there is a clear and unmistakable difference in the quality of players which is reflected in their rankings, then you just take the guy at the top of the list. (Yes… I really believe that)

Now, I believe that there are places in that list where — say — the players from #95 – 102 are all graded approximately the same. They are all in a range where the team believes that these 8 players are close enough in talent & character that it is impossible to predict which of them is likely to be the most successful NFL player. In that situation, then, sure — the team chooses the player that fills a talent or depth deficiency. There is no violation of the BPA principles there, though need has been recognized and considered.

The other obvious opportunity that a BPA-focused GM has at his disposal is the trade-back, where the team moves to a position to get a guy that will enhance the team and gain additional draft pick(s), and this year’s draft seems to offer the Redskins the type of situation where that would be a good strategy.

But that’s not the scenario you painted. You said no trade-back was available and Cooper appeared to be the BPA (McCloughan being a strictly BPA guy regardless of need will likely pick Alabama’s Amari Cooper, who is widely considered a top 5 talent by scouts all across the league. He has size, speed, hands, character, runs good routes and had exceptional college production.). In your scenario, there’s no hesitation for me; Cooper is the name at the top of the list, and he becomes the newest Redskin.

BPA values the long term over the short term. I am a teacher now, but I spent the first 30 years of my working life actually working for a living, and nearly 25 of those years saw me managing or owning businesses. Each of those businesses had a strong service focus, and I had to constantly build teams and maintain them through constantly changing situations. I spent many years managing restaurants, which — I’m sure you know — is a high-turnover industry. While it is hardly comparable to building an NFL team in most ways, I think there were lessons in those years that sell me on the value of BPA. Some of those lessons are:

High performance teams are greater than the sum of their parts. For me, that means that ‘teams’ can’t be engineered — you have to hire talent when you see it, and find a way to work with it. Always hire good talent when it is in front of you — even if there is no clear identifiable ‘need’ for the person at the time.

Like McCloughan has said — there’s no single blueprint for what makes a great contributor to the team. Character counts. The manager (coach) has to find a way to keep the team motivated and performing as it continually morphs from one set of individuals to a new set.

Having people ready to contribute (play) means looking far into the future. If I hired someone and needed them to show up to work tomorrow and fill a key role, I’m already too late. If I’m doing my job, there is a steady flow of talented people being hired and trained, ready to step up when the need arises. Drafting for need is drafting too late.

If none of that explains my POV then take a glance at what I’ve chosen for my signature (not the quote about Bangkok — the other one from McCloughan).

One night in Bangkok and the world's your oyster

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need," McCloughan said on Friday. "You draft the best available football player on the board.... You can never have enough good football players on your team. If you take the best player, you’re not living in year one, it’s living in the future as well. He’ll help you in year one, but he’ll also help you year two and on."

by Bill-in-Bangkok on Mar 15, 2015 | 12:18 PM up reply

 

[BeaReylo]

Yep. BPA means you go for the best player on your board. That board you trust your talent evaluator to create and implement.

What you may see as a 'need' this year is a short term strategy in the draft. Hopefully you
can address those needs in FA.

If you go for talent and don't reach for need, you are more likely to win in the long term. Drafting is about long term strategy and development.

Exactamungo. The draft should be viewed as a marathon. The reason The Skins have always struggled with it is because they've used it as a sprint.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

This is why I started this thread, so hang with me for a moment or two DGF. Here's my question about BPA. At what point do you not take BPA? Does it make a difference if BPA is exactly the same position two years running? three years? Yesterday on 980 I heard some talk about DC selecting a WR at 5, (doesn't have to be Cooper, just a WR) if he is their BPA do they take him or address other needs? Thanks!

Others have pretty much given my answer. You take the best player because the draft is a long term investment, not a quick fix. To follow up I can't see too many scenarios where a WR would be the BPA 3 years running, you are probably more likely to get hit by lightning, but to answer your question yes you take BPA.

 

[SJ76]

BPA vs. Need is always the trick isn't it?


You all need an Oline period. And some Defense.

 

[skinsdad62]

in your scenario sty you take cooper . because last time i checked there are 7 rounds in a draft not one and "needs " can be gotten later

i think VT sparks scoffed at getting a WR and said you can get one next year and so on

the same can be said for any one of our needs

the draft is where you get blue chippers . you can fill holes in FA but not stupidly


we cant fix all our needs in one year .

in answer to j-ys question , hell yes you sprint to the board and draft williams the d/lineman why ? because hatcher is 33

 

[redskinsfan]

Conventional draft wisdom dictates that you take BPA that fits a need with your higher draft picks (e.g., selections in the first three rounds). The need qualifier is important since, as the Amari Cooper hypothetical shows, it demonstrates you use high picks to fill needs with young, talented players. If Cooper was BPA, it would be foolish to take him because (1) WR is not a pressing need and (2) we've got glaring holes at other positions.

After the third round, you can then start using the BPA analysis unencumbered by need considerations.

 

[countryroads316]

Conventional draft wisdom dictates that you take BPA that fits a need with your higher draft picks (e.g., selections in the first three rounds). The need qualifier is important since, as the Amari Cooper hypothetical shows, it demonstrates you use high picks to fill needs with young, talented players. If Cooper was BPA, it would be foolish to take him because (1) WR is not a pressing need and (2) we've got glaring holes at other positions.

After the third round, you can then start using the BPA analysis unencumbered by need considerations.

Disagree a big WR is a need

 

[redskinsfan]

Disagree a big WR is a need

However you may characterize WR as being a 'need,' it's low on the 'need' totem pole. The biggest need we've got is RT, then RG, pass-rushing OLB, free safety, and then big WR. It would make zero sense to take Cooper at #5. Zero.