BPA vs. Need vs. Value

Originally posted by OsBoogie:

Originally posted by Lobo49er:

If you think you can get a guy one round later, then you aren't maximizing value in your draft.

It appears to me you don't subscribe to the "draft for Value" philosophy.

I think you grade players and you base your board mostly off grade. Certainly some value is lost on position. Some is gained on position or slightly on need (mostly subconsciously), but in essence, I believe BPA is Value and what you are describing as value is not value but a big gamble and poor strategy.

I've never heard of a team subscribing to what you describe as "draft for value". BPA has long been "draft for value" in what I understand as trusting your board and getting the best players.

I agree with Lobo here, you can tell that Kyle & Lynch know about draft value, but they believe in getting guys that fit them.

The article by Peter King after their first draft was really illuminating, especially when talking about trading up for CJ.

Baalke on the other hand was all about getting value.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:
I agree with Lobo here, you can tell that Kyle & Lynch know about draft value, but they believe in getting guys that fit them.

The article by Peter King after their first draft was really illuminating, especially when talking about trading up for CJ.

Baalke on the other hand was all about getting value.

that just tells me they had their board set for their team. They saw value in that and were not worried about mock drafts and where they thought other players might fall? If anything they traded up for players based on "value" when a lot of people reading mocks said "WTF?". I think this is the case with most teams. I don't think anyone says "well, mocks have him in the 4th but I have him rated as a 3rd so I'll just wait till the 4th because of value".

Every team evaluates players differently based on what their need is and what system of offense or defense they play. They all see the same film but they may not see the same player. Just like a movie that one person loves and another one hates. Even with guys like Bosa and Williams there is disagreement. Then you have to wait and see what's available when your turn comes around and decide whether you draft the best guy on your board regardless of position or you reach and take a lower rated player at a position of need. Sometimes this works out in your favor and sometimes it doesn't but the GM has to take his best shot and live with it. We on the other hand have the luxury of second guessing. You have to have a little bit of luck and hope that every time your turn comes up there is a guy that not only fits your need but isn't too much of a reach. That's hard to do with 31 other teams involved so you always end up with some busts. That's why mock drafts may be fun but they are never right. I've never even seen anything past the first 10 or 15 picks go as projected.

Originally posted by OsBoogie:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

I agree with Lobo here, you can tell that Kyle & Lynch know about draft value, but they believe in getting guys that fit them.

The article by Peter King after their first draft was really illuminating, especially when talking about trading up for CJ.

Baalke on the other hand was all about getting value.

that just tells me they had their board set for their team. They saw value in that and were not worried about mock drafts and where they thought other players might fall? If anything they traded up for players based on "value" when a lot of people reading mocks said "WTF?". I think this is the case with most teams. I don't think anyone says "well, mocks have him in the 4th but I have him rated as a 3rd so I'll just wait till the 4th because of value".

No, but when talking about CJ, someone said "we should be able to get him later" in Lynch's press conference he said that they wanted him so didn't want to wait.

They also said the same when talking about Kittle.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:
No, but when talking about CJ, someone said "we should be able to get him later" in Lynch's press conference he said that they wanted him so didn't want to wait.

They also said the same when talking about Kittle.

exactly my point. again, they got the guy they wanted. Not worried about being able to get them later. It's who they want on their board. You can't gamble on assumed "value".

Originally posted by OsBoogie:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

No, but when talking about CJ, someone said "we should be able to get him later" in Lynch's press conference he said that they wanted him so didn't want to wait.

They also said the same when talking about Kittle.

exactly my point. again, they got the guy they wanted. Not worried about being able to get them later. It's who they want on their board. You can't gamble on assumed "value".

They did with Kittle.

My point is that there is such a thing as draft value, you can gamble on players you like falling if there are other players you like.

Our FO seem to prefer fit over value which I like.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:
They did with Kittle.

My point is that there is such a thing as draft value, you can gamble on players you like falling if there are other players you like.

Our FO seem to prefer fit over value which I like.

how do you figure?

if they had any idea he was this good, they would not have waited. They didn't have him graded that high.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

They did with Kittle.

My point is that there is such a thing as draft value, you can gamble on players you like falling if there are other players you like.

Our FO seem to prefer fit over value which I like.

Correct. Drafting based on value is a thing. It might be good, might be bad, but it exists. Where a FO thinks others have a guy ranked can influence their decision on when to take that guy.


"You could've gotten him later" is hard to prove. Then again, sometimes it's obvious. But should it matter?

You almost always should draft BPA over need.

Need plays a factor when your prospect's ratings are close to where the BPA isn't significantly better than the need guy.

Loser teams reach for need consistently and teams that maintain success load up on talent regardless of position especially when you consider a majority of positions field 2 or more of them at a time so it's not like having an All-Pro at one position doesn't mean you can't use another player at that same position.

So many excellent points being made here, this is a good thread.

You can make an argument so many ways here. My process is one that I don't think you can fit into a box. Certain situations, you can't just take the BPA. If that player is a QB for us as an example, we can't do that with Jimmy G in place, how stupid would a RB at 2 be right now if Barkley were in the draft this year instead of last? That's how I'm looking at the Bosa-Williams thing. Even if it's 100% true that Williams is the BPA and above Bosa it can't be by much and we already have a lot on the interior DL, I don't want to the like the Lions were with WRs forever. Buckner is a stud, AA isn't awful, ST gets a shot inside, we drafted him so let's see and Jones is a good NT. Lets complete our other weaknesses.

At other points in the Niners history, I'd say no matter what position it is in any round, take BPA. Not all situations can fit that philosophy. And you can't just draft for need or obviously you're gonna end up reaching and missing out on talent. It's all about the situation the franchise is in.

Value is getting a guy that fits your scheme and will make your team better, later in the draft than you have him going on your board.

Originally posted by OsBoogie:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

They did with Kittle.

My point is that there is such a thing as draft value, you can gamble on players you like falling if there are other players you like.

Our FO seem to prefer fit over value which I like.

how do you figure?

if they had any idea he was this good, they would not have waited. They didn't have him graded that high.

They obviously didn't know he was this good but they had him at 3rd/4th round, it was apparently part of the decision.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:
They obviously didn't know he was this good but they had him at 3rd/4th round, it was apparently part of the decision.

so he was BPA then at that time.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree than anyone uses this "value" strategy. I've never heard any GM or anyone in the league talk about anything other than going by their boards. This "value" thing seems like something for draftniks and fans. Create your own board and stick to it.

Originally posted by kirkscrafford:
Value is getting a guy that fits your scheme and will make your team better, later in the draft than you have him going on your board.

this is also BPA. The opposite is what I'm saying doesn't happen. Not taking a guy that is high on your board because you believe he's not as high on everyone else's or you read mocks saying he's a later pick. Never heard of this.

Originally posted by OsBoogie:

Originally posted by kirkscrafford:

Value is getting a guy that fits your scheme and will make your team better, later in the draft than you have him going on your board.

this is also BPA. The opposite is what I'm saying doesn't happen. Not taking a guy that is high on your board because you believe he's not as high on everyone else's or you read mocks saying he's a later pick. Never heard of this.

The concept exists, regardless of who's heard of it or not .