BPA vs. Need vs. Value

Originally posted by Lobo49er:
The concept exists, regardless of who's heard of it or not .

I don't believe it's exists/is used professionally. Agree to disagree I guess.

I think the first thing you need to do is identify the depth and quality of each position group. Then you draft players in those groups without forcing yourself to pick certain position groups over others. If you do that, over the year's the talent of your team should continue to get better.

One thing that I think people don't understand was that Eric Reid and Carlos Hyde we're bad picks IMO. You may think why would that be if they were both good players? I believe they were bad picks because the FS and RB groups those year's we're really deep and we chose the top one's when we could have waited and got more value.

The best way to draft is to maximise the value of each pick. I think Baalke actually tried to do this with some of the players with injuries but also had some completely terrible picks with no value at all.

KS and JL seem to look for traits and are willing to be aggressive to get those players. I don't think they have been very good at getting value but at least offensively, each player they have drafted seems to fit with what they want to do.

The same cannot be said for defense so this is why we need to draft Bosa and continue to get elite players on defense who even Saleh cannot make irrelevant.

This year the passrushers are deep but Bosa is in a class of his own IMO. This is where I would break my philosophy and pick the top guy.

We have drafted so many depth guys IMO that we have to change the strategy a little bit. We need impact starters this year which is why I would be fine with trading back into the first for a WR.

Other then that, I would continue to try and get the most value by drafting BPA or trading up and down until BPA matches our needs.

^ I like how you set aside your philosophy when it didn't result in the best pick (Bosa). Reaffirms my belief that there is no doctrine, no " law of God" when drafting. Too many factors to just follow a simple formula.

Originally posted by Lobo49er:
^ I like how you set aside your philosophy when it didn't result in the best pick (Bosa). Reaffirms my belief that there is no doctrine, no " law of God" when drafting. Too many factors to just follow a simple formula.

yeah, I think all teams mean to stick to the board (within reason) but are swayed for other reasons and that usually backfires. You see it all the time when there is a run on any given position.

Originally posted by Lobo49er:

^ I like how you set aside your philosophy when it didn't result in the best pick (Bosa). Reaffirms my belief that there is no doctrine, no " law of God" when drafting. Too many factors to just follow a simple formula.

That's because it's more complicated than just saying BPA or BPA for need. And I said Bosa is in a class of his own. You have to look at tiers of players and I believe Bosa is in a tier of his own.

You always have to tweak your philosophy to your team. Obviously if you're on position group away from the perfect team you won't draft for value you would draft for need.

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by Lobo49er:

^ I like how you set aside your philosophy when it didn't result in the best pick (Bosa). Reaffirms my belief that there is no doctrine, no " law of God" when drafting. Too many factors to just follow a simple formula.

That's because it's more complicated than just saying BPA or BPA for need. And I said Bosa is in a class of his own. You have to look at tiers of players and I believe Bosa is in a tier of his own.

You always have to tweak your philosophy to your team. Obviously if you're on position group away from the perfect team you won't draft for value you would draft for need.

Agreed! IMO this applies to Q too. When you're presented with an elite prospect, you have to take him, right? (If there's two elite prospects, then tie breakers come into play, like need, positional value, etc.). But if Bosa is gone, and we can't trade down, how do we pass on Q?

Originally posted by Lobo49er:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by Lobo49er:

^ I like how you set aside your philosophy when it didn't result in the best pick (Bosa). Reaffirms my belief that there is no doctrine, no " law of God" when drafting. Too many factors to just follow a simple formula.

That's because it's more complicated than just saying BPA or BPA for need. And I said Bosa is in a class of his own. You have to look at tiers of players and I believe Bosa is in a tier of his own.

You always have to tweak your philosophy to your team. Obviously if you're on position group away from the perfect team you won't draft for value you would draft for need.

Agreed! IMO this applies to Q too. When you're presented with an elite prospect, you have to take him, right? (If there's two elite prospects, then tie breakers come into play, like need, positional value, etc.). But if Bosa is gone, and we can't trade down, how do we pass on Q?

I wouldn't. I would take QW because he's just too good.

I know a lot of posters only look year by year but it's clear with all the moves we have made so far we are methodically building our team. Would QW make us the most balanced team next year? No. But in two and three years down the line, the best possible team doesn't start with passing on QW unless someone offers us their whole draft and then some for Kyler.

Only problem with Q, as good as he could be, is that it probably forces us the then use our 2nd on edge instead of a possibly very good WR. If we get Bosa, we really can take the BPA in the second...a top choice WR or even DB/S. If we take Q, get to the second and say AJ Brown is still on the board, we might not be able to take him over a decent edge. That redundancy of D-Line is tough...still wouldn't hate Q, though.

I think you come up with a plan that hits your needs while still trying to honor bpa as much as possible. You can say bpa all the time but whoever brought up Kittle brought up a great point. If you like him in the 5th that crosses off any tight end in the 2nd/ 3rd. If you like Akhello in the 3rd that crosses off say Lattimore in the 1st. You also should factor in your current roster and draft bpa of position of need.

Nick Bosa to me is BPA if he's there.

BPA to me is a combo of talent grade, position impact/value and need.

Bosa easily gets the best grade in that regard for our team.

QW may be a better DT prospect than Bosa is a DE prospect but Bosa makes us a better team.

When putting a board together BPA, when selecting a pick you take the BPA who you believe also has the most significant impact on improving the team as a whole.

That's why I'm Bosa over Q. Bosa fills a greater need so based on that I believe Bosa has the greater upside overall for the team. That is how I would measure value. IMO Bosa has more value based on our needs and his talent in comparison to other BPA's.

Picking need over BPA is fine as long as the prospects are close in talent. Reaching is a big risk.

Originally posted by genus49:

Nick Bosa to me is BPA if he's there.

BPA to me is a combo of talent grade, position impact/value and need.

Bosa easily gets the best grade in that regard for our team.

QW may be a better DT prospect than Bosa is a DE prospect but Bosa makes us a better team.

Very well said.

Originally posted by Murphys1:

Only problem with Q, as good as he could be, is that it probably forces us the then use our 2nd on edge instead of a possibly very good WR. If we get Bosa, we really can take the BPA in the second...a top choice WR or even DB/S. If we take Q, get to the second and say AJ Brown is still on the board, we might not be able to take him over a decent edge. That redundancy of D-Line is tough...still wouldn't hate Q, though.

I completely disagree, you still stick to your board, if edge is up there then sure get one, but if it didn't work out I don't know how anyone could think that Blair & Dekoda Watson wouldn't round out that group.

The amount of pressure that line would give you would leave them against a TE or RB at least a few times. You don't need bookend pass rushers to have success, I mean how many teams have ever truly had two great edge rushers?

You normally have one, and a complimentary guy.

Originally posted by OsBoogie:

Originally posted by Lobo49er:
The concept exists, regardless of who's heard of it or not .

I don't believe it's exists/is used professionally. Agree to disagree I guess.

I define value as a prospect's grade in relation to his draft spot. If you want the most bang for your buck, the concept of value is important for decision making.

I believe many teams use it during the draft. Value is necessary in determining whether to trade up, trade down, or stay put. Besides ranking prospects on a big board, teams must also establish a range of when a player is worth being selected. (And to be clear, I believe teams base their value system on their own big board, not other teams/analysts/mock drafts.)

Examples:

1) Let's assume we're finishing up the rest of the 1st round and we aren't on the clock until the 2nd round. If our big board graded a prospect as a top 15 talent and he's still available at the end of the 1st round = good value. Because of the good value, a trade up becomes seriously worth considering.

2) If we were on the clock early in the 3rd round and the BPA on our big board was graded as a late 3rd rounder = poor value. Despite being BPA on our board at the time, selecting him early at that spot wouldn't maximize the value of the pick because he isn't worth picking that high. Instead, we should explore a trade down if possible.

3) If we're on the clock early in the 2nd round and the BPA on our big board was graded as an early 2nd rounder = expected value. Since the prospect's grade matches his draft spot range, we can be satisfied staying put (assuming there isn't a worthy trade offer).

As for the original topic, I think BPA/need/value are all important factors that end up playing a part in a successful draft. However, I believe it should start with value first. Once a value system is established, BPA/need will take care of itself.

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by OsBoogie:

Originally posted by Lobo49er:

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

I don't believe it's exists/is used professionally. Agree to disagree I guess.

I define value as a prospect's grade in relation to his draft spot. If you want the most bang for your buck, the concept of value is important for decision making.

I believe many teams use it during the draft. Value is necessary in determining whether to trade up, trade down, or stay put. Besides ranking prospects on a big board, teams must also establish a range of when a player is worth being selected. (And to be clear, I believe teams base their value system on their own big board, not other teams/analysts/mock drafts.)

Examples:

1) Let's assume we're finishing up the rest of the 1st round and we aren't on the clock until the 2nd round. If our big board graded a prospect as a top 15 talent and he's still available at the end of the 1st round = good value. Because of the good value, a trade up becomes seriously worth considering.

2) If we were on the clock early in the 3rd round and the BPA on our big board was graded as a late 3rd rounder = poor value. Despite being BPA on our board at the time, selecting him early at that spot wouldn't maximize the value of the pick because he isn't worth picking that high. Instead, we should explore a trade down if possible.

3) If we're on the clock early in the 2nd round and the BPA on our big board was graded as an early 2nd rounder = expected value. Since the prospect's grade matches his draft spot range, we can be satisfied staying put (assuming there isn't a worthy trade offer).

As for the original topic, I think BPA/need/value are all important factors that end up playing a part in a successful draft. However, I believe it should start with value first. Once a value system is established, BPA/need will take care of itself.

Very nice way of laying it out.

The big problem with it is that nobody knows each others boards so the value is hard to determine.

Drafting your way would lead to missing out on loads of prospects, I prefer our way, trust your board and get the best player for your team.