BPA vs. Need vs. Value

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

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.

Check out the bolded part in my quote. I agree with trusting our own board (by our, I mean the Niners ). I don't believe teams determine value based on other team's boards, and they shouldn't.

An example would be CJ Beathard. The Niners valued him as a 3rd rounder despite how other teams/mocks/analysts graded him. Since the Niners draft board valued him as a 3rd rounder, it made sense to for them to pick him there since he was available at a spot they felt he was worth being selected at.

Another example is Reuben Foster. According to Lynch, he had Foster as his #3 overall prospect. They valued him as a top 3 prospect on their board, regardless of how other sources ranked him. With him being available at the end of the 1st round, his value was too good to pass up there so we traded up.

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Check out the bolded part in my quote. I agree with trusting our own board (by our, I mean the Niners ). I don't believe teams determine value based on other team's boards, and they shouldn't.

An example would be CJ Beathard. The Niners valued him as a 3rd rounder despite how other teams/mocks/analysts graded him. Since the Niners draft board valued him as a 3rd rounder, it made sense to for them to pick him there since he was available at a spot they felt he was worth being selected at.

Another example is Reuben Foster. According to Lynch, he had Foster as his #3 overall prospect. They valued him as a top 3 prospect on their board, regardless of how other sources ranked him. With him being available at the end of the 1st round, his value was too good to pass up there so we traded up.

Yeah, that makes sense, it's brave to manipulate your board like that though. You can trade up for players, but if you trade down you better be prepared to miss out.

Originally posted by Lobo49er:

Been reading through a bunch of the draft threads this year. There are so many good discussions going on about this topic, but it's fragmented across different player threads. Excited to see if this turns into a cage match.

What philosophy should we employ?
What philosophy do we employ?
Does it change based on round/tier/needs/positional value?

Value - Macimize draft value
BPA - draft best player no matter what
Need - identify current weaknesses, and draft to address them.

I don't think we can nor should subscribe to any of these as doctrine. They should all be considered into the decision being made. Additional factors like positional value, replacement availability, medical, and character are all inputs too.

Thoughts?

My thought is the higher the pick, the more skewed the pick should be toward best player. I believe that is where you maximize value.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:
Check out the bolded part in my quote. I agree with trusting our own board (by our, I mean the Niners ). I don't believe teams determine value based on other team's boards, and they shouldn't.

An example would be CJ Beathard. The Niners valued him as a 3rd rounder despite how other teams/mocks/analysts graded him. Since the Niners draft board valued him as a 3rd rounder, it made sense to for them to pick him there since he was available at a spot they felt he was worth being selected at.

Another example is Reuben Foster. According to Lynch, he had Foster as his #3 overall prospect. They valued him as a top 3 prospect on their board, regardless of how other sources ranked him. With him being available at the end of the 1st round, his value was too good to pass up there so we traded up.

Yeah, that makes sense, it's brave to manipulate your board like that though. You can trade up for players, but if you trade down you better be prepared to miss out.

As far as trade downs, I think you could only miss out if you are locked onto certain players and hoping/assuming they'll be available later on. In that case, I wouldn't agree with the move because that would be forcing value. I don't think a team should force a trade down and gamble just for the sake of potentially getting value.

If you trade down, I believe you should either be:
A) Receiving a deal that benefits your team (the offer is greater than your current draft spot)
B) Moving out of an unfavorable draft position (nobody is worthy of your current draft spot)
C) Comfortable that a player (or several players) is guaranteed to still be there at your new draft spot (example: if you like 5 players, you can trade down 4 spots and still be sure to get 1 of those 5 prospects)

Either way, the benefit of a trade down should outweigh the possibility of missing out on a certain player. But if potentially missing out on a certain player isn't worth it, then it would be better to stay put and settle on the pick.

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by candlestick49er:

Check out the bolded part in my quote. I agree with trusting our own board (by our, I mean the Niners ). I don't believe teams determine value based on other team's boards, and they shouldn't.

An example would be CJ Beathard. The Niners valued him as a 3rd rounder despite how other teams/mocks/analysts graded him. Since the Niners draft board valued him as a 3rd rounder, it made sense to for them to pick him there since he was available at a spot they felt he was worth being selected at.

Another example is Reuben Foster. According to Lynch, he had Foster as his #3 overall prospect. They valued him as a top 3 prospect on their board, regardless of how other sources ranked him. With him being available at the end of the 1st round, his value was too good to pass up there so we traded up.

Yeah, that makes sense, it's brave to manipulate your board like that though. You can trade up for players, but if you trade down you better be prepared to miss out.

As far as trade downs, I think you could only miss out if you are locked onto certain players and hoping/assuming they'll be available later on. In that case, I wouldn't agree with the move because that would be forcing value. I don't think a team should force a trade down and gamble just for the sake of potentially getting value.

If you trade down, I believe you should either be:
A) Receiving a deal that benefits your team (the offer is greater than your current draft spot)
B) Moving out of an unfavorable draft position (nobody is worthy of your current draft spot)
C) Comfortable that a player (or several players) is guaranteed to still be there at your new draft spot (example: if you like 5 players, you can trade down 4 spots and still be sure to get 1 of those 5 prospects)

Either way, the benefit of a trade down should outweigh the possibility of missing out on a certain player. But if potentially missing out on a certain player isn't worth it, then it would be better to stay put and settle on the pick.

Or to put it another way, not the Rashaun Woods approach.

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.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

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.

exactly. I think this is all just an extension of BPA. we know our board and determine value based on our board.

We don't however decide to go against BPA/our board because we believe others have a player graded lower than we do and they will be there 2 rounds later.

BPA of position of need....mixed in with your big board. I think the idea of drafting purely on BPA is more #fakenews then anything

Originally posted by NYniner85:

BPA of position of need....mixed in with your big board. I think the idea of drafting purely on BPA is more #fakenews then anything

The "we're going to draft the best player available" line is almost never true. Teams draft to need. It's best player available who fills a need.

— Andy Benoit (@Andy_Benoit) March 28, 2019

Belichick went on an interview and slammed the reporters when they asked him if he ever considers need in the draft. I think thats where its coming from

Originally posted by NYniner85:
BPA of position of need....mixed in with your big board. I think the idea of drafting purely on BPA is more #fakenews then anything

The "we're going to draft the best player available" line is almost never true. Teams draft to need. It's best player available who fills a need.

— Andy Benoit (@Andy_Benoit) March 28, 2019

definitely affected by need. However it takes into consideration all positions that make sense to upgrade. Not just "need 1 goes first round, need 2 goes 2nd etc"

whoa... why is Russell Sprout under my user name?

I definitely think the whole BPA thing is overblown when you take it literally.

If by some crazy scenario we had a FB graded higher than say Nick Bosa we would never make that pick. Maybe a better comparison would be QB but I wanted to really reinforce the point.

Teams make their draft grades based on multiple things. It's not a blind "let me grade this guy against his position group and then stack my board based on whose graded is higher"

Positional value and need are definitely in play.

I heard a comment on NFL radio yesterday and it resonated with me and I think it's why there is talk of Arizona going with Kyler Murray.

If you're a team who isn't 100% sold on your QB being a legit franchise QB then you take that shot in the first round. It's why teams do it year after year.

You'll have your "this QB draft sucks" and then you blink and you have 2 QBs going top 5. Hitting on a rookie QB is so much more impactful than hitting on any other position in the draft that taking that risk(especially now that you don't have to pay that QB top 5 money) that it's worth the risk.

Well after QB you can argue which position maters the most but pass rusher is definitely up there. There are certain positions who get the most money, who typically go early in the draft and less frequently get top tier talent later in the drafts.

That's why a guy like Bosa SHOULD be higher on our draft board than Quinnen Williams.

You don't draft in a vacuum. You draft to an already existing team/roster. You have to take the guy you think is the best player while also being someone who improves your team the most/adds to the talent you already have while also giving you the best plan for the future.

I love Quinnen Williams but while our roster may not have his type of talent next to Buckner we certainly have quality players who fit very well for interior play, epsecially when it comes to rushing the passer. So do we take QW and 5 years from now may be looking to have a franchise QB getting his next big deal, Buckner making huge money and QW making huge bucks as well? That doesn't seem like a smart way of building a long term roster to me. And sure things can change, maybe Buckner hits a wall so he's expendable. Maybe Jimmy isn't what we thought he was and we're dealing with a rookie deal QB as our starter then but IMO you want to spread the big contracts among multiple position groups. That way you have your elite players and you can cover up the weaknesses of the other players by having those guys or if you're lucky draft additional studs for great rosters.

But how many great teams have been built with 2 dominant DTs getting the bulk of the salary cap?

We'll see what happens in a few weeks. Maybe Bosa isn't even there at 2 so it's a moot point but I know outside of Dee Ford we have nobody worth a damn on the outside. Do we really want to be back to having edge rusher as our top need in a few years again? Here's hoping we build for the sustainable future.

Originally posted by OsBoogie:
whoa... why is Russell Sprout under my user name?

They're flushing out all the secret Seahawk fans. Means you're getting banned at the end of the day.

Originally posted by genus49:
They're flushing out all the secret Seahawk fans. Means you're getting banned at the end of the day.

I see....

Originally posted by genus49:
I definitely think the whole BPA thing is overblown when you take it literally.

If by some crazy scenario we had a FB graded higher than say Nick Bosa we would never make that pick. Maybe a better comparison would be QB but I wanted to really reinforce the point.

Teams make their draft grades based on multiple things. It's not a blind "let me grade this guy against his position group and then stack my board based on whose graded is higher"

Positional value and need are definitely in play.

I heard a comment on NFL radio yesterday and it resonated with me and I think it's why there is talk of Arizona going with Kyler Murray.

If you're a team who isn't 100% sold on your QB being a legit franchise QB then you take that shot in the first round. It's why teams do it year after year.

You'll have your "this QB draft sucks" and then you blink and you have 2 QBs going top 5. Hitting on a rookie QB is so much more impactful than hitting on any other position in the draft that taking that risk(especially now that you don't have to pay that QB top 5 money) that it's worth the risk.

Well after QB you can argue which position maters the most but pass rusher is definitely up there. There are certain positions who get the most money, who typically go early in the draft and less frequently get top tier talent later in the drafts.

That's why a guy like Bosa SHOULD be higher on our draft board than Quinnen Williams.

You don't draft in a vacuum. You draft to an already existing team/roster. You have to take the guy you think is the best player while also being someone who improves your team the most/adds to the talent you already have while also giving you the best plan for the future.

I love Quinnen Williams but while our roster may not have his type of talent next to Buckner we certainly have quality players who fit very well for interior play, epsecially when it comes to rushing the passer. So do we take QW and 5 years from now may be looking to have a franchise QB getting his next big deal, Buckner making huge money and QW making huge bucks as well? That doesn't seem like a smart way of building a long term roster to me. And sure things can change, maybe Buckner hits a wall so he's expendable. Maybe Jimmy isn't what we thought he was and we're dealing with a rookie deal QB as our starter then but IMO you want to spread the big contracts among multiple position groups. That way you have your elite players and you can cover up the weaknesses of the other players by having those guys or if you're lucky draft additional studs for great rosters.

But how many great teams have been built with 2 dominant DTs getting the bulk of the salary cap?

We'll see what happens in a few weeks. Maybe Bosa isn't even there at 2 so it's a moot point but I know outside of Dee Ford we have nobody worth a damn on the outside. Do we really want to be back to having edge rusher as our top need in a few years again? Here's hoping we build for the sustainable future.

I don't think FB to QB is a good comparison to DE and DT. I mean, the best player on our team currently is a DT so position importance isn't really the reason why I would also take Bosa.

If there was a 250 pound FB who ran a 4.2 and scored 50 touchdowns in college then obviously we might consider him. But a player like that has really never existed so obviously you would go DE obviously. Another example would be the kicker Janokowski of the Raiders who went 1st round was actually was one of their better picks they ever made.

The point I'm trying to make is that what you call position importance I call overall impact. If we had not had the mindset that of position importance maybe we would have an All-pro SS in Jamal Adams right now. Adams clearly would have a bigger impact yet most would consider SS as not that important of an issue and it would not have fallen under BPA of position of need which doesn't account for the quality of player of a position you already think you're set at. If Patrick Willis was coming out in this draft and he was there in the 2nd round would we pass on him because we have Fred Warner? No. So it's not as simple as BPA of position of need.

I also don't get the argument about not being able to pay QW and Buckner. Elite DEs get paid much more than DT so how would we be able to keep Buckner and Bosa but we can't pay QW and Buckner? It doesn't make much sense to me. The key would be could you find DE's that contribute on rookie deals or value FA contracts outside.

The reason I would take Bosa over QW is that I feel a lot more confident in Buckner than I do Ford long term. Ford has never been that consistent season to season and I'm not going to risk having any outside rush again just because we think we are set with trading for Ford.

Edit: GET THAT CUCK OUT OF MY POST

Originally posted by Waterbear:
I don't think FB to QB is a good comparison to DE and DT. I mean, the best player on our team currently is a DT so position importance isn't really the reason why I would also take Bosa.

If there was a 250 pound FB who ran a 4.2 and scored 50 touchdowns in college then obviously we might consider him. But a player like that has really never existed so obviously you would go DE obviously. Another example would be the kicker Janokowski of the Raiders who went 1st round was actually was one of their better picks they ever made.

The point I'm trying to make is that what you call position importance I call overall impact. If we had not had the mindset that of position importance maybe we would have an All-pro SS in Jamal Adams right now. Adams clearly would have a bigger impact yet most would consider SS as not that important of an issue and it would not have fallen under BPA of position of need which doesn't account for the quality of player of a position you already think you're set at. If Patrick Willis was coming out in this draft and he was there in the 2nd round would we pass on him because we have Fred Warner? No. So it's not as simple as BPA of position of need.

I also don't get the argument about not being able to pay QW and Buckner. Elite DEs get paid much more than DT so how would we be able to keep Buckner and Bosa but we can't pay QW and Buckner? It doesn't make much sense to me. The key would be could you find DE's that contribute on rookie deals or value FA contracts outside.

The reason I would take Bosa over QW is that I feel a lot more confident in Buckner than I do Ford long term. Ford has never been that consistent season to season and I'm not going to risk having any outside rush again just because we think we are set with trading for Ford.

Edit: GET THAT CUCK OUT OF MY POST

I know I wrote a book but the biggest point of my post was that players aren't graded against their own positions.

So the FB comparison was if there was someone like Trey Millard without the injuries you may grade him at a 9.X out of 10 point grade scale as far as FB and then have a 8.9 grade for an edge rusher.

BPA taken literally would say the 9.x > 8.9 but it doesn't work like that.