obviously it is just drafting for need. fancy term for take the highest rated on the board at a position of need.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Sure, but those were desperate positions of need for us at the time. This is precisely why Ireland has tried to fill all our needs pre-draft with free agents so he can truly draft BPA. That just hasn't been a viable option in the last couple years.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know I have heard around here that Ireland
> sticks to his guns and drafts BPA, but it appears
> at least from this description, that our
> horizontal draft philosophy is most likely
> anything but that.. WIth examples of needs
> overtaking BPA... Either way, it is an interesting
> article worth the read... not sure how accurate
> the take on it is, I am not expert on vertical vs
> horizontal draft philosophies..


It depends on the GM Crowder. There really are a ton of different ways to stack a draft board.

Setting up your board horizontally allows you to group players together in say the first, middle or last 1/3rd of each round which makes it easier to take a guy at a need position.

If you have a guy middle of the 3rd vs late 3rd and the late 3rd is a priority position to fill you can grab the late 3rd.

You can cheat the same way if you give each player a grade and you have a guy with a 72 at a non-need and a guy with a 70 at the need position.

it really comes down to philosophy versus format.


In my mind you go BPA earlier in the draft rounds 1-3 and need after that unless a guy falls. In theory, the further you get into the draft the closer together the prospects should be rated.

If its close, need is the tiebreaker.

Clearly Ireland isn't married to BPA. All you have to do is look at the Egnew pick last year to see that, but he does seem to go that way in the 1st.

Not sure why this "BPA" topic keeps coming up? I don't think any GM in the history of the NFL draft has ever gone through a whole draft taking strictly the BPA without adjusting it for needs. Why is this such a hot topic for everybody? Is this some kind of back door way to try and slam Ireland, just curious?

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure why this "BPA" topic keeps coming up? I
> don't think any GM in the history of the NFL draft
> has ever gone through a whole draft taking
> strictly the BPA without adjusting it for needs.
> Why is this such a hot topic for everybody? Is
> this some kind of back door way to try and slam
> Ireland, just curious?


It is draft time, an articles was written in the paper on sunday regarding the subject...Stop whining Dolph, I know that is all you like to do know a days. How about some actual football insight instead of always attacking what others wrote.. When was the last time you contributed to the sight more then attacking others for what you always seems to perceive as an attack on Ireland or the FO.. snooze, boring....

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Oh my god....me stop whining??????? Hello Mr Kettle, my name is Mr Pot and you my friend are black. LMFAO at that one.

Spoken like a lawyer .... assuming tongue is in cheek

BPA means to me that you are selecting the highest valued player (quantified in terms of draft grade).

Draft for need becomes a bit confusing to fans because we instinctively value fixing those areas that we have gaps (or positions of need).

In the truest sense drafting by BPA means forget your need, draft the highest graded player available at your pick.

So in some sense ... the otherwise BPA gets blurred to the fan>

Bottom line - If one has 5 strong positions and the BPA tends to fall out that you duplicate those positions ... you end up with excess talent in some areas and gaping holes in others.

WE are fortunately FINALLY not so much a team with glaring holes such that draft for need is MANDATORY top field a decent team.

The upside is that if your team is generally sound you can score higher value players with a BPA selection priority.

I expect we will do some of both with a better chance than ever of allowing some BPA picks for the first time in years.

- Well go for position of need in the later rounds hoping we found a diamond in the rough, and a last gap at covering the bases ... or a late FA grab when teams cut down.

BPA should be at pick 12, then after that it is BPA at position of need.

To be honest, guys, look at what Ireland has done so far. Besides Wallace and the two linebackers, did he really solidify any position with an immediate starter?

Grimes and Kellar both signed one-year deals because they are coming off of injuries. Anyone else signed that Ireland doesn't have to worry about that position?

Superstar in round one, then needs after that.

You are saying what I am saying, PhinJim. Tongue in cheek or not. And you're pretty accurately describing our recent draft history as well.

Unless the difference in players is substantial, I think drafting BPA is a luxury that only a top tier team can afford.

Precisely, Odenn.

Odenn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unless the difference in players is substantial, I
> think drafting BPA is a luxury that only a top
> tier team can afford.

*****************************************************

Not in the early first round, it isn't a luxury.

If Miami hadn't done what they did in the off season, then I would tend to agree with you, but Miami did get (decent) bodies to fill many of their needs, so for pick #12, they can go BPA.

The rest of the picks should be BPA at position of need.

But Cap. Let me give you a strained hypothetical. Let's rewrite history.

Let's suppose that Matt Barkley did what he figured he'd do by staying at USC and had torn up college football this year, won the Heisman, taken his team to a winning national championship and not got injured and by some crazy happenstance, although projected as the number 1 pick in the draft, let's supposed that he was there at no. 12 and indisputably the best player available.

Now he wouldn't be BPAAPONeed but just the plain overall BPA and by inconsistent happenstance he fell to us at no. 12.

Are you saying that we grab him despite having Tanny.

Not debating Tanny but it would seem to me that since we've got Tanny, we look for the Best player available at a position of need, and QB is not a position of need so, despite the signing of Wallace, Keller, etc. which filled many of our needs, we DON'T go best player available.

That would never happen Chryen. If that situation occurred, Barkley would never be available at #12, he'd be the overall 1st pick (a la Luck). Teams that draft #1 overall are usually in desparate need of a QB; teams that have what they consider to be a franchise QB generally don't draft #1 overall. So yes, draft the BPA, even if it's already an area of strength. Most successful teams do that.

Ok, so for Chyrens example just think the Rams last year........what did they do again? Oh yeah, they traded out of the pick, thus passing on the BPA.

In addition to what holic said, Anemone, I said it was basically an impossible scenario but my point was that there are cases in which you know a guy is going to be good but it just doesn't make sense to get him because of your positional needs.

Obviously, most cases are not as extreme but, unless a team intends to draft a guy just to trade him, most teams look heavier at need than the fact that this guy may be the best on the board.

This did not always be the case. In the 60's through mid 80's, before free agency was the big thing it is now, a player was expected to stay with a team his entire career. Therefore, in that kind of setting, it made more sense to draft the BPA regardless of position.

But now with your own players becoming successful at free agency the better they are, you've got to keep your team competitive. You can't afford to take the best player available when you're pretty solid at that position but you have pressing needs at other positions.

The contrary example I can think of is the Patsies who have Aaron Hernandez and Rob Gronkowski but as much as we hate it, they are in contention for the SuperBowl every year.

the only position BPA makes no sense at is QB when you've already got a young one. straw man argument

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

What Berkeley said. And this only applies to the 1st round, and even then not always. Look at last year - Seattle drafted Russell Wilson in the 3rd round after signing Flynn to a huge contract, and Washington drafted Kirk Cousins in the 4th after drafting RGIII in the first round.

In '83 Miami drafted Marino even though QB was not considered a position of need for the team (we had Wood/Strock, and Woodley was still young with a lot of upside, and had just taken us to the SB the year before).

If a team has 2 players rated about equal on their draft board, they'll obviously go with the position of need.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the only position BPA makes no sense at is QB when
> you've already got a young one. straw man argument


Let me guess where that one came from...

But even if the clear BPA on the board at #12 was a QB, in a league where people are fighting over the Matt Flynn's, Kevin Kolb's and Carson Palmer's of the world there would absolutely be someone interested in trading for that spot.

Even if it weren't a silly strawman argument it would be a moot point.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But Cap. Let me give you a strained hypothetical.
> Let's rewrite history.
>
> Let's suppose that Matt Barkley did what he
> figured he'd do by staying at USC and had torn up
> college football this year, won the Heisman, taken
> his team to a winning national championship and
> not got injured and by some crazy happenstance,
> although projected as the number 1 pick in the
> draft, let's supposed that he was there at no. 12
> and indisputably the best player available.
>
> Now he wouldn't be BPAAPONeed but just the plain
> overall BPA and by inconsistent happenstance he
> fell to us at no. 12.
>
> Are you saying that we grab him despite having
> Tanny.
>
> Not debating Tanny but it would seem to me that
> since we've got Tanny, we look for the Best player
> available at a position of need, and QB is not a
> position of need so, despite the signing of
> Wallace, Keller, etc. which filled many of our
> needs, we DON'T go best player available.

******************************************************

As another poster already stated, that wouldn't happen. The #1 QB is either going to go with the #1 pick or another team is going to trade up to get him. Miami wouldn't have the luxury of having the #1 QB in the draft sitting there staring at them at 12.

Another scenario. There is a player sitting there at 12 that another team has on their board at the top position. Miami is in a situation that what they desperately wanted is no longer there; that team calls Miami and (depending on the deal) Miami trades out of that pick.

If Miami is unable to trade back, then they will just have to go with their big board and grab the BPA, unless of course they don't have anyone in that category that they MUST have. Then they just go BPA of need.

Many scenarios to think about, so there is nothing in concrete as to what Ireland should or will do.