Which round

[jason]

I have been thinking lately about the concept of BPA, and how it applies to team needs. Related to that is the concept of value by position. In other words, if the second and third best Safeties are there in the third, then it makes sense to pass on the safety position until then. Having said that...

 

1st - NT or OLB/DE - if the Bears want/need DT, it needs to happen here. The first three appear to be gone in most recent mocks, which I still can't believe, in the first. Same goes for the elite edge rushers.

 

2nd - ILB, there just seems to be a ton of talent at this spot, and they disappear by the third.

 

3rd - FS, After Collins, most mocks have safeties falling to the third. Great spot for us.

 

4th - OG/OT appears to have great value here.

 

Agree?

[dawhizz]

It depends so much on what we are looking for. For instance:

 

DT - If you're talking "big 330+ NT", then I think you're right about needing to get one in the first. But if its true that Fangio's scheme doesn't require that kind of size, then there's mid-late round guys (Chucky Hunter, Joey Mbu, Grady Jarrett, David Parry) who would fit the bill and be good value if that's what Fangio is looking for.

 

OLB/DE - I would say there's value here in the 2nd round as well with guys like Eli Harold, Nate Orchard, the LB from Washington whose name I can't spell. For instance, I personally think there's less of a difference between those guys and Gregory/Ray/Fowler/Beasley than between a 2nd round WR (say Devin Smith or Agholar) and White/Cooper. But I agree it's pretty slim pickings after that.

 

OT - I think value for a potential LT dries up in the 2nd and maybe the 3rd (Sambrailo? Donovan Smith?) and for a RT who might be able to play reasonably soon in the 4th (Daryl Williams, Jamon Brown, Rob Haverstein).

 

OG/C - I see value around the 5th and maybe even 6th round. I think you can get the last man standing between guys like Gallik, Finney, Mason, Dismukes, and Garcia and still have a future starter at C/G.

 

ILB - I think there's a little more depth here than you do. I think you're right that the value is probably in the second as far as getting a potential stud/immediate starter, but I like plenty of mid-round guys (Jeff Luc, Jake Ryan, Taiwan Jones).

 

FS - I don't really see too many FSs I'm interested in that figure to be around after the third round, although given the lack of depth, I personally worry about a run on the FSs in the second. If Randall, Smith, and Harris go, suddenly you're staring at Gerod Holliman and his very questionable tackling ability.

 

I'll also add WR. Everyone talks about this being a deep WR draft, and it is if you are looking for contributors, but if you're looking for a potential starter at an outside spot (as I presume the Bears are doing), you pretty much need to pull the trigger by your pick in the second at the earliest (if Agholar or Smith are still around) because the next batch figure to be slot guys (Dorsett, Lockett, Crowder), unless maybe a guy like Coates or Greeene slips or you really like Tre McBride.

 

So maybe the lesson is to try to get as many picks in the 2nd/3rd as possibly by trading down and take advantage of some of the value in those rounds.

[Stinger226]

I have been thinking lately about the concept of BPA, and how it applies to team needs. Related to that is the concept of value by position. In other words, if the second and third best Safeties are there in the third, then it makes sense to pass on the safety position until then. Having said that...

 

1st - NT or OLB/DE - if the Bears want/need DT, it needs to happen here. The first three appear to be gone in most recent mocks, which I still can't believe, in the first. Same goes for the elite edge rushers.

 

2nd - ILB, there just seems to be a ton of talent at this spot, and they disappear by the third.

 

3rd - FS, After Collins, most mocks have safeties falling to the third. Great spot for us.

 

4th - OG/OT appears to have great value here.

 

Agree?

BPA is opposite to drafting to need. Any of the top 10 players as most people have there can fill a need for us.

 

For example; Collins is the top safety but most have him as the 15th to 20th BPA, so at 7 that would be considered a reach.

 

BPA is such a simple concept, and you have it confused.

[jason]

BPA is opposite to drafting to need. Any of the top 10 players as most people have there can fill a need for us.

 

For example; Collins is the top safety but most have him as the 15th to 20th BPA, so at 7 that would be considered a reach.

 

BPA is such a simple concept, and you have it confused.

 

We simply disagree. I think you have it confused. BPA is not the opposite of drafting for need. Nobody does that. Nobody drafts purely BPA. I pointed out the stupidity of this concept in a previous thread when I mentioned a QB falling to the Colts. BPA says they draft the QB. No way in hell they do that. If they did it wouldn't be called a War Room. The owner, coach, and GM would hand an intern their big board and take the day off, telling the intern to call if someone proposes a trade.

 

What most people mean when they say BPA is "BPA according to team needs as compared to the next most talented player at the same position, versus the most talented player at another position, unless some ridiculously talented player falls to us and meets a secondary or tertiary need." It virtually never means "BPA regardless of position."

 

I've never been in a war room, but I guarantee the discussion goes something like this:

 

A - "Player A is the top rated guy on the board."

B - "Yeah, but we don't really need a (insert position). Can you guarantee he'll be a Hall of Famer? (laughs)"

A - "No, I can't. True about his position. Well, Players B and C are the next two guys on the board. And we could probably use position XX."

B - "Agreed. But Player H is the 8th guy on the board and he'd start immediately at position XY, filling a huge hole on the team. The next best player at XY is 30th on the list."

A - "Yes, he would. And the next best players after B & C at XX are 18th and 19th. There is definitely more value grabbing H now, and hoping R or S falls to us."

B - "Agreed. Send in the pick."

 

[adam]

The draft is truly a chess match against 31 other opponents, and we have the 7th move. I see the draft strategy more as a value draft than BPA or need-based. The team's big board will determine the value of each player, and the slot we draft will determine which one of those players is BPA at the time. What the team will have to figure out as the draft is occurring is which order of players will maximize the value of the draft for us. Using the draft trade value chart, they can apply a value to each player on their big board, and then add up those values to see if they exceed our draft slot values. Using that technique, you can actually compare mock drafts to determine the better draft.

 

Also, I have to assume the big board is already constructed with some type of need built in (so no board is truly unfiltered BPA). They have to go down each player one by one and say I would take this guy over this guy, and so on and so forth. After the first pick you have to weigh the previous picks into your decisions (so BPA is technically gone at this point). Otherwise you have the potential of drafting 7 LBs. So if you take Shelton for example, now all other DT's, even though they are higher on your big board more than likely won't be selected unless the value of that player is so much higher than the slot you are picking.

 

Just for fun, I will "score" some of the recent mocks on this board.

[jason]

The draft is truly a chess match against 31 other opponents, and we have the 7th move. I see the draft strategy more as a value draft than BPA or need-based. The team's big board will determine the value of each player, and the slot we draft will determine which one of those players is BPA at the time. What the team will have to figure out as the draft is occurring is which order of players will maximize the value of the draft for us. Using the draft trade value chart, they can apply a value to each player on their big board, and then add up those values to see if they exceed our draft slot values. Using that technique, you can actually compare mock drafts to determine the better draft.

 

Also, I have to assume the big board is already constructed with some type of need built in (so no board is truly unfiltered BPA). They have to go down each player one by one and say I would take this guy over this guy, and so on and so forth. After the first pick you have to weigh the previous picks into your decisions (so BPA is technically gone at this point). Otherwise you have the potential of drafting 7 LBs. So if you take Shelton for example, now all other DT's, even though they are higher on your big board more than likely won't be selected unless the value of that player is so much higher than the slot you are picking.

 

Just for fun, I will "score" some of the recent mocks on this board.

 

That's pretty much how I see it, which is why it's not really BPA. Need is much more important than true BPA unless you're starting a franchise from scratch. Since that's not true, it has to be a balance of need, value, and BPA. But if you factor in need and value, BPA is pretty much a given because it's the BPA for your team.

[Stinger226]

We simply disagree. I think you have it confused. BPA is not the opposite of drafting for need. Nobody does that. Nobody drafts purely BPA. I pointed out the stupidity of this concept in a previous thread when I mentioned a QB falling to the Colts. BPA says they draft the QB. No way in hell they do that. If they did it wouldn't be called a War Room. The owner, coach, and GM would hand an intern their big board and take the day off, telling the intern to call if someone proposes a trade.

 

What most people mean when they say BPA is "BPA according to team needs as compared to the next most talented player at the same position, versus the most talented player at another position, unless some ridiculously talented player falls to us and meets a secondary or tertiary need." It virtually never means "BPA regardless of position."

 

I've never been in a war room, but I guarantee the discussion goes something like this:

 

A - "Player A is the top rated guy on the board."

B - "Yeah, but we don't really need a (insert position). Can you guarantee he'll be a Hall of Famer? (laughs)"

A - "No, I can't. True about his position. Well, Players B and C are the next two guys on the board. And we could probably use position XX."

B - "Agreed. But Player H is the 8th guy on the board and he'd start immediately at position XY, filling a huge hole on the team. The next best player at XY is 30th on the list."

A - "Yes, he would. And the next best players after B & C at XX are 18th and 19th. There is definitely more value grabbing H now, and hoping R or S falls to us."

B - "Agreed. Send in the pick."

An example of BPA is when GB took A. Rodgers when they had an all pro QB in Brent Favre, good teams do that .

 

You brought up L. Williams if he dropped to us. ITs a no brainer, because he is BPA, sometimes it doesnt matter what position some one is if he is all pro potential.Bad teams draft for need.

 

Truth be told, there is no position that we dont have need at , so it really is a mute point.

[adam]

An example of BPA is when GB took A. Rodgers when they had an all pro QB in Brent Favre, good teams do that .

 

You brought up L. Williams if he dropped to us. ITs a no brainer, because he is BPA, sometimes it doesnt matter what position some one is if he is all pro potential.Bad teams draft for need.

 

Truth be told, there is no position that we dont have need at , so it really is a mute point.

Rodgers was projected as a top 10 pick (http://walterfootball.com/draft2005.php), so him falling to #24 made it a no brainer as he would've been so far and away the best player on the board regardless of need. Also, Favre was 35 when they drafted Rodgers, and Doug Peterson was the backup, so GB actually had a need at QB. That was actually the perfect time to pull the trigger on a replacement. Rodgers immediately became the backup. I could see teams like NO (Brees), NE (Brady), and DEN (Manning) doing the same thing within the next year or two.