Draft for needs or BPA

[Wesson44]

Since we have picked up a few FA do we draft for needs or for the BPA. I see needs as being at TE, (loss Bennett) and RB (loss Forte) CB/SS/FS ours are not really that great. Maybe LT if we feel Leno isn't the best option and maybe a DL.

But surely we need to draft GAME CHANGERS not just BPA. K.Drake in the later rounds would be nice as he can do alot with his speed at RB/WR/KR. But I do feel that we should try to fill the production that we have lost and so do the staff....that's why we went after Anderson(RB) and Hill(TE)...so look for those to be two sspots we are going to draft a player.

 

 

 

[Stinger226]

Since we have picked up a few FA do we draft for needs or for the BPA. I see needs as being at TE, (loss Bennett) and RB (loss Forte) CB/SS/FS ours are not really that great. Maybe LT if we feel Leno isn't the best option and maybe a DL.

But surely we need to draft GAME CHANGERS not just BPA. K.Drake in the later rounds would be nice as he can do alot with his speed at RB/WR/KR. But I do feel that we should try to fill the production that we have lost and so do the staff....that's why we went after Anderson(RB) and Hill(TE)...so look for those to be two sspots we are going to draft a player.

 

 

 

Of course we still have needs, if you draft for need and pass up a premium player, you do no service to the team. Hunter will be drafted in the second round because of depth at the position in the draft, but truthfully he is avthird round pick for valve. We would be better off drafting Vannett in the 4th than hunter in the second. With our first two picks we have a chance at getting impact players. Lets say the BPA in the first is likely Elliott, then you have have to take him even though we have Langford. If its lawson who could get us 10 sacks as a rookie even though we have depth at that position. He will habe more impact. Leno is ok but if stanley is there (i prefer Conklin even at 11), he would make us a better team. I don't like Hargreaves but he may be the BPA at the time.

 

I think possible one of top players drop with the potential of 3 qbs and 1 RB being gone. Bosa, Buckner or Jack.

[Wesson44]

Of course we still have needs, if you draft for need and pass up a premium player, you do no service to the team. Hunter will be drafted in the second round because of depth at the position in the draft, but truthfully he is avthird round pick for valve. We would be better off drafting Vannett in the 4th than hunter in the second. With our first two picks we have a chance at getting impact players. Lets say the BPA in the first is likely Elliott, then you have have to take him even though we have Langford. If its lawson who could get us 10 sacks as a rookie even though we have depth at that position. He will habe more impact. Leno is ok but if stanley is there (i prefer Conklin even at 11), he would make us a better team. I don't like Hargreaves but he may be the BPA at the time.

 

I think possible one of top players drop with the potential of 3 qbs and 1 RB being gone. Bosa, Buckner or Jack.

 

ok you say one of these three drop Bosa, Buckner or Jack will that get us where we need to be lets say on offense. So the question here is do we stock the offense or defense

[dawhizz]

Thing is, while we don't have that many needs, we also don't have that many thing we couldn't use. As a fan, I know I'm more likely to forgive a pick I don't necessarily agree with if we got good value than if we reach, but fill a need. So that suggests to me a BPA approach - as long as the Bears are trusting their board and getting good value at every spot, they will probably do a fine job filling out this roster, as opposed to saying "he's the 15th guy on our board, but we are determined to get a RB in the first three rounds and it's round three." So many guys fall at every position (admittedly some for good reason) that a needs-based draft just doesn't make much sense to me.

[Stinger226]

Thing is, while we don't have that many needs, we also don't have that many thing we couldn't use. As a fan, I know I'm more likely to forgive a pick I don't necessarily agree with if we got good value than if we reach, but fill a need. So that suggests to me a BPA approach - as long as the Bears are trusting their board and getting good value at every spot, they will probably do a fine job filling out this roster, as opposed to saying "he's the 15th guy on our board, but we are determined to get a RB in the first three rounds and it's round three." So many guys fall at every position (admittedly some for good reason) that a needs-based draft just doesn't make much sense to me.

I am in china right so I have been listening to the score as i waste time. Gabriel has been on for 4 hours and had interestingconversation. He thinks Bosa has the best chance of dropping. Thaf he put on 15 pounds and be a premium player as a 5 T. I have never thought he could be there before. He is always listed as atop 5 player. . What do you guys think?

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I am in china right so I have been listening to the score as i waste time. Gabriel has been on for 4 hours and had interestingconversation. He thinks Bosa has the best chance of dropping. Thaf he put on 15 pounds and be a premium player as a 5 T. I have never thought he could be there before. He is always listed as atop 5 player. . What do you guys think?

We are at the hour everyone drops. Bosa, Jack Hargreaves etc. At 11, we may luck out, we may be fudged. Only two names intrigue me, Staney or Buckner. Hoping for the besf

[Stinger226]

We are at the hour everyone drops. Bosa, Jack Hargreaves etc. At 11, we may luck out, we may be fudged. Only two names intrigue me, Staney or Buckner. Hoping for the besf

If i had a choice i would choose to draft Buckner or Ramsey. If stanley is gone , i like Conklin better, he is more athletic, a nasty attitude and will be there at 11. If we go left tackle we can get a goid one.

[bradjock]

Thing is, while we don't have that many needs, we also don't have that many thing we couldn't use. As a fan, I know I'm more likely to forgive a pick I don't necessarily agree with if we got good value than if we reach, but fill a need. So that suggests to me a BPA approach - as long as the Bears are trusting their board and getting good value at every spot, they will probably do a fine job filling out this roster, as opposed to saying "he's the 15th guy on our board, but we are determined to get a RB in the first three rounds and it's round three." So many guys fall at every position (admittedly some for good reason) that a needs-based draft just doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Agreed. Think about the positions we could use a significant upgrade:

5 Technique

OLB

Cornerback

Safety

OT

TE

RB

 

 

That's pretty much every position except for ILB, QB, and WR. Chances are, whoever the BPA is, we likely need that position.

[AZ54]

Since we have picked up a few FA do we draft for needs or for the BPA. I see needs as being at TE, (loss Bennett) and RB (loss Forte) CB/SS/FS ours are not really that great. Maybe LT if we feel Leno isn't the best option and maybe a DL.

But surely we need to draft GAME CHANGERS not just BPA. K.Drake in the later rounds would be nice as he can do alot with his speed at RB/WR/KR. But I do feel that we should try to fill the production that we have lost and so do the staff....that's why we went after Anderson(RB) and Hill(TE)...so look for those to be two sspots we are going to draft a player.

 

 

 

 

I think filling the production we lost can come from different directions. For example, we lost Forte. Do we have to go after a RB (need) or can we go BPA and grab a good LT that improves the passing and running game? IMO the need is offense and scoring not RB. Given the fact we have so little talent across the board we should stay with BPA. Who is on our roster besides Long and Jeffrey that can't be replaced? I include Trevathan in that too. Clearly we have some good rookies and potential with guys like Goldman and White so that will be taken into account.

 

BPA to me means that you stick to your scoring system and then when it's your turn to pick, among the players with similar scores you take the one that fills the biggest need. If you have a player with a higher score still on the board and, even if it's not a need position, you take him anyway. If we get to the 3nd Rd and there is an OG still there that has a 2nd rd grade I'm ok taking him even though we just signed 2 FA OGs in Ramirez and Larsen. I'm not even worried about cutting Larsen and losing the guaranteed money so we can keep a rookie on 1/3 of his salary. We need to build for the long term.

 

Once you get close being a Superbowl team you move more toward the needs because by then you should have your elite players in place.

[scs787]

Yeah, I think BPA is all relative to that GMs board, and I think most GMs will have players in positions of need higher

 

We always hear about the Ravens going BPA every year, but when I look at there drafts, it seems like all their picks fill a need.

[jason]

I think filling the production we lost can come from different directions. For example, we lost Forte. Do we have to go after a RB (need) or can we go BPA and grab a good LT that improves the passing and running game? IMO the need is offense and scoring not RB. Given the fact we have so little talent across the board we should stay with BPA. Who is on our roster besides Long and Jeffrey that can't be replaced? I include Trevathan in that too. Clearly we have some good rookies and potential with guys like Goldman and White so that will be taken into account.

 

BPA to me means that you stick to your scoring system and then when it's your turn to pick, among the players with similar scores you take the one that fills the biggest need. If you have a player with a higher score still on the board and, even if it's not a need position, you take him anyway. If we get to the 3nd Rd and there is an OG still there that has a 2nd rd grade I'm ok taking him even though we just signed 2 FA OGs in Ramirez and Larsen. I'm not even worried about cutting Larsen and losing the guaranteed money so we can keep a rookie on 1/3 of his salary. We need to build for the long term.

 

Once you get close being a Superbowl team you move more toward the needs because by then you should have your elite players in place.

 

But there has to be degrees to the BPA philosophy. If a player with a higher score is there, he shouldn't be picked if hes barely higher in points and at a non-need position. Sure, if The best RG in the draft is there is the 6t, go for it, but that situation never happens.

 

[jason]

Of course we still have needs, if you draft for need and pass up a premium player, you do no service to the team. Hunter will be drafted in the second round because of depth at the position in the draft, but truthfully he is avthird round pick for valve. We would be better off drafting Vannett in the 4th than hunter in the second. With our first two picks we have a chance at getting impact players. Lets say the BPA in the first is likely Elliott, then you have have to take him even though we have Langford. If its lawson who could get us 10 sacks as a rookie even though we have depth at that position. He will habe more impact. Leno is ok but if stanley is there (i prefer Conklin even at 11), he would make us a better team. I don't like Hargreaves but he may be the BPA at the time.

 

I think possible one of top players drop with the potential of 3 qbs and 1 RB being gone. Bosa, Buckner or Jack.

 

Bolded-Only if the guy you're drafting is rated way lower than the position of surplus. If they are rated remotely close to one another, it makes way more since to fill the hole on the team than it does to double or triple up on an already strong position. For instance, I loved Ragland before the Bears signed Freeman and Trevathan. Now? I don't want him unless he drops all the way to the Bears in the second.

[AZ54]

Bolded-Only if the guy you're drafting is rated way lower than the position of surplus. If they are rated remotely close to one another, it makes way more since to fill the hole on the team than it does to double or triple up on an already strong position. For instance, I loved Ragland before the Bears signed Freeman and Trevathan. Now? I don't want him unless he drops all the way to the Bears in the second.

 

I understand your point and we might be closer aligned than you realize. If ratings are close fill the need. Freeman and Trevathan won't stop me from taking Myles Jack if he's there at #11. We have little need but neither are blue chip players and Jack is a blue chip prospect. Likewise Freeman and Trevathan wouldn't stop me from taking Ragland in the 2nd Rd.... IF ....I had a mid-1st Rd grade on him. If I have a 2nd Rd grade on Ragland then the answer is no. I think everyone understands that the job is to build a football team not group of the best WRs (eh Matt Millen?)

 

The reality of every draft is that the highly scored players go early. Blue chip prospects are basically found among the top 10. If one falls to 11 you take him UNLESS you already have a blue chip talent at that position. Draft grades gradually go down each round and I'd say by the 3rd Rd there is a leveling off and you aren't seeing much difference. A player taken with the 10th pick in the 3rd Rd might have the same grade as the player taken 15 picks later.

 

When I think of BPA I believe it applies to the early part of the draft where a highly rated talent could fall to you in the 1st and sometimes 2nd Rd. By the time you get into the 3rd/4th/5th Rds grades are fairly balanced and you tend to draft more the needs. I still think you shouldn't go full on needs based and grab a 4th round graded talent in the 3rd round just to plug a hole. Later in the draft again you start to see BPA again because here your grades are based more on potential vs. past performance (or injury).

 

If I get to the 4th Rd and there is an OG sitting there with a late 2nd early 3rd Rd grade I'm not letting the fact we just signed Ted Larsen and Ramirez, and have Slauson at LG, stop me from taking him. If there's a safety out there with a similar grading scenario then I'm going with the safety (need) over the OG.

 

I still say once a roster is deeper with talent (i.e. competing deep in the playoffs) than we are today then in the 4th Rd I might forego that highly rated OG that dropped in order to take a safety with a 4th Rd grade. Now I'd want more depth across the board to increase my chances of winning the Superbowl. The reason I said might is because I'd have to consider a) my cap space and what kind of FA are available at the safety position vs. the talent of the 4th Rd safety.

 

Right now our roster has no depth and we have cap room. We should take BPA to build the talent level and backfill needs via FA. Many of the vet FAs we signed will be gone in 1-2yrs maybe including Porter and Freeman.

[Stinger226]

Bolded-Only if the guy you're drafting is rated way lower than the position of surplus. If they are rated remotely close to one another, it makes way more since to fill the hole on the team than it does to double or triple up on an already strong position. For instance, I loved Ragland before the Bears signed Freeman and Trevathan. Now? I don't want him unless he drops all the way to the Bears in the second.

If players are rated close of course you pick need. From everything I read there are 8 to 14 blue chip types in this draft, depending on who is grading. When i listened to Gabriel on the score he told on teams make up there draft board, and some place higher value on different aspects of draftees. From what i read Pace rates speed as a high value, ao it nay change how we look at things. If one of the blue chip players are there, i dont think it matters what position he is. The qbs will be gone and the wrs and tes dont have high enough ratings to pick there. Guards and centers arent rated high enough but every other position sre open .jack has been listed to play any lber position, so if thet draft him he would be thrown olb.

[jason]

If players are rated close of course you pick need. From everything I read there are 8 to 14 blue chip types in this draft, depending on who is grading. When i listened to Gabriel on the score he told on teams make up there draft board, and some place higher value on different aspects of draftees. From what i read Pace rates speed as a high value, ao it nay change how we look at things. If one of the blue chip players are there, i dont think it matters what position he is. The qbs will be gone and the wrs and tes dont have high enough ratings to pick there. Guards and centers arent rated high enough but every other position sre open .jack has been listed to play any lber position, so if thet draft him he would be thrown olb.

 

Bolded - That's the issue. Who's grading? What do they consider blue chip? What's their record of recognizing blue chip guys? What's their hit/miss percentage?

 

I think it's Millen-esque to pick a guy perceived to be a blue chip (let's say rated #10 on the board) at a position with two solid starters already, when you can get a guy rated #15 or so at a position of desperate need. You end up bolstering a position that didn't need much help and keeping an issue alive at another position.

[50england50]

I would take best player availability and hoping it is a trade with the Jets for Wilkerson and their 20th pick in the 1st for our 11th. We sign him to a long term deal and also draft the best corner available which means we strengthen our 2 biggest needs in one go i.e. Cover corner and 5 technique DE.

[madlithuanian]

sold!

 

I would take best player availability and hoping it is a trade with the Jets for Wilkerson and their 20th pick in the 1st for our 11th. We sign him to a long term deal and also draft the best corner available which means we strengthen our 2 biggest needs in one go i.e. Cover corner and 5 technique DE.

 

[AZ54]

I would take best player availability and hoping it is a trade with the Jets for Wilkerson and their 20th pick in the 1st for our 11th. We sign him to a long term deal and also draft the best corner available which means we strengthen our 2 biggest needs in one go i.e. Cover corner and 5 technique DE.

 

That's what I'm hoping for as well. Keep in mind Buffalo has wined and dined Paxton Lynch throughout this draft process. They are definitely interested.

 

On the Jets side Todd Bowles was in Arizona when the Cardinals went after Carson Palmer. That was an easy deal to make (more or less a 6th Rd pick) but the point is he saw how important it was for Arians to get a good QB and they went after it and it paid off. It's clear Bowles doesn't like Geno and they really want Fitzpatrick back but they know he's just a stop gap. Limited in cap space and with few other options I can see Bowles thinking he'll figure out the defense without Wilkerson and using him as trade bait to move up and draft Lynch. The 49ers have $50mil in cap space and this past week Wilkerson came out and said he'd like to play in San Francisco. There may be something to that smoke.

 

If Lynch is still there when we pick it's possible both the Jets and Bills are calling to make a trade.

[bradjock]

That's what I'm hoping for as well. Keep in mind Buffalo has wined and dined Paxton Lynch throughout this draft process. They are definitely interested.

 

On the Jets side Todd Bowles was in Arizona when the Cardinals went after Carson Palmer. That was an easy deal to make (more or less a 6th Rd pick) but the point is he saw how important it was for Arians to get a good QB and they went after it and it paid off. It's clear Bowles doesn't like Geno and they really want Fitzpatrick back but they know he's just a stop gap. Limited in cap space and with few other options I can see Bowles thinking he'll figure out the defense without Wilkerson and using him as trade bait to move up and draft Lynch. The 49ers have $50mil in cap space and this past week Wilkerson came out and said he'd like to play in San Francisco. There may be something to that smoke.

 

If Lynch is still there when we pick it's possible both the Jets and Bills are calling to make a trade.

 

Have you seen any mock where Lynch is going top 11? It could happen, but the general consensus is those teams don't need to trade up.