Buddy Nix said Drafting "BPA" is a myth

[yordad]

Nix said those that claim they take BPA are lying. I've been saying that for a long time now. GMs cannot say "Well, we took a RB because ours sucks." They have to say "he was the highest rated player on our board".

Now, I've gone rounds with some people on here several tims over this. Here is the link (http://www.buffalobills.com/media-lounge/videos/Bills-Focus-Buddy-Nix-1-on-1/4feb168c-f9f6-4706-af47-a532a09e8a78).

Link (http://billszone.com/fanzone/showpost.php?p=2631418&postcount=29) of me calling it a myth a long time ago.

The prpose of this thread isn't to share the video, because there is probably already a thread on that. The purpose of this thread is to give insight into the draft process, AND to stop this "Strictly BPA" crap.

[Typ0]

Obviously, the BPA is the best player in their opinion. That makes him the highest rated player on the teams board. Additionally, need can play a role in the model used to rank that board. However, the philosophy of drafting strictly by need depletes the long term value you are going to get from the draft. Why have scouts at all if you are thinking you need DE so you go draft the DE the media has hyped up most. BPA is not a myth but it's not talking about the media or fans perception of the best player it's the decisions makers idea of BPA and I would argue that teams ALWAYS take BPA why would they take any less?



Nix said those that claim they take BPA are lying. I've been saying that for a long time now. GMs cannot say "Well, we took a RB because ours sucks." They have to say "he was the highest rated player on our board".

Now, I've gone rounds with some people on here several tims over this. Here is the link (http://www.buffalobills.com/media-lounge/videos/Bills-Focus-Buddy-Nix-1-on-1/4feb168c-f9f6-4706-af47-a532a09e8a78).

Link (http://billszone.com/fanzone/showpost.php?p=2631418&postcount=29) of me calling it a myth a long time ago.

The prpose of this thread isn't to share the video, because there is probably already a thread on that. The purpose of this thread is to give insight into the draft process, AND to stop this "Strictly BPA" crap.

[Mahdi]

Nix said those that claim they take BPA are lying. I've been saying that for a long time now. GMs cannot say "Well, we took a RB because ours sucks." They have to say "he was the highest rated player on our board".

Now, I've gone rounds with some people on here several tims over this. Here is the link (http://www.buffalobills.com/media-lounge/videos/Bills-Focus-Buddy-Nix-1-on-1/4feb168c-f9f6-4706-af47-a532a09e8a78).

Link (http://billszone.com/fanzone/showpost.php?p=2631418&postcount=29) of me calling it a myth a long time ago.

The prpose of this thread isn't to share the video, because there is probably already a thread on that. The purpose of this thread is to give insight into the draft process, AND to stop this "Strictly BPA" crap.
There is always an element of need when drafting.

I think "BPA" means if you need a LB and one is on the board that is an 80 rating and there is also a WR that is a 90, you take the WR that is 90.

If the LB is 88 and the WR is 90 you take the LB because you have a strong need there.

[Typ0]

I know several years ago I posted a multi-attribute attitudinal model that I thought would be used to rank the players on the board by a team. It's much more likely they do something like that and then take their top ranked players. That would be good decision making IMO.

[Typ0]

There is always an element of need when drafting.

I think "BPA" means if you need a LB and one is on the board that is an 80 rating and there is also a WR that is a 90, you take the WR that is 90.

If the LB is 88 and the WR is 90 you take the LB because you have a strong need there.


I disagree. Need would be factored into the model and already accounted for in the 88 so you would still take the 90. That's how you make the tough decisions without being arbitrary.

[Mahdi]

I disagree. Need would be factored into the model and already accounted for in the 88 so you would still take the 90. That's how you make the tough decisions without being arbitrary.
Need is not factored into prospect ratings. They are rated on their skills only. Once you rate a player you place him on your board and the board is based on the best football players not the players you need.

Then when your pick is up you pick the player that rates highest. Need only comes into it when you are choosing between similarly rated prospects.

[yordad]

Need is not factored into prospect ratings. They are rated on their skills only. Once you rate a player you place him on your board and the board is based on the best football players not the players you need.

Then when your pick is up you pick the player that rates highest. Need only comes into it when you are choosing between similarly rated prospects.Bingo. BUT, "need" does come up. "Strictly BPA" is just a GM trying to be nice to the guy he is replacing with that pic.

In other words, we will not be drafting a defensive back in the first round this year.

[YardRat]

Bingo. BUT, "need" does come up. "Strictly BPA" is just a GM trying to be nice to the guy he is replacing with that pic.

In other words, we will not be drafting a defensive back in the first round this year.

I wouldn't bet on that...we could use a top-flight CB and an impact safety.

[Griff]

I wouldn't bet on that...we could use a top-flight CB and an impact safety.

wtf, our secondary was the best part of this team this year, Fred and Brian being #2.

[TigerJ]

The pure BPA theory doesn't exist in the NFL, but there is a form of it. It's really the BPAU or the Best Player Available for Us strategy. Team personnel strategists rate players on all the measurables, productivity, level of college competition, interviews that they have available to them, but team need and the appropriateness of a player for the systems the team employs inevitably are factored into the way a team puts its big board together. Case in point: Gerald McCoy is pretty much a consensus #2 defensive tackle in the draft. However, at least in the opinion of some pundits, McCoy is strictly a 4-3 defensive tackle, and nothing else. If NFL teams agree with that assessment, a team that runs a 3-4 is not going to draft him, even if he is the most talented player left on the board at that point.

Teams drafting for need get into trouble if they reach too far for a player. It becomes a question of how much weight do you place on need. If you're desperate for a left tackle, and there is a run on left tackles before you can draft, you can't just go and get the next best available left tackle in the draft. He might even be available when you draft in the next round.

So, if you've got a group of players that you rate pretty close together in terms of their likely success in the NFL, and one of them matches more closely than the others a need you're trying to fill, that's the guy you draft.

[Ingtar33]

The pure BPA theory doesn't exist in the NFL, but there is a form of it. It's really the BPAU or the Best Player Available for Us strategy. Team personnel strategists rate players on all the measurables, productivity, level of college competition, interviews that they have available to them, but team need and the appropriateness of a player for the systems the team employs inevitably are factored into the way a team puts its big board together. Case in point: Gerald McCoy is pretty much a consensus #2 defensive tackle in the draft. However, at least in the opinion of some pundits, McCoy is strictly a 4-3 defensive tackle, and nothing else. If NFL teams agree with that assessment, a team that runs a 3-4 is not going to draft him, even if he is the most talented player left on the board at that point.

Teams drafting for need get into trouble if they reach too far for a player. It becomes a question of how much weight do you place on need. If you're desperate for a left tackle, and there is a run on left tackles before you can draft, you can't just go and get the next best available left tackle in the draft. He might even be available when you draft in the next round.

So, if you've got a group of players that you rate pretty close together in terms of their likely success in the NFL, and one of them matches more closely than the others a need you're trying to fill, that's the guy you draft.


yep. this sums it up nicely. teams mostly draft need not BPA... though in the later rounds there is a little BPA drafting.

[Buddo]

It is definitely a myth. If it wasn't a myth, there would be no need for the actual draft to take place. By the time the various scouting organisations have picked over the bones of the prospects, you will have pretty much a base grade for them all. Note that there are several 'groups' of scouts who actually pool information anyway. That being the case, the prospects could simply be slotted to teams based on their draft position.
The other reason it is a 'myth', is that teams will use additional factors in grading players. Those factors, as others have already mentioned, will be in respect of both need and scheme. That fundamentally cannot translate into bpa.
Where teams claim to be picking bpa, is once they have added in those factors, and made up their board. It may not always be exact, I'm sure for example, that Mahdi's case has occurred before now somewhere, (the 88 to 90 switch) but that, to me, is actually 'going against' your board.
It is also true to say that teams will ignore some talented players completely, if they don't 'fit' their scheme. they will also ignore players who have demonstrable problems/issues.
In many respects, BPA can be deemed to be a myth as soon as teams decide to factor in anything else other than talent, in their grading systems.

[Mr. Pink]

Teams that value BPA over need on draft day are the franchises that are more successful.

Teams that draft strictly on need bypass better talents to fill holes.

[yordad]

Teams that value BPA over need on draft day are the franchises that are more successful.

Teams that draft strictly on need bypass better talents to fill holes.Buddy Nix says you are lying. He said Players that fit onto the field should be drafted. He mentioned you may only have them for 4 or 5 years, so thry have to contribute early. And he says any GM who tells you differently is flat out lying.

I think this means no more first round "projects".

[Mr. Pink]

Buddy Nix says you are lying. He said Players that fit onto the field should be drafted. He mentioned you may only have them for 4 or 5 years, so thry have to contribute early. And he says any GM who tells you differently is flat out lying.

I think this means no more first round "projects".


Really? He says I'm lying?

How many times have we reached in the past decade getting a guy because we "need" him based on getting a guy who's clearly better elsewhere?

No one will say we drafted Maybin because he was BPA, he was a need, and a BAD reach.

[Mr. Pink]

I'll give examples of drafting need vs bpa...

The Colts drafted Donald Brown in the first round...they didn't need him, Addai has plenty left. And the Colts definitely could have drafted a WR to replace Harrison as a need.

The Steelers drafted Evander Hood...they have Casey Hampton...not a need.

The Packers draft Clay Matthews JR...he didn't start at the beginning of the year but won a spot because he was good...not a need.

The Eagles drafted Jeremy Maclin...they didn't need a WR.

The more successful franchises draft based on how good a player is in total, not the best player they think at the position they want.

[yordad]

Really? He says I'm lying?

How many times have we reached in the past decade getting a guy because we "need" him based on getting a guy who's clearly better elsewhere?

No one will say we drafted Maybin because he was BPA, he was a need, and a BAD reach.Yeah, a "project" who was undersized, and didn't fit the scheme. Pretty sure he wasn't talking about drafting more Maybins. Maybe just an Orakpo. I suppose drafting a(nother) condending rookie of the year would have been an act of desperation?

[yordad]

Or how about if the Bills "reached" and grabbed LT Michael Oher. A player who would have contributed significantly immediately.

[Mr. Pink]

The Bills would have been better of taking Vontae Davis, a cornerback, instead of Maybin.

That's what happens when you get stuck in the rut of drafting based on need.

You reach for guys and leave better talented players on the board.

Taking Maybin there was more of a reach than taking Oher.

[Mr. Pink]

There is always an element of need when drafting.

I think "BPA" means if you need a LB and one is on the board that is an 80 rating and there is also a WR that is a 90, you take the WR that is 90.

If the LB is 88 and the WR is 90 you take the LB because you have a strong need there.


You should always take the WR in your first scenario.

However that is not what this franchise has done over the years and a big reason why we draft busts year in and year out.

[Dujek]

I wouldn't bet on that...we could use a top-flight CB and an impact safety.

Funny you say that, a friend and I were discussing Eric Berry, and I said that it would be a typical Bills move to reach for him with the 8 or 9 pick...

[Mr. Pink]

Funny you say that, a friend and I were discussing Eric Berry, and I said that it would be a typical Bills move to reach for him with the 8 or 9 pick...


Berry will be gone before we pick, don't worry.

He's one of the top 3 prospects in this draft.

[jamze132]

SO say your have 2 very young, lockdown corners who have each made the pro bowl in their first couple of years, are you going to draft a CB in RD1 if he is the BPA? I think you would be a complete idiot to do so when you could fill another need.

IMO, going BPA only goes so far, but it all depends on your team and what is currently available where you pick. Obviously day 2 is where BPA really comes into effect, but I will never agree that you strictly go BPA in the 1st half of the 1st RD... you know, where the Bills are always picking.

[Mr. Pink]

SO say your have 2 very young, lockdown corners who have each made the pro bowl in their first couple of years, are you going to draft a CB in RD1 if he is the BPA? I think you would be a complete idiot to do so when you could fill another need.

IMO, going BPA only goes so far, but it all depends on your team and what is currently available where you pick. Obviously day 2 is where BPA really comes into effect, but I will never agree that you strictly go BPA in the 1st half of the 1st RD... you know, where the Bills are always picking.

It depends on how much you value that corner over anyone else in the draft.

It also depends on if you can trade that corner for a premier player at another position. Such as the Portis for Champ Bailey trade.

If where you draft somehow you have that corner valued at a 9 and the next highest player is a 7, not a likely scenario, then you're an idiot for taking the lower value.

And even Nix has drafted this way, or had a hand in it, 02-06 three corners selected in the first round. Jammer, Sammy Davis, Cromartie.

2009 draft even though the Chargers already had Jammer and Cromartie, both young, they went out and drafted Antoine Cason in Rd1.

The draft is not meant just with the next season in mind which it appears many people forget. At some point you're going to lose one of those corners to FA and not being able to afford holding onto two shutdown corners.

[Typ0]

Need is not factored into prospect ratings. They are rated on their skills only. Once you rate a player you place him on your board and the board is based on the best football players not the players you need.

Then when your pick is up you pick the player that rates highest. Need only comes into it when you are choosing between similarly rated prospects.


you know this is done how? It only makes sense to factor need into your rating model. It would quantify what the decision makers are actually thinking. Like Nix said, goodness of fit is the most important thing and there are a lot of variables that determine that. To ignore them when making a draft decision would be suicidal. I expect they are a lot more methodical but I don't really know squat about what happens in an NFL war room because I've never been in one.

[Typ0]

it only makes logical sense that if your scouting team is right about the players and then you draft the best players you are going to have the best players on your team.

[The Jokeman]

I'll give examples of drafting need vs bpa...

The Colts drafted Donald Brown in the first round...they didn't need him, Addai has plenty left. And the Colts definitely could have drafted a WR to replace Harrison as a need.

The Steelers drafted Evander Hood...they have Casey Hampton...not a need.

The Packers draft Clay Matthews JR...he didn't start at the beginning of the year but won a spot because he was good...not a need.

The Eagles drafted Jeremy Maclin...they didn't need a WR.

The more successful franchises draft based on how good a player is in total, not the best player they think at the position they want.

I have to disagree with some of your assesments.

1)The Colts had a WR in place to replace Harrison in Anthony Gonzalez. In terms of Addai, he struggled in 2008 and with more and more teams understanding that a two RB approach the way to go Brown was a bigger need over WR. Especially when look at Addai's 2008 numbers where he averaged 3.3 per carry.

2)Hood's playing DE in Pittsburgh not DT. So he wasn't viewed as a replacement for Hampton.

3)The Packers transitioned from a 4-3 to a 3-4 in 2009 so Matthews Jr was a need. As they needed to find someone that could get to the QB outside of Aaron Kampman.

4)I'll agree the Eagles didn't need Maclin.

In terms of me and the draft. I've always said it's about finding the best collection of players. So you can do the BPA and also draft for need. As to me the draft is like a puzzle. To me it's best to pick in one based on what might be available in future rounds. Case in point in 2009, I felt it would have been wise to take a OT at pick #11 as felt could get a a pass rusher at pick #28 (Clint Slintim). That said Kudos to you for picking two players we got in the draft when I was only to nab one. (For those who missed it http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showthread.php?t=173562&page=2

[yordad]

you know this is done how? It only makes sense to factor need into your rating model. It would quantify what the decision makers are actually thinking. Like Nix said, goodness of fit is the most important thing and there are a lot of variables that determine that. To ignore them when making a draft decision would be suicidal. I expect they are a lot more methodical but I don't really know squat about what happens in an NFL war room because I've never been in one.I would think Nix has been in the war room before.

[yordad]

you know this is done how? It only makes sense to factor need into your rating model. It would quantify what the decision makers are actually thinking. Like Nix said, goodness of fit is the most important thing and there are a lot of variables that determine that. To ignore them when making a draft decision would be suicidal. I expect they are a lot more methodical but I don't really know squat about what happens in an NFL war room because I've never been in one.I would think Nix has been in the war room before. I tend to want to take his word for it over yours. :idunno:

[Dying_-2-_Live]

You should always take the WR in your first scenario.

However that is not what this franchise has done over the years and a big reason why we draft busts year in and year out.

perfect example is the Donte Whitner pick... Michael Huff was gone... they freaked... and chose Whitner

[Buddo]

perfect example is the Donte Whitner pick... Michael Huff was gone... they freaked... and chose Whitner

That's wrong in all honesty. They actually wanted Whitner, as they wanted the best pure Strong Safety. Bill Polian somewhere, said he knew the Bills would pick Whitner, even if Huff was still there. Whitner might be considered a 'reach' in that they may have been able to still pick him a few slots later, but it wasn't because Huff had already gone.

[YardRat]

Teams that value BPA over need on draft day are the franchises that are more successful.

Teams that draft strictly on need bypass better talents to fill holes.

What is truly scary is the possibility that the Bills were actually drafting BPA this past decade according to their boards.

[yordad]

Plan and simple, if you do not think teams target players at need positions then Buddy Nix, who would know better as well as anyone, says you are wrong.

[Typ0]

I would think Nix has been in the war room before. I tend to want to take his word for it over yours. :idunno:


When did Nix say need is not factored into the rating model when evaluating players for a draft board then?

[k-oneputt]

The problem is the people doing the drafting. Really who is ranking these players ?
Whitner over Ngata ???? It goes on and on.
I'll guarantee you Nix doesn't draft a wr in rd.1

[Mahdi]

Plan and simple, if you do not think teams target players at need positions then Buddy Nix, who would know better as well as anyone, says you are wrong.
No one said need is not a factor, its a big factor. But players are not rated based on the needs of the team.

Need comes into the equation when decisions need to be made on who to select.

A perfect example is choosing McKelvin last year. We chose him not because we needed a CB badly, we chose him because he was highly rated. If we were drafting for need we would have taken the best WR prospect in R1.

Taking the highest player on your board applies more heavily to Round 1 then for any other round because it is critical to take the biggest impact player you can. And limiting yourself to need positions only means you will surely miss good prospects often.

[yordad]

When did Nix say need is not factored into the rating model when evaluating players for a draft board then?Either way, it isn't strictly BPA. Wouldn't you agree?

[Typ0]

Either way, it isn't strictly BPA. Wouldn't you agree?


I never thought BPA ignored need and that is where I diverge from a lot I guess. I do feel you need to take the BPA every time you pick because not doing that will deplete the long term value you get from drafting. However, BPA is the best player based on your current organizational needs. In short, I think you are thinking in extreems and it's a combination of many things including positional needs that go into a player rating. Furthermore, when you fill a need on draft day your whole board would change because said need was filled and you no longer had that need.

[Typ0]

Incidently, I really think what I said above is what Nix was talking about. You used his quote to go off on an extreem tirade about how BPA is not a strategy used and he was really talking about misconceptions of what the BPA strategy actually is.

[yordad]

I never thought BPA ignored need and that is where I diverge from a lot I guess. I do feel you need to take the BPA every time you pick because not doing that will deplete the long term value you get from drafting. However, BPA is the best player based on your current organizational needs. In short, I think you are thinking in extreems and it's a combination of many things including positional needs that go into a player rating. Furthermore, when you fill a need on draft day your whole board would change because said need was filled and you no longer had that need.I am not suggesting they pick the 30th rated BPA when picking 6th based on need. I am saying Nix confirmed they do not ignore the fact they need impact from their younger players early on. Teams can no longer wait 2-3 years for a player to develop or a spot to become vacant. They draft players that they think can fit onto the field immediately.

He said by the 8th game they are no longer rookies. AND he said we should reserve judgment on Maybin for another year or two. This, to me, suggest that Maybin was not his call.

[YardRat]

Taking the highest player on your board applies more heavily to Round 1 then for any other round because it is critical to take the biggest impact player you can. And limiting yourself to need positions only means you will surely miss good prospects often.

Impact as in short-term or long-term?

[yordad]

Taking your highest rated player at a stocked position wouldn't make the highest possible impact. For example, I wouldn't think we take a guard if he is the 30th raked prospect and he drops to our second round pick at 40ish. I believe we would much rather take the 35 ranked player who is an OLB. A top 35 OLB would likely contribute much more then a 30th ranked prospect when he is buried on the depth chart.

[DraftBoy]

you know this is done how? It only makes sense to factor need into your rating model. It would quantify what the decision makers are actually thinking. Like Nix said, goodness of fit is the most important thing and there are a lot of variables that determine that. To ignore them when making a draft decision would be suicidal. I expect they are a lot more methodical but I don't really know squat about what happens in an NFL war room because I've never been in one.


I think you need to differentiate the two different rating systems that happen in April. Part of that may be my fault as up until this year I would only use one when it came to the guide, so that is on me.

There are two ways prospects are rated;
1-Positional Rankings
2-Big Board

Now the positional rankings are those based only on skill level, player A is better than player B at this position.

However the Big Board is where need is introduced to the equation. You value certain players over others despite one being the highest skill level player at his position and the other being maybe 3rd or 4th.

Now Im the biggest proponent of BPA here, and I dont think Nix is wrong, nor that he disagrees with my philosophy in the least bit. He may weigh need a little more, but he is not one who has a history of reaching for positional picks over value picks.

All Nix's quote is saying is that he won't be PC about picks. We took the player A, because we think he's better or had better potential then what we currently have on our roster. It doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the philosophy behind BPA. He just thinks the PR crap is just that...crap.

[Typ0]

That's pretty much how I see it too. And if the team has tons of needs then positional needs will just get a higher weight. That's why teams that have better talent are better positioned to draft because they have the luxury of continually making positions better through the draft. That is what they mean by "build through the draft". Unfortunately, a lot of fans think the building through the draft strategy is just a cop out on getting free agents. I don't see it that way at all. Any way you look at it you are going to get more players through the draft and those players are going to be bred into your system...so you have to look at the draft as your primary source of talent to build the system you are going to run...and it's also why the revolving door of coaches is detrimental to success.


I think you need to differentiate the two different rating systems that happen in April. Part of that may be my fault as up until this year I would only use one when it came to the guide, so that is on me.

There are two ways prospects are rated;
1-Positional Rankings
2-Big Board

Now the positional rankings are those based only on skill level, player A is better than player B at this position.

However the Big Board is where need is introduced to the equation. You value certain players over others despite one being the highest skill level player at his position and the other being maybe 3rd or 4th.

Now Im the biggest proponent of BPA here, and I dont think Nix is wrong, nor that he disagrees with my philosophy in the least bit. He may weigh need a little more, but he is not one who has a history of reaching for positional picks over value picks.

All Nix's quote is saying is that he won't be PC about picks. We took the player A, because we think he's better or had better potential then what we currently have on our roster. It doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the philosophy behind BPA. He just thinks the PR crap is just that...crap.

[Buddo]

I think you need to differentiate the two different rating systems that happen in April. Part of that may be my fault as up until this year I would only use one when it came to the guide, so that is on me.

There are two ways prospects are rated;
1-Positional Rankings
2-Big Board

Now the positional rankings are those based only on skill level, player A is better than player B at this position.

However the Big Board is where need is introduced to the equation. You value certain players over others despite one being the highest skill level player at his position and the other being maybe 3rd or 4th.

Now Im the biggest proponent of BPA here, and I dont think Nix is wrong, nor that he disagrees with my philosophy in the least bit. He may weigh need a little more, but he is not one who has a history of reaching for positional picks over value picks.

All Nix's quote is saying is that he won't be PC about picks. We took the player A, because we think he's better or had better potential then what we currently have on our roster. It doesn't mean he doesn't believe in the philosophy behind BPA. He just thinks the PR crap is just that...crap.

To me, it's the transition between positional rankings and 'Big Board' that make 'BPA' a myth. It also seems to be the part that people willingly misinterpret.
That transition, is also where teams start to go away from trying to fit square pegs into round holes. From what I've gleaned about that transition, Need, System 'fit', Behaviour (off field/practise habits etc), all are likely 'factors' that will be added in before the 'Big Board' gets set.
Once that 'Big Board' is set, at that point, teams are talking BPA, or couching it in terms of 'staying true to our board' and suchlike.
It isn't deliberately misleading, as it's a practise that has obviously been occuring for years, but it isn't something that anyone ever seems bothered to explain clearly, maybe because other teams could possibly get an advantage, should they guess correctly how someone else has 'factored' their board.