TEAMS DO NOT TAKE BPA LOL

[NOT THE DUDE...]

for the love of christ, if i hear another gm say we are taking bpa, im going to puke.

if you have aaron rodgers, you are not taking a qb with your 1st pick, i dont care how good he is, same if your lt and rt are all pros, you are not taking the lt, even if hes bpa...

teams identify their biggest needs, and then lower needs, and take bpa out of those needs in the 1st 3 rounds...



ugh:opiv:

[Joe Fo Sho]

Are you not getting enough attention in real life?

[X-Era]

for the love of christ, if i hear another gm say we are taking bpa, im going to puke.

if you have aaron rodgers, you are not taking a qb with your 1st pick, i dont care how good he is, same if your lt and rt are all pros, you are not taking the lt, even if hes bpa...

teams identify their biggest needs, and then lower needs, and take bpa out of those needs in the 1st 3 rounds...



ugh:opiv:

Usually true. And I agree.

But it does happen. The Bills took Spiller with Lynch and Jackson already here.

[ThunderGun]

Usually true. And I agree.

But it does happen. The Bills took Spiller with Lynch and Jackson already here.

He must've meant teams who know what they are doing.

[sukie]

Uh ... Spiller? Bills didn't need a RB yet thought he was BPA at that spot.

[Mr. Pink]

So teams don't take bpa but take bpa?

:rofl:

Duh, teams tend to take the best player available at a position of need unless there's a can't miss star available when they pick.

[Pinkerton Security]

Usually true. And I agree.

But it does happen. The Bills took Spiller with Lynch and Jackson already here.

The Giants have had one of the deepest D-Lines in the NFL for years and have spent first round picks on DL multiple times, even when the depth was already there. I agree that its not always as simple as drafting the best guy left, but BPA is a strategy many teams use.

[MidnightVoice]

I am glad that companies do not take the Best Person Available in real life. If our Chief Financial Officer left, and the BPA was an Engineer and they took him, we would be in deep doo-doo

:D

[Mski]

for the love of christ, if i hear another gm say we are taking bpa, im going to puke.

if you have aaron rodgers, you are not taking a qb with your 1st pick, i dont care how good he is, same if your lt and rt are all pros, you are not taking the lt, even if hes bpa...

teams identify their biggest needs, and then lower needs, and take bpa out of those needs in the 1st 3 rounds...



ugh:opiv:
once you get out of the top 10, sometimes top 5, there term BPA is very subjective, and it very well may mean that the guy your team has rated highest isnt at a position of need, but that often wont stop a team from taking them. havent the patriots taken a QB almost every year, even though they have Brady and Mallett

[NOT THE DUDE...]

Usually true. And I agree.

But it does happen. The Bills took Spiller with Lynch and Jackson already here.

Jackson wasnt proven and lynch was close to a full year suspension if he got in trouble again... so it was a lower need

[NOT THE DUDE...]

once you get out of the top 10, sometimes top 5, there term BPA is very subjective, and it very well may mean that the guy your team has rated highest isnt at a position of need, but that often wont stop a team from taking them. havent the patriots taken a QB almost every year, even though they have Brady and Mallett

brady is older, so a qb in the 3rd rd fits what i said

- - - Updated - - -


The Giants have had one of the deepest D-Lines in the NFL for years and have spent first round picks on DL multiple times, even when the depth was already there. I agree that its not always as simple as drafting the best guy left, but BPA is a strategy many teams use.

unless you have 3 all pro des, you can never have enough pass rushers. its usually always a high or low need. for example, buffalo could take a pass rusher....

[Pinkerton Security]

brady is older, so a qb in the 3rd rd fits what i said

but you ignored the first part of what he said

[NOT THE DUDE...]

but you ignored the first part of what he said

i agree with him. im saying 95% of the time, teams take bpa with their needs in mind. not simply bpa...

[trapezeus]

So to be clear, you are telling us teams don't do exactly what they've been doing for years. instead they do what you've said a million times in 10 different threads since monday that they just reach for random players that feel good at the time?

again, i think NOT THE DUDE is either MARCEL DAREUS POWER or RUSS BRANDON

[malvado78]

So to be clear, you are telling us teams don't do exactly what they've been doing for years. instead they do what you've said a million times in 10 different threads since monday that they just reach for random players that feel good at the time?

again, i think NOT THE DUDE is either MARCEL DAREUS POWER or RUSS BRANDON

I didn't think there was a question that MARCEL DAREUS POWER changed his screen name to NOT THE DUDE....

What I have been wondering is if NOT THE DUDE and MitchMurrayDowntown are the same person.

I think mods should make a section just for those two to post in all day (and confined to that area as well)...

[Mski]

i agree with him. im saying 95% of the time, teams take bpa with their needs in mind. not simply bpa...
my point is every team has different values on the players, and im willing to bet that if you look at the top ten ranked players by each team, not one of them will be the same, so just because your opinion of the BPA might be player A the team might not have him ranked that way, and it likely doesnt have much to do with who's already on their roster. Aaron Rogers is a good example, the Packers still had Farve, and he wasnt flip flopping on retirement when they drafted him

[NOT THE DUDE...]

my point is every team has different values on the players, and im willing to bet that if you look at the top ten ranked players by each team, not one of them will be the same, so just because your opinion of the BPA might be player A the team might not have him ranked that way, and it likely doesnt have much to do with who's already on their roster. Aaron Rogers is a good example, the Packers still had Farve, and he wasnt flip flopping on retirement when they drafted him

i guarantee you that every player picked in the 1st rd will fill some type of need for that team. ie, the packers will not take a qb in the 1st or 2nd lol

[bf1]

A smart approach would be to rank all players on a scale. Lets say 1-200. Rather than simply ranking them in order.

Then when your pick comes up, if the difference in the ranking isn't much, and there is a need to fill, you draft for the need. No need to reach on lets say a 10+ point difference or something.

Having them firmly listed in order is absurd, imo.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

A smart approach would be to rank all players on a scale. Lets say 1-200. Rather than simply ranking them in order.

Then when your pick comes up, if the difference in the ranking isn't much, and there is a need to fill, you draft for the need. No need to reach on lets say a 10+ point difference or something.

Having them firmly listed in order is absurd, imo.


i agree, as its really hard to qualify why justin hunter is better than baccari rambo... i never got that either...

- - - Updated - - -

its a different position.


not saying you cant have an overall ranking 1-200, but ranking the positions is more important

[bf1]

i agree, as its really hard to qualify why justin hunter is better than baccari rambo... i never got that either...

- - - Updated - - -

its a different position.


not saying you cant have an overall ranking 1-200, but ranking the positions is more important

The same can be the other way around. If the guy who comes up is someone in a position that's not a need, move to the next guy if the ranking difference isn't much.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

So to be clear, you are telling us teams don't do exactly what they've been doing for years. instead they do what you've said a million times in 10 different threads since monday that they just reach for random players that feel good at the time?

again, i think NOT THE DUDE is either MARCEL DAREUS POWER or RUSS BRANDON

no i didnt say that lol...

- - - Updated - - -


The same can be the other way around. If the guy who comes up is someone in a position that's not a need, move to the next guy if the ranking difference isn't much.

yep, i agree.

[BADTHINGSMAN]

Its hard to take you seriously when you lol everything. Teams take who they feel will be able to help them.

[BillsFever21]

for the love of christ, if i hear another gm say we are taking bpa, im going to puke.

if you have aaron rodgers, you are not taking a qb with your 1st pick, i dont care how good he is, same if your lt and rt are all pros, you are not taking the lt, even if hes bpa...

teams identify their biggest needs, and then lower needs, and take bpa out of those needs in the 1st 3 rounds...



ugh:opiv:

It depends on the team. I don't feel any team should just be stuck on one certain position no matter what and take a much lower rated player for the sake of filling that position when there are better players on the board. A QB is a different story though.

It also depends on the status of the team. A team without many holes like the 49ers where none of their draft picks started last year they will most likely take the BPA or look ahead into the future and draft somebody they like to replace a current aging starter in a couple years.

Also a team with a bunch of needs are usually not set on one certain position. They will take the BPA at one of their many holes since their roster is so bad they will be able to find a spot for him. Just because they are worse off at a certain position doesn't mean they will reach for the 6th best DT when the best CB is still on the board if they have a need for both.

If you have a contending team that is weak at a couple positions they are usually the type who may stick with one certain position to try and upgrade a liability that they need replaced in the starting lineup.

When teams say they are going to draft the BPA they don't necessarily mean they are going to take the best player on the board no matter what. They usually mean they are going to take the best player at a position that they could use. Of course somebody like the Packers isn't going to take a QB just because he is the best player in their rankings.

Most teams mean they will lump all of their current needs and take the BPA out of them needs whether it's one of their lower needs or not. Teams who just stick to one position are usually the ones who end up drafting a bust on a more regular basis when they reach for a level of player in the first round they could've gotten in the 2nd round after all of the top ones have been taken. You are totally misunderstanding what the term BPA means to most of the teams in the NFL.

[BillsFever21]

Are you not getting enough attention in real life?

Well he already said that he's afraid to talk to women and ask them out so that could very well be true.

[TigerJ]

There are probably at least 32 different definitions of what BPA meansif you were to poll every team. For most, need is a factor even if they don't admit it. so is the scheme that a team is using. For example, a lot observers think that Chance Warmack is the best guard in the draft. There's no question he is powerful and can move around well in a limited area, but what if your team is using a zone blocking scheme. Warmack just doesn't have enough lateral movement to be elite in that scheme, and Cooper is no doubt going to be the best guard on a zone blocking team's big board. Even if Sharrif Floyd is on the board at #8, Buffalo is not going to pick him. Then after the draft Nix will tell you, "We took the best player available."