Best Player Available = Worst Draft Policy Possible

[SalishHawkFan]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... by-giants/

Curry cut by Giants.

First off, the whole theory of "Best Player Available" has and always will be hogwash and this pick proves it. The fact is, despite all the scouting reports, no one knows who the BPA is. The best way to draft is to draft for need. It's hit or miss either way and you make your best guess, but at least you filled a frakking need, not left the left tackle position woefully open to take a guy the team didn't really need to begin with.

Secondly, LBers don't go in the top 10 picks. Ruskell terribly overpaid for Curry.

Thirdly, omg did I take flak for saying these same things four years ago. It feels good to be vindicated, but it sucks that he turned out to be a bust. In the end, however, what's best about all this is that our #4 pick only four years ago was a complete bust and it doesn't even matter because P&J are here and we have geniuses in our front office.

 

[Throwdown]

Also considering we had a need for a guys like Orakpo, BJ Raji, Brian Cushing, Percy Harvin (though this doesn't mean much now), Clay Matthews, Hakeem Nicks, Kenny Britt...

I'd take any of those guys, even the last 2 I listed even though they aren't stars over Curry, I feel like a moron for getting excited about the pick.

ugh...

 

[SharkHawk]

I agree to a point, but there are exceptions. Like the Raiders "Drafting for need" and taking a kicker in the first round. Or the Cowboys taking a center. Or the Seahawks taking a center when they took Chris Spencer. Draft the best player available at the position of need, unless that position of need is one that isn't valued as highly and can be taken in the 2nd and beyond. I think this is what the Hawks did when they took Irvin in the first round. They needed a QB. Everybody got mad. But they felt the QB they wanted would be there in the 3rd or maybe even 4th and speed rushers were highly valued due to the success that Von Miller and Aldon Smith had. They also needed a backup for Lynch and they needed a MLB. They were smart to grab Irvin when they did, because then Wagner or the other guy that wanted would be available (he went a pick before Wagner, blanking on his name). They rolled the dice a bit, but getting Turbin, Wagner, Wilson, and Irvin with their first four picks was great. You could swap Irvin and Wilson in the draft and it would have been a great draft as well. Wagner could have traded spots with Irvin and I don't think anybody would be complaining about the draft after the success they had last year. Wagner was a great addition and easily a first round value. Irvin was probably a bit lower of a value, but still put up 1st round numbers and showed first round potential. Of course Wilson put up top overall pick in the draft kind of numbers, so everybody else was a bonus. Turbin was a good value as a fourth rounder for sure.

I think the smartest teams do exactly what you say, and they do it with the wisdom of recognizing a whole draft strategy. Not just one pick at a time. But when it comes down to one pick and the guy is sitting there that has the most value...snag him. This is what happened with Alexander when the Hawks picked him. We already had Ricky. But he was the best player available by far and dropped for no reason except for the team that needed a runner (the Giants) were stupid enough to pick Ron Dayne at 10 I think (maybe even higher). The Packers did this with Rodgers. The Hawks did this with Futch. The Hawks did it again this year with Michael. It's a much better strategy than Tim Ruskell's "Throw a dart at an all-SEC list of players and draft the one that is hit with the dart" madness.

 

[seatownboy]

Look at the whole top ten of that draft it was a complete fail really. Even the amount of talent came out of it as a hole was pretty meh. If the Seahawks were ever to strike out, I am glad they did it on that draft.

 

[Happypuppy]

I really wanted Crabtree. In retrospect he may have been a far better pick, but he still IMO is not that great
. I don't believe any team really drafts the best player available except perhaps the last round or 2. They all take the best player based on needs.

 

[AgentDib]

Who is the better player; Blair Walsh or Aaron Rodgers? Of course the position affects how we decide on the best players, and the most important positions will always dominate the conversation. Nobody advocates drafting the best kicker ahead of the second best QB. Best player available has always included cognizance of the general importance and scarcity of each position.

Along those lines, Curry's failure had absolutely nothing to do with BPA. A failure of the BPA system would have been if Curry had turned out to be the superstar they thought he was, but our team was still terrible because we had too many good LBs and not enough talent elsewhere. That simply isn't what happened.

Curry failed because he was not a very good NFL player, the talent evaluators got it wrong when they graded him as highly as they did, and the decision makers were unlucky in that they picked one of the dozens of players every single draft who significantly under perform their draft ranking. Even the best GMs will miss on lots of picks, which is why we look at the whole body of work. In Schneider's case, fans are quick to forgive the first three rounds of 2011 (Carpenter/Whitehurst trade/Moffitt) as soon as they remember that we picked up Richard Sherman in the 5th round. It's never just about one pick.

 

[kearly]

I always thought the BPA argument by fans was very simpleminded. Most if not all GMs draft for a combination of both, they draft the best player that fits an area of need. Every offseason GMs are simply trying to upgrade their rosters as much as they possibly can under the circumstances they are given. There is no better way to do that than by acquiring players who fill the most upgradeable areas. Having the ability to fill a need also boosts a prospects value to your team because he'll get more reps and won't push aside a quality player.

Some fans think that you should fill needs in FA and draft BPA, but this is also naive because it doesn't seem to understand that money is just as valuable a resource as draft picks are. For example, if you go out and blow $13 million a season on Mike Wallace just so you don't have to draft a WR early, then you are not doing your team any favors.

Really, the only time you should think BPA is when you have a shot at a generational talent. Green Bay probably could have rolled with Brett Favre for another 5-6 years, but took Rodgers anyway because they couldn't turn down an opportunity like that. The Jaguars had Eugene Monroe but took Luke Joekel anyway because the chance to get a left tackle of his caliber is something you might have a shot at once a decade. Matt Millen was the laughing stock of the league for drafting WRs early in the draft several years in succession, and he still took Calvin Johnson.

The picks at the very top of the draft tend to be more BPA oriented, because most drafts have a few very special players who stand out. Curry was never one of them, he was just a hype job who even if successful would have been a stupid pick for contract reasons alone. Tim Ruskell was never a GM who "got it" in regards to talent and development, and I actually pieced together the clues that he was going to draft Curry and predicted it a couple days before it happened on the draft forum. He was also a dumbass with his contract decisions- he actually bragged about getting a 6th year on Curry's rookie deal that paid an unproven 4-3 OLB $10 million per season.

 

[Scottemojo]

Some times it works. Rodgers.
Sometimes it doesn't. Curry.

The top ten in that particular draft was awful. Using it to prop up an I hate BPA agenda is silly.

 

[Thread Killer]

Some times it works. Rodgers.
Sometimes it doesn't. Curry.

The top ten in that particular draft was awful. Using it to prop up an I hate BPA agenda is silly.

Agreed.

Besides, the BPA theory isn't based upon a consensus opinion. That's impossible. It's the BPA deemed by the team making the selection.

 

[Scottemojo]

BPA isn't even real. It's just a thing Gm's say to cover their ass. Player I like the most that I think we need would be more accurate.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

And let's be honest, Christine Michael was in essence entirely a BPA pick. Certainly it wasn't a selection of need, and even John Schneider admitted bluntly that you can't leave guys like that on the board and be successful. Even hinting that he had gone the other way and avoided a BPA pick recently that blew up on him. It was entirely a pick of luxury but it wasn't a bad pick either.

Curry wasn't a good player. He had the same flaws in college that he displayed in the pros. He just had tremendous physical ability. But there are plenty of BPA picks that turn out.

There are so many things that go into whether a player succeeds at this level. Certainly luck as far as injuries go. Coaching/development is a completely hidden element. Many draftniks and fans tend to assume that the ability to develop into a good player is a constant and that the failure to do so rests solely on the prospect. But that'd be simpleminded. Some teams draft BPA within the framework of the kind of prospects they want for their system. Seattle does this extremely well. Not all of these players would be who they are if they were drafted elsewhere.

 

[pehawk]

Holmgren missed, EVERY TIME, he drafted for need. But he hit every time he drafted BPA (Hutch was a CLASSIC and should be used as THE case for BPA).

 

[Marvin49]

Some times it works. Rodgers.
Sometimes it doesn't. Curry.

The top ten in that particular draft was awful. Using it to prop up an I hate BPA agenda is silly.

Agreed. BPA is always the best pick....you just have to be sure that he is in fact the BPA. Curry is a bad example because he clearly (now anyway) wasn't.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

You don't draft BPA, but you do draft for value. Who is the best player that I can get? Does this player fill a glaring need or is he a luxury pick? Is there depth at this player's position so that I can possibly fill it later, or is this the last QB/RB/CB/etc. of this level in the draft?

The answers to those three questions should combine to help a GM know when or whether to take a player.

 

[sutz]

I think the real danger is trying to narrowly define draft strategies with simplistic terms. I think most can agree that "best player" and "best athlete" can be entirely different things. Also, GMs who ignore team fit and what the coaches need will have short, unremarkable careers.

 

[AgentDib]

Do you take a great player at a position you don't need, or a good player at a position you do need?

BPA is the strategy of taking the better player and I think it is demonstrably superior over the long term. Needs change every year, while salary is mostly slotted by draft position. This means that you would be paying roughly the same amount for the good player that you could have paid to the great player, which means that a team who drafts need first will have less talent given the constraint of the salary cap.

You don't draft BPA, but you do draft for value.

If you define value as production per dollar and recognize that salaries are largely slotted into draft position, then the conclusion is that drafting BPA and drafting for value are the same thing.

Also, GMs who ignore team fit and what the coaches need will have short, unremarkable careers.

Of course the strategy will be much different for a new hire GM given the freedom to rebuild, or a GM on the third year of a rebuild that isn't moving in the right direction. However, when people talk about building through the draft, they are usually talking about the philosophy coming out of a complete overhaul and transitioning to a sustainable future. BPA leads to a higher overall talent level, which means better overall depth, which means less short term emphasis on scrambling to fill short term needs.

Either way, Aaron Curry has nothing to do with BPA. Hindsight tells us that was Aaron Rodgers, and Aaron Curry was not in the top 50 remaining on the board at that point.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

I don't define value as production per dollar. Value is also determined by your current roster and by what the market is paying for similar talent.

 

[razor150]

Do you take a great player at a position you don't need, or a good player at a position you do need?

BPA is the strategy of taking the better player and I think it is demonstrably superior over the long term. Needs change every year, while salary is mostly slotted by draft position. This means that you would be paying roughly the same amount for the good player that you could have paid to the great player, which means that a team who drafts need first will have less talent given the constraint of the salary cap.

You don't draft BPA, but you do draft for value.

If you define value as production per dollar and recognize that salaries are largely slotted into draft position, then the conclusion is that drafting BPA and drafting for value are the same thing.

Also, GMs who ignore team fit and what the coaches need will have short, unremarkable careers.

Of course the strategy will be much different for a new hire GM given the freedom to rebuild, or a GM on the third year of a rebuild that isn't moving in the right direction. However, when people talk about building through the draft, they are usually talking about the philosophy coming out of a complete overhaul and transitioning to a sustainable future. BPA leads to a higher overall talent level, which means better overall depth, which means less short term emphasis on scrambling to fill short term needs.

Either way, Aaron Curry has nothing to do with BPA. Hindsight tells us that was Aaron Rodgers, and Aaron Curry was not in the top 50 remaining on the board at that point.

Considering draft evaluation is at best an imprecise science claiming that drafting need over BPA is leaving a team less talented isn't true at all. If it were teams wouldn't trade down to get the player they targeted at a draft position of better value, or failing that draft the player they targeted anyways. They would just draft the "better" player. The whole BPA claim is a myth anyway, unless you are talking about truly stand out players who are obviously head and shoulders above the other options. That is how you get an Alexander or Hutchinson pick, they were just head and shoulders better then the alternatives. That isn't a common scenario though. BPA will always be and should be based on need for the system you run. Otherwise you can get a potentially unbalanced roster, or filled with players who don't fit your system. Having a great receiving corp means nothing if you don't have a QB to get the ball to them or a line to block for that QB.

 

[AgentDib]

I don't define value as production per dollar. Value is also determined by your current roster and by what the market is paying for similar talent.

Production is an expected value, and as such would vary based on your current roster. Decisions should always be made based on the future rather than the past.

Do you need to include market prices separately? Teams already spend their FA dollars based on expected production, and assuming that the market is efficient strikes me as a good simplification. Sort of like the economist joke about the $20 laying on the ground which must not actually be there or it would have been picked up already.

Considering draft evaluation is at best an imprecise science claiming that drafting need over BPA is leaving a team less talented isn't true at all.

Uncertainty makes it difficult to figure out who the best players are and even the best GMs strike out all the time. However, drafting for need doesn't solve this issue. In many cases, it can actually exacerbate the problem because it makes it hard to move on from guys who aren't panning out. QB is perhaps the best example of this, where a bunch of teams reach on prospects to fill needs. If the Jaguars had a time machine, they would love to get a do over in 2011 and go BPA with JJ Watt rather than need with Gabbert.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

BPA isn't even real. It's just a thing Gm's say to cover their ass. Player I like the most that I think we need would be more accurate.

That's my point, that's what Curry proves. There's no way on earth anyone actually KNOWS who the BPA is. So to draft someone because they're the BPA is stupid, regardless of the fact that all top 10 picks that year didn't pan out (though I thought Oher was doing pretty good, haven't followed him so maybe not). You don't KNOW who the BPA is, but you can have a pretty good idea who will fit your most glaring need is. Especially if you're looking for specific skills that fit your scheme. Knowing things like that are what allow Carroll to let Wilson slide to the third round and then pick up arguably the BPA of the draft. It's what allowed him to trade for a then unknown Clemons. He knows what he needs to fill his roles.

Ruskell probably couldn't even tell you WHY he thought Curry was the BPA, but obviously Curry wasn't.