Drafting: BPA or Team Need?

[AllYouNeedIsLovie 377]

What do you think is the better way to go about drafting? Taking the BPA (Best Player Available) or going by your teams biggest needs and taking the best player at that position? I am personally a fan of team need unless you are in a complete rebuilding mode and need help at every position.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Neither. You reach for guys who should be second rounders in the first, like Tyson Alualu and Blaine Gabbert.

 

But seriously, you construct your board based on BPA, and if the difference between your best players are negligible, you go based on need. Otherwise, it's just not worth it to reach for need positions.

[FartWaffles 1,857]

Personally I think in the first two or three rounds it's best to go for the best players that fit your team's specific needs, but once the fourth round rolls along go BPA for the rest of the draft.

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

You create a board based on BPA, eliminating positions you absolutely don't need in that round. For example, the Steelers would create their board without QBs, TEs, DEs, or RBs and then draft the BPA at any of the other positions. If there is a huge need at one position over another and their positions on your board are close, then it becomes a decision of need vs. absolute BPA.

[KiLaSix9+ 398]

You create a board based on BPA, eliminating positions you absolutely don't need in that round. For example, the Steelers would create their board without QBs, TEs, DEs, or RBs and then draft the BPA at any of the other positions. If there is a huge need at one position over another and their positions on your board are close, then it becomes a decision of need vs. absolute BPA.

Exactly this.

[Shotgun 442]

It really depends on the situation. If the BPA isn't seen as being all that much better than a player that fits your teams biggest need, then obviously go for need..

Edited January 10, 2012 by Shotgun

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I have always been a fan of drafting the best player available. Only time Im against it is when you have depth on whichever position is available.

[Milla4Prez63 678]

BPA is such a tough thing to discuss, because it changes from person to person. There is never a clear cut BPA. Some team may think a player is the 5th best player in the draft while another has him as the 30th best. Every person who watches football and follows the draft has a different opinion on everything. I may think Morris Claiborne is going to be the next Revis, and someone else may think he is going to be a bust.

 

But for the question, you draft the player you think is best for your team. It doesn't have to be need or BPA, just the guy you think makes your team better more than anyone else.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

You create a board based on BPA, eliminating positions you absolutely don't need in that round. For example, the Steelers would create their board without QBs, TEs, DEs, or RBs and then draft the BPA at any of the other positions. If there is a huge need at one position over another and their positions on your board are close, then it becomes a decision of need vs. absolute BPA.

 

This. You pick the best player available not counting positions where you absolutely do not need rookies.

[oochymp 2,393]

really a lot of what I was going to say has already been mentioned, but basically I go BPA where team need factors into the BPA formula, for example if you've got a WR and a RB rated about the same but your team is weaker at WR then the WR becomes the BPA, and like Zack said if you feel like you're set for the next 4ish years at a position they're not even on your board for at least the first two rounds, and like FartWaffles said, after round 3 team need is just about out the window unless you have a truly glaring need

[NaTaS+ 958]

I think ZoS summed it up nicely.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

It is really hard to tell. I think BPA is generally the way to go because then you end up with Blaine Gabberts, and Jake Lockers in the middle of the first, When Andy Dalton is there in the 2nd. When you reach you are robbing yourself of potential draft picks. In Gabberts case in all likelihood he could have been had later however they reached due to need and have a crappy QB. They could have had an extra draft pick and still got their guy which would have cushioned the blow of the pick busting because you give yourself another chance for a guy with excellent value later.

 

The question you ask yourself is what is the BPA. If you are a team like the Jets then a Corner who may not be as talented as another corner or as fluid but has the size of lets say Aso compared to that of Brandon Flowers. Both are great corners but Aso is the better press corner, and in the Jets scheme you are going to need that for the blitz package that their coach likes to run. It is a variation from team to team because every team has a different scheme they are running. Another example is a team like seattle, Browner and Sherman are not the most talented corners but they have excellent physical tools which allows them to press and frees up Kam Chancellor and the pass rusher (Clemons) to get some pressure on the QB and then when they draft their leo position they will be in good shape. It all comes down to the scheme each team runs as to what the BPA is and if he fits what you are trying to do.

 

I am a fan of BPA though because you always here phrases like, "You can never have to many at that position or that one." Well it is getting to the point that is every position. The steelers with o line. The Texans with QB. The Lions with RB. The Rams with Secondary. You need quality players everywhere so the more talented you can get at one position even though it may not be a need at the moment it may very well become one later.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I think it has to be a balance of both and there is always anexception to the rule. If you see a player even at your srongest position that you think has first team all pro imo you should take him, especailly at premium positions like DE, CB, WR, OL where it's important to be deep and where players make most money excluding QB. There are times when drafting a QB in the first 3 rounds can cause a shit storm. For the most part I agree with Zack though.