Buffalo's Draft Strategy: BPA - All the Way
by kgun201 on Mar 10, 2010 6:45 PM EST
Email
Print
While the Bills play wait-and-see in free agency this year, let's not let one T.O. signing make us forget exactly how difficult it has been for Buffalo to lure top-end free agents to sign the dotted line in recent years. Frankly, Buffalo is not a top-of-the-list candidate for any top flight free agent and hasn't been for many years now. Some would say they epitomize the bottom-of-the-list candidate - and that's hard to argue now watching places like Arizona and New Orleans heat up.
Everyone's money is green, but every franchise is certainly NOT on equal footing when it comes to free agency.
In my view, that has less to do with the city of Buffalo and it's infamous weather and much less to do with Ralph Wilson's spending habits than many realize. Probably the biggest single reason none of these guys view Buffalo favorably is because they don't truly perceive the Bills as being close to competing within their own division.
Okay, the weather doesn't help.
This is where Buffalo is caught in the catch 22. And like any catch 22, the only way to get out of it is to get creative, to do things a little differently than you would otherwise.
"All things being equal," as they say, most GMs will tell you that they prioritize players on draft-day first by the best player available at a position of need. If a player in that position is not available, then they are likely to take the "at-large" best player available unless there is someone there at a position of need that is "close enough."
I actually think - all things being equal - this mixed strategy is optimal. You can't simply go based on need alone because you will end up lacking elite talent. You can't simply take elite talent because you'll end up with massive imbalances in your roster. So it makes a lot of sense to employ this strategy.
However, if you consider how difficult it's been for Buffalo to lure top-flight talent from within the NFL, I think the only way they can overcome this deficiency and change the climate is to PURELY, STRICTLY, draft the best player available this season - with all of their picks (1 though 7). And in order for that to work you would have to fill in the holes with mid-level free agents (as we're seeing them do now) and hold onto your current players like a vise (as we've seen).
Nix may have realized this long before he took the job as GM and certainly none of this should be coming as a suprise to him (especially with the CBA effect this season), so in that light the current list of FA visits would make a little more sense.
If this is true however, then those of you who are debating QB, NT, and OT until you are blue in the face could be in for a huge surprise come draft day. Considering the depth on the defensive side of the ball in this draft, we could see anything in the first round... a RB... a WR??? Anything is possible if you are going purely based on best player available.
With a roster so deperately in need of elite talent, with a handicap with regards to infusing itself through free agency (on an equal footing with the rest of the league), I believe that is now the best way to go.
BPA - All the Way...
Just another great fan opinion shared on the pages of BuffaloRumblings.com.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting Idea
If only they’d do it. Chix has already said its gonna consider BPA at positions of need, but I wouldnt mind a draft bein used purely to get the all best talent possible, could lead to a fun couple years down the line
we the FANS the VOICE the PEOPLE the true BLOOD of the Buffalo BILLS are just doing all this SO mAYBE just MAYbe the Coach THE teAM will just see how us the FANS the the SPARTAN aka BUFARTAN we will not Surrender to know onE.
-abayarde
Realistically
a couple of years down the line is exactly what we should be looking at in this draft.
i will not drinketh thy coolaid...
If Eric Berry is available when the Bills draft and he is selected, there may be actual riots in Buffalo.
Never confuse movement with action.
~Ernest Hemingway
that may be true
but what makes people happy and what gets the job done may not be the same thing.
i will not drinketh thy coolaid...
Berry and Byrd together would be pretty awesome. Until the opposing team decides to just run the ball at our hideous run D…
Now that I think of it, I wouldn’t mind it. As long as we could a draft pick for Whitner.
Never confuse movement with action.
~Ernest Hemingway
by NolaBillsFan on Mar 10, 2010 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
Don't forget Trade Value
Part of this is grabbing players with trade-value. That’s a key element to this as well. Look at the Bills roster and see how little we have in terms of trade value and a strategy like this takes on a whole new dimension.
i will not drinketh thy coolaid...
Spiller
I think if Spiller is there it could be a good idea to go for him. Yes our defense and O line needs help. But there is a lot of depth at these positions and if you look at Spiller he is a Chris Johnson type of playmaker and we haven’t had anyone like that in Buffalo since… EVER. You could do a lot on the offensive side of the ball with Spiller that could completely change the defense’s gameplan. Not to mention it gives us a RB that could actually break a TD run longer than 20 yards.
Spiller will not be a Johnson...
I know the luv for him out there, but IMO, he’s not even an every down back… Bump into him, and he goes down, so forget between the tackles runs…. Yes, he could be a great compliment to our power runners, but for that, give me a speed back with good hands later in the draft and let someone else make a McFadden type mistake on this guy…
Reggie Bush
comes to my mind.
Never confuse movement with action.
~Ernest Hemingway
by NolaBillsFan on Mar 10, 2010 9:46 PM EST up reply actions
I'm assuming
you all like the approach? because the comments have been limited to what players you would go after using this approach?
this is why I should always put a poll in.
i will not drinketh thy coolaid...
I voted yes
Because I can’t think of a position that we couldn’t use an upgrade at.
Never confuse movement with action.
~Ernest Hemingway
by NolaBillsFan on Mar 10, 2010 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with best player available...
but with the stipulation that the BPA needs to be absolutely, unequivocally superior to a player at a position of need. I’m not sure that applies this year in the 1st round (unless Berry falls to us or the FO is enamored with Spiller or Bryant as you pointed out in the post). It might apply in later rounds but I don’t study the draft enough to know.
sorry to disagree, but strictly BPA could mean you end up drafting 3 running backs and 4 wide receivers, or some other redundant combination of players. BPA is merely an attempt at a subjective grading of players, really nothing more than an opinion that has at least as good of a chance at being wrong as it does being correct. To completely ignore need and instead grab the consensus BPA in each round would likely leave many gaping holes on both sides of the ball. Think about it, every player is eventually the BPA at some point in the draft. Does when the player is selected make them any better or worse? Of course not. Unless there’s a huge talent gap between the BPA and anyone available to fill a position of need, then need must be weighed heavily as primary basis for selection.
most of my posts get deleted :(
by dzil on Mar 10, 2010 10:09 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
spot on!
well stated
"The ball is like a cold to Clifford Franklin..... Clifford Franklin the only one catchin' it....Clifford Franklin the only one comin' down wit it!"....... Clifford Franklin
by Jax Bills Fan on Mar 10, 2010 10:52 PM EST up reply actions
but wouldn't that be an acceptable tradeoff
i appreciate your response. it’s a great point that i should have been more clear about. maybe i’ll kick what follows into the post if you think my counterpoint makes a difference.
BPA is merely an attempt at a subjective grading of players, really nothing more than an opinion that has at least as good of a chance at being wrong as it does being correct.
I should have been clear about how BPA would be applied to this.
BPA is subjective, but 99% of the draft process is subjective, so I don’t think that’s the killer point here.
BPA would be entirely defined by your teams board. You have your own scouting department compile-to the best of their ability-a comprehensive ordering. Of course there are going to be huge discrepencies among your own personell. But again, this is no different no matter what type of draft philosophy you subscribe to.
but strictly BPA could mean you end up drafting 3 running backs and 4 wide receivers, or some other redundant combination of players.
Is it really possible that you could have more than 10 running backs among the top 32 on your teams board? lets not forget that it doesn’t matter if you have a run of RBs on your board between let’s say 20 and 30… you will only pick once in that range.
if everyone else has passed on this RB you had in the 20’s and you’re on the clock in the 50’s with him sitting there, I think you’d be wrong not to pick him even if you were using a need based approach and you had a stable of backs.
Basically, I’m saying the Bills SHOULD speculate, more than the norm-until they turn the corner. They have to maintain their draft value and incrementally increase it if at all possible by holding a few talented players on their roster. Try to use them—of course, but don’t waste a pick on a guy who plays a position of need when you can increase that pick value year-over-year by selecting a better player.
Avoid RB’s anyway because their trade value is particularly worrisome. That should be dealt with when you compile your board. Maybe you shouldn’t HAVE 10 RBs in your top 30… that’s problem the problem there.
You made some great points. I don’t think this one is blown out of the water, though.
i will not drinketh thy coolaid...
I would expect that teams do develop their own internal grading system, nothing new there. At the same time, I’d expect that they also have a position prioritization schedule. To oversimplify, lets say a team grades players on a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the highest possible talent at a given position. Not grading players against each other, but against a common standard. Included in the player score would be factors for character, intelligence, injury history, etc, the normal factors used when grading players. Similarly, the teams current and near-term future needs would also be graded 1-100 with 100 being the greatest need. Ultimately, at each draft position, the highest average of talent and need would be the preferred choice. To me, this type of draft choice system would be the most responsible for any given team. I believe that it would be poor management practice to not consider how players would fit into a teams scheme and needs.
If you’re picking based primarily on BPA without consideration for scheme, there’s a good chance you could end up having your 3-4 defense loaded with undersized line-backers and tackles that are better suited for a 4-3 or Tampa 2 scheme. If the players don’t fit your program, the BPA method could be a big mistake.
most of my posts get deleted :(
I’d expect that they also have a position prioritization schedule
You would be violating the BPA principle right there. You can’t work your needs into the ordering or esle you could end up with 10 RB’s in the top 32… defeating the purpose.
To oversimplify, lets say a team grades players on a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the highest possible talent at a given position. Not grading players against each other, but against a common standard.
This also won’t work. You have to grade player vs player to produce an order to use this strategy. Basically, you’re skewing a BPA strategy by inlcuding need and other factors like a “common standard” when those wouldn’t be proper factors for your determination.
This doesn’t mean you would put a punter in the top 10…
BPA would also entail some kind of value-maintenance factor. RBs, like I’ve said, lose their value faster automobiles. QBs and Ts on the other hand, could be weighted more heavily, but this is NOT based on your need. Having a “glut” at those positions is NOT a bad thing, is it?
Think about Charlie Whitehurst in San Diego. San Diego is likely about to reap a high third round pick for Whitehurst, a guy who was drafted in the back of the third round three drafts ago. Whitehurst hasn’t thrown a pass in a regular season game in his career.
Would you have rather started this offseason with Whitehurst as your third QB… or Hamdan?
i will not drinketh thy coolaid...
You would be violating the BPA principle right there.
I’m not advocating BPA, you are.
You can’t work your needs into the ordering or esle you could end up with 10 RB’s in the top 32… defeating the purpose.
Huh? Once you’ve made a selection, that need is reduced or no longer even exists. BPA is how you end up with redundant selections.
You have to grade player vs player to produce an order to use this strategy.
Absolutely not. If you simply grade players against each other, rather than using a pre-determined standard, your system has no way of determining truly exceptional talent. Your BPA then could end up being the best of this years garbage at that position.
BPA would also entail some kind of value-maintenance factor. RBs, like I’ve said, lose their value faster automobiles
Using positional future trade value as part of your equation is ridiculous. Players are not investments, they are hired for one purpose and that is to be a positive contributor to the team’s success. I don’t follow your Whitehurst/Hamdan comparison. You’re comparing someone taken in the third round to a guy from the seventh round. How about Alex Smith, David Carr and JaMarcus Russell? All were the number one player taken in their respective drafts. How do they fit in your used QB’s have greater trade value theory?
most of my posts get deleted :(
I’d expect that they also have a position prioritization scheduleYou would be violating the BPA principle right there.I’m not advocating BPA, you are.
What I mean is that if you are truly using BPA, you won’t have a “position prioritzation schedule” that is based on your needs. That’s not BPA.
If you simply grade players against each other, rather than using a pre-determined standard, your system has no way of determining truly exceptional talent.
Why not? If we’re not putting positional needs ahead of talent evaluation, you are less likely to make a mistake. You are more likely to get a good and valuable player.
Players are not investments,
What??? Completely disagree.
i will not drinketh thy coolaid...
Having a bunch of great players that individually don’t fit the scheme is just as bad as having a bunch of mediocre players who do fit.
I never suggested putting positional needs ahead of talent. I merely suggested balancing the two so that the team gets the maximum applied value for their own situation.
Players are tools, not investments. Investments are held for the purpose of sale at a future date, hopefully at a profit. tools are what is used to more efficiently accomplish a task. which do you think players are?
most of my posts get deleted :(
key point
i’m not suggesting they – or anyone – take this approach indefinitely. i was suggesting it as a way for a team, like Buffalo, who has been unable to get FA talent in, to infuse themselves with as many good players as they can THIS draft.
They could use trades and subsequent drafts to bring in guys who fit their scheme over time.
i will not drinketh thy coolaid...
I believe that BPA is best suited for established playoff contenders, who obviously already have talent on-board. For a team that’s rebuilding, with major holes, I think BPA could likely add years to the time it takes to reach contention.
We can agree to disagree. It’s just opinions, anyway.
most of my posts get deleted :(
Isn't this how Trent Edwards got drafted?
I seem to recall a screaming need for DL at the time, but he was “just too good a value” to pass up. I’m not saying BPA is wrong, but this is just one example of it not being so great.
hindsight
…is always 20/20.
at a point Edwards stock could have netted Buffalo better than the 3rd round pick they used for him. His stock would still be very high if the Bills didn’t put him behind a makeshift (literally) offensive line.
Edwards would still be worth at least a third rounder had he been sitting on the bench and playing in preseason games only… which is arguably the course they should have taken with him. there’s that 20/20 hindsight again.
point is, even the edwards example isn’t a clear cut case against BPA.
i will not drinketh thy coolaid...
I've been advocating something like this for a minute.
But not entirely the same. What I was putting forward was like this. Let’s say that the Bill’s decide they really need an OT. Now let’s say Baluga,Okung,and Williams are all gone by the time the Bill’s pick at 9. Now do you take the 4th best OT at 9,or do you take the top rated player at another position at need? IMO you take a guy like McClain there,or Spiller, or William’s or Bryant. That way you fill another hole, and you still have pick’s later in the draft to take an OT.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Jim Irsay says he would welcome Peyton Manning back … at the right price
- Roddy White isn’t thrilled with Roger Goodell’s $20 million salary
- Could concussions actually kill football?
- J.T. Thomas arrested for possessing some marijuana
- Bucs hire Butch Davis as ‘special assistant,’ have no issue with his double-dipping
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
