Best Player Available

[ElvisInBlue]

All the BPA talk in other threads got me thinking: how do you define it?

Disclaimer: still working on my first cup of coffee…

Seems like it has to be a blend of positional value (PV) and individual player grade (PG).

For example:
Left Tackle X
9 PV
8 PG
17 BPA score

Running Back X
6 PV
9 PG
15 BPA

Is there another factor I’m missing?

Of course the devil is in the details of how you stack rank positional value and grade players, but this seems like a good starting point. Probably need to change the scale to 100 in order to produce decent gradation and avoid clustering.

Keep in mind this does not factor in team need (TN) which would have to be another weighted factor in making the pick.

 

[Appyhawk]

I definitely favor best player available at position of team's greatest need over any other method.

 

[AgentDib]

I agree with your definition. It's pretty much turned into "ignore team needs within reason." So a Bears fan who says he wants his team to go BPA because of all their holes would still be upset by a QB at #1.

As far as your weightings go, PG is easily taken from the 5.0 to 8.0 scouting scale used by many around the NFL. NFL.com has a history of their scoring for prospects that you could tie into PFR draft data.

Positional value should be expressed by how teams actually value the differences in roles, which can be found in the tender values for the current season. Transition tenders average the top 10 contracts so I would probably use those. You may want to make an assumption to split LB into ILB and EDGE but that would also complicate the weighting step.

Position	Transition Tag 2023
QB	100.00%
WR	60.98%
LB	59.24%
DE	59.15%
OL	56.47%
DT	54.46%
CB	53.52%
S	40.22%
TE	32.93%
RB	28.57%
ST	16.50%

Determining the correct weighting for positional value would be a matter of multiplying this by a weighting factor (chosen arbitrarily initially) and then doing a fit against historical draft data found PFR to select the weighting factor that best fits how teams have actually drafted.

I definitely favor best player available at position of team's greatest need over any other method.

That certainly works if the prospects are similarly graded. How would you apply that this year, however, if somebody told you that our DT need was a 10/10, OLB was a 6/10, and the best prospects from each on your board at #5 were DT Bresee and OLB Anderson? Or what if the FO felt really strongly about QB Levis being an eventual stud and he was available there with a QB need of only 4/10? I don't think you'd want to miss out on a blue chip prospect simply because you had another position rated higher in need.

 

[bileever]

The other factor is expected draft position, something that Schneider tends to ignore. If you have someone graded high, but he's going to be available later, you should probably wait and take him later, unless you believe that he's the next coming of Jerry Rice or Lawrence Taylor.

 

[ElvisInBlue]

I definitely favor best player available at position of team's greatest need over any other method.

At some point doesn’t the players potential value exceed the immediate need?

Suppose a potential HOF, generational TE is available at #5. Do you say no thanks we‘ve got three good TEs and really need a DT?

I think the above is why BPA has to include positional value as a factor.

 

[ElvisInBlue]

That certainly works if the prospects are similarly graded. How would you apply that this year, however, if somebody told you that our DT need was a 10/10, OLB was a 6/10, and the best prospects from each on your board at #5 were DT Bresee and OLB Anderson? Or what if the FO felt really strongly about QB Levis being an eventual stud and he was available there with a QB need of only 4/10? I don't think you'd want to miss out on a blue chip prospect simply because you had another position rated higher in need.

That opens up the pandora’s box of team need. How do you balance an immediate need with the longer team need?

Currently the Hawk’s have 10/10 at QB unless they sign Geno. The need after that theoretical signing is currently one of the biggest debates on the board.

Some might say the need becomes nonexistent, however, I’d argue it’s still very high given Geno’s age and likelihood of regressing toward career averages.

If you really do end up with a 4/10 need rating in your scenario, that’s when you look to trade out as another team’s needs exceed yours for the pick available ie market efficiency.

 

[BASF]

I have always looked at it from the standpoint that football is won at the line of scrimmage. If I have say three guys rated within a couple of points of each other, I want to take the one that is going to have the most impact at the line of scrimmage for my team. Choosing a TE at 5 would not help me win the line of scrimmage as much as DE, DT or OT, which is where I would go. I can't think of a guard or center that I would take at 5.

 

[ElvisInBlue]

I have always looked at it from the standpoint that football is won at the line of scrimmage. If I have say three guys rated within a couple of points of each other, I want to take the one that is going to have the most impact at the line of scrimmage for my team. Choosing a TE at 5 would not help me win the line of scrimmage as much as DE, DT or OT, which is where I would go. I can't think of a guard or center that I would take at 5.

Right, positional value.

 

[AgentDib]

That opens up the pandora’s box of team need. How do you balance an immediate need with the longer team need?

As with anything else the future should be discounted, the only question being the discount rate we agree to.

A front office on the hotseat is like somebody with high credit card debt that has a ridiculously high discount rate, say 90%. Our front office is probably more like 20% with Pete pulling upwards towards 40%. Long-term season ticket holders who don't expect to give up their seats anytime soon have a very low rate, say 5%. Ownership's role is to provide guidance from the top and make sure their front offices don't mortgage the future.

The other factor is expected draft position, something that Schneider tends to ignore. If you have someone graded high, but he's going to be available later, you should probably wait and take him later, unless you believe that he's the next coming of Jerry Rice or Lawrence Taylor.

That sounds good in theory, but how do you know a player is going to be available later?

Presumably if the Hawks are at #20 and are thinking about taking Kancey, it's because they feel his public consensus mock rank of #53 is inaccurate. That's not surprising on it's own given they have better information than the amateurs do.

However, what's to say that other teams will not feel the same way as the Hawks? You may trade down assuming that Kancey will be there later based on the public mocks, only for him to go #21 to the Chargers who agreed with you that the public consensus was incorrect.

 

[Mick063]

How I would personally prioritize a draft selection from highest to lowest priority.

1) Consensus generational talent. Never pass on a future Hall of Famer.
2) Emergency help required for any given position; a glaring hole so great that the entire upcoming season is dependent upon it being immediately addressed.
3) Reposition in draft to address a foreseeable team need (ie. impending expiration of a rookie deal with no intent to extend). Move up or down a few spots to take a position of need while being cognizant of avoiding to "reach" for any given player.
4) With respect to talent, a lateral move that transitions a given position from a veteran deal to a rookie deal. (ie. getting younger and cheaper.)
5) Special teams/developmental project.

 

[nanomoz]

Drafting first and foremost for need is what resulted in LJ Collier and Marquise Blair. And if I'm being honest, it's probably what teetered them over the edge with Malik McDowell.

Please draft the best football players that you see a path for in the next couple of years. Consider position value. But note that this doesn't mean, "never draft a running back until . . . . "

Two of the best players in this draft, Bijan Robinson and Michael Mayer, are at positions that are not immediate needs. But either one would be a superb pick at around 20. For no other reason than they're awesome.

Putting on a wider lens: two of the team's TE's are a free agent after 2023. And the multi TE sets worked. And this team's been absolutely snake bitten with RB injuries since Marshawn left. Having two incredible running backs doesn't not make sense on a Pete Carrol team.

 

[Mick063]

Drafting first and foremost for need is what resulted in LJ Collier and Marquise Blair. And if I'm being honest, it's probably what teetered them over the edge with Malik McDowell.

Please draft the best football players that you see a path for in the next couple of years. Consider position value. But note that this doesn't mean, "never draft a running back until . . . . "

Two of the best players in this draft, Bijan Robinson and Michael Mayer, are at positions that are not immediate needs. But either one would be a superb pick at around 20. For no other reason than they're awesome.

Putting on a wider lens: two of the team's TE's are a free agent after 2023. And the multi TE sets worked. And this team's been absolutely snake bitten with RB injuries since Marshawn left. Having two incredible running backs doesn't not make sense on a Pete Carrol team.

I don't believe in your correlation. There is nothing to indicate that player evaluation improves when you don't draft for need.

Either you evaluate players correctly, or you don't. Regardless of if you need the position or not. "Reaching" for players is entirely different subject, albeit it is still a subset of faulty player evaluation. Drafting players where they are projected to go can be done WHILE drafting for need. All it requires is that you become adept at moving your draft position to the correct spot to get the desired player.

In fact, I will go as far to say that I believe the biggest mistakes come when players are grouped into "tiers" and you grab a player out of a group of players because he belongs to that tier. That tells me that a specific player is not being targeted and you are just taking a player because that is where he is projected to go. I think the least mistakes come when you target very specific players because that means you have done your due diligence on them. It means you have fallen for them. In the end, however, it ALWAYS comes down to competent player evaluation. That has little to do with addressing (or not addressing) need.

 

[nanomoz]

I don't believe in your correlation. There is nothing to indicate that player evaluation improves when you don't draft for need.

Either you evaluate players correctly, or you don't. Regardless of if you need the position or not. "Reaching" for players is entirely different subject, albeit it is still a subset of faulty player evaluation. Drafting players where they are projected to go can be done WHILE drafting for need. All it requires is that you become adept at moving your draft position to the correct spot to get the desired player.

In fact, I will go as far to say that I believe the biggest mistakes come when players are grouped into "tiers" and you grab a player out of a group of players because he belongs to that tier. That tells me that a specific player is not being targeted and you are just taking a player because that is where he is projected to go. I think the least mistakes come when you target very specific players because that means you have done your due diligence on them. It means you have fallen for them. In the end, it ALWAYS comes down to competent player evaluation.

I'm talking about the talent of the actual players in this draft. No amount of evaluation can make a draft that's weak at a certain position strong at that position.

Schneider himself said that 2022 was so successful because more of a BPA approach.

 

[Hawkinaz]

Drafting first and foremost for need is what resulted in LJ Collier and Marquise Blair. And if I'm being honest, it's probably what teetered them over the edge with Malik McDowell.

Please draft the best football players that you see a path for in the next couple of years. Consider position value. But note that this doesn't mean, "never draft a running back until . . . . "

Two of the best players in this draft, Bijan Robinson and Michael Mayer, are at positions that are not immediate needs. But either one would be a superb pick at around 20. For no other reason than they're awesome.

Putting on a wider lens: two of the team's TE's are a free agent after 2023. And the multi TE sets worked. And this team's been absolutely snake bitten with RB injuries since Marshawn left. Having two incredible running backs doesn't not make sense on a Pete Carrol team.

Another thing to factor in is some players start to fall for whatever reason a team will put on the brakes and think if said player is available will we take the risk and draft him. Seattle did this with McDowell who had an awful combine interview should have been a top 10 pick with a decent interview, DJ Metcalf who had injury concerns while he was at Ole Miss and Rob Gronkowski would have been a top 15 pick but had back problems when he was at Arizona

 

[Hawkinaz]

I don't believe in your correlation. There is nothing to indicate that player evaluation improves when you don't draft for need.

Either you evaluate players correctly, or you don't. Regardless of if you need the position or not. "Reaching" for players is entirely different subject, albeit it is still a subset of faulty player evaluation. Drafting players where they are projected to go can be done WHILE drafting for need. All it requires is that you become adept at moving your draft position to the correct spot to get the desired player.

In fact, I will go as far to say that I believe the biggest mistakes come when players are grouped into "tiers" and you grab a player out of a group of players because he belongs to that tier. That tells me that a specific player is not being targeted and you are just taking a player because that is where he is projected to go. I think the least mistakes come when you target very specific players because that means you have done your due diligence on them. It means you have fallen for them. In the end, however, it ALWAYS comes down to competent player evaluation. That has little to do with addressing (or not addressing) need.

IMO the “tiers” become a thing when trading back. If a team wants to trade up and offers you a trade during the draft with you picking up an extra pick and you can still draft the player you were targeting or a player in the same tier that would work in your system it makes sense. After the 1st rd drafting is far from a perfect science

 

[Mick063]

I'm talking about the talent of the actual players in this draft. No amount of evaluation can make a draft that's weak at a certain position strong at that position.

Schneider himself said that 2022 was so successful because more of a BPA approach.

Good evaluation can't make players better. Good evaluation makes the position you draft players at better.

Is there a random position group that completely fails to produce a competent NFL player in any given year? Interesting question. I will bet that it is very rare that a given draft doesn't provide at least a couple of good players (and likely many more than that) for any given position. People like to point at quarterbacks, but that is certainly the position where "reaches" occur the most. Quarterbacks aren't given time to develop (Geno is exhibit A), but that is entirely due to the collective bargaining agreement that the players insisted upon. Four-year rookie deals with the one-year extension option do not allow for long term quarterback development. There are exceptions to every rule like Love of Green Bay, but he is an outlier.

If you rank bottom five in rush defense, you can AT LEAST make a lateral move (talent wise) to get younger and cheaper. Even if the positions of need don't offer a significant position upgrade, you can still parlay the "rookie deal" salary savings elsewhere to upgrade the team.