Cardinals need to take BPA always, and not be set and stone with OL

[dreamcastrocks]

Either you're too stubborn to agree or just flat out clueless. But that's okay.

Probably both!

 

[MWOOD92]

You're right. I don't understand how anyone can confuse two distinct approaches with evident different emphasis and claim they're the same.

94 and 95 are close enough to go either way.

And that's where need outweighs BPA. OLB is obviously a bigger need vs a CB. So you would take that OLB over the CB, even though the CB is graded a little bit higher.

I'm not talking about reaching for a player. I would definitely take Dee Milliner over Geno Smith. But Milliner vs Jones? Milliner vs Warmack? No way.

 

[football karma]

I beleive in BPA

I also think that the talent differential is greatest at the top of the draft, and then as you get deeper into the draft, there are typically groups of players all with similar ratings to chose from at each draft spot.

Seriously: by the 2nd round, does anyone think scouting is so precise that the 40th ranked player is materially better than the 44th ranked player? How about the 70th vs the 75th? I don't think it is.

 

[Darkside]

I beleive in BPA

I also think that the talent differential is greatest at the top of the draft, and then as you get deeper into the draft, there are typically groups of players all with similar ratings to chose from at each draft spot.

Seriously: by the 2nd round, does anyone think scouting is so precise that the 40th ranked player is materially better than the 44th ranked player? How about the 70th vs the 75th? I don't think it is.

I actually do. I see peeps in my own crappy company fretting over the seemingly dumbest minute stuff and the NFL is a billion dollar business so sure they look at everything. Even if a lower draft pick can do nothing but seal an edge in special teams then they look at that. I even think in the later rounds they look for and find dudes who could perhaps increase their productivity on the practice squad if need be.

Material better though? Maybe not, at that point everyone is big and fast and just not as good for whatever reason but they all have different skill sets and are picked based on that.

They may just pick the way I do in Madden in the later rounds though.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[redheat]

The cards have shown in the last years thx to the Levi fiasco that they will take the best playmaker/elite talent when drafting in the top 10. If chance is there I think they take him over Fisher assuming Joekel is selected.

 

[Duckjake]

The CB every time.

So if the bpa every time it's your turn in the draft is a CB you draft 7 CBs?

Of course not because the right thing to do is take the player that best fits your team out of the several who are rated closely in talent. Adjust your roster? You'd end up with Michael Floyd playing Left Tackle. Harry Potter would be a better LT than Floyd.

 

[WildBB]

The BPA concept gets a bit tricky when you're comparing OT's to QB's to pass rushers to CB's etc.

I may consider a LT the BPA at #7, but - working with slightly different criteria - you might favor an edge-rushing DE or OLB.

Our decision to draft Levi over Peterson might, on face value, be considered a matter of reaching for need instead of drafting the BPA. I'd disagree. I don't think anyone felt that Levi was the better option than Peterson because we needed a LT. It was more a matter of feeling that Peterson was damaged goods and too much of an injury risk. I personally feel we got what we expected in Levi but made the wrong decision (for all the right reasons) on Peterson.

Not to but I talked to some Cards FO folks the day of that draft, and another reason they gave was that they had Edgerrin for another two yrs.

 

[Mulli]

The Spurs.

Good luck against Arsenal over the weekend. Huge game.

Be sure to come over to the World Sports section. We talk BPL over there among other things.

Welcome btw.

Boo, go Gooners!

. welcome Gcard

 

[Southpaw]

My rule.

Top ten 1st round pick mandates BPA. Not BPA at one position but overall BPA. If you don't want BPA in your position trade down with someone who does.

 

[Goldfield]

Balance BPA with need. Need should never supersede talent.

This is how I feel. You draft for need and you get more busts and less talent.

You draft best player available if that is a position you don't need you either take the next best position or trade back.

Free agency is where you fill needs.

BPA with a balance of impact position. I would rather draft a GOOD QB over a GREAT GUARD.

 

[GuernseyCard]

And that's where need outweighs BPA. OLB is obviously a bigger need vs a CB. So you would take that OLB over the CB, even though the CB is graded a little bit higher.

I'm not talking about reaching for a player. I would definitely take Dee Milliner over Geno Smith. But Milliner vs Jones? Milliner vs Warmack? No way.

Agreed.

 

[Goldfield]

Need AND BPA is the same exact thing as BPA AND need. Haha you obviously don't have a clue as to what I'm saying.

CB graded 95 vs OLB graded 94. Who would you pick?

f they are graded that close you take biggest need.

 

[DoTheDew]

Didn't straight BPA leave us with ANOTHER wide receiver in the Top 10 last year?

We weren't picking in the top 10 last year...

We have enough holes that it's highly unlikely that BPA won't be a need. We need (or could use) an upgrade at every OL position, QB, RB, either OLB, and SILB. We could also stand to get a young safety or 2 and a young DE (Dockett's replacement). TE could even stand to be upgraded. Housler is decent but he's no Vernon Davis.

So as long as BPA isn't WR, we have good reason to take him.

 

[JeffGollin]

Has it occurred to anyone that you could draft for BPA and whiff 10 straight times or draft for need and bolo 10 straight times - or vice versa?

The Draft is an inexact science and bad luck or poor execution of any drafting strategy can render any strategy useless - or you could do the "pin the tail on the donkey", try to hit the proverbial dart board and hit a bullseye 10 of 10 times because you got lucky.

My point - We should choose the strategy that we think will work best, but in doing so, realize that it might only move the needle 5 - 10% in any direction. We're far too "certain" in arguing either case.

 

[DoTheDew]

Need AND BPA is the same exact thing as BPA AND need. Haha you obviously don't have a clue as to what I'm saying.

CB graded 95 vs OLB graded 94. Who would you pick?

When grades are that close you're ultimately grasping at straws trying to say one guy is better than the other.

That's why I advocate grading players on a bit of a wider scale like A+, A, A-, B+ etc. That way you can group a set of guys together and then when your pick comes up you're choosing between a handful of basically equal talents and you can pick one that fits a need vs seeing a guy that's a 95 instead of a 94 because of something arbitrary.

This also leaves a bit more room for when you just have a good or bad "feeling" about a player. You aren't forced into taking a player that rubbed you the wrong way in an interview just because he's at the top of your board. You can look and see if there's a few other guys that are his "equal" available.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

The bottom line is that it isn't cut and dry like some of you guys are making it sound. It is a terrible idea to draft on BPA without at least factoring in NEED to some extent. And you can't just draft on need and completely ignore BPA. They have to work together to get you the best possible pick for your team. Another thing to keep in mind is how the player fits in your scheme. For instance if your team has a 3-4 defense and the two best players on the board are a 4-3 DE and a 3-4 OLB and the 4-3 guy is rated say A+ and the 3-4 guy is rated an A we are going to go with the 3-4 guy regardless because the 4-3 guy doesn't fit our system.

 

[WildBB]

When grades are that close you're ultimately grasping at straws trying to say one guy is better than the other.

That's why I advocate grading players on a bit of a wider scale like A+, A, A-, B+ etc. That way you can group a set of guys together and then when your pick comes up you're choosing between a handful of basically equal talents and you can pick one that fits a need vs seeing a guy that's a 95 instead of a 94 because of something arbitrary.

This also leaves a bit more room for when you just have a good or bad "feeling" about a player. You aren't forced into taking a player that rubbed you the wrong way in an interview just because he's at the top of your board. You can look and see if there's a few other guys that are his "equal" available.

True. They have to be considered a fit for your team on more levels than one. What kind of person are you drafting. Does your team need more leadership and toughness? If so boost that guys score. Same with IQ and intelligence. Someone we may be looking past, the team grades higher than the pundits overall. But it should be fair and balanced evalution, not just based on overall team need. Like a QB this season. You can't just group Barkley in with say Warmack even though he highly fits and tests and interviews great. You would have to admit to drafting a lesser talent focused on basic need first. That won't always work out. But like Jeff pointed out, neither does taking the higher rated player always. Prob. more than not however.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Has it occurred to anyone that you could draft for BPA on whiff 10 straight times or draft for need and bolo 10 straight times - or vice versa?

The Draft is an inexact science and bad luck or poor execution of any drafting strategy can render any strategy useless - or you could do the "pin the tail on the donkey", try to hit the proverbial dart board and hit a bullseye 10 of 10 times because you got lucky.

My point - We should choose the strategy that we think will work best, but in doing so, realize that it might only move the needle 5 - 10% in any direction. We're far too "certain" in arguing either case.

Highly, highly unlikely.

Drafting as an inexact science and nothing more then the luck associated with the flip of a coin are two quite different things. It's about choosing a strategy most likely to bring success and a "need" driven approach is less likely to achieve that outcome. (IMO)

 

[Goldfield]

Has it occurred to anyone that you could draft for BPA and whiff 10 straight times or draft for need and bolo 10 straight times - or vice versa?

The Draft is an inexact science and bad luck or poor execution of any drafting strategy can render any strategy useless - or you could do the "pin the tail on the donkey", try to hit the proverbial dart board and hit a bullseye 10 of 10 times because you got lucky.

My point - We should choose the strategy that we think will work best, but in doing so, realize that it might only move the needle 5 - 10% in any direction. We're far too "certain" in arguing either case.

That's exactly why you go BPA in the draft. It's all a crap shoot so your best odds is to go with the most talented player.

Free agency is for filling the holes the draft has not.

 

[Goldfield]

The bottom line is that it isn't cut and dry like some of you guys are making it sound. It is a terrible idea to draft on BPA without at least factoring in NEED to some extent. And you can't just draft on need and completely ignore BPA. They have to work together to get you the best possible pick for your team. Another thing to keep in mind is how the player fits in your scheme. For instance if your team has a 3-4 defense and the two best players on the board are a 4-3 DE and a 3-4 OLB and the 4-3 guy is rated say A+ and the 3-4 guy is rated an A we are going to go with the 3-4 guy regardless because the 4-3 guy doesn't fit our system.

Obviously you would rate they players who would work in your scheme.

 

[Goldfield]

When grades are that close you're ultimately grasping at straws trying to say one guy is better than the other.

That's why I advocate grading players on a bit of a wider scale like A+, A, A-, B+ etc. That way you can group a set of guys together and then when your pick comes up you're choosing between a handful of basically equal talents and you can pick one that fits a need vs seeing a guy that's a 95 instead of a 94 because of something arbitrary.

This also leaves a bit more room for when you just have a good or bad "feeling" about a player. You aren't forced into taking a player that rubbed you the wrong way in an interview just because he's at the top of your board. You can look and see if there's a few other guys that are his "equal" available.

That's how I would do it. Group all equally talented players together so its a pretty easy choice when its your pick. If you like several still available you could trade back some.

 

[kerouac9]

That's how I would do it. Group all equally talented players together so its a pretty easy choice when its your pick. If you like several still available you could trade back some.

Maybe, but you're grading out nearly 400 players, if you take into account undrafted free agents. That's just not a specific enough system, unless you're taking a ton of people off your board altogether because... wait for it... you don't need them.

If you listen to a lot of football chatter, you might quickly find that scouting is really a six step process:
1) Regional scouts identify all the potential prospects within their region, and place an initial grade on them.
2) The scouts come home and are assigned a position group: one scout looks at all wideouts, one scout looks at all running backs, one scout looks at all QBs, etc. This is the positional cross-check.
3) Medical and personality checks are performed on the likely candidates for selection.
4) Some teams (the Cards did this under Graves) build a "BIG" board of all the prospects, and rank them against one another based on NFL value, which would be the presumed consensus of the NFL.
5) Teams then construct their own board, ranking each player against the others on preference of talent, fit for scheme, etc.

If there is over/underrating due to "need", I think it's largely subconscious. A player at a position that you need looks good, he's going to look even better, because you're specifically looking for those players.

To the OP, I don't think we'd reach for OL because it's a need--I think we can go to war with the guys we currently have on the roster. If we draft OL--particularly offensive tackle--we'll likely do so because that's the best player available.

 

[MWOOD92]

When grades are that close you're ultimately grasping at straws trying to say one guy is better than the other.

That's why I advocate grading players on a bit of a wider scale like A+, A, A-, B+ etc. That way you can group a set of guys together and then when your pick comes up you're choosing between a handful of basically equal talents and you can pick one that fits a need vs seeing a guy that's a 95 instead of a 94 because of something arbitrary.

This also leaves a bit more room for when you just have a good or bad "feeling" about a player. You aren't forced into taking a player that rubbed you the wrong way in an interview just because he's at the top of your board. You can look and see if there's a few other guys that are his "equal" available.

It was just an example. My whole point is that you need to evaluate a player based on whether he is the best player available AND based on what position you need. There has to be a balance between the two and you can't just pick one or the other.

 

[MWOOD92]

f they are graded that close you take biggest need.

And that's my point. You can't just go 100% BPA all the time.

 

[Mulli]