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

[dreamcastrocks]

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.

In theory, yes. Although if that happens 7 times in a row, I would have to find some fault in the evaluation process.

 

[GuernseyCard]

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.

 

[Jetstream Green]

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.

This

 

[Mulli]

In theory, yes. Although if that happens 7 times in a row, I would have to find some fault in the evaluation process.

You would probably be fired after the third time...

 

[Denny Green Fan]

Didn't straight BPA leave us with ANOTHER wide receiver in the Top 10 last year? I agree that you shouldn't reach down a tier (or even two) because you need a particular player, but I don't have a problem with filtering the best players considering where your most dire needs are.

I have no problem taking Milliner if he's available.

I would we cant pay two elite corners

 

[dreamcastrocks]

You would probably be fired after the third time...

Unless you are in Detroit.

 

[kerouac9]

I would we cant pay two elite corners

Can't draft with five-year concerns in mind. We'd get Milliner at dirt-cheap rates for half a decade. Cross that bridge when we come to it.

 

[JeffGollin]

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.

This is why the Cards of late build "need" and "system fit" into their overall ratings for each player (& then develop a short-list ranking 120 prospects).

You build need/fit and skill-set at the same time into a single rating number before determining your Top 120 ranking. And (although you shouldn't have to) you can keep things even more flexible by taking advantage of players clustered close together in rating-score by ignoring one or two-point rating edges or deficits to pick the dude who best fills a pressing need.

Although they might not admit it, you've got to assume that, if there's a pressing position need, the FO decision-makers will be directed in advance to "be on the look-out for" an opportunity to take advantage of a rating-cluster to fill a given need. It's just human nature to want to do this.

But - If there is a huge rating drop-off between BPA Superstar X and Very Good But Not Great Position-Filler Y - you've got to trust your board and draft the BPA (assuming, of course, that you don't trade out of there for whatever reason).

 

[ajcardfan]

Fortunately for the Cards, this is a terrific draft for olineman. They can easily pick one of Joeckel, Fisher or Warmack at #7 and make a palusible argument that they picked BPA which also fit a huge need. Quite unlike the year they drafted Levi Brown and tried to make that argument when they had passed on Adrian Peterson.

 

[MWOOD92]

This is why the Cards of late build "need" and "system fit" into their overall ratings for each player (& then develop a short-list ranking 120 prospects).

You build need/fit and skill-set at the same time into a single rating number before determining your Top 120 ranking. And (although you shouldn't have to) you can keep things even more flexible by taking advantage of players clustered close together in rating-score by ignoring one or two-point rating edges or deficits to pick the dude who best fills a pressing need.

Although they might not admit it, you've got to assume that, if there's a pressing position need, the FO decision-makers will be directed in advance to "be on the look-out for" an opportunity to take advantage of a rating-cluster to fill a given need. It's just human nature to want to do this.

But - If there is a huge rating drop-off between BPA Superstar X and Very Good But Not Great Position-Filler Y - you've got to trust your board and draft the BPA (assuming, of course, that you don't trade out of there for whatever reason).

Of course. It's all a matter of who will create a bigger impact for your team.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

I may now be a little dumber for having read this whole thread....

 

[john h]

Yes, OL is abysmal. But good teams draft BPA. If the BPA is an O-Lineman, take him. But if they have a CB, QB, LB ranked higher than where they ranked an OL I sure hope they either trade down or take the BPA rather than reach for position of need.

The problem with that scenario is you do not always know who the BPA is? Even the BPA's can fall on their face in the NFL. You can ask 5 different experts so called and get 5 different players as the BPA. The only thing I can say with some certainty is that any team needs a good QB to compete in the NFL. You can get by with just an average or below average guy at another position but without a true NFL QB you will never contend. The only time we have been a contender in the last several decades was when we had a great QB in Kurt Warner. Of course a good QB is the most difficult position to fill which is why we have them drafted high every year. One famous HC said no matter how good a QB he had if he had a shot at another top QB in the draft he would take him over anyone else or any need.

I am amazed at the position SF is in. One of the best teams in the NFL if not the best and has 16 draft picks and a young star QB making few $$$. How does he team get into that position? Were they super smart or super lucky? Probably a bit of both. I doubt they knew their young QB would turn into a super star QB. There defense is also young.

 

[Darkside]

I may now be a little dumber for having read this whole thread....

Impossible.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2