I don't get this obsession with Best Player Available as a strict drafting strategy to adhere to What if hypothetically we rated players 1-20. 20 being great, 1 being terrible My teams turn has come up and I am on the clock. The BPA is an offensive tackle who I have assigned an impressive 17 grade too. I already have a loaded offensive line, but need a running back. After this offensive tackle the next best player happens to be a running back who I have rated 16.8. It's close...very close between the back and lineman So clearly we go BPA here? To me the only thing BPA ensures is an unbalanced team.
In 1995 the BPA for us was Sapp AND he filled a need. So I am not sure what point you are tying to make We didn't need Brady at all. We had a tight end already in Johnny Mitchell. Kyle Brady wasn't even setting the world afire at Penn State. Nobody know why the hell the Jets drafted him.
Rich Kotite fell in love with him? The point of BPA is you don't fall in love with players and pick them out of their proper context in the talent pool that year. You don't make your adversaries better by leaving more value on the table while you take less value in front of them. Obviously having a QB solves a lot of problems but picking a lesser QB and leaving a better player on the board only works if the QB works out and when the move fails, well that's the roughest of all worlds to deal with moving forward. You not only screwed up the QB pick but you made everybody behind you better until you reach the point the QB was supposed to go.
If it is that close you might just want to take the RB. Aside from your grade there are other factors (character, leadership etc,) so the grade is not the only thing going through your mind when making the selection. Using our current Jets as an example DBs are a much bigger need than RB. If Fournette and Hooker are both available and the grades are close Hooker would be the obvious choice but if the differential is 2 or 3 (let's say Fournette is a 17 and Hooker is a 14) you take Fournette. Not only would we have more depth at RB but we would be prepared the following year when we move on from Forte (or Powell leaves for big bucks in free agency).
The reason BPA is a mantra for many teams has to do with the uncertainty of any players health for a full season. Every position on the field (excluding kicker/punter) can go from a surplus to a deficit in 1 week. Picking the perceived best player regardless of position can partly nullify the negative effect at that position.
Dick K had no clue. I don't disagree with not taking Sapp at the time and did not know who Johnny Mitchell was. I am not a true believer in BPA although in most cases it is the best route. I hate guys like Sapp but I might have picked him, but that is because I see what he has done. I might not have picked him then because he was trouble. And trouble cancels all theories. Mitchell was just a tools machine, a lost soul otherwise. IMHO, if you are at 6 and if you have a need, and it is at 8 on your board and you cannot guarantee getting it through a trade, you pick for need at 6. I hate absolutes
I was listening the Sirius NFL radio the other day and Pat Kirwan ( our former GM) said " we all wanted Sapp but Hess vetoed it "
I think you have to figure in the relative value of the positions you're choosing among. To me, a top OT is a much more valuable commodity than a top RB.
I cannot see an awful team taking a RB at 6 and then beating him up for 2 or 3 years and having nothing to show for it, though. They have short careers.
BPA is according to a team's board. A team's board takes need into consideration. There's rarely such thing as BPA. Leonard Williams might be the true exception, ironically enough.
I wish people involved at the time were more vocal about this because the Jets still get a lot of heat over perceived incompetence. The Jets chose Sapp. It was Leon Hess who said no. And for that I hope hell just got a little bit hotter for Mr. Hess Wouldn't shock me if he vetoed Marino as well due to the rumors at the time.
Bullshit! You can call it BPA all you want but if you factor in position it is not BPA. I hate when teams try to pervert the meaning of BPA to justify doing the opposite.
If BPA is adhered to in this draft (and its been Mac's mantra since day 1) the Jets will NOT be picking a QB at the 6th pick. Too many certain starters at 6 to gamble on a question mark QB.
Mac said yesterday that they take the Best Player Available, for our organization. I took that as, we certainly factor need into the discussion as well.
It is not strictly BPA drafting strategy, it is whoever they feel is the best player for the organization at that particular pick. If you have a loaded O line and that O lineman is there and you can't trade back they take the next highest player at a position of need.
It's never really BPA. If the best guard in the history of football were draft eligible, he still wouldn't be the first overall pick. It's more like best theoretical value available....
