Need based picks, or BPA? Which do you prefer?
-
BPA for me, having a stacked position is no bad thing, it means you can potentially let some guys go that might otherwise cost you a fortune. If you have someone to come in at C for instance you can let Mack get paid elsewhere* and use that money on 1-2 free agents at other positions that don't have that depth.
*before people want to stab me this is just an example, I am aware how good Mack is
-
BPA for me, having a stacked position is no bad thing, it means you can potentially let some guys go that might otherwise cost you a fortune. If you have someone to come in at C for instance you can let Mack get paid elsewhere* and use that money on 1-2 free agents at other positions that don't have that depth.
*before people want to stab me this is just an example, I am aware how good Mack is
BPA for me, having a stacked position is no bad thing, it means you can potentially let some guys go that might otherwise cost you a fortune. If you have someone to come in at C for instance you can let Mack get paid elsewhere* and use that money on 1-2 free agents at other positions that don't have that depth.
*before people want to stab me this is just an example, I am aware how good Mack is
Makes sense, and is a good argument. No right answers here, just curious what people think. Always good to see and maybe learn
-
If it's possible, I move around to where BPA coincides with need.
-
To me it depends on the round.
In the 1st round, BPA is the way to go IMO. The 2nd and 3rd rounds can be more geared towards needs. From the 4th-6th rounds, BPA. The goal in these rounds is to pluck some good down the road players. Not simply some guy to play left guard for a season or two. The 7th round, I look for the fastest player I can find.
One exception is when you are looking for a kicker or long snapper. Then you might us a 5th on down pick to fill that need.
-
i lean on NEED more than anything else.
what is the biggest need for the browns to become better this year? stop the run (NT) rush the passer (LB) pass/run block better (OL backup C) make dynamic plays on offense (WR and QB).
to get the best available when we pick at those positions will prob take the 10 picks the browns have.
-
BPA is much safer, but there are times you have to plug a hole, so the you take BPA at the position of need. The real trick is grading the players.
-
browns past draft history going BPA is atrocious.
courtney brown anyone?
-
-
I guess my question for this thread would be better with an example.
If Mariotta/Winston (I know unlikely, it's just an example) fell to 12, would you take our "need" at QB whether you think they would be good or not, or go with the best available player?
I would use a different set of QB's, but QB is a huge need for us. Names actually are irrelevant, would you reach(still first round pick) for a QB because of need? Or would you take a player(like a left tackle, that will play left tackle no moving) because he is the best player?
-
I guess my question for this thread would be better with an example.
If Mariotta/Winston (I know unlikely, it's just an example) fell to 12, would you take our "need" at QB whether you think they would be good or not, or go with the best available player?
I would use a different set of QB's, but QB is a huge need for us. Names actually are irrelevant, would you reach(still first round pick) for a QB because of need? Or would you take a player(like a left tackle, that will play left tackle no moving) because he is the best player?
A better example would be the new B/R mock that has us taking Grayson at 19 smh....cbbacker said:
I guess my question for this thread would be better with an example.
If Mariotta/Winston (I know unlikely, it's just an example) fell to 12, would you take our "need" at QB whether you think they would be good or not, or go with the best available player?
I would use a different set of QB's, but QB is a huge need for us. Names actually are irrelevant, would you reach(still first round pick) for a QB because of need? Or would you take a player(like a left tackle, that will play left tackle no moving) because he is the best player?
-
A better example would be the new B/R mock that has us taking Grayson at 19 smh....cbbacker said:
I guess my question for this thread would be better with an example.
If Mariotta/Winston (I know unlikely, it's just an example) fell to 12, would you take our "need" at QB whether you think they would be good or not, or go with the best available player?
I would use a different set of QB's, but QB is a huge need for us. Names actually are irrelevant, would you reach(still first round pick) for a QB because of need? Or would you take a player(like a left tackle, that will play left tackle no moving) because he is the best player?
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
A better example would be the new B/R mock that has us taking Grayson at 19 smh....
that's dumb because grayson might be there in the 3rd round.
-
Dont think you can rely on either BPA or NEED alone....its gotta be a combination of both....plus consideration has to be given to what positions are deep and what positions gotta be tapped early....
Not if we take him in the first...
Shades of Wheezy reach!Dont think you can rely on either BPA or NEED alone....its gotta be a combination of both....plus consideration has to be given to what positions are deep and what positions gotta be tapped early....
Yup... call it a hybrid...
Cluster players into groups based upon grades.
When your pick rolls around take the player left in the top cluster of greatest need with consideration of options in subsequent rounds.
-
I don't give a damn which way they think about it.....as long as they make a proper, quality choice for a change.
-
But the Browns need to stop the run. Who is the best player in this draft? ESPN's Bill Polian says Danny Shelton is a two down player. So is Malcom Brown or Eddie Goldman a better fit?
-
BPA for me, having a stacked position is no bad thing, it means you can potentially let some guys go that might otherwise cost you a fortune. If you have someone to come in at C for instance you can let Mack get paid elsewhere* and use that money on 1-2 free agents at other positions that don't have that depth.
*before people want to stab me this is just an example, I am aware how good Mack is
BPA for me, having a stacked position is no bad thing, it means you can potentially let some guys go that might otherwise cost you a fortune. If you have someone to come in at C for instance you can let Mack get paid elsewhere* and use that money on 1-2 free agents at other positions that don't have that depth.
*before people want to stab me this is just an example, I am aware how good Mack is
If you see Cam Irving selected at 19 there's your answer. They say he's a better C than G or T. With our Line I would take him anyhow for anywhere IMO.. Resign Mack my best Option..
-
i saw something on a sports channel somewhere that marpet would be best moved to C and if he is, is rated the #2 by mayock (don't know if a lot of people take mayock as being very knowledgeable, but i do). if he goes in the 2nd it will be a surprise to me even though people love his combine and senior bowl stuff.
i'll pull for him anyways seeing as he grew up a mile from where i live now.
-
I guess it depends on the gap between BPA and need. if you need an ex backer and one is rated at 9. 5 but the next available player, the BPA, is rated at 9. 6...
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login