• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Chalk Talk Discussion - BPA vs. Need


The 1st Round Pick
Jul 24, 2009
Reaction score
Alma Mater
College at Brockport
***NOTE I posted this over there, too. But I always enjoy the different style of conversation over here. It's generally more toned down and "intimate" here, versus a town hall kind of feel over there. So I'm posting it here as well. :)***

We have this conversation fairly often around here, but I wanted to put this in one place.

First and foremost, no. I'm not counting this team out yet. But the inevitable "What's the proper strategy" conversation has already come up quite a few times around here. Some people are stating we need to use our top pick on a safety or corner, and use our third rounder on a right tackle. Others are saying that wide receiver and nose tackle need to be our priorities.

What a lot of people (I say a lot because there are a few) aren't saying is: Let's see what's available before we decide what we should pick.

I've flipped back and forth myself on which strategy is more important between Best Player Available and Need. It's a riddle wrapped inside an enigma. Best player available makes a whole lot of sense, but does it make sense if the best player is a quarterback and you just drafted a quarterback? The money tied up in the quarterback position alone would scare you away from that.

Most of the time, people answer that question with, "well, that's a different case, you go best player available that's not a quarterback". Which is a logical and structurally sound answer. Except the problem there becomes you're no longer drafting (or signing) a player based on BPA, you're now including need.

I see a lot of people believe it needs to be one way or the other. Draft for need, draft by what's available. I disagree with that assessment. With all things, the answer probably lies in the middle, and that's what I (in my opinion, I am not some kind of mastermind, and I don't pretend to have all the answers) firmly believe is the case here.

I think BPA should have a higher weight in the formula, but I think need has to come into play. To do that, I would find it necessary to point out the positions that I believe are the weakest, and after meeting with my staff and my general manager, asign them a ranking in order of how much we need them. I would limit myself to five positions of need. Why? You only have a limited amount of resources.

If, though, one year you have 16 draft picks and an extra $35 million to spend, you can expand that list. If you have 3 picks and $5 million in cap space, you narrow it down further.

So if I decided my top five positions of need were:

Free Safety
Right Tackle
Wide Receiver
Defensive End

And they were in that order, I'd assign a number to each, determining their value. Anything that isn't one of these positions gets a static value that is slightly less than the lowest value. And all the "need" positions wouldn't have to have unique values. If I determined that right tackle and safety were equally my biggest need, I'd assign them both a similar value.

I'm no mathematician, in fact, I'm fairly math stupid. However, I believe that this value shouldn't shift a player's overall value too much. If you give this value too much weight it puts entirely too much weight into team need. Team need should play a factor, but not an overwhelmingly large one. Perhaps a 1-10 number.

Next, I would need to grade all players, free agents or draftees, based on many different factors... FBI (football intelligence), scheme fit, skills, production, explosion, etc. Need would not go into my individual player evaluation. I'd likely make this scale in a 1-100 scale to allow for some variation.

After I was done grading out each prospect, I'd add my "need" value to each of their scores to create an overall BPA/Need number, and create my draft board accordingly. Maybe just add them. I don't know. Again, if I were in a position where this really needed to be figured out, I'd put some great math minds to work to help me come up with a valid formula.

Again, I don't pretend to know everything. But I think some sort of hybrid model, not necessarily my own by the way, is necessary when determining draft and free agency strategy, otherwise you wind up like the Lions under Millen.

And of course, there's always a little something called "the gut". When it's your choice and you have a player that you have graded higher than the rest and there's another guy out there who you really like that you think could contribute, sometimes or coach or GM is going to say, "We're going off the grid with this pick, please believe in me". But that can't be a regular occurence.
This general idea is exactly what I have favored for years. I think both extremes are flawed.

With BPA you can end up so stacked a given position that you have starting quality guys on your bench with no hope of any real playing time for them while you start scrubs at other positions and loose games because of it.

When going with the "need" philosophy, you can end up drafting guys much to high for their relative worth and not getting solid value for a pick. If RT is determined to be the biggest need and all the guys with 1st or 2nd round grades are off the board when you draft in the second round you can find yourself reaching on a guy who might not have other wise been drafted till the 4th round or later, and what should be a starter for you as a rookie might need a couple years to develop.

So I totally believe in a hybrid method where you go BPA at your need positions and weight both the positions and the players so that if RT is you biggest need and CB is your second biggest, you are free to take the CB over the RT in the 2nd round if there is better value there at CB when you draft but are not forced by your own philosophy to take the LB you don't need because he is the highest rated guy on your board at that point.

Great write up, KD.
Remember when the Wizards used the straight line BPA formula and ended up with Juwan Howard, Rasheed Wallace AND (the traded for) Chris Webber ALL trying to get playing time at power forward? :)

Unless you are picking in the top 5, there is usually a CHOICE of players that grade out fairly evenly.

So, if you have a WR who grades an 8.1, there is usually a corner that rates a 7.9 or a safety at 8.0.

If you have a need a CB, would you take the 7.9 player instead of the 8.1 player at WR?

Hell yes, if I already have enough depth and talent at WR.
I am a firm believer in BPA, but within reason, I also think that OG should be ahead of DE on our lists of needs. I think a numerical chart is the best way to go, and you base it on your team needs, I think my list of needs is slightly different than yours, simply based on our dearth of CB talent, Id say CB, RT, FS,G,WR, LB.
That list wasn't a real priority list. If it were nose would be at the top.
You think NT before Secondary, KD?
As I said above, Neo, I don't think you can make that statement one way or the other necessarily. I'd put FS, CB and NT in my needs list. But it all depends on what's out there. Knighton is really the only FA Nose as of now, so I would try to acquire a safety or corner via FA and try to draft a nose if the noses available are atop our draft board.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.