Best Player Available, Good, Bad or just plain Ugly

[😈Big Ray🌑]

I've always thought the strategy can lead to issues with players wondering why they were even drafted and they aren't starting. Also, it can saturate a team with players they may not actually need right away. I guess it helps your team accumulate talent that could help your team in some way. If you consistently draft BPA, at what point are team needs filled? I feel like some FO draft by BPA and they wind up hurting the prospects overall development. 

 

Also, do you think a teams overall success should determine if they adopt the BPA strategy? I think that if a team is consistently winning and can effectively retain talent, they can draft by BPA because they aren't really hurting anywhere per se. On the other hand, if a team is losing and has several holes, BPA may not help them if a running back is the BPA, but they have a stud currently starring at the position. Say for instance they draft the running back anyway. Is that a good or bad thing?

 

Whats your take on BPA? Do you think BPA helps the Ravens become a winning franchise again after 2 losing seasons? 8-8 is average and a losing season in a lot of people's view of a teams overall success. 

Edited January 26 by 😈Big Ray🌑
Misspelled words and added content

[ellicottraven]

BPA is simply taking the best player available in every draft regardless of position and let them compete in training camp so that the stellar ones will stand out and make the team. As for team needs, on a cyclical basis it more or less works itself out, but if it doesn't then free agency, trades, etc are options a team can choose. The one spot where it is critical to fill a position of need is at QB. If there is a franchise type player available and your is QB needy, you must go get him regardless of BPA. Otherwise the BPA strategy is the way to go.

Edited January 26 by ellicottraven

[PurpleCity5]

BPA you're describing is taking the best player available regardless of need, looking at the Ravens draft history they take the best player at a position of need. I don't think they go strictly towards a philosophy of crossing out a need and just going BPA. They took Ronnie Stanley and Breshad Perriman and I don't think you can make the argument that they weren't need picks. I would list CJ Mosley but with Arthur Brown on the roster you may not have needed to go ILB in the 1st round, but even at that you got close to nothing from him. ILB was a huge question mark. We needed a safety so we took Elam.I think we've gone need more often that not honestly. 

[JoeyFlex5]

We got away from BPA a long time ago and it may be part of the reason for struggling. Upshaw was far from the BPA and we panicked to replace JJ. Elam was far from BPA and we panicked to replace reed. Mosley and Jernigan were bpas and they turned out to be our best picks since 08, perriman could be argued bpa along with Byron jones and Malcom brown, same with maxx(he's been unlucky so far), and Stanley. Our BPA picks rarely fail us, we whiff when we reach for needs. 

Drafting BPA allows you to stock the roster with young cheap talent and gives you the best chance to not whiff, and when the FA class and draft class line up well to allow for BPA drafting and filling holes through FA signings, it is a beautiful thing. Sometimes though holes HAVE to be filled.

[ravensnation5220]

14 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

We got away from BPA a long time ago and it may be part of the reason for struggling. Upshaw was far from the BPA and we panicked to replace JJ. Elam was far from BPA and we panicked to replace reed. Mosley and Jernigan were bpas and they turned out to be our best picks since 08, perriman could be argued bpa along with Byron jones and Malcom brown, same with maxx(he's been unlucky so far), and Stanley. Our BPA picks rarely fail us, we whiff when we reach for needs. 

Drafting BPA allows you to stock the roster with young cheap talent and gives you the best chance to not whiff, and when the FA class and draft class line up well to allow for BPA drafting and filling holes through FA signings, it is a beautiful thing. Sometimes though holes HAVE to be filled.

 Idk about us panicking to pick elam. He looked great coming out of college and we were shocked he was there. He was still BPA he just never panned out. All the draft experts thought he'd be great. We just missed on that pick. Plain and simple. It was not however, a panic move like you say

[JoeyFlex5]

10 minutes ago, ravensnation5220 said:

 Idk about us panicking to pick elam. He looked great coming out of college and we were shocked he was there. He was still BPA he just never panned out. All the draft experts thought he'd be great. We just missed on that pick. Plain and simple. It was not however, a panic move like you say

Ehh a lot of people really disliked Elam, I liked him by I had only watched his highlights. And most people disliked him for the reasons we see now, no discipline and poor form and questionable iq

[BmoreBird22]

32 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

We got away from BPA a long time ago and it may be part of the reason for struggling. Upshaw was far from the BPA and we panicked to replace JJ. Elam was far from BPA and we panicked to replace reed. Mosley and Jernigan were bpas and they turned out to be our best picks since 08, perriman could be argued bpa along with Byron jones and Malcom brown, same with maxx(he's been unlucky so far), and Stanley. Our BPA picks rarely fail us, we whiff when we reach for needs. 

Drafting BPA allows you to stock the roster with young cheap talent and gives you the best chance to not whiff, and when the FA class and draft class line up well to allow for BPA drafting and filling holes through FA signings, it is a beautiful thing. Sometimes though holes HAVE to be filled.

Upshaw was certainly up there in terms of BPA. He was regarded as a top 15 talent by some draft gurus. The only real issue I ever heard was a lack of agility. 

I was mad to pass on Alshon and Glenn, but I would hardly describe Upshaw as a panic pick. People forget something like 9 LBs went ahead of him, anyway.

[trevorsteadman]

I still think Mosley, Perriman, and Stanley were all BPA at the time but lucky for us they filled a need. I don't think at any time those were the team's biggest needs except maybe Stanley but it worked out when the team had a high pick with so many quality tackles coming out of college at the time. There wasn't anybody on the board I would have taken before Stanley.

[rmw10]

43 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

We got away from BPA a long time ago and it may be part of the reason for struggling. Upshaw was far from the BPA and we panicked to replace JJ. Elam was far from BPA and we panicked to replace reed. Mosley and Jernigan were bpas and they turned out to be our best picks since 08, perriman could be argued bpa along with Byron jones and Malcom brown, same with maxx(he's been unlucky so far), and Stanley. Our BPA picks rarely fail us, we whiff when we reach for needs. 

Drafting BPA allows you to stock the roster with young cheap talent and gives you the best chance to not whiff, and when the FA class and draft class line up well to allow for BPA drafting and filling holes through FA signings, it is a beautiful thing. Sometimes though holes HAVE to be filled.

I wouldn't agree with this solely because we don't know how the board stacked up.  Upshaw was certainly a candidate for BPA and I'd argue Elam was too, despite the fact that I wasn't a huge fan of him.  It's easy to point out in hindsight the bad picks, say they weren't BPA, and try to prove a point, but the reality is that we don't know.  Sometimes players just don't do what you expect.  It's part of the game.

Furthermore, the BPA stance is often mistaken.  It's always been BPA with an eye toward a position of need.  It may not always be the most pressing need, but there's usually always that consideration.  Now, you do have guys like Jernigan who are no brainer picks.  But the same way that Jernigan has worked out, you could say that Carl Davis hasn't.  It goes both ways.

[JoeyFlex5]

38 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

I wouldn't agree with this solely because we don't know how the board stacked up.  Upshaw was certainly a candidate for BPA and I'd argue Elam was too, despite the fact that I wasn't a huge fan of him.  It's easy to point out in hindsight the bad picks, say they weren't BPA, and try to prove a point, but the reality is that we don't know.  Sometimes players just don't do what you expect.  It's part of the game.

Furthermore, the BPA stance is often mistaken.  It's always been BPA with an eye toward a position of need.  It may not always be the most pressing need, but there's usually always that consideration.  Now, you do have guys like Jernigan who are no brainer picks.  But the same way that Jernigan has worked out, you could say that Carl Davis hasn't.  It goes both ways.

But in those cases there are real arguments that it was need based, ed reed had just left in elams case, ray had just left for Arthur brown(although he appeared to be the clear BPA, what a shocking development), JJ had just left for upshaw. You can say BPA at a position of need which may be true, but need based BPA isn't really BPA if you're passing on a superior talent for a lesser talent at a needed position. 

But for Mosley, we desperately needed a FS to allow Elam to play strong and we left HHCD on the board, we needed a wr badly and Ozzie basically hinted that we would've taken Mosley over OBJ, and we had just traded up for Arthur brown, that was obvious BPA in the face of dire needs. Jernigan was clear BPA because nobody had a clue we would take a DT early for any reason. 

[rmw10]

7 minutes ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

But in those cases there are real arguments that it was need based, ed reed had just left in elams case, ray had just left for Arthur brown(although he appeared to be the clear BPA, what a shocking development), JJ had just left for upshaw. You can say BPA at a position of need which may be true, but need based BPA isn't really BPA if you're passing on a superior talent for a lesser talent at a needed position. 

But for Mosley, we desperately needed a FS to allow Elam to play strong and we left HHCD on the board, we needed a wr badly and Ozzie basically hinted that we would've taken Mosley over OBJ, and we had just traded up for Arthur brown, that was obvious BPA in the face of dire needs. Jernigan was clear BPA because nobody had a clue we would take a DT early for any reason. 

Yeah, it may work out that way, but that doesn't make them not the BPA.  Upshaw was regarded as a top half of round 1 possibility for much of the draft process.  Maybe we should have followed the pattern of everyone else letting him slide, but regardless, there's a legitimate possibility he was pure BPA.  Yeah, we also needed a S when we took Elam but look at what else was around him.  Elam was apparently highly regarded in a lot of scouting circles despite what opinions around here might had been.

The point is that there are instances of both.  Sometimes we "reach" and it works out, and sometimes we "reach" and it doesn't.  Sometimes we pick "BPA" and it works out, and sometimes we pick "BPA" and it doesn't.  There's no rhyme or reason to how players turn out.

[rossihunter2]

it's not that complicated - the premise of this thread is a little flawed...

we do always draft BPA and we should always draft BPA but you are all assuming that the ravens board etc. doesn't take need and position into account which of course it does otherwise you'd end up potentially with multiple qbs or a logjam at one position with loads of players but lacking elsewhere on the roster like the original poster suggested - but that's not how it works and that's not what happens...

BPA doesn't exist in a scientific vacuum outside of the realms of realism - if it did and GMs still used it... well they wouldn't be GMs for much longer