BPA? What does it actually mean?

What does it really mean?

Parsons arms a bit bit short for an edge, and his bench number was low. So is he purely an off the ball 4-3 backer? Is he better in coverage than Moses, ZCollins, Jamin Davis or Bolton? Parsons size and forty give the illusion of a Mike/Edge hybrid but is that a real thing? I’d love Zaven or
D Moses in the middle and Bolton as the WLB. Trade down to #15 and add a 2nd. Get both a Mike and Will…

If D Smith has a D Jax level career and Slater
Is a Pro Bowl RT, who was truly the “better player.”

BPA means don’t take a RB at #7 overall when none are rated above rd 2 because you need one. It doesn’t mean take a mock draft and presume that
order is relevant.

If somebody takes Jaycee Horn #4, and he’s a stud, it can’t be stated he was a need reach. Maybe the Falcons think he’s the #2 player in the whole draft.

1 Like

BPA is defined by each team, IOW, it’s all relative even if there is a lot of overlap on the lists.


I get that, but I don’t think many teams truly follow it.

Position value, contract overlap make a difference. A team with Lat Murray and A Kamara isn’t taking Ettiene in rd 1 regardless of whether the whole league agreed Ettienne was a top 20 prospect.

A #7 I need a guy I think will make 1 pro bowl during his rookie contract. Parsons, Sewell, Chase, Slater and Fields strike me as those guys.

That should matter when making your board, but BPA IMO is quite literally “best player available” and that also is subjective.

1 Like

There’s a lot of factors that go into setting a board and picking from it. As we heard after Tavai was drafted, the availability of players at a specific position within a draft could move a guy up your board.

Parsons is not an edge linebacker.

Sure, you aren’t wrong.
Multiple lists with a list of all players in draft ranked.
List with top players at each position
List of top team needs
contract lengths of current players at each position currently on team.

So all the above goes in the equation, would hope anyways, including straight forward BP overall and each position. Would assume many more lists than above.

Hopefully multiple lists collide to get a great pick.

That’s my point. I don’t disagree with most of your post, quite the contrary, but I think BPA is now just a cliche phrase.

I’ll try and explain better…

I am super super high on Elijah Moore. Great hands, crisp routes, and while not a big guy at 5’10 and 179 but his 17 reps of 225 tell me he could bulk up to 185. He has 4.32 speed, hops and a polished route tree. I have him as atop 15-20 player… why? I’m just about certain he will be a Curtis Samuel meets Brandin Cooks player. Jet sweeps, go routes, slant n go, deep crosses. He’s more physical than Cooks and a more polished route runner than Samuel.

  1. Lawrence
  2. Sewell
  3. J Chase
  4. Slater
  5. Pitts
  6. Parsons
  7. J Fields
  8. J Horn
  9. Vera-Tucker
  10. Creed Humphrey
  11. N Harris
  12. T Marshall
  13. A Ojulari
  14. P Surtain
  15. Ettienne
  16. D Smith
  17. E Moore
  18. N Bolton
  19. T Jenkins
  20. J Waddle
  21. C Barmore
  22. G Rousseau
  23. M Jones
  24. Darishaw
  25. L Eichenberg
  26. R Bateman
  27. C Farley
  28. L Dickerson
  29. Z Collins
  30. T Moehrig
  31. Jamin Davis
  32. J Holland
  33. J Tryon
  34. Javonte Williams
  35. D Nixon
  36. Boogie Basham

To simplify -

If BPA meant the best player available (talent wise)

Than every NFL team would have a board almost identical to everyone else.

BPA - Means BPA according to need, value and fit.

1 Like

Okay but if Holmes thinks D Smith will get man handled in the NFL, doesn’t like Waddles route tree, isn’t enamored with K Pitts “matchup nightmare” and doesn’t see a single QB outside Lawrence or Wilson as a Goff upgrade… then what?

What if his BPA is Lawrence, Chase, Wilson, Sewell then Slater?

What if he’s sees a 5 year contract at RT, and an upgrade over Crosby as vastly improving the team more than Parsons over Collins. What if he doesn’t think Parsons is as good as Collins?

This debate started with some questioning RT as a need pick or reach.

We have 1 year left from a backup level RT, and 3 years left at LT, and no long term RG…

It’s easier to project Slater a PLUS PLAYER in the NFL at RT/RG than for me to believe Waddle is the next AN

AB not AN

Yes this!!!

We have 3 secured OL positions out of 5, and a dominant OL will improve pass and run. I like Collins at MLB far more than Crosby at RT

I’m not understanding the issue.

BPA is board based. Per team. It means don’t reach for a certain position just because you feel the need to fill that position, bypassing a player or multiple players you have rated above the one you’re selecting by a wide margin.

Think reaching for a LB that they have rated 2nd round because they have to have one. Bypassing Sewell, Chase, and Slater all of whom they have rated as top 3 of round one elite talent and are still available.

You have the players rated. Think taking player number 34 over the guys you have rated 7-10, just because it a position of need (yes I know the positions overlap on your list, just using the numbers as an extreme for instance.

TO be honest…don’t really care. The answer I gave was simplified by Air and what I was getting too. Focused on on BPA and that process, not a specific player for Detroit in this draft

As I said it’s all relative, or subjective better word, to each team. I just don’t how each team ranks the lists they’ve compiled to make their choice when on the clock.

Can come up with a bunch more hypotheticals, knock yourself out. :tropical_drink:

There are some fans on the board who think BPA means the best player available talent wise regardless of need and fit. (These same fans rank BPA off mock rankings)

These fans fail to understand that teams build their board off need, fit and value. Then select the BPA on their board. Teams try to move up and down boards to improve the value vs need.

A team like MIA has clearly taken QB off their board early. That’s why they traded out of 3OA.

I tried to explain this to someone else in another thread who didn’t understand and that poster kept trying to make false claims (saying I said and meant things I never said) just to make their point that teams take the BPA regardless… some just don’t understand the concept.


I just presume most understand that there are always nuances in this. It varies per team as to what and to levels.

Just like it varies per poster here.

I think of it this way.

You have three players:

Sewel rated 98.0 out of 100
Parsons rated 97.5
Chase rated 96

You put three different teams into the slot to select from those players? Team needs for three teams are the same: LB, WR, and RG/RT

All three teams picking from those same three players could end up picking a different players from the other two based upon how they rank need, position and everything else. They would each select from the other two if one of the players weren’t there.

What you don’t want, in my mind for the Lions, is to have say Parsons off the board and they then force a LB they have rated at 85 just to pick a LB. bypassing the other two.

1 Like

Why should a linebacker’s bench dictate how good of a linebacker he is? How many times does a linebacker press his arms in a forward motion during the average game? How about the season?

And this isn’t to just you @Lyonfan1 there’s other people here who value combine and pro day results as an indicator of how good the guy is as a football player way too much.

BPA = best player available (talent, potential, abilities)

When you build your board, obviously you consider value, fit, need, and BPA.

BPA =/ best player at a specific position or excluding a specific position.

BPA =/ removing a player from your board just cus of his position (e.g, Chiefs picking at one in this draft would be stupid to not have Trevor Lawrence at number one - of course they should find a trade partner, but that doesn’t mean their initial board would completely exclude Trevor Lawrence). Another example, lions would be completely stupid to remove Pitts entirely from their draft board.


And to take it a little further.

If they have…

Sewel rated 98.0 out of 100
Parsons rated 97.5
Chase rated 96
Smith rated 95.5
Slater rated 93
Waddle rated 92
Collins rated 89

If Sewel is gone that leaves Parsons as their BPA.

They shouldn’t then reach for Slator and bypass 3 other players that they’ve rated higher on their board.

1 Like

I could not disagree more.

The Lions don’t have a qualified starting RT, OLB, WR1, FS, Slot, or 3 Tech DT on the roster now, and in many cases they don’t even have a non qualified player at those positions under contract in 22’.

So if they think Slater will make a better NFL RT than Smith or Waddle will at WR does that qualify?

I like Marshall and E Moore as much as Smith and waddle. I dont like Leatherwood or Cosmi as much as Slater- not even close.

There are a few posters who feel a few prospects are ELITE- and feel not getting one is a mistake. Every year 10 teams think they took an elite player in the top 10, then 5 teams find out they were wrong.

BTW- a 245 LB with shorter arms shouldn’t struggle to hit 20 reps. Look at guys like Willis, Keuchly, Wagner, D Davis- they did 22-30

Hell at 41 years old I can still get 9-10- in my lates 20s I was doing 15-20 easily. I’m a 210 finance guy, not a guy who took a year off of football to intensely train.

That fact that we have 2 year old tape of 12 games in the big 10 means the world, but a 245 man weaker than Darren Slroles is no concern?