Sure but this is a ridiculous hypothetical.
If they decide to take a Slater because they feel better value, more versatility, bigger need, and better character- thus safer pick what does that mean?
BTW-what if after the fact Holmes says- “we had Slater #1 overall on the big board period, we were fortunate he fell to us…”
The best player available doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
It’s the player who can best improve your whole football team
I’d also say, when it’s your moment to pick and select a player by round.
First off, before I go into the rest of your reply, I’ll say that I totally respect your opinion and your right to have an opinion. Like @Air2theThrown has been saying, that’s what makes a discussion board like this great.
Ok, so my response to this is that you don’t need qualified players at every position on the field to form a winning team. What you do need is star power.
Take the Chiefs for example. Their entire IOL clearly wasn’t qualified. I won’t get into the tackles because they were hurt. Also who’s their best linebacker? Anthony Hitchens? I’d probably take Jamie Collins over him. What they do have is Chris Jones and Tyrann Mathieu on that defense as true star players.
Now do they have more “qualified” players than us? Sure. Do you need to have “qualified” players at every single position to win in the playoffs? No.
Like I said…
If they think Slater is a better player, and will have a better career, that would make him the BPA over those guys.
To be fair, that’s the nature of the draft, and why projecting and developing talent is important. You can’t just lose trust in the staff you’ve hired to pick those guys though because “well some of them might bust”.
Again, this has almost no correlation to the actual football field. The bench press is one of the most overrated tests in sports. Probably 2nd behind the 40.
There’s so many variables left out with the bench itself. How much power was he exerting on every rep versus the other players? If he exerted more power over the bar on his first couple of reps, he might not get the most reps total, but he would have the advantage in a football situation (which is what we need him for) where he would have to exert as much power as possible over a very short amount of time.
So first off, he probably isn’t weaker than Sproles. Let’s get them on a squat rack, which is actually important, and see who moves more weight fast.
So here’s an example of what I was talking about earlier. If you have two lineman, one that squats 600 lbs, but it takes him 8 seconds to get that up as a 1 rep max, and a guy that squats 400, but it takes him 1.5 seconds to get the bar up, when they hit each other from the line after about 0.67 seconds, who’s bringing more power?
And again, how many times will Micah Parsons make a bench press type motion using those muscles on the football field in his entire career?
Of course it’s a hypothetical.
In your hypothetical situation it’s… (for example)
Sewel rated 99.0 out of 100
Slater rated 98.0
Chase rated 97.5
Waddle rated 96
Parsons rated 95.5
Smith rated 92
Collins rated 89
In that case, if Sewel is gone then Slator would be the BPA on “your” board. So you would probably select Slator rather than reaching for Smith.
But again, that’s your board (aka hypothetical).
The intent of the thread seemed to be asking what BPA means. BPA is going to be unique to each team based on a number of criteria that eventually leads them to their final draft board.
“Your” draft board has the players listed in a different order than “my” draft board.
But in the end they are both hypothetical to what we believe the Lions draft board looks like.
Actually I guess it’s not hypothetical at all. My draft board is my draft board, and your draft board is your draft board.
How is this not BPA?
You’re arguing with yourself about a definition you seemingly agree with.
This whole thread just seems kind of odd to me.
OP asks what BPA means, and then when posters try to explain what they think BPA means they seem to be getting admonished because they’re not rating Slater high enough.
So is this thread about describing what BPA means, or is it a thread trying to convince everyone that Slater should be the pick if Sewell is gone?
I’m not.
Tavaii was bad pick because he sucks at football.
Kenny Golladay was damn near the best player available, maybe the best.
Take a good team like Pittsburgh or Green Bay- it’s damn near impossible not to see N Harris in Pitt or either Barmore or E Moore as perfect fits in GB.
Let’s say they pass on a 1300 yard 10 td back like M Harris to avoid “taking a RB in round 1.” They have Creed Humphrey a tick higher.
Then Jets take Ettienne, Falcons take N Harris, and phins take Javonte- so now Pitt is looking at some good centers and no viable RB in late 2.
Again, what point are you trying to make?
If they feel someone isn’t the player they need, they won’t take them. You can’t draft someone who isn’t available when you’re picking.
Lyonfan1…I’m not sure about everyone else, but at this point I’m completely confused on where you’re going with this thread.
Are you trying to get folks to define what they think BPA means, or are you advocating for a specific player, or maybe none of the above.
I don’t know at this point.
I apologize if I muddied the water guys.
What I’m saying is that 4-5 guys drafted in the top 10 will bust, they do every year.
Combine that almost certainty with these 3 “strategies” at #7…
#1 - Trade down. Of course this requires a dance partner, BUT beyond that, many seem nervous to miss a “game changer,” or “elite prospect,” or fill in the blank.
a perfect example would be #7 last year. Impact players like I Simmons and D Brown were there, but let’s say they traded down to #13 and took Tristan Whirfs and added 2nd- Antoine Winfield.
what about Ceedee Lamb and T Diggs in 2?
#2 - take an Elite Game Changer- ala D Smith, M Parsons, Waddle-
#3 - take a high ceiling, high floor player whose tape. Physicality, and athleticism translate to both current roster and NFL overall
The point of my thread was guys are acting like trading down to #15 and taking Z Collins, J Horn,
Vera-Tucker etc was dropping “too far to get an elite
Player.” I don’t. I think some guys going at #9, #15, and later are safer guys with more upside than some guys projected 10…
I will argue that if you sit QB aside and look at the rest of the draft.
There are less than a handful of players who are real difference makers.
After that there’s a block of players who are closely rated to each other.
A couple of the real difference makers have concerns like Parsons and Smith that could lower their draft position. So if you downgrade these two guys then picks 6-15 are pretty closely rated. But each team will have them rated differently.
For example.
Team A is set a OT but needs CB
Team B is set at CB but needs OT
Team C needs both OT and CB.
There’s 3 OT’s and 3 CB with similar ratings.
Let’s say they all have a rating of 89.9.
All 3 teams will have these six players listed in different locations on their boards.
Team A’s board has the CB who is the best fit rated the highest. With all 3 CB’s at the top. And they’re so set at OT that they don’t even have an OT on their board.
Team B’s board has the best OT who fits rated highest. And have all 3 OT’s above the 3 CB’s. They could use a CB as depth but it’s not a need.
Team C’s Board looks like this OT, CB, OT, CB, CB, OT.
As I stated above about BPA. It means the BPA on your board based off your need, value and fit.
Every team looks at this 3 categories.
Need - Do we need a QB - No then they either move the player way down the board or take them off completely.
Value - Based of depth and positional value. If team C needs an OT and a CB but the class is deep at OT and not at CB then the CB’s will be higher rated.
Fit - Team A plays a ton of zone. They will have a zone CB rated higher than a press CB.
Understanding these concepts will help you understand why a team like DET takes a LB like Tavai when everyone else probably had the kid rated 3 rounds later.
BLPA = Best Looking Player Available.
Translation = Pick a bald dude!
Not trying to be argumentative here, but can you show me where 4-5 bust out of the top 10, but they don’t bust out of 11-20 or the rest of round one at the same rate or worse?
The problem with trading down is honestly simplistic.
You have player or players a staring you in the face at pick 7, let’s say Sewell. He’s there. All you have to do is walk the card up and take him. But you decide to trade back all the way to 19.
Can get one of the others plus.
Well, Sewell comes off the board. Then Slater. Then Darrisaw. Then Jenkins goes at 18. If you wanted that OL, guess what, you just outsmarted yourself out of top four, when you had the choice of any of them. For a second and moving up 20 spots in round three as many, many here say is a great trade.
Was it really worth it if you missed in a guy and position you wanted for that return?
The whole issue with trading down is you have no clue who is going to be there when the pick finally roles around. It has to be worth missing out on players. Unless you’re prepared to reach for someone, you have to face the realistic possibility you may not have a preferred viable option available at 19 like you did at 7.
I’ve said elsewhere, take talent when it’s staring you in the face. If you’re trading back it better damn well be worth it.
I will say, if I’m sitting at 7, the pick roles around and Sewell, Parsons, and Slater are all still sitting there, I’m thrilled.
I would consider a trade back to 9 because I’m still guaranteed to get one of them. But there won’t be a discount. Would I trade back to 12, you better knock my socks off. A second this year, a second next would make me stop from turning in the card and think about it.
BPA definitely reflects fit. A 4-3 team will have a board that looks different from a 3-4 team.
Scouting and emphasis on characteristics will also vary.
Without getting into need at all, every team’s board will differ in it’s ranking of players.
Air- my thread was intended to be rhetorical… lol
I apologize for wasting so many words trying to get here.
Frankly I am not convinced the same guys are “Difference Makers” that mock drafts and prospect rankings do. There are top 15 projected guys I believe will flat out bust.
The issue with the NFL draft is that just about anyone ranked in the top 15 is going by #35 right? Yet every year 50% of those guys bust.
So how does a team, OUR TEAM navigate away from those pitfalls?
A) don’t pretend some 21 year old kid is going to be a “GAME CHANGER”
B) get as many really solid 21-25 year old “plus players” on your depth chart making 900K to 4M per year
C) draft players whose skill sets easily translate into what you need them to be on your roster. AKA- if you 3-4 you need edge rushers who can stand up, or the 5 techniques have to have length and contain discipline…
This should illustrate my point I hope?
2017- 2020- so basically anyone in their rookie contract prior to 5th year option…
Some of it is common sense-
BPA means drafting Herbert vs Okudah.
definitely would have been amazing, in hindsight.
I was looking over Quinn’s drafts recently and I couldn’t help but notice this label on all of them.
2017-2020 top 10 overall choices that I struggle to call “IMPACT PLAYERS”
2017- 2020 #15-25 (Too bad because Calvin Ridley, Tak McKinley went #26)
There is a 67.5% success rate of players taken from #15 to #25 over the same 4 years… Why? Because as teams get better, they are able to add players that fit their roster makeup, but those guy like Ruiz get to play with Ramczyk, and Lamb and Jefferson got to play with A Cooper and Theilen. It’s tough for a GREAT PLAYER to shine or even develop on roster otherwise devoid of talent. Add a guy like Lamb with such natural ability, and ask him to be a WR3??? No problem! Ask a guy like Ruggs to be “the show” … no chance!
Then look at picks 40-50 in round 2 from 2017-2020
Curtis Samuel- 77 PFF
Trayvonn Mullen - average 60 PFF
Dalvin Cook (top 3-4 RB "2 Pro Bowls)
Marcus Williams S (79.3 PFF)
Sidney Jones S (mid 60’s PF)
Tyus Bowser (back to back 70 plus PFF)
Joe Mixon (career average over 70 PFF)
Dalton Risner (career average 60s PFF)
Erik McCoy (career average 70s PFF)
Courtland Sutton (PFF average 70s PFF)
Harold Landry (mid 60s PFF averages 6 sacks per year)
Uchenna Nwosu (73.2 PFF 5 sack OLB)
J Taylor (83.9 PFF)
L Shenault (5 TDS 71.5 PFF)
Antoine Winfield (67.1 PFF)
Irv Smith (5 TDS 70 PFF)
Chase Claypool (873 yards 9 TDS and 75.6 PFF)
Jaylon Johnson (15 PDs rookie year 55 PFF)
That is 18 of the 40 players taken from 40-50 in round 2…