Not me. I’m a “■■■■ those picks” kinda guy. Well, kinda. I never used to be. But over the years I’ve seen guys I’ve loved fall into the mid-late rounds and never amount to anything. It’s been eye-opening to the point where I just don’t expect anything out of most 3rd round picks and nothing beyond that. At least other than than in terms of possibly providing decent depth/good ST play.
I don’t see the Lions as needing a ton of that, so where the Lions are concerned - I’m happy with the direction Brad has taken. I’m fine with Brads trade ups for guys (despite them not working out and me not liking the player - that’s just a risk in the NFL). I’ve gone from wanting as many picks as possible, to switching my stance to mostly a “F those picks” approach. Mostly based on the fact that the Lions roster is already really good. And their ability to have strong depth shouldn’t be questioned. I know people like to say that the Lions depth sucks because they lose when they have tons of injuries, but all teams do. As we all know, they’re the only team to ever be as injured as they were and still have a winning record - and they did it twice. I think that alone speaks volumes about the depth the Lions have been able to obtain and a reason that I can feel confident whenever Brad jumps up and “wastes” late round picks on a guy he’s convicted on.
For the record, I am not trying to say it is an optimal strategy, in fact in the very paragraph where this is quoted I go on to say that getting your guys turns out to be a very successful strategy, because so many good teams do it. I am just greedy and enjoy having/making lots of picks. Is it the best path? Well I think they can both work, but I certainly can’t, and would never say that trading up doesn’t work. There’s too much evidence that it does.
Again though, I am not necessarily saying it is better due to risk mitigation. It is simply my preference because I enjoy having and making picks. It’s the draft nerd in me. But I’m also aware that you can’t just make 15 picks every year. Both approaches seem (and likely are) viable, I just can’t say in good conscience that trading up is a bad way to go about it, that is where I disagree with others on here. It’s not my preferred method because again, I am a draft pick hoarder, but it has proven highly successful.
I lean that way, too, at least in the circumstances we find ourselves in currently.
First, this team needs impact players, not warm bodies. If Brad thinks that Moore is heads-and-shoulders above the other options, then it’s worth a fourth to get him.
Second, Brad has shown the ability to get better-than-average results by raiding the FA bargain bin and getting decent enough UDFAs, so there’s plenty of competition and upside brought in there.
Third, and related to point #1, there just aren’t enough roster spots for a zillion late-rounders. Who cares about the fourth rounder we gave up for Moore when it’s highly likely that guy would’ve been cut to get to 53 anyways?
If you’re the New York Jets, then yeah, F Them Picks probably isn’t as good of a route. But for the 2026 Lions? I’m all about quality over quantity.
@3rdRGR defines BPA as best player available at your current draft position. Which I believe is a defensible position.
@jane_doe@Phunnypharm defines BPA as the best player available as the draft is happening. The problem with that definition is that you need to couple BPA (say at pick 44) with whether the resources you’re willing to give up (say pick 128) are worth getting your BPA (or if you prefer, the last one in your current bucket) at any point in time. Taken to a silly extreme, Mendoza was BPA at pick 1, but Brad wasn’t willing to give up our entire 2026 and 2027 draft plus probably a couple other players.
As others have pointed out, nobody really goes true BPA, it gets kind of absurd. I wish GM’s would just stop saying it. But it doesn’t matter.
It’s a crowd pleaser word & works on the media & 80% of fans. Most fans just aren’t as knowledgeable as this board. What’s said to a mic and what’s said behind closed doors in football are so dramatically different that it makes me wonder what other professions are like.
How likely is it for a player picked #128 in THIS draft to earn a significant role on the Lions roster?
Well, based on the comments I saw from Holmes (he stated he was torn between Rolder and Abney at #118) … it is quite likely that Abney would have been the pick at #128.
Considering that Abney was the #157 pick and Law was #168, it would also be reasonable to think Law would have become the #157 pick if the Lions had kept #128. Then… who knows if Holmes would have still used a 7th rounder to move up like he did… or perhaps he would have just kept both of the 7th round picks and selected one of the UDFAs they signed after the draft?
.
My point here… is that it is quite possible that the Lions would have ended up with the SAME players when all was said and done.
The reason I think this happens so frequently is FOs constantly have to answer questions in the media about why they didn’t address the team’s biggest needs. So they’ve developed BPA as a short-hand (like Brad last year when he got bombarded about edge).
That said I definitely think there are some true BPA picks, like Ty Simpson this year. QB is sort of a different animal given how valuable it is, so perhaps that’s really the only spot where this happens, because you could also list Aaron Rodgers, Jordan Love, Michael Penix, etc… as picks that stunned not only pundits but their fanbases too given what they already had (or had already paid) at those spots.
There needs to be a term for ‘we took the player we had graded higher over the guy at the position of our biggest need,’ because THAT happens all the time, imo.
Yes, that’s possible, but there’s more than one assumption there, the first being no one between 128 and 157 they liked better. Acknowledging Brad’s comments, he could have had other 3rd round grades on any of the 30 players drafted there… like Parker, the Duke Center, which was a player I was hoping for.
I’m not saying what Brad did was right or wrong – if they liked Moore that much more than Zion, I agree that it was not a high price to pay. I’m just saying the BPA definition for a trade up scenario brings with it a value propisition as well.
I feel preetty confident when saying that Zion Young was likely taken OFF the Lions board completely.
Lions released Brandon Joseph immediately after his DWI arrest, and I believe they had just signed him to the active roster due to injuries in the secondary.
Not smart enough to know what interlocutor means, but good at reading context clues, so thank you lol. Yes, it’s only a definition thing with me. BH IMO has earned a lot of grace, because he has hit on so many picks. His style is what it is when it comes to player acquisition. Some I like, some I don’t like as much. He is going to miss some and that’s just the nature of the beast.
I think you should rank guys in groups. Then I agree if a guy in a higher tier group is the last guy there and is in striking distance, and is a position of “relative” need (read that NOT Hendon Hooker), then go get him. I also agree with having guys that are “extra special” in terms of intangebles. Maybe you rate THAT guy a little higher than perhaps his tape/measurables dictate (Amon-Ra/Branch). Basically I’d do mostly what BH does. Outside of throwing additional picks at project level players. Got to let those come to you, because the chance they will be good is even less than a normal prospect from LSU.
That makes zero sense. If I don’t believe the bpa on my board will be there with my pick and I trade up to get said player how does that not mean I selected bpa? That’s very flawed logic imo. The lions guys could be bpa on theirboard and that board is the only one that matters. This whole conversation is stupid because we don’t know any of the teams boards so we can’t honestly say a team didn’t pick bpa.
Because a BPA philosophy PREVENTS you from falling in love with a guy and handing away swings to go get him. If you love a guy, fine, rank him 13 on your board. That shows a lot of love in a guy. Make your evaluations all prior to the draft. If he gets to 16 and you are at 17, awesome. A TRUE BPA approach says, stay put. If team 16 takes him, aw shucks. But bonus - he may fall to you anyway Levi Onwuzurike. You take the next highest rated guy on your board, and he is the guy you had ranked the 15th best guy in the draft, and you really loved him too.
This keeps a max amount of picks every year which I call swings. The reality is GM’s are somewhere between 40-60% hit rates on draft picks. When you start saying, boy that number 13OA guy is such an awesome fit and we trade swings to go get him OVER the still very highly rated 15OA guy - then you move away from the disciplined BPA approach and MOVE to additional risk. Because if the 13OA guy becomes an Aaron Gibson, it is WORSE for you than if you stayed put, took 15OA guy and had that additional pick that may just become Amon-Ra St. Brown in the 4th round pick because those swings happen.
Now - I, am not for this rigid BPA mindset. “Some” GM’s lean towards this way of protecting swings, more than others. Then you have Les Snead and his Padawan, one Brad Holmes. Now if you set a board, break it out in tiers of prospects and mostly move up the board targeting guys you love, then that’s what you do. BH has traded up 12 times. Down 3. I don’t have the data on the “net picks lost,” but those “could” have been picks that hit at 60% with Brad as he is a great judge of talent. Doing that is fine. It isn’t sitting back, not letting emotions in, and systematically sticking to your board and picks, so as not to shed them in a pretty 50/50 universe from most GMs. May not agree with me on this, but hope it helps if you were seeking clarity on my thought process.
Being a great judge of talent includes recognizing those who cannot help the team, and those who have very little chance of helping the team. It includes being able to discern the odds.
At which point it becomes a proposition of “expected value.” Those with no value are discarded. They aren’t on the board at all. Everyone else has an EV, and your job then is to maximize it.
If Bucket B has an EV of 8, while Bucket C has an EV of 4, and Bucket D has an EV of 2, you maximize expected value by trading a C and a D for a B.
Dude you act like you make the rules when it comes to drafting.Your whole explanation is just asinine imo. If the #3 player on my board is still avaliable early in the second round, the 2nd player is gone, and I move up to draft said player because i have strong reason to believe he won’t be available at my pick. That’s me sticking to my board and drafting bpa, how you can say otherwise makes zero sense. So basically no gm should ever trade up going by your logic? If they trade up “it’s not a true bpa approach”, and they’re “falling in love” like wtf kinda shit is that?
This is the real issue, most try to pigeon hole BPA , when there is some many different factors, it’s impossible to determine what BPA actually means to a team. Arguing just to argue.
So I have a question for @3rdRGR. Do you believe that in any general draft, it is better to trade down and acquire as many picks as possible, versus trading up and targeting talent?
As an example, if we have 2 teams that both start with the standard 7 draft picks. Team A makes trade downs, and by the end of the draft they walk away with 15 draft picks. Team B trades up and makes 5 targeted selections. Which team do you think had the better draft?
