+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (https://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Cincinnati Bengals / NFL (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Draft Central (https://thebengalsboard.com/forum-9.html)
+--- Thread: BPA Myth (/thread-5855.html)
BPA Myth - NATI BENGALS - 03-29-2016
I don't think we really go BPA. As much as Hobson tries to say its all about BPA for us. I just don't buy it.
I remember the story when Andre Smith signed during the draft. We brought him in to the war room and showed him Menelik Watson was who we were taking if he didn't sign. Andre signed and we drafted Gio.
We drafted two tackles last year because we had no plans on resigning Andre and Whit was on the final year of his deal.
We stretched to take Hunt and Clarke because of the fact MJ was due for a big deal and then left.
We did a rare trade up to go get Bodine. Because we didn't have anybody worthy of playing C.
It's not all about BPA for us.
RE: BPA Myth - Hammerstripes - 03-29-2016
(03-29-2016, 07:49 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I don't think we really go BPA. As much as Hobson tries to say its all about BPA for us. I just don't buy it.
I remember the story when Andre Smith signed during the draft. We brought him in to the war room and showed him Menelik Watson was who we were taking if he didn't sign. Andre signed and we drafted Gio.
We drafted two tackles last year because we had no plans on resigning Andre and Whit was on the final year of his deal.
We stretched to take Hunt and Clarke because of the fact MJ was due for a big deal and then left.
We did a rare trade up to go get Bodine. Because we didn't have anybody worthy of playing C.
It's not all about BPA for us.
Disagree.
IF we were drafting for need, more of our rookies would start.
We had a huge need at WR this year (everybody knew we were losing at least 1), but we didn't address it.
Fisher was the BPA, otherwise we would't have taken him.
RE: BPA Myth - 09ItsOurTime - 03-29-2016
We and most other teams do not draft BPA.
BPA at a position of need is more like it. Last year was not a typical year, we had NO glaring or even half-glaring needs.
When we drafted A.J. green and Andy dalton we were in desperate need for a QB and W.R. When we drafted Marvin Jones and Sanu, we were in desparate need of WR's.
Do you really think if a Tackle, TE, or QB is BPA they will take them in the first? No, because they aren't stupid.
Teams drafting BPA is a fallacy.
RE: BPA Myth - NATI BENGALS - 03-30-2016
(03-29-2016, 08:21 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: Disagree.
IF we were drafting for need, more of our rookies would start.
We had a huge need at WR this year (everybody knew we were losing at least 1), but we didn't address it.
Fisher was the BPA, otherwise we would't have taken him.
Not necessarily. We look to the future. Our drafts aren't necessarily for this year unless we have a gaping hole. We build the team so that a rookie isn't expected to be an impact player.
Was drafting Carson Palmer not a need? He didn't even start.
We had plans to keep either Sanu or MLJ. MLJ flashed big time in 2013 and did well last year. Sanu flashed big in 2014. We planned on keeping one of them. When MLJ separated himself in 2015 we set our sites on him. I'm not doing the research but we were prepared to have one of the highest paid WR tandems in the league if not the highest paid tandem. MLJ leaving for Detroit threw a huge wrench into our plans. Look at what Marvin Lewis had to say when asked about MLJ leaving. He aint happy about that. We waited to sign our other guys and matched the best offer MLJ got once he left we left we moved on our other guys. We didn't address WR earlier because our master plan wasn't needing to find a new #2 in this draft.
Fisher seemed like a little bit of a panic. Mixed with a little bit of need. They had their sites set on Jordan Phillips. The team that just paid Suh a boatload of money surely wouldn't take a DT. Well they did. Philips would have sat a year like the rest of our rookies until Thompson and Sims moved on and moved into a bigger role. He got snatched and we had 5 minutes to come up with something else. With no plans to extend Andre and an aging Whit the premier position to take was a tackle. And the guy we just took in the first round wouldn't even be ready to play in the first half of the year. Cover yer ass and take another. So we did.
If Darqueze had stayed healthy and we knew we had a solid CB I doubt we would have given Pickman as much money as we did. We drafted Derron Smith last year. Because we planned on moving on at safety. We drafted Hardison because we planned on moving on from Gilberry. We took two TEs because we had nothing behind Eifert.
And like I said with the Andre Smith story. We were set to take Menelik if Andre didn't sign. That is drafting for need. We viewed T as a bigger need without Andre. With Andre RB was a bigger need. Signing Andre didn't magically make Gio a better prospect than Menelik. It changed our needs and our draft pick.
I'm just hoping we don't reach too bad on a WR this year. Because we will be drafting for need.
RE: BPA Myth - Thundercloud - 03-30-2016
We better draft somewhat for need, because our wide receiver situation is pretty crappy.
Now if we sign Lafell and draft Corey Coleman or Dockston, it will start to look a whole lot better. AJ Green is a great player, but he needs some help other than just Eifert.
By the way, I concede that Alford and Kumrow have some possibilities.
RE: BPA Myth - Nate (formerly eliminate08) - 03-30-2016
(03-30-2016, 04:09 AM)Thundercloud Wrote: We better draft somewhat for need, because our wide receiver situation is pretty crappy.
Now if we sign Lafell and draft Corey Coleman or Dockston, it will start to look a whole lot better. AJ Green is a great player, but he needs some help other than just Eifert.
By the way, I concede that Alford and Kumrow have some possibilities.
Yeah, it is still a need even if we sign Lafell.
But as soon as we draft Coleman, Treadwell or Doctson with Lafell i think we will better off than last year.
Mo just was not that good of a receiver no matter what he got in Atlanta. Lafell and a one of these 3 will be tough to stop with
Green, Eifert, Gio and the boys. Alford and Kumerow are talented no question.
To the OP, we don't always go BPA i agree but Hammerstripes also makes some great points, it is not a myth either.
RE: BPA Myth - JungleRock85 - 03-30-2016
I agree with what was mentioned earlier. We draft BPA along with need and also I would add the premium positions the Bengals covet early as well. If CB is a fringe need along with another position of need like Defensive Tackle and Safety then we may draft the best CB that is available because we covet that position and it is also a position of need.
RE: BPA Myth - Bengal Dude - 03-30-2016
The pure BPA thing is garbage. If you draft by pure BPA, then you're screwed. You'll wind up taking a WR when you clearly don't need one, like the Colts did last year. I mean let's say that Jared Goff is the highest rated player on our board at 24. Do you really take him because he's BPA? No, that's foolish.
You mix BPA and need. You enter the draft with 3-4 big needs, and also factor in expiring contracts. It's pretty easy to build a draft board off of that.
RE: BPA Myth - Nate (formerly eliminate08) - 03-30-2016
(03-30-2016, 03:45 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: The pure BPA thing is garbage. If you draft by pure BPA, then you're screwed. You'll wind up taking a WR when you clearly don't need one, like the Colts did last year. I mean let's say that Jared Goff is the highest rated player on our board at 24. Do you really take him because he's BPA? No, that's foolish.
You mix BPA and need. You enter the draft with 3-4 big needs, and also factor in expiring contracts. It's pretty easy to build a draft board off of that.
All true.
RE: BPA Myth - NATI BENGALS - 03-30-2016
(03-30-2016, 03:45 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: The pure BPA thing is garbage. If you draft by pure BPA, then you're screwed. You'll wind up taking a WR when you clearly don't need one, like the Colts did last year. I mean let's say that Jared Goff is the highest rated player on our board at 24. Do you really take him because he's BPA? No, that's foolish.
You mix BPA and need. You enter the draft with 3-4 big needs, and also factor in expiring contracts. It's pretty easy to build a draft board off of that.
I guess if you made tiers it would be easier to call it a BPA approach. Since instead of being ranked individually they would be broken into levels. If Menelik Watson was in the same tier of Gio I would understand that scenario.
The question about Goff would depend on what tier you have him on. If he is the only player left in your top tier I think you would have to do it. Instead of drafting someone with a significantly lower grade.
They usually brag about having their board set and players going off their board during the draft they way they had it set up. So if they had a chance to grab a highly rated QB that means somebody else had him rated highly. Force their hand. Wouldn't be as easy with other positions but QBs are like gold.
RE: BPA Myth - yellowxdiscipline - 03-31-2016
I think the BPA approach is something that should hold a major influence over your picks in rounds 1-3. Rounds 4-7 you could possibly reach a little bit to fill needs.
RE: BPA Myth - fredtoast - 03-31-2016
Every team factors "need" into their valuation of draft picks.
the difference is that good teams are looking at a "need" a year or so down the road while bad teams are looking for a few players to start as rookies.
Nati hit the nail on the head when he said we planned on keeping either Jones or Sanu. We thought we would be able to re-sign one of them.
RE: BPA Myth - Bengal Dude - 03-31-2016
(03-30-2016, 06:53 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I guess if you made tiers it would be easier to call it a BPA approach. Since instead of being ranked individually they would be broken into levels. If Menelik Watson was in the same tier of Gio I would understand that scenario.
The question about Goff would depend on what tier you have him on. If he is the only player left in your top tier I think you would have to do it. Instead of drafting someone with a significantly lower grade.
They usually brag about having their board set and players going off their board during the draft they way they had it set up. So if they had a chance to grab a highly rated QB that means somebody else had him rated highly. Force their hand. Wouldn't be as easy with other positions but QBs are like gold.
The Enquirer has a great video on how the Bengals set up their draft board. I can't find it, but I believe it was posted before the 2014 draft. It shows how they use a tiered system along with having players listed in order of how the Bengals would take them.
RE: BPA Myth - BengalChris - 04-01-2016
(03-29-2016, 07:49 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I don't think we really go BPA. As much as Hobson tries to say its all about BPA for us. I just don't buy it.
I remember the story when Andre Smith signed during the draft. We brought him in to the war room and showed him Menelik Watson was who we were taking if he didn't sign. Andre signed and we drafted Gio.
We drafted two tackles last year because we had no plans on resigning Andre and Whit was on the final year of his deal.
We stretched to take Hunt and Clarke because of the fact MJ was due for a big deal and then left.
We did a rare trade up to go get Bodine. Because we didn't have anybody worthy of playing C.
It's not all about BPA for us.
We draft with a blend of need and BPA. Our board doesn't always match that of other teams.
I believe the Bengals board has the players listed in an order which also factors in need.
If Wentz falls to 24, do we draft him? I say we wouldn't because another player who's going to get on the field is more valuable to the team.
So, I'd say we draft based around a board that is arranged more along the lines of Most Likely to be Valuable to the Team, which would have a need component factored in.
Why on earth we draft projects before the day 3 of the draft, I don't know. The Hunt's, Still's and Clarke's of the world were projects that ate valuable roster spots.
RE: BPA Myth - fredtoast - 04-01-2016
(04-01-2016, 01:40 AM)BengalChris Wrote: The Hunt's, Still's and Clarke's of the world were projects that ate valuable roster spots.
Still was not even close to a "project".
RE: BPA Myth - Luvnit2 - 04-01-2016
(03-31-2016, 04:04 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: The Enquirer has a great video on how the Bengals set up their draft board. I can't find it, but I believe it was posted before the 2014 draft. It shows how they use a tiered system along with having players listed in order of how the Bengals would take them.I suspect if J. Smith is sitting there at #24, the Bengals will look long and hard at him if he is in their top 10. He may not be due to his major injury, but hard to get a top 10 talent with pick #24 that could be a 10 or 12 year stud.
I agree, it all depends on the team talent and the team board. The Bengals trust their board (especially the top 50 picks so if they are drafting 24th, and the 10th guy is on the board still, they likely would grab him regardless of need. They just did it a year ago grabbing an injured OT with little chance of filling a need immediately.
RE: BPA Myth - Bengal Dude - 04-01-2016
(04-01-2016, 11:57 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I suspect if J. Smith is sitting there at #24, the Bengals will look long and hard at him if he is in their top 10. He may not be due to his major injury, but hard to get a top 10 talent with pick #24 that could be a 10 or 12 year stud.
I agree, it all depends on the team talent and the team board. The Bengals trust their board (especially the top 50 picks so if they are drafting 24th, and the 10th guy is on the board still, they likely would grab him regardless of need. They just did it a year ago grabbing an injured OT with little chance of filling a need immediately.
It definitely depends on how they have them ranked. We had Eifert ranked as our #8 prospect in 2013.