04-18-2017, 03:56 PM
(03-23-2017, 02:00 AM)phil413 Wrote: You're throwing some good concepts out there, I think it's hard to really quantify what BPA really means, but you're doing a good job of showing how it's flawed to a certain extent. In the DL scenario, consider that there is a LONG list of players the media and us fans have dubbed as "steals" for the Bengals.
The team's ability or ineptness in grooming a player should be addressed by ownership in a perfect world. At one time the Bengals had a fearsome DL, but the next class hasn't panned out for various reasons. If you think about it, they've done it in waves. Still and Thompson were thought to have descent "floors" out of college, but that was before Thompson's injuries and Still's unimaginable situation. They then tried to hit a HR with beastly frames in Hunt and Clarke (who may still pan out) but if they aren't developing you have to ask how realistic it was to take the "talent" you valued if you couldn't convert it to production? You can a take an elite speed and strength guy, but they don't have the technique or don't appear as teachable then how much value was in that pick really?
So in putting together a draft board, you have your Ramsey vs Elliott scenario that gets the ball rolling on this year's selection for Cincy. This board's mock includes a scenario where Safety Jamal Adams is there at 9. He'd likely be the highest rated player on many boards, but then you have to weigh different factors. This team considers safety similar to guard in that we just saw the team finally take one by the end of the 1st round and groom him to be to pricey at a position they don't "value". They also don't take safetys high or pay them big contracts. His instincts would be welcomed in having a nose for the play and roaming around to clean up, but this team also believes in its undeveloped youth too much at times in that it blocks the right pick sometimes. So, Adams may be BPA, but this team may pass. Personally, I'd toy with the idea of running more 3 safety packages out there with the amount of teams that gear toward the pass and with the way of the pass catching TE and rules that free up receivers. It may be cutting edge thinking if you can justify using the player right. Same goes for the OJ Howard scenario. They may have him slated as ONE OF the BPA's with say a guy like Barnett, but then you start thinking to yourself how deep the crop is at DE vs TE and if using TE heavy packages actually "helps" the young tackles. I mean, a talented WR getting open quick can help a faulty OL so you have to ask yourself it things like Eifert's impending FA and injuries as well as valuing Howard's ability to extend the field vs where he actually is as a blocker and where he can be.
So there are a lot of factors, not even touching fit really that you have to weigh, and you're correct that the BPA idea is flawed. I start to think that there is a Matrix scenario playing out throughout the world, where the same convo template happens over and over like the people walking by every day and the cat crossing the same path.....
Person A: Gives data right or wrong on a player
Person B: "Just take the best player available, that's what ______ always does"
A: Responds with some extreme like taking a kicker (ahem) or high potential RB when you already have 2
B: Declares that if he's the best player that's how you win championships, without giving examples
A: Reasons the conversation back to putting a value on positions like QB
B: Throws out the Brady exception to the rule in saying you can get a QB in the 6th round
A: Has mentally checked out of the convo, but continues because they don't have enough buddies that talk about it
So there are a lot of things to consider, and another important thing to look at is trying not to compare though we do it all the time. Just about every draft site has an NFL comparison that makes for lazy scouting. "Oh yeah that dude, yea I guess he's the next Alex Mack." Now every time I watch him, I'm defending his flaws more because I'm seeing him on his way to becoming Alex Mack rather than what he is. Having too much faith in a strategy may be just as doomed. Though you were using loose numbers, I believe that some teams are to bent on getting with the analytics curve that you start to put faith into that data a little more each year. The black and white of the Elliott vs Ramsey scenario could hinder seeing what the player is and where your team comes together to believe they can get them there, and how likely the player is to work. You can sware up and down that because you were terribly patient with Dre Kirkpatrick and his heavy hand usage, you turned him into a solid starting corner so Dennard "if healthy" can become the same or better.....but at the end of the day they're two different people. All you can do is work on giving data to support or challenge player interviews and the higher ups in the room. Scary that all this discussion and it only takes one guy to have a feeling like the Browns did with Johnny Football. In terms of the Bengals, we deserve what we have when it comes to "BPA". We were used to hearing about the Bengals reaching or ruining guys, now we're hearing about patience working out and value falling to them...we just need to see better results.
Sorry it's taken me a dick year to get back to this, but thank you for expanding on this more. Regarding a situation like Adams comes to another factor that also infuriates fans - financial commitment. As much as people don't want to address it the team has a finite amount of money to spread around. Putting a lot of money into 3 safeties might not be worth it even exploring 3 safety concepts (Personally I think Derron Smith would make a solid 3rd safety in passing only situations). It's not a simple concept and everyone wants to say what we have as value, but other teams have completely differing thoughts. The top player on the Bengals board won't even be the top board on the Saints board, or the Pats board, or the Browns board, etc.
I know teams might overutilize data but the draft is overall a crapshoot, and you have to use every factor that you can. Data is the most consistent form of that besides film, and teams have to utilize both. For example, a DE that has been highly productive but has a very low SPARQ score still probably won't be successful. A DE that has a high SPARQ score but never did anything is probably just not an athelete
