PDA

View Full Version : Always Look At BPA



LordPicklewagon
04-13-2007, 11:50 AM
Long time lurker, first time poster

I know many people here think the phins should draft an offensive player since it is the weaker side of the ball, but i think the dolphins should choose from the 2 or 3 BPA's which I feel will be Landry or Willis. Now i am assuming Quinn will be gone by the time we choose and probably Landry too. So i would be ecstatic if we pick up Patrick Willis. He is an absolute stud and could be a pro-bowler for many years to come.

Looking in the short term it seems we may need a OL or WR but lets look at the long term. The NFL is very fluid, so what might be a weakness now might be a strength in 3 or 4 years. We might get that stud OL in next years draft of a steal of a WR in the second round this year or that QB.

Many teams dont draft for need and reap the benefits years later. We traded a first to move up in the second to draft Surtain. Many people were scratching their heads since we had Madison and Buckley. The Seahawks drafted Shaun Alexander the year after Ricky Waters had a 1200 yard season. Many people wondered why the Chiefs drafted LJ when they had Priest or when the Rams drafted Stephen Jackson when Faulk was still running wild. There are numerous other examples too. The Colts drafting Wayne when their offense was already potent.

Why reach when we can have a stud. In 3 or 4 years time when Zach and Joey retire we may regret not having Willis at 24 or 25 years old

My point is i think drafting for need is overrated, especially if you are looking at a player who will hopefully contribute for 10 years. You cant gauge where your team will be in 4 or 5 years.

GET WILLIS

The Confessor
04-13-2007, 11:56 AM
Long time lurker, first time poster

I know many people here think the phins should draft an offensive player since it is the weaker side of the ball, but i think the dolphins should choose from the 2 or 3 BPA's which I feel will be Landry or Willis. Now i am assuming Quinn will be gone by the time we choose and probably Landry too. So i would be ecstatic if we pick up Patrick Willis. He is an absolute stud and could be a pro-bowler for many years to come.

Looking in the short term it seems we may need a OL or WR but lets look at the long term. The NFL is very fluid, so what might be a weakness now might be a strength in 3 or 4 years. We might get that stud OL in next years draft of a steal of a WR in the second round this year or that QB.

Many teams dont draft for need and reap the benefits years later. We traded a first to move up in the second to draft Surtain. Many people were scratching their heads since we had Madison and Buckley. The Seahawks drafted Shaun Alexander the year after Ricky Waters had a 1200 yard season. Many people wondered why the Chiefs drafted LJ when they had Priest or when the Rams drafted Stephen Jackson when Faulk was still running wild. There are numerous other examples too. The Colts drafting Wayne when their offense was already potent.

Why reach when we can have a stud. In 3 or 4 years time when Zach and Joey retire we may regret not having Willis at 24 or 25 years old

My point is i think drafting for need is overrated, especially if you are looking at a player who will hopefully contribute for 10 years. You cant gauge where your team will be in 4 or 5 years.

GET WILLIS

First. Are you Pat Willis' dad?:lol:

Second. Is Harry Bagpipe a name or a personal trait?


I agree, all depending on who is still there. Willis at 9 would be a bit low and we could very well trade back and still get him.
I think there are 3-4 players you really address, if they are still there. After that, you absolutely have to start addressing BPA...

SuperMarksBros.
04-13-2007, 11:57 AM
cant disagree with your logic. but our offense is just so bad. i say take quinn if there, or move down and get staley.

both studs, both in need areas

DiepatriotsDie
04-13-2007, 12:01 PM
BPA is probably always the best idea, but it's hard to root for if you're completely stocked at the position. However, we have nothing to worry about as we are certainly not stocked at any position.

MrTree
04-13-2007, 12:06 PM
I think the whole "always draft the best player...period" theory is way oversimplifying the process. Now granted if we got Willis or Landry I would be happy because we got a great player regardless of position. However, I feel there has to be some weight thrown into the consideration because of need. If you guy A grades out slightly behind guy B, but guy A is in a position of great need while guy B is not then you should take guy A. Now I'm not condoning reaching. If Guy A is significantly behind Guy B you should either take guy B or trade down to make up the value. However I feel a lot of people on this board are blind to the fact that "the best player" on the board is never that apparent. Also you have to factor system into the equation. All players have certain conditions that will give them a better chance to succeed. If you draft an amazing player who doesn't fit your system you should not be surprised if that player doesn't generate the expected returns. All in all there's always a lot more to consider than simply who is the best player on our board.

SgtPhin
04-13-2007, 12:16 PM
I would hope our FO would be setting up our board to reflect the value of players available in regards to our system. I.e.- good power player or zone blocker on OL.

jason8er
04-13-2007, 12:22 PM
Is Harry Bagpipe a name or a personal trait?
Arrgh. Could have done without that picture in my head. :lol:

Kyndig
04-13-2007, 12:42 PM
BPA is a good strategy if you can afford it, but this team isn't good enough. Our offense has stunk for years, and it's time we fixed it. The way to do this is by investing some first day picks on the O-line and quarterback. There will be plenty of good offensive players available when we pick. We could not add anyone to our defense and it will still be great next year and probably the year after too, so whilst it's ideal to take the bpa, it's somewhat unrealistic for all teams. If we were the patriots, or a much better football team, we could afford that strategy, but we aren't and we can't.

The truth of the matter is if Mueller and Cam can't fix our offense fairly quickly, they may not be around very long, so it's actually they who can't afford the strategy you suggest, despite what they may say otherwise.

You see, we're half of a football team. We don't really need too much help on the defensive side of the ball, so taking the bpa if he's defense wouldn't make as much sense to me as doing what I had to do to get a Quarterback or Franchise Left tackle. If our defense sucked, then that would be a different story, but it doesn't, so it would almost be like a wasted pick. And not another safety in the first round...

BTW, Patrick Willis wouldn't even crack our starting lineup dude...

Roman529
04-13-2007, 01:29 PM
I love Willis, and I think he will be a great player, but with Zach, Joey, and Crowder at LB, I think we have much bigger needs....OL (Levi Brown), QB (Quinn, maybe), D-back (Landry?), DE (Carriker)...these are bigger needs before LB. But nice first post Rook!!! :wink:

LordPicklewagon
04-13-2007, 02:19 PM
I agree that if Player A is graded slightly ahead of Player B but Player B is a much more needed player take Player B. IMHO i dont see the offensive players that will be available at 9 in the same class as a Landry or a Willis. There are too many questions about Ginn and Brown. I like Staley and wouldnt be opposed to moving down for him but i would hate to pass on a player who could be great. Again this is just my opinion on Willis and Landry.

Finsfan1984
04-13-2007, 02:34 PM
I have no problem with the BPA way of thinking, and absolutely agree with that...if and only if there is that big of a disparity between the two. However if they are close, and the one who is slightly better is at a position where we are loaded, and the other is at a position where we have a pressing need, then I take the need position.

defensivefan
04-13-2007, 03:33 PM
We need an overhaul on offense but I think true value will be on the defensive side. To me this means Carriker should be the pick. I was re-reading an old Senior Bowl report and this suggests that Carriker is a much safer bet than Staley- and much much safer than Brown. I know this is several months old but I think gives a very good insight.
http://www.gbnreport.com/seniorbowlreport.htm

dolphin23
04-13-2007, 03:56 PM
Nice read couldnt agree with you more. But I wouldnt be just stuck on Willis, I'd also look at Landry and Carriker. Its unfortunate that when we do pick the BPA would be on the Defensive side. IMO Brown is a reach @ 9.

Oh by the way what if AP is available @ 9 clearly he would be the BPA regardless if Landry, Willlis heck even Adams would be availlable. What then? I would probably get him to trade him to the teams that need a stud rb and gain more picks. Easier said than done but thats what I'm hoping for.

jim1
04-13-2007, 04:53 PM
I have no problem with the BPA way of thinking, and absolutely agree with that...if and only if there is that big of a disparity between the two. However if they are close, and the one who is slightly better is at a position where we are loaded, and the other is at a position where we have a pressing need, then I take the need position.

I was just thinking about that. Controlled or modified BPA.