Michael Thomas is why you take BPA (1 Viewer)

[cdogg]

If need meets BPA it's fantastic, but we didn't need a WR that early last year. I'd rather have him than anyone else drafted after him. Dak wouldn't have played here for at least 3 years after being drafted so I'll just rule him out of any debate for that. If you think that player has true star potential, you take him over someone at a need position you've convinced yourself is the answer to your biggest problem.

 

[JWDtrey3]

I approve this message.

 

[SweetT]

Someone gets it!
Never pass up someone who has future All Pro abilities for just a position of need.
Always BPA

 

[Outbackjack]

Well it surely worked this time.

But sometimes it doesn't.

It's the draft, it's incredibly unpredictable, there's zero chance in knowing the BPA is going to be better than the guy you take in need.

Otherwise, teams would never miss in round 1, and UDFA would never make the league.

And you mentioned Dak, I don't think back up QB was a position of need (as you implied you'd rather have MT....BPA.... than Dak)

Finally, with losing Colston, WR was an area of need too.

But I do agree, I'd rather draft a guy we think is best COMBINED with need.

Let's say the BPA when we pick is Deshaun Watson.

We will hopefully draft for need rather than blindly take BPA.

 

[football]

It was great that we drafted Michael Thomas. But how do you know who is the best player available. Sometime BPA may not work out for their perspective team. Thomas was not even consider one of the top wide receiver in that class.

Last year, Andrew Billing was on the board as the BPA for 3 or 4 rounds before he got picked. The jury is still out on him because of his injuries, but no one will know how any of these players will turn out.

Trust me, I get what you are saying and I agree. Sometimes I rather get the best player in the draft, that you know will be a big contributor for the team, rather than picking players of need and having to develop them and hope they turn out good.

 

[State Of Affairs]

If need meets BPA it's fantastic, but we didn't need a WR that early last year. I'd rather have him than anyone else drafted after him. Dak wouldn't have played here for at least 3 years after being drafted so I'll just rule him out of any debate for that. If you think that player has true star potential, you take him over someone at a need position you've convinced yourself is the answer to your biggest problem.

In principle, I absolutely agree but if anyone actually knew, Thomas would have gone in the top 15. Matter of fact, the Saints might employ this exact same philosophy and we wouldn't even know. How many times have the Saints drafted a guy leaving the fans asking "WHAT" because we felt there were much better options on the board?

I don't think your suggestion is lost on any team it's just not easy to know which player actually has that hidden gem potential.

 

[Merl]

If the BPA is in a position a team has little need for then the best option is to attempt to trade down, someone will need that guy and hopefully they will pay the price you want. If not then you either take him and trade one of the guys you have in that position or you draft the next best on your board.

 

[duckjr78]

I agree, but........

WR is one of the "Vital" positions in the NFL. You literally cannot have enough talent at the WR position, much like CB and Pass Rusher.

So, BPA with a lean towards the 6/7 Vital positions, especially in the first 2 rounds. Then you can draft for depth/need. And of course, this is all assuming you filled all major holes through Free Agency.

 

[cdogg]

It was great that we drafted Michael Thomas. But how do you know who is the best player available. Sometime BPA may not work out for their perspective team. Thomas was not even consider one of the top wide receiver in that class.

Last year, Andrew Billing was on the board as the BPA for 3 or 4 rounds before he got picked. The jury is still out on him because of his injuries, but no one will know how any of these players will turn out.

Trust me, I get what you are saying and I agree. Sometimes I rather get the best player in the draft, that you know will be a big contributor for the team, rather than picking players of need and having to develop them and hope they turn out good.

No, Billing was BPA according to Kiper, McShay, etc., obviously not to teams.

 

[sammymvpknight]

WR was a need last year. Colston had just been cut and we didn't have a big bodied possession receiver on the team. He also happened to be BPA which turned out well for us. But I think that the Saints take need into consideration. If there's a QB, WR, UT, and Edge all graded fairly similarly...I'd be shocked if they don't get an Edge.

 

[Outbackjack]

"BPA" is a misnomer anyway.

The draft is the biggest crapshoot in sports.

Every single team has different ratings on guys, so BPA varies from every team.

No one really knows who the "best player available" will be in any draft.

It's why if you've ever seen the "redrafts"...(that they do for fun a year or two after a draft, they NEVER even come close to resembling the actual draft).

In fact, if we were to redraft this past years, Thomas is a top 5 pick.

But NO ONE had him ranked near the top of the WR class.

Basically, with the Thomas pick, we scouted him, we were in need of a WR, and he has far surpassed anyones expectations.

 

[Domeination]

Well it surely worked this time.

But sometimes it doesn't.

It's the draft, it's incredibly unpredictable, there's zero chance in knowing the BPA is going to be better than the guy you take in need.

Otherwise, teams would never miss in round 1, and UDFA would never make the league.

And you mentioned Dak, I don't think back up QB was a position of need (as you implied you'd rather have MT....BPA.... than Dak)

Finally, with losing Colston, WR was an area of need too.

But I do agree, I'd rather draft a guy we think is best COMBINED with need.

Let's say the BPA when we pick is Deshaun Watson.

We will hopefully draft for need rather than blindly take BPA.

Well said. We did have a moderate need for a WR due to the loss of Colston and the fact that Coleman is still developing, even though we had bigger needs on D. So picking Michael Thomas was a bit of a compromise between BPA and need. If a team just goes with need, they risk reaching; conversely, BPA is a subjective concept and a team can't simply ignore needs to chase after the presumed BPA every round. It's always a balancing act. They certainly achieved the perfect balance with the Thomas pick.

 

[saint_drago]

Drafting BPA makes you look like a genius when you actually draft the best player available. It doesn't always work out that way. And I thought WR was absolutely a need going into last year's draft. A lot of us felt that way. We spent a lot of time talking about Treadwell, Coleman, and Doctson as possible first round picks.

Thank God we went with Rankins an then Thomas. Rankins should be a good starter for years to come and Thomas will be All Pro one day.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

I hate this argument. He was BPA (at a position of need). We definitely needed a WR and I used the analogy of A basketball team when referring to our WRs corps b4 the draft. The body type we were missing was the 6'3 212 guy.

We had Snead at 5'11
Cooks at 5'9
Fleener at 6'5
Coleman at 6'6

Wasn't just a random BPA it rarely ever is. It's always a position of need..fans just don't have a clear view of what represents need for a team.

 

[reason2believe]

Deuce McAllister was my favorite BPA pick. We didn't need a RB with Ricky Williams on the roster but how did all of that turn out.

Obviously no one knows how things will eventually turn out, but the OP is referring to a strategy and approach.