OT: 2024 Washington Commanders thread: change we can believe in!

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
31,260
15,845
If they don’t fit what you run, are they really the BPA? I feel like the “looking for a fit” is something good draft evaluators factor in every time as part of a list of things to factor in.
Semantics. A lot of people consider BPA to be the top talent on the board not "fit" of any kind. If the consensus pick is a QB and you already have one then BPA says still take the QB and trade someone if necessary. Anything else is not really BPA for the sake of the discussion.

We've had this debate here before and it's a typical bone of contention everywhere.

Yeah my thoughts exactly. My BPA and your BPA may be very different based on the systems our teams run.
That's ranking BPA which is not the same thing as drafting for fit or need.

If that weren't the case then why would they highlight it in the article and say it's a common debate on their forum?
 

ynotcaps

Registered User
Aug 4, 2006
2,105
1,792
One of the things the story in HH included was how they rate players not strictly by round per se, but what they would play on their team (and, by definition, within their system.) In the first 2-3 rounds, they're looking for players who could be starters for them, not necessarily what the rest of the league thinks about their ratings. And that goes into how they handle the later rounds, and is a part of why they strike gold with those picks on a decent basis.

Everything is based on deep analysis across multiple facets. It's so logical that it's crazy to think that not everybody does it the same. (Some do -- but obviously not anybody who's worked in Ashburn.)
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
66,351
21,371
Semantics. A lot of people consider BPA to be the top talent on the board not "fit" of any kind. If the consensus pick is a QB and you already have one then BPA says still take the QB and trade someone if necessary. Anything else is not really BPA for the sake of the discussion.

We've had this debate here before and it's a typical bone of contention everywhere.


That's ranking BPA which is not the same thing as drafting for fit or need.

If that weren't the case then why would they highlight it in the article and say it's a common debate on their forum?

Yes I agree you’re arguing semantics. BPA isn’t strictly draft a QB when he’s the “best available”, but you don’t need a QB. In that scenario you should be looking to trade back, add additional resources and get the BPA for your team. BPA isn’t strictly based on pure talent….many factors.

One of the things the story in HH included was how they rate players not strictly by round per se, but what they would play on their team (and, by definition, within their system.) In the first 2-3 rounds, they're looking for players who could be starters for them, not necessarily what the rest of the league thinks about their ratings. And that goes into how they handle the later rounds, and is a part of why they strike gold with those picks on a decent basis.

Everything is based on deep analysis across multiple facets. It's so logical that it's crazy to think that not everybody does it the same. (Some do -- but obviously not anybody who's worked in Ashburn.)

This….the best ones are doing a very deep analysis that goes waaaaay beyond just some measure or rank of talent.
 

Ovechkins Wodka

Registered User
Dec 1, 2007
18,819
8,719
DC
Harrison JR is the BPA and hes going #4. The top three picks are QBs. If you have a chance at a top 2 QB in one of the better QB drafts just take best QB.

Bears could get cute and make our plans hard. We get Maye or Williams and im thrilled
 
  • Like
Reactions: TCB

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
31,260
15,845
Yes I agree you’re arguing semantics. BPA isn’t strictly draft a QB when he’s the “best available”, but you don’t need a QB. In that scenario you should be looking to trade back, add additional resources and get the BPA for your team. BPA isn’t strictly based on pure talent….many factors.
And typical BPA drafts heavily based on talent while dropping "need" or "fit" well down the list, sometimes to the point it's barely considered at all.

This is the opposite of that to the extreme, where even the coaches playcalling scheme is taken into consideration.
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
66,351
21,371
And typical BPA drafts heavily based on talent while dropping "need" or "fit" well down the list, sometimes to the point it's barely considered at all.

This is the opposite of that to the extreme, where even the coaches playcalling scheme is taken into consideration.

Truly good evaluators put so much more into it than evaluating only talent….IMO. Like I dig that this guy looks hard at “do they love football, or are they faking it”….
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
31,260
15,845

Extremely long and detailed article on what happened to the Eagles.

tl'dr: their defense lost key components at LB and S up the middle, and Hurts was not as good at RPO or dealing with blitzes
 

Ridley Simon

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
19,044
10,381
Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
“You have to take BPA man!!”

“No dude, you have to take Best Player Available!!, everyone knows this!!”

“Right…. BPA!”

“No MAN! It’s Best Player Available!!!”

“uhhhhh …. Bartender, I will have what’s he’s having”


🧏🏿‍♀️🧏🏿‍♀️
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
66,351
21,371
“You have to take BPA man!!”

“No dude, you have to take Best Player Available!!, everyone knows this!!”

“Right…. BPA!”

“No MAN! It’s Best Player Available!!!”

“uhhhhh …. Bartender, I will have what’s he’s having”


🧏🏿‍♀️🧏🏿‍♀️

I feel like too many get sucked into some rigid definition of BPA, when BPA isn’t often based JUST on talent, and it’s looking at those other THINGS helps that make great talent evaluators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kicksavedave

kicksavedave

I'm just here for the memes and gifs.
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2009
11,353
14,538
Fallbrook, CA
www.tiasarms.org
And typical BPA drafts heavily based on talent while dropping "need" or "fit" well down the list, sometimes to the point it's barely considered at all.

This is the opposite of that to the extreme, where even the coaches playcalling scheme is taken into consideration.

What evidence is there for dropping fit off/down the list in a BPA approach? I can't recall anyone here making that claim and I can't ever recall seeing any NFL insider making that sort of statement. This seems entirely a straw man argument.

The idea that fit and BPA are some how exclusive or contrary or counter to each other is just unfounded. Bad drafting teams, like the one we've been cheering for now for a while, consider need primarily, without considering fit or BPA, and as the evidence shows, they draft busts galore - Forbes and Davis being the latest two examples of bad fit and need based drafting.

Good teams consider fit as part of what makes a player the "best available". The question they ask is, what is this players potential to be a good contributor in OUR organization, in OUR scheme, regardless of what the depth chart says. They don't just blindly rank talent without considering if the CB plays best in zone or man, or the OL is a road grater or an athletic zone blocker. They also don't put too much weight on how well a player might fit in some other, differently ran organization.

The BPA vs need discussion, and I've been a champion of the BPA side, never excluded fit from "best" ranking, it excluded the depth chart from the ranking. Teams that draft based on their depth chart are the ones that draft poorly over the long term, as Ron Rivera has just shown us. Teams that draft the best players that fit their schemes, regardless of the current depth chart, are, as the 49rs have shown us, more successful.

This is all the "alignment" buzz word that Peters talked about, and the lack of "alignment" between the FO and coaches was a hallmark of Little Danny's failures with Vinny and Bruce running the talent show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CapitalsCupReality

kicksavedave

I'm just here for the memes and gifs.
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2009
11,353
14,538
Fallbrook, CA
www.tiasarms.org
Also interesting that they look for players to fit the coaching scheme which goes against the BPA "wisdom" many insist is canon. They're going to look for pieces of the current puzzle, not shiny toys to be traded as assets if they turn out to be square pegs.

Again this isn't really an argument that's ever been made here, or in NFL insider circles. It really should never have needed to be said that fit (how a player will perform for us) was part of what makes the players the best available. But since its being claimed that argument was made, I'll just re-iterate, it wasn't and isn't. Good talent evaluation, both in the draft and free agency, strongly considers fit and always should. No one other than Dan Snyder and maybe Ron Rivera, thought otherwise.

fit <> need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CapitalsCupReality

Ridley Simon

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
19,044
10,381
Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
Again this isn't really an argument that's ever been made here, or in NFL insider circles. It really should never have needed to be said that fit (how a player will perform for us) was part of what makes the players the best available. But since its being claimed that argument was made, I'll just re-iterate, it wasn't and isn't. Good talent evaluation, both in the draft and free agency, strongly considers fit and always should. No one other than Dan Snyder and maybe Ron Rivera, thought otherwise.
Yer forgetting Vinnie Cerrato, Bruce Allen, and perhaps Jim Zorn

Icons of the sport, ALL
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
31,260
15,845
Again this isn't really an argument that's ever been made here, or in NFL insider circles. It really should never have needed to be said that fit (how a player will perform for us) was part of what makes the players the best available. But since its being claimed that argument was made, I'll just re-iterate, it wasn't and isn't. Good talent evaluation, both in the draft and free agency, strongly considers fit and always should. No one other than Dan Snyder and maybe Ron Rivera, thought otherwise.

fit <> need.

1705601876084.png

1705601924873.png



You guys are getting way too worked up over the semantics of this and missing the point. Our new GM is not going to draft even by typical BPA standards, however you want to define them, if he's looking at SCHEME and other granular factors that are off the typical BPA radar.

Relax.
 

kicksavedave

I'm just here for the memes and gifs.
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2009
11,353
14,538
Fallbrook, CA
www.tiasarms.org

View attachment 805632
View attachment 805633



You guys are getting way too worked up over the semantics of this and missing the point. Our new GM is not going to draft even by typical BPA standards, however you want to define them, if he's looking at SCHEME and other granular factors that are off the typical BPA radar.

Relax.

One thing is certain. Everything about Peters spells confidence in having the absolute optimal draft prep and strategy. They'll still bust on a few, its part of the deal, but they'll hit on a bunch more than we've been used to. Of this I have zero doubt.
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
66,351
21,371

View attachment 805632
View attachment 805633



You guys are getting way too worked up over the semantics of this and missing the point. Our new GM is not going to draft even by typical BPA standards, however you want to define them, if he's looking at SCHEME and other granular factors that are off the typical BPA radar.

Relax.
You seem unrelaxed….….I’m relaxed because Peters won’t slavishly follow anything overly rigid. He won’t do the obvious dumb things like draft a ball hawking CB because his D needs more turnovers…the approach will be much deeper. Too many dummies out there who say they are hardcore “BPA” but they don’t know what really goes on in the evaluation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kicksavedave

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
31,260
15,845
You seem unrelaxed….….I’m relaxed because Peters won’t slavishly follow anything overly rigid. He won’t do the obvious dumb things like draft a ball hawking CB because his D needs more turnovers…the approach will be much deeper. Too many dummies out there who say they are hardcore “BPA” but they don’t know what really goes on in the evaluation.


Ok well you guys are the ones who took exception to what the article was stating, not me.
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
66,351
21,371
Ok well you guys are the ones who took exception to what the article was stating, not me.
I took exception to your early statement is all…

“Also interesting that they look for players to fit the coaching scheme which goes against the BPA "wisdom" many insist is canon. They're going to look for pieces of the current puzzle, not shiny toys to be traded as assets if they turn out to be square pegs.”

….as if scheme isn’t one of probably many factors that go into determining BPA for the better talent evaluators. Anyway…not worth some long drawn out thing.
 
Last edited:

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
31,260
15,845
I took exception to your early statement is all…

“Also interesting that they look for players to fit the coaching scheme which goes against the BPA "wisdom" many insist is canon. They're going to look for pieces of the current puzzle, not shiny toys to be traded as assets if they turn out to be square pegs.”

….as if scheme isn’t one of probably many factors that go into determining BPA for the better talent evaluators.

Fine. I still think you all are nitpicking my words.

If everyone uses the same analytics/R&D and ignores combines and senior bowls etc to go with their own analysis like with Mitchell and zone runs, then the article is off base and our new GM is just like any another GM and got lucky.

1705610355728.png



1705610477422.png


Analytics to suss out non-obvious scheme fits including bespoke metrics like GTFO, plus advanced grading against the current roster that can move guys up in the draft in ways that might not match anything close to someone else's BPA, based on the grading and holes identified in the current roster.

Again, take it up with the article authors but that's how it's being presented...as something fairly unique.
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
66,351
21,371
Why would you assume these two things?

“(1)If everyone uses the same analytics/R&D and (2)ignores combines and senior bowls”


I like the “customized metrics“ approach they’re taking. Their GTFO metric might be the same as a metric other teams call something else, but at least the tact seems promising, assuming they’re knowledgeable enough to make these customized metrics mean something valuable in the selection process.

I didn’t read the whole thing, so if you were just summarizing their position, it wasn’t clear in your post, at least to me. Anyway…
 

ynotcaps

Registered User
Aug 4, 2006
2,105
1,792
That's it, I'm taking a firm stand, dammit!

I support drafting for need if Peters decides we need it, and BPA if Peters says the guy is that.

(And if some smartass replies, "But Peters will never decide we 'need' so-and-so," I'm gonna go help a wino cross a busy street, since people got all sensitive about winos getting punched and such.)
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
66,351
21,371
BPA factors in need, it just doesn’t overvalue that one factor enough to make you reach when there are other more impactful players available to pick…
 

kicksavedave

I'm just here for the memes and gifs.
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2009
11,353
14,538
Fallbrook, CA
www.tiasarms.org
I took exception to your early statement is all…

“Also interesting that they look for players to fit the coaching scheme which goes against the BPA "wisdom" many insist is canon. They're going to look for pieces of the current puzzle, not shiny toys to be traded as assets if they turn out to be square pegs.”

….as if scheme isn’t one of probably many factors that go into determining BPA for the better talent evaluators. Anyway…not worth some long drawn out thing.

That was what I took issue with as well. No one I've seen, certainly not me, insist that fit goes against BPA canon. It is indeed one of the factors that make a player "best" available. It should be an essential part of compiling a draft board. Also utterly missing from Redskinny drafts of the last 20 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CapitalsCupReality

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
31,260
15,845
That was what I took issue with as well. No one I've seen, certainly not me, insist that fit goes against BPA canon. It is indeed one of the factors that make a player "best" available. It should be an essential part of compiling a draft board. Also utterly missing from Redskinny drafts of the last 20 years.

Ok again, maybe I was too terse and not specific enough in what I meant by that because, as you can see from a small snippet of the article above, it gets pretty complicated in terms of what "fit" and "BPA" and "need" all mean within the context of what they're doing vs other teams.

No need to belabor the point or waste so much time explaining and re-typing the entire article in detail, which would've been obvious to anyone who actually read the article, imo.

Moving on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CapitalsCupReality

Ridley Simon

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
19,044
10,381
Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
That's it, I'm taking a firm stand, dammit!

I support drafting for need if Peters decides we need it, and BPA if Peters says the guy is that.

(And if some smartass replies, "But Peters will never decide we 'need' so-and-so," I'm gonna go help a wino cross a busy street, since people got all sensitive about winos getting punched and such.)
I resemble that remark! I’m a wino, so I took it personally!!

There. I said it. GTFO!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ynotcaps

Ad

Ad

Ad