To draft pure BPA isn't very smart. I mean, if Stephen Hill falls to us, do we draft him? I mean we'd only have Jennings, Jones, Nelson, Cobb, Driver and Stephen Hill then.

What about if Tannehill fell to us? Do we draft him because he's the best player avaivable?

BPA in area of need is the way to go.

Originally Posted by: Packers_Finland 

Ted Thompson puts value on certain positions. He looks at QB, the offensive line, and defensive front seven. This is his trend in the first round. Those are his valued positions, which correlate to best player available. It's all subjective. We look at Justin Harrell and don’t see BPA. We may look at Dwayne Bowe as BPA. Ted Thompson would argue that a defensive lineman is more valuable than a receiver is. Therefore, he’s taking the BPA.

Another example is B.J. Raji and Michael Crabtree. Many thought Crabtree was a higher rated prospect than Raji. However, in terms of value, Raji ranks higher than Crabtree because he plays a premium position. In other words, BPA has more to do with the value of the position than the players. Perhaps there are exceptions, but thus far, this has been the first round philosophy.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

To draft pure BPA isn't very smart. I mean, if Stephen Hill falls to us, do we draft him? I mean we'd only have Jennings, Jones, Nelson, Cobb, Driver and Stephen Hill then.

What about if Tannehill fell to us? Do we draft him because he's the best player avaivable?

BPA in area of need is the way to go.

Originally Posted by: Packers_Finland 

Backwards. BPA and area of need within that.

I would assume that Ted gives every player a number value that includes talent, position and character. If there are several players that have the same value, he picks the one we need most.

Since the majority of draft picks are not really fully functional for 3-5 years, Ted picks them for 3-5 years down the road.

Reaching to get an area of need is a good way to pass up higher rated players. Then your opponents will take that higher rated player. In 5 years of drafting 10 players a year, you will wind up with a weaker team if you believe in picking by need. Specially in the higher rounds.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

I'm not saying we should reach for areas of need. But for this draft, our "area of need" would consist of players that could play DL, OLB, CB and SS. There's no way we have to reach to get a guy that plays one of those positions.

As for someone saying pick BPA because you never know when injuries happen, it's not really smart that way either. Let's say the pure BPA for the first three picks is a WR. How many WRs are we going to carry if no one gets injured? Then suddenly a defensive lineman gets injured and there's no depth because no players were drafted for that position.

Originally Posted by: Packers_Finland 

I'm not saying we should reach for areas of need. But for this draft, our "area of need" would consist of players that could play DL, OLB, CB and SS. There's no way we have to reach to get a guy that plays one of those positions.

As for someone saying pick BPA because you never know when injuries happen, it's not really smart that way either. Let's say the pure BPA for the first three picks is a WR. How many WRs are we going to carry if no one gets injured? Then suddenly a defensive lineman gets injured and there's no depth because no players were drafted for that position.

Originally Posted by: Packers_Finland