|
Post by jett on Mar 21, 2015 20:43:31 GMT -5
That's the same thing Idzik said. Pretty sure it's different. I believe Idzik was all about the bpa and left little room for variables. Maccagnan at least acknowledges that in certain situations you will have deviate.
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on Mar 22, 2015 11:55:44 GMT -5
It's a mix of both. BPA at a position of need. You don't just go BPA regardless of position, that's about as asinine as over-reaching for need at every spot. If it's between Mariota and Fowler at #6, I can see an argument for both sides, since they will likely impact the team to the same extent. A potential franchise QB can turn a team around overnight, whereas an elite pass rushing LB will turn this defense from top-five to arguably best in the league, just like that. However, if go LB in the first round, and it comes down to the best available OL or QB like Petty/Hundley in the 2nd, the QB is likely the higher value/BPA at that position of need. Value is not a fixed variable; it fluctuates based on the circumstances of the draft. I think what you're trying to say here is BPA according to positional value, which is an approach I would agree with. Taking BPA doesn't really make much sense until later in the draft IMO. Taking the BPA at a position of high value, say LT, QB or OLB, is something pretty much everyone can get on board with.
|
|
|
Post by Jet Nut Sauce on Mar 22, 2015 13:04:57 GMT -5
That's the same thing Idzik said. The theory is as simple as it gets. Not hard to have the same thoughts. hard part is being able to figure out who actually is the BPA
|
|