BPA- Are We There, And a Hypothetical | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

BPA- Are We There, And a Hypothetical

Mach2 said:
A lot would depend on what they think of our current Oline, expectations of how players have developed, etc.
Click to expand...
thanks i was trying not to be position specific, and re-articulated the question a bit with the edit to make that clearer
 
phinsforlife said:
no, he told me i was being simplistic. and if you would have seen his prior comments to me you would understand my reaction.
Click to expand...
No. I said the hypothetical was an oversimplification. Same as when ppl want to talk about contracts in term of "advertised numbers" verses the reality of contract details such as term, guarantees, possible "out" opportunities, etc.

It isn't personal. I don't know you. Stop crying victim.

When I agree with you, I say so, or "like" your posts. Hell, I have even defended your position at times (not to be confused with defending on a personal level).
 
phinsforlife said:
so i disagree. once you are thinking about that stuff, you are back to need, not BPA, in the classical sense
Click to expand...

I don’t believe that’s accurate, and here’s why.

Say, for example, you draft Latu. And Latu turns out to be a stud. Your fifth-year option means you have control over that player for an extra year.

Or, say you draft Graham Barton and he turns out to be a stud at all three interior positions. Your fifth-year option means you have control over that player for an extra year.

At the end of the fourth year, which of those two players gives you more versatility as an asset?

In other words, which player would other teams covet more, a stud EDGE or a stud interior lineman?

That’s why I think you have to factor position value in to BPA in the first round.
 
The Goat said:
I don’t believe that’s accurate, and here’s why.

Say, for example, you draft Latu. And Latu turns out to be a stud. Your fifth-year option means you have control over that player for an extra year.

Or, say you draft Graham Barton and he turns out to be a stud at all three interior positions. Your fifth-year option means you have control over that player for an extra year.

At the end of the fourth year, which of those two players gives you more versatility as an asset?

In other words, which player would other teams covet more, a stud EDGE or a stud interior lineman?

That’s why I think you have to factor position value in to BPA in the first round.
Click to expand...
Not only do I agree, it is a clearly stated and lucid take on the concept of positional value.

I'm not so sure that everyone sees it as important in the short term, which is a mistake, IMO.

There are those that openly admit they don't care about anything beyond next season.
 
For what it’s worth, I’m of the opinion that we’re going to see a HUGE run on Edge rushers between 10-20 for the exact reason I was just pontificating about, and that OL are going to drop for that very reason.

Turner, Latu, Verse, Chop, all gone by 20. Just my thinking.
 
The Goat said:
I don’t believe that’s accurate, and here’s why.

Say, for example, you draft Latu. And Latu turns out to be a stud. Your fifth-year option means you have control over that player for an extra year.

Or, say you draft Graham Barton and he turns out to be a stud at all three interior positions. Your fifth-year option means you have control over that player for an extra year.

At the end of the fourth year, which of those two players gives you more versatility as an asset?

In other words, which player would other teams covet more, a stud EDGE or a stud interior lineman?

That’s why I think you have to factor position value in to BPA in the first round.
Click to expand...
ahh ok. i misunderstood. i do think positional value matters. did a prior thread on this too. ergo why draft a DT with your first pick if you dont want to pay fair market value for the player if they turn out good? i think that is a very interesting question. i can understand factoring that into the BPA calculation. not because of control or those sorts of issues, but just math. for example if player A is 90 rated, but the positional value is a .5, that player is a 45. if player B is 80 rated, but the postional value is a 1, that player is an 80, and therefore the BPA, by a fair bit. this example i am giving is a bit gross, because there is not really that degree of difference in most cases. but you get the point. however, this is where it gets complicated. this is part of the problem with QB salaries broadly in the NFL. because the way the game is played now, the positional value of QB has gone through the roof. so you get all these mediocre QBs over-drafted, and in my view often over paid, to the point it oddly becomes counter productive for a lot of teams. so i guess i share your view, maybe for different reasons. i think it is a complicated and interesting issue when you think about it this way
 
phinsforlife said:
ahh ok. i misunderstood. i do think positional value matters. did a prior thread on this too. ergo why draft a DT with your first pick if you dont want to pay fair market value for the player if they turn out good? i think that is a very interesting question. i can understand factoring that into the BPA calculation. not because of control or those sorts of issues, but just math. for example if player A is 90 rated, but the positional value is a .5, that player is a 45. if player B is 80 rated, but the postional value is a 1, that player is an 80, and therefore the BPA, by a fair bit. this example i am giving is a bit gross, because there is not really that degree of difference in most cases. but you get the point. however, this is where it gets complicated. this is part of the problem with QB salaries broadly in the NFL. because the way the game is played now, the positional value of QB has gone through the roof. so you get all these mediocre QBs over-drafted, and in my view often over paid, to the point it oddly becomes counter productive for a lot of teams. so i guess i share your view, maybe for different reasons. i think it is a complicated and interesting issue when you think about it this way
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response.

Now to more specifically answer what I think you were originally asking, I think that the only *lock* OL to get drafted before 21 is Joe Alt. I'm firmly of the opinion that at least one of Latham, Fashanu, Mims or Fatanu is going to drop right into Miami's lap at 21. And if that happens, I don't think anyone could get too upset about drafting one of them, because you could easily make the argument that they were the BPA.

This is a fantastic draft to need OL.
 
Remember last off-season and Grier totally downplaying our line play and players stating we were way more worried about it than him.
Here we are today with an excellent L.T who is always injured and a back up who is retiring after this season.
2 at best average guards.
Small quick center
A.J at R.T
Unfortunately Grier will once again draft either a Pass Rusher or C.B
After the draft once again downplay our lines needs.
Rinse and repeat
 
phinsforlife said:
-Have the Dolphins put themselves in a spot where they can go BPA with their first two picks?

I think give or take close enough, need might over-ride something if their board has a guy rated 91 at a higher position of need, and the BPA is a 93 at a lesser position of need, they might go with the 91. But I think they are at the point where if the higher position of need is an 85, and the BPA is 93, they would take the BPA. Net/net after putting themselves in a really bad spot before FA with the cap jam they were in, they have navigated reasonably smartly and I think with purpose so they don't have gaping holes they are forced to fill in the draft. It seems they kind of did have an actual strategy to plug the holes prior to the draft and put themselves in a spot to go BPA.

-Hypothetical question. Using these players only for illustrative purposes only, it could be player A versus B to take the names and positions out of it. If the Dolphins drafted Graham Barton, and he filled a need at guard (low positional value), and turned out to be a good and productive NFL player, but not elite, while skipping over a guy like Laiatu Latu, who turns out to be an elite edge rusher (high positional value), would Barton still turn out to be a good draft pick in retrospect?

I honestly go back and forth on this. Am curious what other people think? Where I am coming out now, before other thoughts, is Barton would still have been an OK pick. Simply, you can do a lot worse, and draft a bust. At least he was pretty good. You will never be perfect all of the time. If these kinds of mistakes are your worst mistakes, you will still be pretty good.

Thoughts on both issues?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that a more apples to apples hypothetical would be if If the Dolphins drafted Graham Barton, and he filled a need at guard (low positional value), and turned out to be elite, while skipping over a guy like Laiatu Latu, who turns out to be an elite edge rusher (high positional value), would Barton still turn out to be a good draft pick in retrospect?

In that scenario, I would say "yes". It would be a good draft pick in retrospect.
 
Mach2 said:
Not only do I agree, it is a clearly stated and lucid take on the concept of positional value.

I'm not so sure that everyone sees it as important in the short term, which is a mistake, IMO.

There are those that openly admit they don't care about anything beyond next season.
Click to expand...
At my age Mach,...you get the picture 😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom