There will be a consensus BPA player when we are on the clock, almost certainly, but.....

[FalconFanSince1969]

That player is RB Bijan Robinson. He is easily a top 5 player in this draft and is in the same class as Will Anderson, Jalen Carter, ect.

 

Do you 'BPA always' folks stick to your guns?? We keep saying we need to add studs no matter the position and this would give Ridder the best running game in the NFL to lean on.

 

I'm not saying I would do it, but I am saying he is a LOT less risky than those other defensive players after the top 2....

[EddieK]

The value of RBs have fallen dramatically in the NFL. He wouldn’t be the BPA for many teams picking where we’re picking.

[FalconFanSince1969]

2 minutes ago, EddieK said:

The value of RBs have fallen dramatically in the NFL. He wouldn’t be the BPA for many teams picking where we’re picking.

BPA has nothing to do with positional value. It's simply the best player.

[Spongebob]

Uh ohhh lol 

It's the falcons, bpa will be WR, RB, TE. After Monday and the combine half of this board will be clamoring for Quentin Johnston 🙄

 

 

[JDaveG]

1 minute ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

BPA has nothing to do with positional value. It's simply the best player.

Not true.  BPA takes into account positional value.  What it does not take into account is team need.  So yeah, if the best RB in the draft is more valuable than the 3rd best pass rusher, or the 2nd best WR, or the 3rd best QB, or whatever, you'd take him there.  But he won't be because they will put a much higher grade on other positions.  Same reason you don't take kickers in the first round.

[JDaveG]

Put it this way -- if you have the best QB in the draft, the best DE in the draft and the best OT in the draft on the board when we pick, they ought to take the best player of the three.  But the truth is if they are otherwise equally graded, the QB will be graded higher, then probably the OT, then the DE.  Because the importance of the QB position is greater than the other two.

But if the best OT and DE are on the board, and the QB that is left is not as good, then you take OT or DE, because even though the QB is a more important piece and at least arguably a team need (I'd take a huge upgrade to Ridder if he's there, and I'm a fan of Ridder), taking a QB who isn't as good as the other two isn't going to improve your team as much.  And the best teams will have already fixed the QB problem (if they think it's a problem) in free agency.  

[FalconFanSince1969]

6 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Not true.  BPA takes into account positional value.  What it does not take into account is team need.  So yeah, if the best RB in the draft is more valuable than the 3rd best pass rusher, or the 2nd best WR, or the 3rd best QB, or whatever, you'd take him there.  But he won't be because they will put a much higher grade on other positions.  Same reason you don't take kickers in the first round.

BPA means whatever the person arguing that we should draft that way wants it to mean.

[JDaveG]

1 minute ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

BPA means whatever the person arguing that we should draft that way wants it to mean.

“'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.'”

-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

 

Forgive me if I don't join you in going through the looking glass.  Teams that draft the way Fontenot draft know what exactly what BPA means.  And Fontenot has been pretty explicit.  He's said positional value is taken into account.  He's even said team need is taken into account if you have multiple positions with similar grades.  But what we don't do is reach in the draft for team needs.  We fill holes in free agency and we draft for the best player on the board, and positional value is part of that.  And, using his words, "we're never afraid to add to a position of strength."

[EddieK]

11 minutes ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

BPA has nothing to do with positional value. It's simply the best player.

Of course it does, if certain positions are valued more, it affects a player’s overall grade. Take for instance if a RB is rated at 96 (just using numbers to make it easier) and say a QB or DE is rated at 93, the QB or DE will most likely be the BPA.

[FalconFanSince1969]

2 minutes ago, EddieK said:

Of course it does, if certain positions are valued more, it affects a player’s overall grade. Take for instance if a RB is rated at 96 (just using numbers to make it easier) and say a QB or DE is rated at 93, the QB or DE will most likely be the BPA.

Then that isn't taking the best player available which is literally what BPA stands for.

[FalconFanSince1969]

Also this is what Font said

 

Fontenot: In the draft, you need to take the best player. At every position. You should never say "oh we're good there", and refuse to draft someone.

[JDaveG]

1 minute ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

Then that isn't taking the best player available which is literally what BPA stands for.

This is absurd.  If a HOF kicker is available at the first pick and none of the rest of the picks are considered HOF type players, you're telling me you think any NFL GM is going kicker first overall?

This isn't rocket science.  Stop being pedantic and think it through.  Listen to what NFL GMs who draft using that philosophy say.  Positional value is ALWAYS a consideration.  The best kicker on the planet will never be as valuable as the best DE or OT or QB.  The question is whether the QB available is good enough for his positional value to make him a better option than the other players available, not whether QB is always going to have the highest positional value.

[JDaveG]

Just now, FalconFanSince1969 said:

Also this is what Font said

 

Fontenot: In the draft, you need to take the best player. At every position. You should never say "oh we're good there", and refuse to draft someone.

Yeah, I'm done.  You know full well what he meant, and he's said it himself enough that this isn't much of a mystery.  You're just being absurd for the sake of it, which is trolling.

[FalconFanSince1969]

Just now, JDaveG said:

Yeah, I'm done.  You know full well what he meant, and he's said it himself enough that this isn't much of a mystery.  You're just being absurd for the sake of it, which is trolling.

That is a direct quote. Why you keep bringing up kickers I'm not sure.

[JDaveG]

“We look for succession plans at every position. We have to add to the roster at every single position. And where you can get in trouble is if you reach and you feel desperate in certain areas ... but we’re not going to do that, and yet, we’re going to evaluate. We’ve got to ... we actually had formal interviews with several quarterbacks yesterday, and there’s a good group in this draft. There’s different flavors. We’re going to evaluate those players, and at the appropriate time we’ll add to that position. But I think you can get yourself in trouble if you reach and you don’t feel good about what you are doing.”

HOW TO PLACE A VALUE ON PATTERSON’S HYBRID POSITION: “Because a lot of things we do when we evaluate value is we look at comps, position comps. So, when it is kind of that hybrid unique position, it’s tough to have a Rolodex a lot of times with players like that. So, it was tough to value, but at the end of the day for us, it boils down to assessing the makeup, assessing the fit and looking at what we can do currently with our specific team. So, it’s not always easy to value that specific position. But it’s something that we have to do.”

ON THE STRENGTHS OF THE DRAFT: “Well, I would say if you go through each position in the draft, there are some positions where they can be a little more top heavy, and it’s not as strong midway through the draft and there’s some positions that there might not be a player at eight that we love, but yet we know there’s depth in the draft. So we’re still going through that process. I wouldn’t say where we see the strengths and weaknesses, but I would say there are good players at every position.”

https://www.ajc.com/sports/atlanta-falcons/falcons-terry-fontenot-working-to-build-a-championship-roster-one-player-at-a-time/7J7GS2HGDFBVBD4CAL5WTMZ2XA/

“There are a lot of challenges,” Fontenot said. “You want to, at any position, you want to continue to add competition. You want to get the best players that fit the makeup standard. That fit the physical talent (with the) skill set. We have a clear vision for what they are going to be. You definitely want to the best player available.

“I would say we never want to reach for needs,” Fontenot said. “We want to stack the board. We want to be consistent. It’s never a bad thing to add to a strength. You want to get good football players because it’s a long season. There are a lot of injuries.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rayglier/2021/01/21/atlanta-falcons-hired-terry-fontenot-because-of-free-agent-success-with-saints/?sh=2c24afe4f217

If you read all of that, and then go back and re-read the quote you provided, you can see that in the context of Fontenot's thinking, when he says "at every position," he is NOT saying "you don't take into account positional value."  What he's saying is if the best player is at a position of strength on the team, you don't reach for a position of need, you add to the position of strength.

He's not talking about taking a K or punt returner in the top 10.

[youngbloodz]

Seriously doubt that every expert and team will have Bijan as a top 5 player in the draft.

[hjerry]

Just now, youngbloodz said:

Seriously doubt that every time expert and team will have Bijan as a top 5 player in the draft.

but it helps fuel this stupid argument, so it must be assumed

[JDaveG]

Just now, youngbloodz said:

Seriously doubt that every time expert and team will have Bijan as a top 5 player in the draft.

He doesn't understand how NFL front offices grade players.  He's taking this utterly semantic "derp BPA means best player regardless of position" while also wondering why I'm bringing up place kickers.

Does anyone here other than OP think ANY NFL GM drafts the way OP is suggesting?  Like, does anyone REALLY think they don't grade some positions higher than others when evaluating players?  

[EddieK]

12 minutes ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

Then that isn't taking the best player available which is literally what BPA stands for.

I’m not sure why I’m choosing to go back and forth about this, but let’s take this example. Say a Toyota Corolla is rated a 96 and is the best small car available. And then they rate a Mercedes as a 93 and is the best luxury car available. 

The Mercedes would be considered the best car available due to one of the factors being luxury cars are valued more. You wouldn’t choose to take the Toyota Corolla because it had a higher score in its category, would you?

[MarkMc44]

14 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

This is absurd.  If a HOF kicker is available at the first pick and none of the rest of the picks are considered HOF type players, you're telling me you think any NFL GM is going kicker first overall?

This isn't rocket science.  Stop being pedantic and think it through.  Listen to what NFL GMs who draft using that philosophy say.  Positional value is ALWAYS a consideration.  The best kicker on the planet will never be as valuable as the best DE or OT or QB.  The question is whether the QB available is good enough for his positional value to make him a better option than the other players available, not whether QB is always going to have the highest positional value.

I consider myself well read, with a healthy vocabulary, but I’ve never encountered the word “pedantic”. Did you let him have it?😳

GO FALCONS!!!!

[hjerry]

1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

He doesn't understand how NFL front offices grade players.  He's taking this utterly semantic "derp BPA means best player regardless of position" while also wondering why I'm bringing up place kickers.

Does anyone here other than OP think ANY NFL GM drafts the way OP is suggesting?  Like, does anyone REALLY think they don't grade some positions higher than others when evaluating players?  

Best example is one where a GM fully admitted that they had a CB who most considered a 1st round pick in that draft, rated as a 3rd round pick on their board due to scheme fit and what they had at depth at the position. 

There will always be players that transcend these stipulations, but most players aren't good enough for that to be the case

[Lethal]

Why every year do we have to go through this song and dance?  My goodness.

[youngbloodz]

4 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

He doesn't understand how NFL front offices grade players.  He's taking this utterly semantic "derp BPA means best player regardless of position" while also wondering why I'm bringing up place kickers.

Does anyone here other than OP think ANY NFL GM drafts the way OP is suggesting?  Like, does anyone REALLY think they don't grade some positions higher than others when evaluating players?  

People use BPA as a broad term when teams don’t view it as such at all. 

[JDaveG]

Just now, hjerry said:

Best example is one where a GM fully admitted that they had a CB who most considered a 1st round pick in that draft, rated as a 3rd round pick on their board due to scheme fit and what they had at depth at the position. 

There will always be players that transcend these stipulations, but most players aren't good enough for that to be the case

That's a whole 'nother ball of wax, and the front office and especially the coaches (and especially Pees) have discussed it.  I think Pees said something like "great player, doesn't fit what we do here" in reference to someone or another.

But yeah -- you have to consider whether the player does what you need him to do as well.  He could be a sure fire HOFer, but if your scheme doesn't allow him to do what he does best, you either adapt the scheme or pick someone else.  And which one of those happens likely has to do more with who else is available at that pick.

[JDaveG]

Just now, youngbloodz said:

People use BPA as a broad term when teams don’t view it as such at all. 

Exactly right.  Teams use it more as a philosophy than a rule, and all it really means is "we're not going to prioritize filling team needs over taking great players."  It does NOT mean "positional value is never considered," or "scheme fit is never considered," or even "team need is never considered."  It just means you're going to take a higher graded player at a position of strength over a lower graded player at a position of need more often than not.  And it also means you're using free agency to try to eliminate true "positions of need" in the first place.