Why you should NEVER draft solely based on need 

Unless you've got a star at the position, always BPA

Packers draft BPA heavily and have been good for 30 years. They have periods where drafting in the late 20s for years on end makes their roster mediocre, but they seem to be able to reload quickly with a couple more focused drafts

The flaw in this argument is that the point of the draft isn't to "win the draft", it's to build a team that wins football games. Yes team A might have had a better draft, but they also have a team with holes that didn't get filled in and now are going to have to be filled with cast offs. While team B didn't win the draft, they built a more complete team with less holes in it.

I know everyone hates ravens because of lamar Jackson but they seem to draft the best player available.

Where as i agree BPA is almost always the better choice in picking players. I don't agree in certain situations i personally liked Bijan and Pitts as BPA in their drafts over almost other players. Fontenot is a BPA drafting type of GM proven by those 2 picks specifically. We got absolutely roasted for picking lesser needed and lesser valued positions over other positions. But we 100% took BPA at those picks and it didn't end up helping our team much at all the last few years. For me the best way to do this is you marry BPA to Need so you find your 4 or 5 biggest needs on the team then you make your big board of players. In this drafts case it would be Edge, SS, NT, WR, and CB in that order as which positions needs the most help with us having worse players at each. So at pick 8 this year the best players that might be there would be Nabers, Odunze, Latu, Turner, Mitchell i would imagine. Is your biggest need of edge player close in value to the WR you can take there or is it a world of difference. To me Nabers is a better player but i also view Latu and Turner as top 10 picks as well and only about 2 or 3 spots lowers than Nabers value wise. So i would go Edge there also because i think SS, WR and CB are much deeper with talent in rounds 2 through 4 than edge is. So im looking at value at 8 for position of need compared to value later at positions as well.

The further in the draft, the more it should shift to need. Drafting in the 6th round you're shooting in the dark now for the most part, if you get a diamond in the rough you'd prefer them at a position of need

Yeah buttt BPA is truly a myth tho one solely ever just takes BPA you take BPA at a need at whatever positions you value more for example if You have 2 Starting elite tackles and the best player on the board is Joe alt you wouldn’t draft alt even tho he’s BPA

NBA selection is different. 2 rounds and about 60 players total. NFL is 7 rounds. Well over 200 selections. Except for the first round, it is almost impossible to precisely distinguish the value of talent after 30 players have been selected. Teams should create tiers of equivalent players, and relative differences between players within each position. In some instances, there may be only one player in the tier. (Especially in the first round). The Raiders should pick almost any top 5-8 players (on their Board) that falls to them in the first. However, after that, they should choose from the highest available tier, and then make adjustments for need or the likelihood that a "nearly-as -good" player can be selected in a later round. Let's say there are three players who are viewed as the best available tier in the third round. A RB, OG and WR. Assume WR is not a position of need. Then, do not pick a WR over players of equal value. Instead, the team should consider RBs and OGs and positional availabilitiy in later rounds. If there are no more good OG's expected to be available later, but there will be many RB's who are nearly as good, then you take the OG. In short, BPA is the way to go, with a slight adjustment when a group of players are within the same tier and there is no "perceived" difference in value.

Portland also had Clyde Drexeler from the previous draft. Also, with the salary cap in place, it isn’t tenable to over spend at one position at the expense of another.

The trick is to get the balance between bpa everytime vs fill position of need. For example the lions last draft was definitely BPA everytime but you have to consider if we didn’t get Jack Campbell at 18 and got Joey Porter instead who was a good cb in his first year you could argue that getting him on a bad secondary that it could’ve been the difference between us going to the SB over the Niners as the Aiyuk play was extremely unlucky for the lions with how it bounced off Vildors helmet and he caught it. Perhaps if Sutton covered him he would’ve picked it instead of Aiyuk catching it since he is a better cb than Vildor.

Very insightful as always

completely agree, if the cardinals trade down and address more positions of need, it would be a massive mistake. Marvin Harrison is the best player in this draft in my opinion. watching marvin make the all-pro team every year on a team other than the cardinals would be devastating.

It's almost a chicken/egg situation. If a GM takes over a dysfunctional team, one that is drafting top 5 year in and year out, and they start drafting best player available, and there isn't success relatively soon they will start feeling the pressure to win or they'll be fired. The short sightedness of an owner of a perennially losing team will force the hand of the GM to star drafting for need. It's a desperation play. On the other hand, an organization with stability can draft for need because their roster has been filled out to the point that the best player available is the best choice regardless. When people draft best player available and end up doubled up at a position, that's a good problem to have. You have some competition, AND you have the more expensive veteran to trade for more draft capital in the future. The true best player available organizations also tend to be the ones who don't have to over pay in free agency as well.

As a Raiders fan I have to agree. Drafting based on need alone is how you end up with a Leatherwood. Fck that 😂

Some thing people who always argue BPA over need when using the Jordan situation, ignore that MJ was selected not only behind Bowie which in hindsight is a huge blunder, but also Hakeem which almost no one ever questions. BPA only works in hindsight when that player becomes overwhelmingly better or Need was a bust. You can have Brady, Rodgers and Mahomes as your QB room but aren't going to win if you have no Oline.

I wonder if in 5 years the Commanders are going to say "maybe we should have drafted Marvin Harrison Jr.?"

I think the falcons watched this video

The division of labor in football is much greater than basketball. Before Jordan the NBA was a 'low post" game. The analytics of football has come to define "positional value" particularly concerning the draft and free agent spending. Barry Sanders (not knowing what he would do) would not be drafted today ahead of the # 4 QB nor the # 4 LT nor the #4 WR. RB dominated in Sanders' day. If in need of a QB or LT or WR an NFL team will draft one ahead of the the #1 RB or LB or SAF every time.

Or do you like the patriots and turn your draft board upside down on draft day

Detroit literally has all needs filled . Poor example , they will certain go BPA

The Brad Holmes way

BPA out of a position of need. If a player at need is nowhere close to the BPA then you grab the BPA anyway. At worse you always have depth

MHJ for the Patriots highlights this... like MHJ is more talented than Maye and Daniels yet he'll be passed over for QB need. It's tough to decide

4 minutes into the video and he still hasn't mentioned capital yet. Just get to your point already

That’s if atlanta is even allowed to keep that 8 pick

Raiders going to not follow this advice and trade up and pick the overrated Daniels or super injured Penix