Vinny's Draft Strategy: Best Player or Predetermined Agenda?

[Stuck in TX]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Landry a BPA at the time? I mean, we could have used him but at the time I vaguely remember our needs being elsewhere. I tend to agree with those who say that BPA is a myth, however. If how the Raiders drafted is any indication, the Draft is so unpredictable and the only purpose for mocks is for TV ratings and website hits. As far as Danny and Vinny go, Skins fans should just be happy that we do not have a senile crazy owner who just wants to win before he croaks, or an oil tycoon who has an affinity for ex-cons.

[53Fan]

In a perfect situation the BPA fits one of your positions of need. If not, I think you would either trade down, if possible, or take the player if he's too good to pass up. It would depend on who you already have at the position. If for example the BPA at #13 this year would have been a TE, I think it would have been hard for us to take him considering our TE situation. Not only do we have a great starter, but we also have good depth. I think in the first 2-3 rounds of the draft you should try to address your needs as best you can. Whether by trading picks or whatever, as long as it's reasonable and you're not losing value. In the later rounds I think you should go strictly by who you think is the BPA and can make your team. I think Vinny did a very good job of this last year. We traded down and got positions of need and also picked up players in the later rounds who not only made our team, but in the case of Horton, actually started. Orakpo was one of those perfect situations where, BPA, was also a position of need. I agree that Vinny is taking players in the later rounds who can also help on ST's, therefore he is taking players who have the best chance of making the team.

[CRedskinsRule]

I say grab a kicker

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I say grab a kicker

I think two kickers were actually taken in the 5th round this year. LOL.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think two kickers were actually taken in the 5th round this year. LOL.

Yeah, dallas took one even though they have a good one in Folk.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

Yeah, dallas took one even though they have a good one in Folk.

Well maybe they knew something about this....

Dallas Cowboys kicker Nick Folk undergoes surgery to repair torn hip cartilage - ESPN

[ArtMonkDrillz]

I'd say you have to BPA within reason (as in the TE situation that 53fan brought up) for the first few rounds, but after that why not go after positions of need for depth. We all know how spotty scouting can be, especially in terms of late round picks, so it's very hard to determine who the BPA is when you get in to the later rounds of the draft.

[Dirtbag59]

If it's a first round pick then I think Vinny genuinely takes the BPA. However after that I think it's honestly think it's a predetermined agenda which ironically has worked well for them with their late round picks, but the fact of the matter is they've taken two safeties, two linebackers (twice), two receivers, two d-tackles, and two OT's (2004) in years where they were considered positions of need. The part I don't like is that Vinny makes it seem like thats how their board shaped up when really they're just taking what they want most of the time.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

It pretty clear to me that in the higher rounds (1-2), we draft BPA period. While we are mindful of needs, we absoultely will not REACH more than a slot or two to take a player just because he fills a need. We may try to trade up or down to fill a need with a player "at the right slot," but if we were unable to do so, we would take the BPA that doesnt fit a need as opposed to "reaching" and taking a player 10 spots too early, just to fill a need. Consider two examples:

Example 1: 2008 Draft. Last year, whoever we had as the best available on our board when we when our 1st round pick came up, was probably someone that didnt fill a position of need. the Best available players that did fit needs were not worth taking at our natural position. So, we tried like hell to trade down - and we succeeded. Unfortunately (depending on your POV), according to vinny, after each spot we got after we traded down, another team selected the player we wanted right before us (probably , Merling, Laws, and Campbell). Thus, we ended up filling one need (WR Devin Thomas) and taking two players we really didnt need at that point (Fred Davis and Malcom Kelly) because they were far and away the best players on our board.

Example 2: 2009 Draft. This year, it was our goal to take the BPA and fill a (perceived) need - QB - and to do this, we tried like hell to trade up but it just didnt work out. At that point, we moved to plan B - fill a need with one of the top 5 players on our board - and to do this, we also tried to trade up. Fortunately, Orakpo fell to us. If he hadnt, we would have tried to trade down. If we were unsuccessful, we probably would have drafted Cushing - I don't think we would have REACHED for Oher - while us fans and the majority of mocks seemed to have him valued very high, the sentiment was obviously not shared by about 2/3 of NFL teams.

So thats how we handle the 1st and 2nd rounds in the draft. Once we get to the lower rounds, i think we would tend to be more balanced with taking BPA with need. While we wont reach more than a spot or two in the 1st round, we may reach a 10-15 spots (according to our board) to fill a need. In the lower rounds, talent level becomes so similar (i.e. the difference in talent between a 1st and 2nd rounder is MUCH more dramatic than the difference between a 3rd and a 7th)

[NM Redskin]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

It pretty clear to me that in the higher rounds (1-2), we draft BPA period. While we are mindful of needs, we absoultely will not REACH more than a slot or two to take a player just because he fills a need. We may try to trade up or down to fill a need with a player "at the right slot," but if we were unable to do so, we would take the BPA that doesnt fit a need as opposed to "reaching" and taking a player 10 spots too early, just to fill a need. Consider two examples:

Example 1: 2008 Draft. Last year, whoever we had as the best available on our board when we when our 1st round pick came up, was probably someone that didnt fill a position of need. the Best available players that did fit needs were not worth taking at our natural position. So, we tried like hell to trade down - and we succeeded. Unfortunately (depending on your POV), according to vinny, after each spot we got after we traded down, another team selected the player we wanted right before us (probably , Merling, Laws, and Campbell). Thus, we ended up filling one need (WR Devin Thomas) and taking two players we really didnt need at that point (Fred Davis and Malcom Kelly) because they were far and away the best players on our board.

Example 2: 2009 Draft. This year, it was our goal to take the BPA and fill a (perceived) need - QB - and to do this, we tried like hell to trade up but it just didnt work out. At that point, we moved to plan B - fill a need with one of the top 5 players on our board - and to do this, we also tried to trade up. Fortunately, Orakpo fell to us. If he hadnt, we would have tried to trade down. If we were unsuccessful, we probably would have drafted Cushing - I don't think we would have REACHED for Oher - while us fans and the majority of mocks seemed to have him valued very high, the sentiment was obviously not shared by about 2/3 of NFL teams.

So thats how we handle the 1st and 2nd rounds in the draft. Once we get to the lower rounds, i think we would tend to be more balanced with taking BPA with need. While we wont reach more than a spot or two in the 1st round, we may reach a 10-15 spots (according to our board) to fill a need. In the lower rounds, talent level becomes so similar (i.e. the difference in talent between a 1st and 2nd rounder is MUCH more dramatic than the difference between a 3rd and a 7th)

Well put!

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

It pretty clear to me that in the higher rounds (1-2), we draft BPA period. While we are mindful of needs, we absoultely will not REACH more than a slot or two to take a player just because he fills a need. We may try to trade up or down to fill a need with a player "at the right slot," but if we were unable to do so, we would take the BPA that doesnt fit a need as opposed to "reaching" and taking a player 10 spots too early, just to fill a need. Consider two examples:

Example 1: 2008 Draft. Last year, whoever we had as the best available on our board when we when our 1st round pick came up, was probably someone that didnt fill a position of need. the Best available players that did fit needs were not worth taking at our natural position. So, we tried like hell to trade down - and we succeeded. Unfortunately (depending on your POV), according to vinny, after each spot we got after we traded down, another team selected the player we wanted right before us (probably , Merling, Laws, and Campbell). Thus, we ended up filling one need (WR Devin Thomas) and taking two players we really didnt need at that point (Fred Davis and Malcom Kelly) because they were far and away the best players on our board.

Example 2: 2009 Draft. This year, it was our goal to take the BPA and fill a (perceived) need - QB - and to do this, we tried like hell to trade up but it just didnt work out. At that point, we moved to plan B - fill a need with one of the top 5 players on our board - and to do this, we also tried to trade up. Fortunately, Orakpo fell to us. If he hadnt, we would have tried to trade down. If we were unsuccessful, we probably would have drafted Cushing - I don't think we would have REACHED for Oher - while us fans and the majority of mocks seemed to have him valued very high, the sentiment was obviously not shared by about 2/3 of NFL teams.

So thats how we handle the 1st and 2nd rounds in the draft. Once we get to the lower rounds, i think we would tend to be more balanced with taking BPA with need. While we wont reach more than a spot or two in the 1st round, we may reach a 10-15 spots (according to our board) to fill a need. In the lower rounds, talent level becomes so similar (i.e. the difference in talent between a 1st and 2nd rounder is MUCH more dramatic than the difference between a 3rd and a 7th)

good summary