McVay & Snead Full Interviews

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
So one very key thing that gets debated all the time by us fans is addressed by Snead on PFT.

He says "our best available player" when talking about draft picks. Not McShays, Kiper or any other rating or fans rating. The Rams rating don't necessarily match other ratings. BPA is not how they do it they do it by best player for the Rams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hotanez
OldSchool said:
So one very key thing that gets debated all the time by us fans is addressed by Snead on PFT.

He says "our best available player" when talking about draft picks. Not McShays, Kiper or any other rating or fans rating. The Rams rating don't necessarily match other ratings. BPA is not how they do it they do it by best player for the Rams
Click to expand...
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd guess that most people understand that when discussed, BPA (within reason) is based upon a team's draft board/rankings of which we don't have access. They have ALL the information that the media draftniks and fans do not and some players are better fits in one system than they are in another.

What I've noticed is that what happens is someone says the team should draft the BPA (within reason) instead of reaching for a need (still using that team's own draft grades) and they are attacked as if they don't understand. I know. It's happened to me.
 
Last edited:
Memphis Ram said:
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd guess that most people understand that when discussed, BPA (within reason) is based upon a team's draft board/rankings of which we don't have access. They have ALL the information that the media draftniks and fans do not and some players are better fits in one system than they are in another.

What I've noticed is that what happens is someone says the team should draft the BPA (within reason) instead of reaching for a need (still using that team's own draft grades) and they are attacked as if they don't understand. I know. It's happened to me.
Click to expand...


I've never attacked anyone over it - its just that if a team is using their own rankings, which I think everyone agrees they do - even if they drafted a player for 'need' that was way lower on their rankings, we would NEVER know. That makes the concept of BPA and making that comment moot.

A great hypothetical example would be if the Rams stayed at 13 and drafted, say, Denzel Boston. In the media report cards, we'd get a D or an F for that pick. People here would be confused and probably unhappy. Everyone would say it felt like a reach.

All of that discussion is fine....but at some point in there, someone on this site will also say "they should have gone BPA", and my response is going to be......."they probably did".

But I think its muddied even further for the Rams, because of how much McVay has talked about having an "onboarding plan" for rookies. That tells me its not JUST how good a college football player is - its how they're going to fit, as well. And in between that is positions that we likely won't even consider drafting, almost no matter what occurs in the draft - I imagine right now, there are positions largely being ignored so that we can focus on others, but again, that is something we'll never know for sure.

All of that points to "BPA" the way fans have historically used as it entirely moot. Switching that to "the Rams BPA", sure. That just feels clunky and is an entirely different thing than what most people mean when they say "BPA".

To further amplify this point - McVay reiterated again in one of those interviews that we would have been fine staying pat in the first round and taking Terrance Ferguson last season. that would seem to indicate that he was at or near the top of their board and one of the 25-30 "best" players in the draft in their book.
 
These interviews are must watches - a few key takeaways:

Puka isn't going anywhere - I think its safe to say the Rams knew about this when it initially happened in December

The AJ Brown talks were real, and seemed to involve Davante - and on that note, Snead said that anytime there is discussion involving a player, we let them know first so they don't hear it somewhere else. This is outstanding leadership from McVay. That said....Davante knows that those discussions happened, and now the media knows that he knows....so expect the first media availability question he gets (whenever that is) to be "how do you feel about the fact that the Rams thought about trading you"

Demoff supported the Browns five years of picks into the future to trade, but McVay did not. A report came out saying that "the Rams supported it" - turns out that was Demoff. McVay said the competition committee which includes him, all shot it down

We initially proposed a rule change to prevent that 2 point bullshit from happening again - but then we rescinded it. McVay was asked about that and said it was because of the way we worded the proposal, basically, could open up a can of worms for less egregious examples that would be looped in with that one. He seemed to indicate we would re-propose something in the future with different verbiage, but we'll see

McVay pushed back on the F them picks narrative with Kay Adams, and thank god....I am so sick of everyone saying we're all in. Once Scheelhaase gets a HC gig next year, we'll have a full complement of draft picks. This year we have pick 13, our 2nd and 3rd
 
FrantikRam said:
I've never attacked anyone over it - its just that if a team is using their own rankings, which I think everyone agrees they do - even if they drafted a player for 'need' that was way lower on their rankings, we would NEVER know. That makes the concept of BPA and making that comment moot.

A great hypothetical example would be if the Rams stayed at 13 and drafted, say, Denzel Boston. In the media report cards, we'd get a D or an F for that pick. People here would be confused and probably unhappy. Everyone would say it felt like a reach.

All of that discussion is fine....but at some point in there, someone on this site will also say "they should have gone BPA", and my response is going to be......."they probably did".

But I think its muddied even further for the Rams, because of how much McVay has talked about having an "onboarding plan" for rookies. That tells me its not JUST how good a college football player is - its how they're going to fit, as well. And in between that is positions that we likely won't even consider drafting, almost no matter what occurs in the draft - I imagine right now, there are positions largely being ignored so that we can focus on others, but again, that is something we'll never know for sure.

All of that points to "BPA" the way fans have historically used as it entirely moot. Switching that to "the Rams BPA", sure. That just feels clunky and is an entirely different thing than what most people mean when they say "BPA".

To further amplify this point - McVay reiterated again in one of those interviews that we would have been fine staying pat in the first round and taking Terrance Ferguson last season. that would seem to indicate that he was at or near the top of their board and one of the 25-30 "best" players in the draft in their book.
Click to expand...
Most times we won't know. But there have been times where that information has been acknowledged during post draft interviews.

The issue from what I've seen comes from the assumption of what most fans mean when they say BPA.

And this has happened on every Rams board or draft message board I've ever been on. And I must admit, years ago, I was guilty of doing it to someone on the AOL Board and everyone piled on only for the poster to later clear things up for us by stating the obvious. As I recall Howard Balzer jumped in and tried to explain, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back