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.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
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.
Most times we won't know. But there have been times where that information has been acknowledged during post draft interviews.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.
There are absolutely a section of people that say you take BPA and that's how it needs to be. There are some who say its a combination of need and bpa and that can be weighted to favor either side of the equation.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.