1st round CB

[iamhubby1]

I don't think our system calls for 1st round CBs.

And it appears that we feel the same way about 1st round WR as well.

[Jackofalltrades]

I want one of the top 3 TEs

Same here.

[tiger7_88]

But in your scenario, he isn't the BPA.  

 

 

 

Oh, but he is/was.

 

Andrew Luck was THE BEST PLAYER in the draft, no matter what position, no matter what team, no matter what "need".

 

You don't "pass" on that kind of talent just because you don't NEED him.

[Woodie]

Oh, but he is/was.

 

Andrew Luck was THE BEST PLAYER in the draft, no matter what position, no matter what team, no matter what "need".

 

You don't "pass" on that kind of talent just because you don't NEED him.

 

But that's the point, he was for most other teams, but he wouldn't have been for the Panthers, unless you advocate benching/trading Cam in favor of Luck, which I don't think the Panthers would have done.  How can he be the best player available to them if he wouldn't even play?  I think people mislabel most talented as BPA, they are not one and the same, even though that's how many fans tend to think of it. 

 

The idea behind BPA is to take the best player that is available for your team, It doesn't matter how talented a guy is.  There are many factors that come into play for identifying BPA (see MHS's post for some examples), whereas most talented only includes individual physical and mental traits.  It doesn't take into consideration fit, scheme, what they want the player to do, etc.  No successful team will ever draft a player in the first couple of rounds simply off of being the most talented, they include many of those other factors when making up their big board.  That doesn't mean that they will not take the most talented player, just not unless they see a logical role for them...such as Kalil and Luke.  If a player is not expected to ever see the field for your team (which is the case if we had hypothetically taken Luck), then his value is lowered, knocking him down your big board...meaning he wouldn't have been BPA.  

 

I also want to make sure that I am clear on the point of most talented.  If a team has a pick, and there is a player that is far and away the most talented, or plays a high demand position like QB, but doesn't fit any current or projected needs, then he offers value as a commodity.  So while the Panthers would not have viewed Luck as the BPA for them, they would have known he was for many other teams, so the pick would have had real value as trade bait.  So, we would have sold high to maximize the value of the pick.  But the value would have been in the other picks we would have received, not Luck himself. 

[Panthro]

Hasn't Rivera even spoken about CBs coming out of college lacking the tools initially fit his D

CBs are plug n play in our D

[tiger7_88]

But that's the point, he was for most other teams, but he wouldn't have been for the Panthers, unless you advocate benching/trading Cam in favor of Luck, which I don't think the Panthers would have done. 

 

 

OK, since I haven't made myself clear the first two times, let me say it again:

 

If you have Cam Newton or if you have a 26 year old Tom Brady or if you have a 26 year old Peyton Manning or any of the QB greats at their prime *AND* if you have the 1st pick in the draft and Andrew Luck is available...

 

You STILL pick Andrew Luck.

 

Every.

 

Damn.

 

Time.

 

You do not pass up drafting one of the BEST young QB prospects in the history of the draft because "you already have a QB".

 

If "you already have a QB" then someone will make you one HELLUVA deal for Luck.

 

OR they will make you a helluva deal for your current Cam/Tom/Peyton/etc. starting QB.

 

Either way, you get MORE value drafting Luck and making the deal to trade either him or one of your QBs than you do if you *don't* draft Luck and (instead) draft a Matt Kalil or a Justin Blackmon or a Morris Claiborne or a Mark Barron in that draft.

 

Draft Kalil/Blackmon/Claiborne/Barron?  Fine... you've just successfully drafted a good player for ONE position.

 

Draft Luck (even if you don't need him)?  *Somebody* is gonna give you enough for him (either more draft picks, existing players or BOTH) to help you at multiple positions.

 

I am far from an Andrew Luck fan.  But I know what he was considered around the league entering his draft... a "once in a lifetime prospect".

 

You don't pass on "once in a lifetime prospects" because, gosh, he's not an offensive tackle or a wide receiver and we really, really need offensive tackles and wide receivers.  You just don't.

[Woodie]

OK, since I haven't made myself clear the first two times, let me say it again:

 

If you have Cam Newton or if you have a 26 year old Tom Brady or if you have a 26 year old Peyton Manning or any of the QB greats at their prime *AND* if you have the 1st pick in the draft and Andrew Luck is available...

 

You STILL pick Andrew Luck.

 

Every.

 

Damn.

 

Time.

 

You do not pass up drafting one of the BEST young QB prospects in the history of the draft because "you already have a QB".

 

If "you already have a QB" then someone will make you one HELLUVA deal for Luck.

 

OR they will make you a helluva deal for your current Cam/Tom/Peyton/etc. starting QB.

 

Either way, you get MORE value drafting Luck and making the deal to trade either him or one of your QBs than you do if you *don't* draft Luck and (instead) draft a Matt Kalil or a Justin Blackmon or a Morris Claiborne or a Mark Barron in that draft.

 

Draft Kalil/Blackmon/Claiborne/Barron?  Fine... you've just successfully drafted a good player for ONE position.

 

Draft Luck (even if you don't need him)?  *Somebody* is gonna give you enough for him (either more draft picks, existing players or BOTH) to help you at multiple positions.

 

I am far from an Andrew Luck fan.  But I know what he was considered around the league entering his draft... a "once in a lifetime prospect".

 

You don't pass on "once in a lifetime prospects" because, gosh, he's not an offensive tackle or a wide receiver and we really, really need offensive tackles and wide receivers.  You just don't.

 

You've made yourself perfectly clear, you're just wrong...at least in relation to my actual point (which never had anything to do with the option of trading Luck, or any trade for that matter.  It is totally irrelevant to what I'm saying).  My point is that when deciding on who to pick (it can be any pick, Luck was just an extreme example because we already have someone who would keep him on the bench), people tend to throw around the term BPA, but in reality BPA doesn't exist as a black and white choice or idea.  If a team is going to pick a player to keep, there are many, many factors that go into the decision beyond who has the most talent. 

 

No doubt that sometimes there are clear most talented options, but that's not the same thing as BPA.  If a team recognizes the talent of a player, but for whatever reason don't want to take him (duplicates what they already have, bad fit, character issues, etc.), they can cash in on his value by making a trade...but that's not what we're talking about...or at least I'm not. 

 

Well, we can go back and forth on this all day (and I think we have), but sleep and work beckons, so I guess we'll jut have to agree to disagree on this issue (although I think we might have been arguing slightly different points).