Start Will Levis Day One

[OzTitan]

36 minutes ago, reo said:

It's pretty dumb. If they're going BPA, they don't trade up.

 

BPA is another way of saying "best return on value spent", which doesn't preclude more than one pick going into the value spent necessarily.

 

E.g. if a truly elite prospect slips but you have really good reason the team right in front of you will pick him, moving up 2 spots could still arguably be a BPA move.

[reo]

8 minutes ago, OzTitan said:

 

BPA is another way of saying "best return on value spent", which doesn't preclude more than one pick going into the value spent necessarily.

 

E.g. if a truly elite prospect slips but you have really good reason the team right in front of you will pick him, moving up 2 spots could still arguably be a BPA move.

 

With that logic if the Titans had traded from 11 to 3 and picked Stroud, you could say it was BPA if they thought he was worth the price which they would think that if they'd have made that trade.

 

Then you're always picking BPA and then the term is meaningless.

 

I disagree. That's not best player available.

 

They saw a player they wanted and they went and got him.

[OzTitan]

48 minutes ago, reo said:

 

With that logic if the Titans had traded from 11 to 3 and picked Stroud, you could say it was BPA if they thought he was worth the price which they would think that if they'd have made that trade.

 

Then you're always picking BPA and then the term is meaningless.

 

I disagree. That's not best player available.

 

They saw a player they wanted and they went and got him.

 

I'm not making a comment on Levis but the idea BPA has to mean a single pick spent. It's a question of value and value can encompass more than 1 pick. My example was meant to highlight that if a player who you would have picked under the guise of BPA only just wouldn't make it to your pick and you spend a little bit extra to make sure you get him, then it doesn't suddenly stop being BPA. You just valued him enough to warrant the extra value spent.

 

It's functionally no different if you decided to move up a few spots pre-draft/before your pick (e.g. the Jets Packers trade) and followed BPA to draft him with your pick when the time actually came.

[Jamalisms]

1 hour ago, OzTitan said:

 

BPA is another way of saying "best return on value spent", which doesn't preclude more than one pick going into the value spent necessarily.

 

That's simply not how the phrase is used.

[OzTitan]

4 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

 

That's simply not how the phrase is used.

 

The idea of BPA is you're not adhering strictly to roster needs to the extent it prevents you from picking a better value player at a position of comparatively less need. I don't think trading up necessarily means you are no longer adhering to "picking a better value player at a position of comparatively less need", which is what the suggestion has to be if BPA is not compatible with trading up. I don't see why you can't still apply BPA principles with a trade up - it just means that prospect who would have been your BPA pick is more valuable to you than missing out and going with option B.

 

If the suggestion is BPA has a connotation of the team not specifically wanting a particular prospect but instead being passive and letting things fall as they may, then perhaps that is true in its phrase usage but I don't think that is actually strictly true in how teams employ it.

[titanruss]

BPA is purely the best player available on your board at your pick.
 

Can you take the BPA after trading up? Sure... but that's not what the phrase means and it's not how it's ever used.
 

[OILERMAN]

5 hours ago, Jamalisms said:

 

You realize there are reports they called around looking to trade down in the first to take Levis? They also tried to trade back up into the first. Then they did trade back up to the top of the second.

 

It's not just happenstance. They targeted Levis after the other three went in the first four picks and they worked multiple angles trying to land him.

 

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that their top draft priority was to take a QB early. Preconceived notions shouldn't hold this much sway over you.

 

They also took an OL before a QB, way before

[OILERMAN]

7 hours ago, TF_Titan said:

There's literally no reason to keep Willis as QB3. They can easily stash him on the practice squad if they really want to keep him around. Nobody is going to sign Willis to their active roster. If it ever comes to him playing they're fucked anyway. Use that roster spot for someone who can provide depth and contribute on special teams.

 

I wouldn't keep Willis either but I bet they do 

[pat]

My reading of "BPA" is that Levis was in the conversation at 11.  When he was still there they chased the value.

[oldschool]

I have a hard time believing Levis was a BPA play. The team had obvious interest in multiple QB prospects and even tried to trade back into the bottom of the 1st to grab Levis.

[BudsOilers]

10 hours ago, Jamalisms said:

 

You realize there are reports they called around looking to trade down in the first to take Levis? They also tried to trade back up into the first. Then they did trade back up to the top of the second.

 

It's not just happenstance. They targeted Levis after the other three went in the first four picks and they worked multiple angles trying to land him.

 

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that their top draft priority was to take a QB early. Preconceived notions shouldn't hold this much sway over you.

 

I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand basic roster building concepts....Do you even understand the concept of Best Player Available?   Something Carthon and Vrabel used throughout the entire draft BTW.

 

We KNOW they didn't try to trade up to 3 for Richardson or Levis and even the trade up discussions with AZ if Stroud was there were tepid.  We KNOW he wasn't the best player on the Titans board when they were at 11.   He very clearly was their BPA at some point late in round 1 and they obviously felt he would not last to 41.    

 

All of the reports said the Titans were talking to teams at 27-31 (Buffalo & KC and it's safe to assume they talked to the teams in between).   Given the position and likely redshirting in 2023, it made perfect sense to try to slide back into the end of round 1 to get the 5th year option control.

 

Add BPA to the list of things you don't understand.  Congrats!

[oldschool]

[flaming_thumbtack]

10 minutes ago, BudsOilers said:

 

All of the reports said the Titans were talking to teams at 27-31 (Buffalo & KC and it's safe to assume they talked to the teams in between).   

I don't really care about what you're talking about as a whole, but it's really funny to see what reports you're willing to believe if they support your stance versus how quickly you disregard almost every report in existence if they are against your stance.

 

If an "ABTer" tried to assume we contacted teams and it wasn't directly reported, you'd rip them to shreds. 

[tgo]

Fully transparent, agenda-driven bias.

[Jamalisms]

5 hours ago, OILERMAN said:

They also took an OL before a QB, way before

 

"way before" = not even waiting until your next pick = derp

 

They tried to trade up to 3, even expected to based on all the actions and reporting around it. When that failed, they looked into trading down for a different QB before deciding to try and trade up into the same range with their next pick. As a result, they stuck and picked a different position. It all derived from their strategy around drafting a QB.

 

It's really not that complicated.