Im sure the pick involves a combination of BPA and need.
A simple algorithm perhaps..... BPA x .6 + Team Need x .4 =? (player with the highest total ends up being the pick)
If Reese and co have the BPA listed as 1-200, 200 being "best" and Team Need listed 1-10 as 10 being "best", this is a simple way to calculate the effectiveness of the draft pick.
obviously in this example, BPA is weight 60% and Team Need 40%. What these percentages really are is up for debate.
or it could be the BPA weighted by a "team need factor". For example, if the FO has 200 players ranked it simply becomes (BPA)x(team need factor) where team need factor can be weighted accordingly each year
Last edited by CowboysSuck; 03-31-2013 at 04:18 PM.
McScrub could be the guy we've been waiting for so long to finally replace Jonas Seawright. Guys like that just don't come around every year.
the "realist" is a lazy piece of crap that works on his tan while sipping a margarita,
the pessimist changes the sails while complaining about the lazy piece of crap,
and the optimist changes the sails while hoping the lazy piece of crap will start to do his share of the work.
It really seems that the Giants pick their guy well ahead of time and only change that pick if somebody falls way down to them. I can think of several picks that a lot of the experts believed they could have gotten the same guy a round later. I guess their BPA isn't always everybody else's BPA.