Originally Posted by
Ryfo18
Find me a GM that doesn't go by that philosophy, the guy who says "yeah we reach for players here and there." It's GM cliche. Their interpretation of BPA includes positional weights and team needs.
Small example, definitely not the rule...but the 2010 draft. Bradford #1, Jason Pierre-Paul #15. Huge difference in terms of impact? Not really. The Giants needed a pass rusher (they got a good one). The Rams needed a QB. You really think GMs put zero weight into positional need?
Economics (which i did take) would view a product in terms of supply/demand. As your demand increases (every team wants a good QB) and supply remains unchanged, then you have a shortage, which leads to a higher price...well, right now there is a QB shortage. That makes a player like Geno (who is the best QB IMO) much more valuable to the Chiefs b/c of the lack of supply. At some point you can't just compare a QB and a LT and say "this player is absolutely better" if they're both top 10 picks. What makes that LT the "Best Player Available"? I mean seriously, how do you answer that question? In my opinion, you say "These are both outstanding players...we need a QB tho so that wins."
If QB demand were to decrease (to a hypothetical point where they were worth the same as punters), then there would be a surplus, and you could snag a decent QB in the late rounds.
So, you wanted to talk economics...that's as simple as I can put it. Supply/demand. If the best overall player in the Chiefs mind is a 3-4 OLB...you think there is a chance in hell they take him given they have Houston/Hali?
There, in fact, is NOT a "QB shortage." Geno Smith SHOULD NOT be considered a "top 10 pick." THAT'S BEEN MY WHOLE POINT!! He's not worth a top 10 selection, let alone #1 overall. The 2013 QB market for the Chiefs will include Geno Smith, Tyler Wilson, *Aaron Murray, Matt Barkley, Matt Flynn, Kevin Kolb, Alex Smith, Mike Vick, Matt Moore, Nick Foles, Matt Cassell, Ricky Stanzi, and any number of later round draft picks. The supply is there. I'm not going to spend $10 on a bunch of bruised bananas (Geno) when I could spend $3 on a bunch of bruised bananas (any other QB). This decision isn't about supply and demand. It's about bang for the buck. If you don't recognize the value in draft picks, then you have no room complaining about the Tyson Jackson selection.
Since the Chiefs will be adjusting their 3-4 scheme and will probably be cutting Tyson Jackson, then yes... I would bet that an OLB would be their selection at #1 overall. There's also nothing to say they couldn't trade Hali or Houston for additional draft picks. My guess is that they would move one of the guys to a different LB position or Hali to DE considering he's the exact same body type and player as the DEs who play in the NYG 3-4 system.
Please, open your eyes to the "BPA" lingo. It's what everyone says. And I agree with you...it is economics. You're just misunderstanding economics.
The "Best Player Available" lingo is used by everyone across the league. You're kidding yourself if they don't put positional needs Into their "best player" rankings. Please wake up to this. If you still want to debate economics...I'm ready. Explain to me how the Economics course you took justifies your position, please.