Steelers 2011 Draft: Need vs. Best Player Available
The argument of "need versus best player available" seems to be as impossible to debate as "nature versus nurture." It is interesting that many fans blindly buy the Kool-Aid of "best player available," as if it had no correlation to need. This is no surprise, given that the front office has been hammering that mantra since 1936, when the first NFL Draft took place. If our beloved brain trust keeps assuring us that the team will absolutely, positively draft the best player available, how can we not buy into the company line? Even members of the media insist that the Steelers' modus operandi is a tried and true method that we accept as sacred ground.
If you were Kevin Colbert (or any general manager), the first thing you learn in General Manager School is to insist that you will draft the best player available. Think about it. If you take that stand, no one can ask further questions. There's no point in giving any other answer. It's the answer that ends all questions. Conversely, if a GM comes out and even breathes the "need" word, the vultures will have a field day. What is that need? You have opened a door that never should be opened. If we might draft need, the next line of discussion is to indentify that need. It does the team no good to allow the slightest crack in that door. It's pretty simple really. Any GM with an IQ of a geranium is going to tell his fan base that the team will draft the best player available.
The Pittsburgh Steelers are not going to draft a quarterback in the first round of the draft. They are not going to draft a tight end. That are not going to draft a center (who can't be moved to guard) and they are in all likelihood not going to draft a linebacker, inside or out. Once you start to whittle away positions that will not be drafted, you are no longer drafting the best player available. What if the best player is a quarterback, tight end, pure center or linebacker? The BPA Kool-Aid drinkers are checkmated. You cannot claim best player available and then eliminate positions. You can't have it both ways. That's like saying, "I'm going to get the most expensive meal on the menu, except if it's veal, pork or chicken." Once you begin to make exceptions, you have abandoned the original premise.
The truth is, need and best player available are both taken into account when a team develops its Draft Board. You are not going to draft need at the expense of taking a significantly lesser player. You are also not going to draft the best player available if that position is well stocked on your team. Given both of those basic axioms, it stands true that both need and best player available are weighed onto your Draft Board. I would love to have an interview with Mr. Colbert and get the real truth, but he has been schooled well enough never to give it to me or anyone else. But please allow me to speculate. The following synopsis is what I think is close to the truth, but understand this is an educated theory. I am not so dogmatic to think I know things I don't know.
Fair enough? OK, here goes.
The Steelers assign a Player Quality Rating to every player available through seven rounds of a Draft, on a scale from 1-100. This is similar to the Scouts Inc. rating, but I'm sure the Steelers tweak their own numbers. They then break the list into each position. There are probably six different groupings on offense (QB, Rec, RB, TE, OG/C and OT) and six on defense (DE, DT, ILB, OLB, CB, S) -- 12 total groupings (setting aside special teams). The team also assigns a Position Need Rating to each of the 12 positions, say, from zero to seven. The Position Need Ranking is then added to the Player Quality rating to arrive at a final Draft Value.
When it is time for the Steelers to draft (#31), there are 12 options, the highest Draft Value at each of the position groupings. Looking realistically at players who might be available #31, assuming that there will be no surprises or reaches (though we know there will be), the grid may well look like this:
| Position Group | Player | Player Quality Ranking | Position Need Ranking | Draft Value |
| Quarterback | Jake Locker | 90 | 1 | 91 |
| Wide Receiver | Randall Cobb | 86 | 4 | 90 |
| Running Back | Ryan Williams | 87 | 3 | 90 |
| Tight End | Kyle Rudolph | 90 | 2 | 92 |
| Offensive Guard/Center | Orlando Franklin | 86 | 6 | 92 |
| Offensive Tackle | Derek Sherrod | 86 | 6 | 92 |
| Defensive End | Cam Hayward | 89 | 6 | 95 |
| Defensive Tackle | Steohen Paea | 89 | 5 | 94 |
| Inside Linebacker | Martez Wilson | 86 | 3 | 89 |
| Outside Linebacker | Akeem Ayers | 89 | 2 | 91 |
| Cornerback | Aaron Williams | 88 | 7 | 95 |
| Safety | Rahim Moore | 87 | 5 | 92 |
Please don't quibble the numbers here - they are speculation to make a larger point, which is, when the Steelers are on the clock, the two best players available are Jake Locker and Kyle Rudolph, both with 90 Player Quality Ratings. Pittsburgh will take neither of them, despite them being the best players available. After adding the Position Need Rating to the PQR, it turns out a guy like Aaron Williams or Cam Hayward might be Pittsburgh's selection, having the highest Draft Values. In fact, Mr. Bean will attest that I actually had an entire write-up of Aaron Williams as the Steelers' choice in the mock draft last week. (Maybe I will run it sometime so as not to waste all that work!) When Nate Solder fell in the mock draft, I had to take him, even though I don't believe Solder will be available in real life. (Now that I see Mel Kiper came out with his latest mock, having the Steelers taking Williams, part of me wishes I had stuck to my original guns.)
Which brings me to another point. The above list is just a cut-out of the total list. The above list assumes that every player rated 91 or higher is off the board, just as a worst-case scenario. We all know that surprises take place and a player or two will fall to pick #31. Maybe it will be a Solder or Wilkerson-type player. That would be great. It's one of those things that you can count on, but don't count on it.
Now, after the Steelers make their first pick, they need to re-assign their Position Need Ratings, lowering the position they just added. The players will always keep their PQR, but if Pittsburgh drafts a defensive end in the first round, that Need Rating obviously becomes lower in subsequent rounds, because a large part of that need has been met. In the second round, the chances of taking another defensive end are lesser if one is taken in the first round, but not completely out of the picture. It is quite possible to draft the same position in rounds one and two if the adjusted Draft Value still says to do so. Very rarely will an NFL team draft the same position in the first two rounds of a Draft, simply because the need goes down after the first guy is taken. (In 2007, the Steelers took LaMarry Woodley in round two after Lawrence Timmons in round one, but they are two different types of players in two different position groupings.)
The reason why "need" cannot rule the day is because the NFL is so fluid, needs change quickly. If you compromise better players to meet need, you may find that you wish you had that better player soon down the road. A great example of this is Rashard Mendenhall in 2008. The need at running back was not as high as other positions. We had Willie Parker and badly needed offensive lineman. But when the Draft Board was put together, Mendy was highly ranked and kept falling to Pick #23. The Steelers stayed true to their Board and drafted Mendenhall, in their minds the best Draft Value by a significant margin. Sure enough, Parker was soon out of football, while Mendenhall is young and paying dividends.
On the flip side, do the BPA purists really think that need is a randon happenstance? In 2003, when the Steelers traded up to get Troy Polamalu, albeit the best player available, was it coincidence that the team's secondary was pitiful and in need of overhaul? The next year, Bill Cowher didn't think Ben Roethlisberger was the best player. Thankfully, Dan Rooney stepped in and declared that the position need was too important to ignore. In 2005, there were football players as good if not better than Heath Miller, but the team badly needed a weapon for young Roethlisberger. In 2006, again the Steelers traded up. Was it coincidence that their biggest need was for another weapon for Ben after Randle El left town? The next year Joey Porter leaves town and the Steelers, coincidentally, draft a couple linebackers. Ziggy Hood was also a need with a thin and aging defensive line. And last year, Maurkice Pouncey. Again, I won't argue that he was among the best players available, but wasn't it interesting that the guy he replaced was cut and not picked up by another NFL team? If a guy (Justin Hartwig) is that bad, then the need is that great. Does the coincidence of addressing need keep happening year after year after year? I don't think so.
As a fan, I am hoping that BPA and need happen to be one in the same, just like previous years when we hit the jackpot in the first round. But in any case, it makes no sense to say that the Steelers will draft the best player available, or that they will draft a position of need. Neither one lives on an exclusive island, and in fact, both are dependent upon each other. It is more accurate to say that the Steelers will draft according to their Board, and their Board will be a listing of players that takes into account both talent and need.
13 comments
|
Add comment
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree with most of what you’ve said (in this very fine article) Maryrose. Generally, when I talk about BPA all I mean to convey is that the Steelers won’t draft an obviously inferior player at a position of need over a better player at a position they’re a bit more complete at.
Talent, scheme fit, college production, and character being nearly equal though, I think need is certainly going to be a major factor when setting your board. However, it shouldn’t be an overdetermining factor – when need outweighs talent you end up drafting John McCargo in the 1st.
by BluegrassSteeler on Apr 11, 2011 9:50 AM EDT reply actions
Best Player Available
I don’t think that the Steelers have truly drafted strictly the Best Player Available – or any team truly drafts strictly the BPA – except in two situations: 1, they’re so loaded across the board that they have no true positions of need, or 2, they’re so abysmal across the board that they need to upgrade everywhere. I believe this latter situation was the genesis of the “Best Player Available” philosophy, which I think was first discussed by Chuck Noll before the 1969 season.
Rec'd
I’ve always believed that the 2 go hand-in-hand, and both are heavily dependent on the other, especially when you are trying to maintain a championship-contending team, and the Steelers have been doing it at a high level for a while now… Some of the picks surprise me, but I cant say Im ever too upset with the outcome (Timmons, Hood). All I can say is that Kevin Colbert is much better at his job than Matt Millen was, and I hope he never goes crazy like Al Davis.
by Bringin' the Wood(ley) on Apr 11, 2011 11:09 AM EDT reply actions
BLPA
I always think of it as the Best Logical Player Available.
by Steeler Fan in Saudi on Apr 11, 2011 11:55 AM EDT reply actions
Good article
I like the explanation of the balancing BPA with Need.
"Canada? I don't even know what street it is on." Al Capone
"Until I came to Canada, I didn't know that snow was a four letter word." Alberto Manuel
"I wouldn't say it's cold but every year Winnipeg's athlete of the year is an ice fisherman." Dale Tallon
"If it wasn't for the anticipated flooding it will bring, Spring could not get here soon enough this year." COSF
by Cold_Old_Steelers_Fan on Apr 11, 2011 12:09 PM EDT reply actions
+1
So very well said.
Nice way of thinking about it with the model. I kind of doubt that the team is so numerical though. I think they tend to look ahead with some kinds of plans for who they might target next if they pass over prospect X.
For example, I think it’s a fair assumption that you’ll see a CB and an O-lineman each in rounds 1-4. If a good value at a position of lesser need presents itself in the first round, I think part of the conversation in the draft room would have to be what the options in followng rounds are available to fill the needs of the team. I had constructed a draftboard this year with the aim of looking at scenarios. I was hoping to see some groupings of each position by round that might tend to indicate where the team might look to strike. Turns out all I found out was that there are a lot of OG prospects of good value in round 2. Not exactly breaking news.
Needs are likewise not generic. Need at OLB would be for a serviceable backup. At CB, a rookie might actually crack the starting lineup day 1 (If Ike and Gay are FA losses). At OT and NT it seems that rookies will have at least a year under Hampton and Flozell to learn the ropes. Prospects here need to be starter ready in 2 years, might be able to take more of a high upside project type guy.
I’m the Steelers analyst for Drafttek which uses a numerical model to simulate the draft. The way that model works is by looking at needs in tiers. Tiers of higher need are checked for players within a certain value band, if there’s a match there, it makes the best pick, otherwise it looks at the next tier down and so-on continues until it makes a pick. There’s an online simulator on the site that lets you tweak all the variables to generate your own mocks. It’s a great way to do mocks if you know the Steelers but don’t break down thousands of hours of college ball. (end plug)
by Steely McSmash on Apr 11, 2011 12:48 PM EDT reply actions
This issue
is relevant to today’s AP filler piece picked up by the PG. Jerry Gray can’t talk to his players, so he’s watching them on film….to figure out what their draft needs are. When I read that I figured he’s opened himself up to questions about who sucks and who doesn’t.
“So we’re getting everything from film because we can’t talk to them. The film is kind of getting us the direction of what we think we have to draft. I think that’s really the good thing,” Gray said
Well I guess we don't have to worry about BPA vs need getting in the way this year
Since we legitimately need CB, Safety (for near future), OG, OT, and DL I’m pretty sure there will be more than one players at a position of need that also have similar grades.
I agree with what your article says completely, but the reality is that the example was a little over simplified. Of course you take some positions off the board when there’s no chance they can crack the depth chart, but usually there are multiple places that you need players and typically you would have similar grades for the ones you are deciding between.
Nobody would assume we’d take a QB in the first round, and probably not RB with our current depth. TE is possible if we go with a multi-TE set because Spaeth could be upgraded (if this were a good TE class, which it isn’t). So I’d say that any position on the field could potentially be drafted in the first round besides those two, possibly LB also since we signed Woodley and Worlids is waiting in the wings. Most teams have weaknesses at several positions, that’s just the nature of free agency.
When I think about drafting BPA I think of not reaching for any particular position. That means at #31 we would not take the best CB if he graded as a 2nd rounder when there were legitimate 1st round players at other positions of need. It doesn’t mean that we’d take a pick like QB where we already have a franchise player under contract for years to come just because he graded much higher than any other player left.
In the past under Cowher we have gotten into trouble reaching for WR’s because it was obvious that Ward would never develop into a legit #1 WR – HAHAHA! I guess we can all consider that scenario while we wring our hands over whether we draft a CB round 1. Contrary to popular belief, it’s possible that Lewis or Butler could become our next favorite players without reaching for another prospect.
Good stuff
This article brings to mind a couple things. One is that MR’s right that the best thing a GM can say is that they are going BPA. Another reason is that no matter who you pick, you can always tell him that he was your guy. Second, it reminds me of what I have heard the Steelers FO say before. Their philosophy is to fill holes with Free Agency and improve talent through the draft. And I think that fits perfectly with this, as well. Veteran FA’s are likely to be right on par with or better than anyone you can get in rounds 4-7, so that frees them up to take the best player in the first couple rounds, almost regardless of position. Its true that Ziggy Hood, Markice Pouncey, and Heath Miller represented areas of need, but the guys the Steelers already had (except in Miller’s case) would have allowed them to pass on lesser talents at the same position and draft elsewhere if needed. Mendy’s a clear example of that. When he was drafted, OL was the clear area of need, but the FO had the holes filled, even if the talent level was not fantastic.
by WolfpackSteelersFan on Apr 11, 2011 3:41 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I know several of the packer personell people and the GM in Seattle they never stray from BPA
They always take the best player available but it works like this. Need is taken into consideration but it works like this. They often have several players grouped together they consider of equal value. If say your picking like we did last year Bulaga falls he was our BPA it was a no brainer it filled a need take him. Several years ago Rogers fell to us and he was not a percieved need at that time, but he was rated so highly on TT’s board he took him anyway, turned out well for us. A couple years ago Matthews fell to a point on TT’s board that he traded up to get him with New England, several draft experts said we overpaid to get him according to the draft chart, and he was asked that question and he stated not where we had him rated we feel wellcome out on the deal.
All of these examples are of a team taking the BPA , this can often be seen early in a draft. A team is making a huge mistake grabbing a player at 10 they have rated say 16th. They could have probably trade back 6 got their player and maybe a 3rd rounder to boot. My understanding is their is usually a offer to trade out on most picks so it allows a GM to stick to his principle while keeping a eye toward need. If that makes sense.
Well put
I’m glad you took the time to make the distinction between BPA & Need. I do think when most people mention BPA, it’s a calculation of the Best Player Available at a needed position, at least that’d how I always look at it. Given, positions like OLB weren’t the highest need, but the talent that was thought to be available there were deemed to great to pass up last year.
by ICEICETHATGUY13 on Apr 11, 2011 5:21 PM EDT reply actions
BAP meets Need in this Mock:
2. CB Ras-I Dowling, UVa
2. LT/RT/G – James Carpenter, Ala
3. NT Kenrick Ellis, Hampton
4. CB Curtis Marsh, Utah State
4. RT Marcus Gilbert, Fla.
5. ILB Ross Homan, OSU
6. DT/DE Zach Clayton, Auburn
7. S/CB Byron Maxwell, Clemson
by datruth4life2.0 on Apr 11, 2011 6:13 PM EDT reply actions
Good read
I think you touched on it best with the Mendenhall part.
Need to me is a relative thing. I view need as any player who could upgrade play at that position and keep the team competitive in future seasons.
Like the poster said above BLPA.
That is why I would not be surprised if Center was the only position completely off the board in the Steelers full 7 rounds of the 2011 draft.
And of Course QB is off the board for rounds 1 – 3.
The more I learn -The less I think I know! Just enjoy reading and sharing.

by 






























