Dynasty-Draft needs or BPA? (1 Viewer)

[Bronx Bomber]

This is my first rookie draft and I keep seeing people say draft BPA. How many people take this approach versus drafting for needs?

 

[Warhogs]

I think your best overall strategy is to draft BPA and trade to fill needs. However, if a league does not trade actively or you have two players closely ranked I can see taking the player in a position of need.

 

[Mr. Peterson]

I think your best overall strategy is to draft BPA and trade to fill needs. However, if a league does not trade actively or you have two players closely ranked I can see taking the player in a position of need.

Yeah, but I don't think it is a good idea to ever draft for need in the 1st. Especially in the early part of the draft. Keep that to BPA. How many people drafted Lynch over Calvin Johnson cause they needed a RB? I know I almost did.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Just as an example, if at every pick the BPA is a WR do you keep going WR and be happy ending up with 5 WRs. Or would you stop drafting WRs after you get a few and then go with the next BPA at a different position?

 

[jurb26]

Just as an example, if at every pick the BPA is a WR do you keep going WR and be happy ending up with 5 WRs. Or would you stop drafting WRs after you get a few and then go with the next BPA at a different position?

You have to consider the gap in talent, IMO. I like the BPA approach in the early rounds, always in round 1. In round 2 it's the safest way to go. After that, I think you have to start considering how much of a gap in talent that BPA is going to give you vs. filling the lesser (perhaps slightly) player who fills a need.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Just as an example, if at every pick the BPA is a WR do you keep going WR and be happy ending up with 5 WRs. Or would you stop drafting WRs after you get a few and then go with the next BPA at a different position?

You have to consider the gap in talent, IMO. I like the BPA approach in the early rounds, always in round 1. In round 2 it's the safest way to go. After that, I think you have to start considering how much of a gap in talent that BPA is going to give you vs. filling the lesser (perhaps slightly) player who fills a need.

Makes sense. I added another set of questions regarding this

 

[BradtheAg]

I'm always happiest with the teams where I've drafted BPA, but its very hard to avoid taking a player at a "need" position sometimes.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I'm always happiest with the teams where I've drafted BPA, but its very hard to avoid taking a player at a "need" position sometimes.

Yeah I think this happens a tonne. People always say their strategy is to draft the best player available, but when you look over all the rookie drafts that seems to actually happen only rarely.

 

[ZWK]

I mostly go BPA, but I do give players a very slight bump up or down based on need. It's just a little bit more than a tiebreaker, if I have two players rated very close together.

And I mostly only do that at QB and TE, which are two positions where we only start one player and where it is harder to make trades. If a RB or a WR pans out I'll probably be able to fit him into my lineup, or make a trade where I can get fair value, so I don't worry about need there. There's nothing wrong with drafting 5 WRs - if I'm lucky then 2 of them will pan out. And if I eventually end up a roster with 5 startable WRs and only 1 startable RB then I can make some trades then.

One thing to keep in mind is that "need" for a rookie draft is not about where you have holes in your starting lineup this season. You're drafting players for their whole career, and a lot of them take a couple years to develop into fantasy starters (among those who ever pan out), so if you're trying to fill holes in this year's lineup you're probably wasting your picks. "Need" is about where your roster is getting thin or old - where you might have holes in a couple years.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Just as an example, if at every pick the BPA is a WR do you keep going WR and be happy ending up with 5 WRs. Or would you stop drafting WRs after you get a few and then go with the next BPA at a different position?

I think you go BPA througout and let the chips fall where they may. If you try to fill a need in the later rounds - 3 through 5 - you're most likely not filling those needs anyway. While you can uncover gems in those rounds for the most part most of the players taken in those rounds aren't going to work out.

 

[Warpig]

I always go BPA over need. As has been mentioned, you can try to trade to fill needs. Offensive players seem to always hold more value even in IDP leagues. Seems you can usually find serviceable IDP's on the waiver wire throughout the year.

However, a downfall to BPA is that even though that WR or RB may be talented, it may take them a few years to get a chance to shine. And a lot of times, people won't value them much so it can be difficult to get anything in return.

 

[Shutout]

Just as an example, if at every pick the BPA is a WR do you keep going WR and be happy ending up with 5 WRs. Or would you stop drafting WRs after you get a few and then go with the next BPA at a different position?

At some point, the BPA is either the WR or another position and, if you stick to the theory, the BPA is the BPA, regardless.It is seldom the case thought that you would have a huge run at any position before someone at another position is the BPA.Of course, the whole lynch pin to all this is being able to know "WHO IS THE BPA". You had to be disciplined and know that Larry Fitzgerald was better than SJAX at the time, despite you having no RBs. Like this year, Blackmon seems to be the consencus WR1 in this draft but if Floyd or someone else is truly the BPA, then what? I ask that question to introduce another aspect of this: you have to consider the public opinion on BPA if you are going to employ it because that is where value really comes into play.For example, let's say you are VERY good at identifying talented RBs and, much like a few years ago when MJD was the 4-5th RB taken in drafts, you see Cyrus Gray as one of the best RBs out there when everyone else is going with the consensus of Richardson, Miller, Martin, etc. At your turn, the only way to stay true to BPA and not shoot yourself in the foot is to trade. I mean, you can still draft BPA and be correct (if you are good at picking these guys out), but you can make out a lot better if you bend that BPA theory and pick up the BPA WHERE the BPA should go (and that depends on public consensus).Every year, when you look back at drafts, there are clunkers and steals. If you are going to go BPA, hopefully you have a good handle on your ability to asess players.

 

[thriftyrocker]

I think your best overall strategy is to draft BPA and trade to fill needs. However, if a league does not trade actively or you have two players closely ranked I can see taking the player in a position of need.

Yeah, but I don't think it is a good idea to ever draft for need in the 1st. Especially in the early part of the draft. Keep that to BPA. How many people drafted Lynch over Calvin Johnson cause they needed a RB? I know I almost did.

The equivalent "big question" this year is when do you take one of the QBs? This is an even harder choice because in most leagues, it's hard for QBs to get decent return on investment. If you have 2+ good QBs and take Luck over Miller or Martin or Floyd, you are really shackling yourself to trading a QB. And in many leagues, teams will notice you "have to trade" and try to pay less.