Giants Draft: BPA?

BPA stands for Best Player Available.   This is the way the Giants have long said they draft.   Thus, when Prince Amukamara fell a few years ago, they had to take him because he was better than anyone else in their window.   BPA is frustrating to pundits who can only construct mock drafts projecting needs that the pundit may be projecting on the team.   For years and years, before he stopped doing his fun draft book, Mel Kiper Jr. would melt down because the Giants didn't take a linebacker high.    The one time they did, it was Sintim,   Eek.    And of course there was NO WAY Clint Sintim was the BPA when they were making their first round pick that year.  Max Unger, who's been to pro bowls probably was.

Anyway, this also may bring up the flaw in BPA.  As we've discussed, the Giants play of 4-3 defense. Sintim was a 3-4 LB who did not fit it.  Now, it's conceivable that he was the BPA on their board -- but the fact is, Clint Sintim should never have even been on the Giants board.  Their 2010 board should have existed as if he didn't.

Here's why: each good NFL team that wins titles has an identity; a formula by which they have won.   Thus any team like that -- if they are going to draft "BPA" -- should really only mean they will draft BPA for them, or more accurately Best Fit.   So they should only draft more the of the types of the players they've been winning with, and not worry about drafting anything else.   Bad teams should try to find players they can win with, but the winning programs need to stick with their scripts.

Years ago, Belichick boasted about how the Pats board had relatively few players on it and once they were done with those players,  they just trade their remaining picks.   That's a pretty good way to do, but I think their draft results are not so great, thus, their player definitions or talent recognition needs refinement.   I frankly think they sometimes go for players to the exclusion of athletes, and I think that's a big reason why we beat them in 42 and 46.  We had a better player model.

Still, there is wisdom in the Wesleyan Grad's thought process.  You don't need players who don't fit your scheme or success formula -- so why waste any more time scouting them, interviewing them or flying them around if they are not a fit.

I think the Giants board has been a little too big lately considering picks like Sintim, Beckum and Tracy, who all represented value where we we should not have been shopping.  Sintim and Tracy were 3-4 LB's, and Beckum was an HBack.   We've never won a Super Bowl where an HBack has played a valuable role in leading up to it or winning it.   Thus, they shouldn't even be on our board.  But all of them were.

What the Giants should spend some time doing this week if they haven't already, is get all of the non-Giant type players off of their board.  Thus they should remove all the 3-4 LB's, and all the HBacks for starters.   Assuming they'll use the same kind of OL play that they've won with, they'd also dump the guards who can't pull, and since they crave versatility they should dump the OL's who are only one thing.

Anyway, the only reason why I think the Giants board might be too big is because they've made some picks that just didn't fit the moment they were drafted.   And thus the BPA pick was as bad as a reach for need.  

The Giants need to double check this stuff.