And typical BPA drafts heavily based on talent while dropping "need" or "fit" well down the list, sometimes to the point it's barely considered at all.
This is the opposite of that to the extreme, where even the coaches playcalling scheme is taken into consideration.
What evidence is there for dropping fit off/down the list in a BPA approach? I can't recall anyone here making that claim and I can't ever recall seeing any NFL insider making that sort of statement. This seems entirely a straw man argument.
The idea that fit and BPA are some how exclusive or contrary or counter to each other is just unfounded. Bad drafting teams, like the one we've been cheering for now for a while, consider need primarily, without considering fit or BPA, and as the evidence shows, they draft busts galore - Forbes and Davis being the latest two examples of bad fit and need based drafting.
Good teams consider fit as part of what makes a player the "best available". The question they ask is, what is this players potential to be a good contributor in OUR organization, in OUR scheme, regardless of what the depth chart says. They don't just blindly rank talent without considering if the CB plays best in zone or man, or the OL is a road grater or an athletic zone blocker. They also don't put too much weight on how well a player might fit in some other, differently ran organization.
The BPA vs need discussion, and I've been a champion of the BPA side, never excluded fit from "best" ranking, it excluded the depth chart from the ranking. Teams that draft based on their depth chart are the ones that draft poorly over the long term, as Ron Rivera has just shown us. Teams that draft the best players that fit their schemes, regardless of the current depth chart, are, as the 49rs have shown us, more successful.
This is all the "alignment" buzz word that Peters talked about, and the lack of "alignment" between the FO and coaches was a hallmark of Little Danny's failures with Vinny and Bruce running the talent show.
