Drafting for Need Versus Best Player Available: Which Strategy Wins?

17 December 2025

Every year, draft season rolls around with its usual wave of hype, speculation, and armchair general managers throwing their opinions into the ring. And while every franchise hopes to strike gold, there’s always one big debate that splits war rooms and fan bases alike: should a team draft for need or go after the best player available (BPA)?

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. It’s like standing at a crossroads with two signs—one pointing to long-term planning, the other screaming “fix-now.” Which one really leads to success?

Let’s break this down and see which strategy often holds the upper hand.

What Does It Mean to Draft for Need?

Drafting for need is exactly what it sounds like—teams target players who fill an immediate gap or solve a glaring issue on the roster. Missing a cornerback? Draft one. No starting-caliber offensive tackle? You know what to do.

The logic here is straightforward—if your team stinks in one area, you fix that with new blood. It’s reactive, sure, but also practical. Fans love it because they can see the impact right away. After all, nobody wants to see their quarterback flattened every Sunday because the front office decided a new linebacker was more “valuable” than a left tackle.

But it’s not that easy.

The Pitfalls of Drafting for Need

Drafting purely to plug holes can be a slippery slope. Why? Because reaching for a player just to fill a need can mean passing on someone far more talented. It’s like buying the right size shoe even if it’s made of cardboard, just because you need one now.

This often leads to something analysts love to call “overdrafting.” The player taken might not be good enough to justify the pick. And if that pick flops? You’re stuck with a double-whammy—a hole still unfilled and a wasted draft asset.

And let’s not forget: needs change. That struggling offensive line you were desperately trying to fix? One veteran signing or coaching change can turn it around. But a wasted first-round pick? That’s forever (or at least five years of regret).

The Best Player Available (BPA) Approach: Building a Talent Pipeline

Drafting the best player available, on the other hand, is a more forward-thinking approach. Instead of focusing on current deficiencies, teams focus on collecting the highest quality talent on the board, regardless of position.

It’s like collecting rare trading cards. You might not need another wide receiver right now, but if one with superstar potential drops into your lap, why wouldn’t you grab him?

This BPA mindset is all about value. The idea is that talent finds a way onto the field, and good players open up possibilities. You can trade later, reshape schemes, or even replace underperforming starters. Depth is never a bad thing.

Why BPA Can Be a Franchise-Changer

There’s a reason why some of the most successful franchises lean toward BPA—they trust their process and bank on their coaching to figure it all out. The Steelers, Ravens, Packers... they all have a track record of letting the board fall to them and scooping up top-tier talent, regardless of what the roster looks like that year.

Need proof this works? Look at how Aaron Rodgers fell to Green Bay in 2005. Brett Favre was still slinging passes. Did they need a QB? Nope. Did they take him anyway? Yep. It worked out just fine.

Similarly, the Cowboys didn’t desperately need a linebacker in 2018, yet they took Leighton Vander Esch because he was high on their board. That paid dividends.

But BPA Isn’t Always Perfect

Let’s pump the brakes a bit.

There’s a valid criticism of BPA—it can lead to positional logjams. You already have two stud running backs, and you just drafted another one? Cool... but who’s sitting on the bench now?

That stockpile of talent can quickly become underutilized assets, especially if you can’t flip them for picks or use them in meaningful ways. Sometimes, you end up with too much of a good thing and not enough diversity in your roster puzzle.

Also, BPA requires immense confidence in your scouting department. You have to trust your board like it’s gospel. If you’re wrong about a player’s “best available” status, you just took a luxury pick that doesn’t help anyone.

Balancing Both Strategies: The Sweet Spot?

Here’s the truth: most good teams don’t rigidly follow one strategy or the other. They blend both. It’s all about context.

Let’s say you’re drafting 12th overall. There are three players on the board—one fills a massive need and ranks just a little below the other two, who play positions you’re already stacked at. Depending on where your franchise is on the competitive timeline, you might roll the dice on the need.

But if you’re a rebuilding squad? You probably take the BPA and build for the future.

It's kind of like managing your fantasy football team. If your top RB is out, you obviously want a replacement. But if Travis Kelce is somehow still sitting out there in Round 4, you're grabbing him regardless of how many tight ends you've already got.

When Drafting for Need Makes Sense

Let’s be honest, there are moments when drafting for need is not only logical but necessary:

- Team is on the verge of contending: One missing piece could push them deep into the playoffs.
- Depth is severely lacking: Injuries have exposed soft spots in specific positions.
- Draft class is deep in talent at a position of need: You can afford to target a need without compromising on value.
- You’ve addressed BPA in earlier rounds: Later on, it’s okay to go shopping for needs.

In those cases, plugging the hole matters more than adding extra luxury to an already crowded area.

When BPA Should Rule the Day

On the flip side, best player available should be the go-to move if:

- You’re rebuilding: Stockpile stars regardless of where they play.
- There’s a clear talent drop-off after the top player remaining: That’s your green light.
- Your roster has flexibility: You have hybrid players or room for positional movement.
- You’re not desperate: Desperation leads to bad decisions. BPA keeps you grounded.

It’s like going to a buffet—you don’t only stick to chicken because you skipped it last time. You go for the best dish available today.

Real-World Examples of Both Strategies in Play

Let’s revisit some memorable draft-day decisions to see how both strategies play out in real life.

Drafting for Need: The 2019 Raiders

With the #4 overall pick in 2019, the Raiders surprised everyone by drafting Clelin Ferrell, a pass rusher from Clemson. Did they need help on the defensive line? Absolutely. But was he the best player on the board? Not even close, according to most analysts.

The result? Ferrell has struggled, and the pick is often cited as a reach—classic example of need winning over BPA.

BPA Steal: 2020 Cowboys and CeeDee Lamb

When CeeDee Lamb fell to Dallas at pick 17, they didn’t need another wide receiver—they already had Amari Cooper and Michael Gallup. But Lamb was just too good to pass up. Fast-forward a few years, and he’s arguably their top offensive weapon.

That’s BPA in a nutshell.

So... Which Strategy Wins More Often?

Now here’s the million-dollar question: which strategy wins?

If we’re talking long-term success, BPA tends to age better. You’re betting on talent, and that’s a safer investment over time. Talent eventually finds the field; needs can change or vanish overnight due to injury, trade, or development.

But in a win-now scenario, drafting for need might provide that final push. Think of it as using duct tape to fix a leak—it might handle the job in the short term, but long-term? You’re gonna want a proper fix—and that’s where BPA comes back into play.

Bottom line? Smart franchises find a way to walk the tightrope between the two. They come in with a plan but stay flexible. They let the board talk to them and adapt on the fly.

That’s where championships are built—not in rigid philosophies, but in savvy decision-making.

Final Thoughts: Be Smart, Not Just Strategic

Whether you're in a team’s front office or just shouting at your TV on Draft Day, remember this—drafting isn’t about sticking to one blueprint. It’s about understanding context, trusting your evaluations, and knowing your roster inside and out.

Sometimes you plug a hole. Other times, you load up on talent for the future. Either way, the ultimate goal remains the same: build a team that can win, today and tomorrow.

So next time someone asks, “Should we draft for need or take the best player available?”—you know what to say:

“How about both?