BPA is according to your board in this conversation. If you're John Shaw, your board will be wrong and it doesn't matter who you pick of course. If you're good, then your board will be right more than your peers. Either way it's about doing the diligence to ensure your board is accurate in terms of best fits for what you want to do, then ensuring you get the most value out of your picks on draft day.
IF, over time, you are disciplined in taking higher values who slide (i.e. BPA according to your board), even at positions that are not needs, your roster will probably end up being stronger year to year than if you're a GM who just plugs holes. Where this gets hard though is going back to whether your board is better than everyone else's, and it's really important because when a player slides it may mean all those other teams know something you don't.
When the Rams are up in round 3 for example let's say there's a WR of unbelievable quality sitting there. A guy who the Rams board said should have gone in early round 2 for example. Unlikely to happen with wideout but for the example you just take the dude and then package Jefferson or Tutu or both to move up with a later pick and try to get after whatever need you were looking at before which in our case is edge and corner at the top, and probably TE and OL next.
I'm not a big proponent of BPA or anything. But I do think it's important to follow your board and the Rams do. The difference is Snead tends to trade down when that BPA is not a need, and it seems like his board is often very accurate. No way to know for sure of course but in terms of them getting guys they said they had targeted like say Kupp they clearly have a strong idea of how to play that game.
