I don't think my distinction was purely semantics, but you are right that they go hand-in-hand...going after BPA is kinda useless if you aren't capable of discerning who the "BPA" is.
My point was that I don't think Kahn's problems stem from being fixated on going after the BPA in his drafts. If he had selected three stud point guards, I don't consider that a problem...he could have kept the one that fit his team's system the best and other teams would have been happy to trade for his other point guards. The problem was that Flynn was a terrible choice (not remotely the BPA as it turns out), Rubio was a gamble that may still pay off but hasn't yet and he traded Lawson for a handful of non-magical beans.
I do think it's the right philosophy to target the most talented player still on the board, even if you already have a good player at the position, rather than targeting the highest player on your board at a specific position. Use the draft to collect the most talent, use trades and free agency to "balance out" the roster. However, if two or three possible draftees are close together in value, I don't have a problem with using need as a tie-breaker, essentially.
