Bill Walsh's Draftisms

[K-9]

Yours is a reasonable request.

 

There are two ways of creating a reasonable best case estimate for a player's value. One is to watch the player yourself. The other is to base your opinion on draft experts. If there are ten experts whose opinions you trust, and if at least one of those experts thinks a player has Pro Bowl potential, then Pro Bowl becomes a reasonable best case scenario for that player.

 

I haven't watched college football this year, which leaves me to rely on the scouting reports I've seen. To be honest, I haven't gone through that many scouting reports either. If someone with more pre-draft knowledge wants to amend my player predictions, I certainly won't stand in that person's way!

 

That being said, below are best case scenarios for the players in question:

 

Kuechley. Reasonable best case quality of play = 85. Position value = 3. Best case years with team = 11. Reasonable best case = 85 x 3 x 11 = 2805.

 

Gilmore. Reasonable best case quality of play = 80. Position value = 7. Best case years with team = 11. Reasonable best case = 6160.

 

Barron. Reasonable best case quality of play = 60. Position value = 3.5. Best case years with team = 11. Reasonable best case = 2110.

 

Floyd. Reasonable best case quality of play = 80. Position value = 6. Best case years with team = 11. Reasonable best case = 5280.

 

The worst case scenario for the four players is that they're all busts.

 

So that took you what, 20 minutes? You really need to get this stuff to front offices around the league. They've spent how many months looking at and evaluating these players? And all they had to do was plug in all those numbers.

 

How is quality of play derived again? And what constitutes reasonable?

 

And the position values, how are they determined?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

So that took you what, 20 minutes? You really need to get this stuff to front offices around the league. They've spent how many months looking at and evaluating these players? And all they had to do was plug in all those numbers.

 

How is quality of play derived again? And what constitutes reasonable?

 

And the position values, how are they determined?

 

GO BILLS!!!

You're acting as if you know a lot more than you actually do. This false knowledge on your part is the reason why your post is arrogant, annoying, and contributes nothing to the discussion. Even though you don't know the extent to which front offices take position value into account, or how they take it into account if they do, you're acting as if you're sure my method would be completely novel to all 32 of them. In the future, do not pretend to know more than you actually do.

 

> How is quality of play derived again? And what constitutes reasonable?

 

I answered these questions in my previous post. Go back and reread it.

 

> And the position values, how are they determined?

 

The numbers I used represent my subjective estimate. In the unlikely event you have something constructive to contribute to a discussion about how those subjective estimates might be made more accurate, I'd be happy to listen. If, on the other hand, you're planning on writing something along the lines of "subjective = worthless," then don't bother. You've wasted enough of our time already.

[K-9]

You're acting as if you know a lot more than you actually do. This false knowledge on your part is the reason why your post is arrogant, annoying, and contributes nothing to the discussion. Even though you don't know the extent to which front offices take position value into account, or how they take it into account if they do, you're acting as if you're sure my method would be completely novel to all 32 of them. In the future, do not pretend to know more than you actually do.

 

> How is quality of play derived again? And what constitutes reasonable?

 

I answered these questions in my previous post. Go back and reread it.

 

> And the position values, how are they determined?

 

The numbers I used represent my subjective estimate. In the unlikely event you have something constructive to contribute to a discussion about how those subjective estimates might be made more accurate, I'd be happy to listen. If, on the other hand, you're planning on writing something along the lines of "subjective = worthless," then don't bother. You've wasted enough of our time already.

 

You're being presumptuous to say the least. Take it for what it's worth and knowing that I fully appreciate the fact that anything anyone says on an anonymous internet forum is full of crap, but I actually DO know some of which I speak about here both through personal experience in and around the game as well as through contacts, both current and past.

 

When I think of the thousands of man-hours spent by both Blesto and National in compiling their player rankings each year and then the thousands of additional man-hours that team scouts themselves put into taking those evaluations further and then add the additional countless hours of time it takes each team to construct their boards based on all of the previously compiled data, I cringe at the arrogance you display here at times.

 

I can say with certainty that nobody I know currently or in the past, has a tiered positional value chart ranging from 1-4 (I thought your 3.5 was a self-deprecating reference to a legendary thread on PPP, but maybe you were actually serious). Nor do teams think in terms of 'value' in the sense that draftniks do.

 

The only time the term 'reach' is used is in reference to 'reaching for a need.' I first heard that phrase in 1971 as a twelve year old gopher at the Rockpile in reference to Al Cowlings who was taken the year before. Teams are just reluctant to do that for obvious reasons. Sometimes BPA meets biggest need and everybody is happy. Teams literally believe that playmaker is always a position of need. I use that phrase a lot around here. But I didn't make it up.

 

Perhaps my biggest gripe is that NFL personnel evaluators seem to be acutely aware of one thing that you and all your moneyball number crunching seems to take for granted: that these players are young, flawed, human beings and no matter the amount of preparation, there is simply no compensating for that with a scientific formula. You make your best guess, hope you can coach them to their potential, and hope for the best. Sometimes it works. Often times it doesn't.

 

I won't lower myself to say that "subjective=worthless." I was being honest when I suggested you start a draftnik site using these various formulas because people will probably buy it. You chose to accept that as an insult because I don't think it would sell in an NFL front office. Well, don't take my word for it. Send it out. See what happens. Here's a word of advice if you're gonna talk to NFL teams: they don't mind 'subjective' so much as 'arbitrary'.

 

Good luck.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Geno Smith's Arm]

You're being presumptuous to say the least. Take it for what it's worth and knowing that I fully appreciate the fact that anything anyone says on an anonymous internet forum is full of crap, but I actually DO know some of which I speak about here both through personal experience in and around the game as well as through contacts, both current and past.

 

When I think of the thousands of man-hours spent by both Blesto and National in compiling their player rankings each year and then the thousands of additional man-hours that team scouts themselves put into taking those evaluations further and then add the additional countless hours of time it takes each team to construct their boards based on all of the previously compiled data, I cringe at the arrogance you display here at times.

 

I can say with certainty that nobody I know currently or in the past, has a tiered positional value chart ranging from 1-4 (I thought your 3.5 was a self-deprecating reference to a legendary thread on PPP, but maybe you were actually serious). Nor do teams think in terms of 'value' in the sense that draftniks do.

 

The only time the term 'reach' is used is in reference to 'reaching for a need.' I first heard that phrase in 1971 as a twelve year old gopher at the Rockpile in reference to Al Cowlings who was taken the year before. Teams are just reluctant to do that for obvious reasons. Sometimes BPA meets biggest need and everybody is happy. Teams literally believe that playmaker is always a position of need. I use that phrase a lot around here. But I didn't make it up.

 

Perhaps my biggest gripe is that NFL personnel evaluators seem to be acutely aware of one thing that you and all your moneyball number crunching seems to take for granted: that these players are young, flawed, human beings and no matter the amount of preparation, there is simply no compensating for that with a scientific formula. You make your best guess, hope you can coach them to their potential, and hope for the best. Sometimes it works. Often times it doesn't.

 

I won't lower myself to say that "subjective=worthless." I was being honest when I suggested you start a draftnik site using these various formulas because people will probably buy it. You chose to accept that as an insult because I don't think it would sell in an NFL front office. Well, don't take my word for it. Send it out. See what happens. Here's a word of advice if you're gonna talk to NFL teams: they don't mind 'subjective' so much as 'arbitrary'.

 

Good luck.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I think he is trying to over-intellectualize the drafting process ("if I just supply the right stats, I will prove I'm right!"). Unfortunately, there are so many variables from team to team, player to player, and year to year, that he ends up with his head up his own...

Edited April 21, 2012 by Matthews' Bag

[Orton's Arm]

You're being presumptuous to say the least. Take it for what it's worth and knowing that I fully appreciate the fact that anything anyone says on an anonymous internet forum is full of crap, but I actually DO know some of which I speak about here both through personal experience in and around the game as well as through contacts, both current and past.

 

When I think of the thousands of man-hours spent by both Blesto and National in compiling their player rankings each year and then the thousands of additional man-hours that team scouts themselves put into taking those evaluations further and then add the additional countless hours of time it takes each team to construct their boards based on all of the previously compiled data, I cringe at the arrogance you display here at times.

 

I can say with certainty that nobody I know currently or in the past, has a tiered positional value chart ranging from 1-4 (I thought your 3.5 was a self-deprecating reference to a legendary thread on PPP, but maybe you were actually serious). Nor do teams think in terms of 'value' in the sense that draftniks do.

 

The only time the term 'reach' is used is in reference to 'reaching for a need.' I first heard that phrase in 1971 as a twelve year old gopher at the Rockpile in reference to Al Cowlings who was taken the year before. Teams are just reluctant to do that for obvious reasons. Sometimes BPA meets biggest need and everybody is happy. Teams literally believe that playmaker is always a position of need. I use that phrase a lot around here. But I didn't make it up.

 

Perhaps my biggest gripe is that NFL personnel evaluators seem to be acutely aware of one thing that you and all your moneyball number crunching seems to take for granted: that these players are young, flawed, human beings and no matter the amount of preparation, there is simply no compensating for that with a scientific formula. You make your best guess, hope you can coach them to their potential, and hope for the best. Sometimes it works. Often times it doesn't.

 

I won't lower myself to say that "subjective=worthless." I was being honest when I suggested you start a draftnik site using these various formulas because people will probably buy it. You chose to accept that as an insult because I don't think it would sell in an NFL front office. Well, don't take my word for it. Send it out. See what happens. Here's a word of advice if you're gonna talk to NFL teams: they don't mind 'subjective' so much as 'arbitrary'.

 

Good luck.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I have little or no knowledge about the inner workings of front offices. Lacking this knowledge, I independently considered the question of how one might run a football team. If independent thought seems arrogant to you, it might mean you're using the word "arrogant" as a synonym for "non-herd-like thinking."

 

> I thought your 3.5 was a self-deprecating reference to a legendary thread on PPP

 

It was intended to be humorous, but not self-deprecating. The concept of expected value is widely recognized, the expected value of a die roll is 3.5, and anyone who says otherwise is just making stuff up. See example 1.

 

I'm not adverse to self-deprecating humor. But my joke about 3.5 wasn't intended to be at anyone's expense, either my own or anyone else's.

 

> When I think of the thousands of man-hours spent by both Blesto and National

> in compiling their player rankings . . . I cringe at the arrogance you display here at times.

 

I have on multiple occasions acknowledged that I haven't watched any college football this past year; and have invited comment from those with more pre-draft knowledge than me. The fact that you're nevertheless trying to pin the "arrogant" label on me requires some very serious explaining on your part.

 

> I can say with certainty that nobody I know currently or in the past, has a tiered positional value chart ranging from 1-4

 

On the other hand, I have heard that better run front offices prefer to use their early picks on premium positions. The four premium positions are QB, LT, RDE, and CB. If you accept that a quarterback is more valuable than an equally good LT or CB, then that justifies the first two of my tiers. As for some of the other tiers, Mike Shanahan once said that if you have good tackles and a good center, you can get by with decent guards. Comments like that suggest Shanahan is placing a higher value on centers, RTs, and LTs than on OGs. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Shanahan is the only one in the NFL who values some positions more highly than others. A tier system just a formalization of this practice.

 

> Perhaps my biggest gripe is that NFL personnel evaluators seem to be acutely aware

> of one thing that you and all your moneyball number crunching seems to take for granted:

> that these players are young, flawed, human beings and no matter the amount of preparation,

> there is simply no compensating for that with a scientific formula.

 

I acknowledge that they're young and flawed. Show me anything I've written where I've said otherwise! The draft is a guessing game, but some guesses have a higher probability of being right than others. With a large enough data set, a good mathematical formula will increase both the number and the degree of your team's successes. Conversely, if a mathematical formula does not cause you to make better choices than you otherwise would have made, it's not a very good or useful formula!

 

> I was being honest when I suggested you start a draftnik site using these various formulas

> because people will probably buy it. You chose to accept that as an insult

 

I wasn't offended by that.

 

> Here's a word of advice if you're gonna talk to NFL teams: they don't mind 'subjective' so much as 'arbitrary'.

 

Obviously, I haven't done even 3.5% of the research or analysis necessary to create something I'd send to NFL teams! Nor do I intend to. So I'd like to begin by taking that unrealistic option off the table.

 

The position values I've mentioned are subjective, and there's certainly room for revision to make them more accurate. But they are not arbitrary. The New York Times did a regression analysis which showed that yards per pass attempt is three times as important as yards per rushing attempt; and that interception percentage is as important as yards per rushing attempt. In addition, nine of the last ten Super Bowl winners had franchise QBs. Based on these and other data, I tended to assign positional importance on two primary bases: 1) the degree to which the position was associated with good pass offense or good pass defense, and 2) the opportunity a good or elite player would have to substantially change the overall dynamic of pass offense or pass defense. As an example, Bruce Smith changes the dynamic of your pass defense, because he forces the other team to double team the RDE. He adds +1 to the numbers game. In contrast, it's unlikely a LB will be so good in coverage that he can be put into one-on-one coverage against a good pass catching TE. So there's less chance of him adding +1 to the numbers game on passing downs.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Edwards' Arm

[K-9]

I have little or no knowledge about the inner workings of front offices. Lacking this knowledge, I independently considered the question of how one might run a football team. If independent thought seems arrogant to you, it might mean you're using the word "arrogant" as a synonym for "non-herd-like thinking."

 

Independent thinking is a wonderful thing. There is a difference between "non-herd-like thinking" and being so far out in right field in your thoughts that you're grazing alone.

 

It was intended to be humorous, but not self-deprecating. The concept of expected value is widely recognized, the expected value of a die roll is 3.5, and anyone who says otherwise is just making stuff up. See example 1.

 

Take it up with DC Tom. I'm simply not interested.

 

I have on multiple occasions acknowledged that I haven't watched any college football this past year; and have invited comment from those with more pre-draft knowledge than me. The fact that you're nevertheless trying to pin the "arrogant" label on me requires some very serious explaining on your part.

And yet you can take 20 minutes, apply a completely arbitrary formula, and calculate the projected career success of four players the Bills may end up selecting in the first round. Sorry, but saying that's arrogant is obvious and requires no explanation.

 

On the other hand, I have heard that better run front offices prefer to use their early picks on premium positions. The four premium positions are QB, LT, RDE, and CB. If you accept that a quarterback is more valuable than an equally good LT or CB, then that justifies the first two of my tiers. As for some of the other tiers, Mike Shanahan once said that if you have good tackles and a good center, you can get by with decent guards. Comments like that suggest Shanahan is placing a higher value on centers, RTs, and LTs than on OGs. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Shanahan is the only one in the NFL who values some positions more highly than others. A tier system just a formalization of this practice.

 

There are actually five premium positions. In order they are: QB, DE (blind side preferable), LT, WR, CB. RB used to be fourth with WR fifth and CBs weren't even on the list. But the game has evolved. That does NOT suggest you never take a RB in the first round. Depends on the RB. You seem to flat out reject that. But personnel people don't. I DO accept the idea that QBs are the most valuable position, etc. But building teams is NEVER a linear process. If you don't have one of those premium positions filled and a blue chip player is available, you take him. But you DON'T reach for them. You seem to suggest that even though a player like Keuchly may be the highest rated player available, it makes more sense to take a lesser talent at one of the more 'important' positions. That's flat out wrong and I don't know how else to put that. Shanahan is absolutely correct, especially for his zone blocking schemes. But you won't see a tiered ranking system because player grades are assigned according to ABILITY, regardless of position. Hard as it is to believe, a SS is perfectly capable of being a far superior FOOTBALL player than a QB.

 

I acknowledge that they're young and flawed. Show me anything I've written where I've said otherwise! The draft is a guessing game, but some guesses have a higher probability of being right than others. With a large enough data set, a good mathematical formula will increase both the number and the degree of your team's successes. Conversely, if a mathematical formula does not cause you to make better choices than you otherwise would have made, it's not a very good or useful formula!

 

Just what data sets do you think are currently missing that are preventing NFL teams from making the best guesses they can at the time they have to make them?

 

The position values I've mentioned are subjective, and there's certainly room for revision to make them more accurate. But they are not arbitrary. The New York Times did a regression analysis which showed that yards per pass attempt is three times as important as yards per rushing attempt; and that interception percentage is as important as yards per rushing attempt. In addition, nine of the last ten Super Bowl winners had franchise QBs. Based on these and other data, I tended to assign positional importance on two primary bases: 1) the degree to which the position was associated with good pass offense or good pass defense, and 2) the opportunity a good or elite player would have to substantially change the overall dynamic of pass offense or pass defense. As an example, Bruce Smith changes the dynamic of your pass defense, because he forces the other team to double team the RDE. He adds +1 to the numbers game. In contrast, it's unlikely a LB will be so good in coverage that he can be put into one-on-one coverage against a good pass catching TE. So there's less chance of him adding +1 to the numbers game on passing downs.

 

What if a LB drops into a coverage and forces the QB to go to his second read and this hesitation causes him to throw a ball that's tipped by the SS and into the hands of the CB for an INT? Yeah, I know. Lucky for us we have that critical CB, otherwise that play never could have been made.

 

I think we've reached the end of this discussion. I think perhaps Matthew's Bag is right. In the future I'll try not to let your over-intellectualization of the draft, the game, or anything else associated with it get in the way of your fun. I'm off to join the rest of the herd

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited April 21, 2012 by K-9

[Orton's Arm]

And yet you can take 20 minutes, apply a completely arbitrary formula, and calculate the projected career success of four players the Bills may end up selecting in the first round. Sorry, but saying that's arrogant is obvious and requires no explanation.

 

I performed those calculations because you asked me to. Now you're calling me arrogant for having performed them? The next time you ask a favor of me, I'll assume you're asking in bad faith.

 

> That does NOT suggest you never take a RB in the first round. Depends on the RB. You seem to flat out reject that.

 

I do not flat-out reject that. Go back and reread my posts.

 

> But building teams is NEVER a linear process. If you don't have one

> of those premium positions filled and a blue chip player is available,

> you take him. But you DON'T reach for them.

 

Agreed.

 

> You seem to suggest that even though a player like Keuchly may be the highest rated

> player available, it makes more sense to take a lesser talent at one of the more

> 'important' positions. That's flat out wrong and I don't know how else to put that.

 

If you are not taking into account the relative value of positions, then it is you who are flat-out wrong. As I stated earlier, a top-15 LT is worth more than a Pro Bowl guard. If it's a choice between the two, you take the LT. A team which ignores the relative values of positions on draft day--or which embraces misguided notions about those values--will tend to have a worse record than a team which correctly takes position value into account.

 

> But you won't see a tiered ranking system because player grades are assigned according

> to ABILITY, regardless of position.

 

I find it impossible to believe that all NFL teams are run as badly as you've just described. If you're claiming to have enough inside knowledge to definitively state that they are all run this way, then I simply don't believe you. I'm willing to accept the notion that there are some teams which ignore position value on draft day. If a poorly run team like that had a choice between a RB and a LT, and if the RB had a slightly higher grade, it would take the RB. I could easily imagine TD or Marv doing something boneheaded like that, either because they're ignoring position value, or because they (erroneously) believe RB to be a premium position, or because they want a quick fix.

 

> What if a LB drops into a coverage and forces the QB to go to his second read

> and this hesitation causes him to throw a ball that's tipped by the SS and into

> the hands of the CB for an INT?

 

If you want to quantify that, look at the best coverage LBs in the league today, and count the number of INTs they typically create over the course of a season. The resulting number will help you determine the value a good coverage LB can contribute to your team. Quantifying that contribution helps avoid flights of fancy, vague thinking, or wishful thinking.

 

> I think we've reached the end of this discussion.

 

Right. Because obviously a discussion ends when you've had the last word.

 

> I think perhaps Matthew's Bag is right.

 

You're making it very hard for me to respect your opinion.

 

> In the future I'll try not to let your over-intellectualization of the draft,

> the game, or anything else associated with it get in the way of your fun.

 

Thank you. Your initial responses to my posts clearly lacked any intention of adding anything constructive or useful to the conversation. While you have occasionally thrown in a football-related tidbit, your overall tone has been obnoxious and argumentative. Next time do us all a favor and don't "contribute" anything at all.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

 

 

> I think perhaps Matthew's Bag is right.

 

You're making it very hard for me to respect your opinion.

 

 

Look out, here comes a sack!

[K-9]

I performed those calculations because you asked me to. Now you're calling me arrogant for having performed them? The next time you ask a favor of me, I'll assume you're asking in bad faith.

 

I'm calling you arrogant for suggesting that your calculations, based on a completely arbitrary set of numbers, can even remotely predict the career trajectory of a player entering the draft.

 

I do not flat-out reject that. Go back and reread my posts.

 

There isn't much of a difference between flat out rejecting something and saying (repeatedly) it doesn't make sense to select positions that are no longer perceived as premium. Should I have used Keuchly and the LB position to make my point instead of RB? I don't need to reread anything since making a statistical case to select some positions over others based on your formulas, has been your mantra for I don't know how long now. Maybe I'll have to add disingenuous to arrogant.

If you are not taking into account the relative value of positions, then it is you who are flat-out wrong. As I stated earlier, a top-15 LT is worth more than a Pro Bowl guard. If it's a choice between the two, you take the LT. A team which ignores the relative values of positions on draft day--or which embraces misguided notions about those values--will tend to have a worse record than a team which correctly takes position value into account.

 

What part about that hypothetical G being a hypothetically better FOOTBALL player than that hypothetical LT don't you understand? If you were building a team you'd constantly be stuck reaching to fill a need. Meanwhile, in the real world, good teams would be stocking their rosters with the best players available and adding superior FOOTBALL players to their rosters.

I find it impossible to believe that all NFL teams are run as badly as you've just described. If you're claiming to have enough inside knowledge to definitively state that they are all run this way, then I simply don't believe you. I'm willing to accept the notion that there are some teams which ignore position value on draft day. If a poorly run team like that had a choice between a RB and a LT, and if the RB had a slightly higher grade, it would take the RB. I could easily imagine TD or Marv doing something boneheaded like that, either because they're ignoring position value, or because they (erroneously) believe RB to be a premium position, or because they want a quick fix.

 

You are free to believe what you want. All players, regardless of position, are assigned grades based on the criteria established for their positions. I assume you know that the graded skill sets for a QB would be far different than that of a WR and those would be different that a T and so on. So, the grade established is for the player's FOOTBALL ability. According to your formula, the only thing that matters is the relative worth of the position. That is simply incorrect. But if your draft board lists best QBs first, followed by the best LTs, followed by the best DEs, etc., good luck finding the best players. Marv's drafts were terrible NOT because of the positions they drafted. They were terrible because the players they took just weren't good enough. But I have a feeling that simple concept might escape you given your intractability on the subject.

 

 

> What if a LB drops into a coverage and forces the QB to go to his second read

> and this hesitation causes him to throw a ball that's tipped by the SS and into

> the hands of the CB for an INT?

 

If you want to quantify that, look at the best coverage LBs in the league today, and count the number of INTs they typically create over the course of a season. The resulting number will help you determine the value a good coverage LB can contribute to your team. Quantifying that contribution helps avoid flights of fancy, vague thinking, or wishful thinking.

 

This is why debating the issue with you is worthless. I provide you with a typical and common scenario (some might say I 'added to the discussion' even) and you immediately say that in order for it to be valid it has to be quantified statistically. On EVERY football play there are plays within the play that can NEVER show up on a stat sheet. But these plays are readily apparent to coaches, players, GMs, personnel professionals, and others who make value judgments on player performance. Not to mention fans who know what to look for in any given situation. It doesn't NEED to be quantified statistically for them to know a good player when they see one.

 

> I think we've reached the end of this discussion.

 

Right. Because obviously a discussion ends when you've had the last word.

 

Seriously? I need to have the last word? Are we in a sandbox here? The discussion has reached it's end because we have gone back and forth on it long enough and I have no more to add. But feel free to have the last word. Be my guest.

 

> I think perhaps Matthew's Bag is right.

 

You're making it very hard for me to respect your opinion.

 

Oh, I think it was pretty easy for you to disrespect my opinion all along. I've been here long enough and have read too many threads across too many BBs to realize that you have little tolerance for those who don't agree with your points of view.

 

> In the future I'll try not to let your over-intellectualization of the draft,

> the game, or anything else associated with it get in the way of your fun.

 

Thank you. Your initial responses to my posts clearly lacked any intention of adding anything constructive or useful to the conversation. While you have occasionally thrown in a football-related tidbit, your overall tone has been obnoxious and argumentative. Next time do us all a favor and don't "contribute" anything at all.

 

You're quite welcome. But would you be willing to quantify statistically my lack of intentions? "Do us ALL a favor?" Don't you mean just you? Or can you speak for everyone on the board? If so, can you further quantify that with statistical analysis?

 

Like I said, I've seen lot of your give and take around here over the years. I'm quite confident that very often, when someone disagrees with your theories he is labeled as 'obnoxious' and 'argumentative.'

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited April 21, 2012 by K-9

[Orton's Arm]

Maybe I'll have to add disingenuous to arrogant.

Your posts are so disconnected from reality anyway that at this point, moving even farther from reality won't make much difference.

 

As for the specific example of running back, I've said that a RB can move to a higher tier if he's an integral part of the passing game, like Marshall Faulk or Thurman Thomas. If you don't believe I've said this before, go back and reread my posts.

 

> What part about that hypothetical G being a hypothetically better FOOTBALL player

> than that hypothetical LT don't you understand?

 

Again, if it's a choice between a top-15 LT and a Pro Bowl OG, you take the LT. The fact that you flat-out disagree with this causes me to know--not just think, but know--that you're not speaking for NFL GMs. Most teams aren't run the way you say they're run. Over the last decade, many more LTs have been taken in the top-10 of the draft than OGs. Many more QBs have been taken in the top 5 than non-pass rushing LBs. NFL GMs are taking position value into account. You are trying to tell us they are not, you are wrong, and the NFL draft history proves you are wrong.

 

> If you were building a team you'd constantly be stuck reaching to fill a need.

 

If you have a choice between a LT and a RB, and if the RB has a slightly better grade, taking the LT is not "reaching." Stop altering the meaning of words in your futile effort to win the argument.

 

> Meanwhile, in the real world, good teams would be stocking their rosters with

> the best players available and adding superior FOOTBALL players to their rosters.

 

Superior football players, but at inferior positions. They'd have great OGs, RBs, non pass rushing LBs, etc. Their QB, LT, CBs, and RDEs will stink. How many games do you think a team like that will win?

 

> According to your formula, the only thing that matters is the relative worth of the position.

 

Go back and reread the formula. Relative position worth is only one of three equally weighted variables in the formula.

 

> But if your draft board lists best QBs first, followed by the best LTs, followed by the

> best DEs, etc., good luck finding the best players.

 

That is not the result the formula would produce. I am also relying on GMs to exhibit some intelligence when applying the formula's results.

 

> Marv's drafts were terrible NOT because of the positions they drafted. They were

> terrible because the players they took just weren't good enough.

 

Marv's drafts were terrible for both reasons. He had a gaping hole at quarterback. Picking at 8th overall, he chose to pass up Cutler for Whitner. That was a terrible decision not just because Whitner failed to justify a first or second round pick, but also because the lack of a quarterback greatly diminished what the team could otherwise have accomplished.

 

> But I have a feeling that simple concept might escape you given your intractability on the subject.

 

Lenin said to always accuse your enemies of that which you yourself are guilty. If it's been your goal to be as intractable on this subject as possible, you've succeeded magnificently.

 

> This is why debating the issue with you is worthless.

 

The reason you've failed to convince me of your point is that you've contributed nothing to this discussion beyond your own blind, dogmatic insistence that relative position values should be ignored on draft day. You have yet to provide a single logical reason why this is the case. You are one of an (unfortunately large) group of people who seem to think they don't have to provide logical arguments to sway others to their view, as long as they insist on their own view loudly enough. Anyone who won't be swayed by their loudness is automatically given negative labels. That persuasive technique has been your main contribution to this discussion.

 

> I provide you with a typical and common scenario (some might say I 'added to the

> discussion' even) and you immediately say that in order for it to be valid it has

> to be quantified statistically.

 

Once again you have distorted what I've written. The example you gave was of a LB who dropped back into coverage and forced a QB to go to his second read. Because the QB was forced to hold the ball a little longer than normal, the SS was able to tip the ball into the hands of a cornerback for an INT. I never said your example was invalid. I did say I'd like to see it quantified. The reason for this quantification is to prevent the sort of vague, overly optimistic "oh, I'm sure he'll justify his very early draft position with lots of forced interceptions," type thinking of which you are guilty. Count the number of interceptions caused by good coverage linebackers and then decide where in the draft you want to take a coverage LB!

 

> The discussion has reached it's [sic] end because we have gone back and forth on it long enough

> and I have no more to add.

 

You had nothing constructive to add in the first place.

 

> Oh, I think it was pretty easy for you to disrespect my opinion all along.

 

You loudly and confidently expressed disagreement with my opinion, without stating logical reasons why. You gave no indication that you'd thought deeply about anything which was being discussed. Instead you cavalierly and arrogantly dismissed what I'd written, as in the below example.

 

> I'm calling you arrogant for suggesting that your calculations, based on a

> completely arbitrary set of numbers, can even remotely predict the career

> trajectory of a player entering the draft.

 

Instead of entering into a constructive discussion about how my formula might be modified to better represent a player's long term contribution to the team, you simply dismissed it. Thinking about how to improve a formula takes work. Negatively labeling someone who disagrees with you is easy. Given a choice between contributing something useful to the discussion on the one hand, or negatively labeling those who disagreed with you on the other, you did not hesitate.

 

> "Do us ALL a favor?" Don't you mean just you?

 

No, I mean everyone. No one benefits when people employ the persuasive techniques you've adopted. Even if you're right--which you're not--but even if you were, no one here is going to learn much of anything new if your only contribution to a discussion is a dogmatic insistence on your own perspective, coupled with one or two extremely shallow arguments in support, and plenty of attacks on those who disagree.

 

> Or can you speak for everyone on the board?

 

Of course not! On the other hand, I haven't heard anyone say, "We need to start replacing logical, football-related discussions with petty personal squabbles." Until people start endorsing the techniques you use, don't consider those techniques endorsed.

[Ramius]

blah blah blah...

 

Valuing position over absolute ability gives you draft picks such as Aaron Maybin. All things being equal, then you take the LT, DE, etc. But since all things are NOT equal, you take the best football player on the board.

[Orton's Arm]

Valuing position over absolute ability gives you draft picks such as Aaron Maybin. All things being equal, then you take the LT, DE, etc. But since all things are NOT equal, you take the best football player on the board.

That's the kind of logic which causes the Bills to take a first round RB every 3.5 years.

 

Aaron Maybin was a one year wonder. The lesson to be learned there is that you don't take a 220 lb DE at 11th overall on the basis of one good year.

[K-9]

Again, if it's a choice between a top-15 LT and a Pro Bowl OG, you take the LT. The fact that you flat-out disagree with this causes me to know--not just think, but know--that you're not speaking for NFL GMs. Most teams aren't run the way you say they're run. Over the last decade, many more LTs have been taken in the top-10 of the draft than OGs. Many more QBs have been taken in the top 5 than non-pass rushing LBs. NFL GMs are taking position value into account. You are trying to tell us they are not, you are wrong, and the NFL draft history proves you are wrong.

 

The NFL draft history proves nothing.

 

Who is the second highest rated LT in this year's draft? Take your pick. You are saying that whoever that tackle is will/should get taken before DeCastro. We'll see. We'll also track their careers.

 

I don't give a rat's ass how many more tackles were taken over whatever amount of time you suggest. None of that is germane to the discussion. I would hope that if there is an equal or higher rated LT you would take him over a G. So would anybody in any front office. The ONLY point I am making is that there are cases when guards have been taken higher than an LT because he was a better football player. Period. I don't know why you can't seem to get that simple concept.

 

If you have a choice between a LT and a RB, and if the RB has a slightly better grade, taking the LT is not "reaching." Stop altering the meaning of words in your futile effort to win the argument.

 

Since you enjoy putting words in people's mouths, try this: you would take the lowest rated QB over the highest rated S every time. Because your formula says so. Never mind that it's completely comprised of arbitrary numbers pulled out of who knows where. And you have the temerity to suggest I'm altering words to win an argument? WTF cares about winning arguments? Your sandbox mentality is coming through again.

 

Superior football players, but at inferior positions. They'd have great OGs, RBs, non pass rushing LBs, etc. Their QB, LT, CBs, and RDEs will stink. How many games do you think a team like that will win?

 

A completely assinine thing to say. Especially because I never even remotely suggested something so stupid.

 

Go back and reread the formula. Relative position worth is only one of three equally weighted variables in the formula.

 

No need to. Since it's comprised of completely arbitrary numbers and has no basis in fact to begin with.

 

That is not the result the formula would produce. I am also relying on GMs to exhibit some intelligence when applying the formula's results.

Then by all means, please show us what your "formula produced" player board would look like.

 

Marv's drafts were terrible for both reasons. He had a gaping hole at quarterback. Picking at 8th overall, he chose to pass up Cutler for Whitner. That was a terrible decision not just because Whitner failed to justify a first or second round pick, but also because the lack of a quarterback greatly diminished what the team could otherwise have accomplished.

 

Nice to have 20/20 hindsight. But we're talking future projections here. I think we'd all rather have Cutler NOW. But that's too easy to say at this point. More people around here wanted Leinart. I have a question: How did taking that perceived great QB work out when we took Losman? Wasn't that the smart choice according to your formula? How would you have felt about drafting ANY top 10 QB bust AT THE TIME? Again, according to your formula we would have done the right thing by drafting them.

 

Lenin said to always accuse your enemies of that which you yourself are guilty. If it's been your goal to be as intractable on this subject as possible, you've succeeded magnificently.

 

Maybe that explains why your were the first to use the word arrogant. Not to mention obnoxious and argumentative. My goal isn't to be intractable. I just disagree that your entire idea of constructing a tier-based positional chart and then assigning a complete set of arbitrary numbers can project the career trajectory of a prospect with any degree of accuracy at all. Let alone with 'reasonable' certainty. Your thin-skinned nature can't accept that someone doesn't agree with your spotty methodology and it rankles you. That has been your pattern over the years here, regardless of subject matter.

 

The reason you've failed to convince me of your point is that you've contributed nothing to this discussion beyond your own blind, dogmatic insistence that relative position values should be ignored on draft day. You have yet to provide a single logical reason why this is the case. You are one of an (unfortunately large) group of people who seem to think they don't have to provide logical arguments to sway others to their view, as long as they insist on their own view loudly enough. Anyone who won't be swayed by their loudness is automatically given negative labels. That persuasive technique has been your main contribution to this discussion.

 

 

You mean I've failed to provide a single logical reason THAT YOU AGREE WITH. All the logic in my argument can be summed up in something I've already said repeatedly; there are Ss who are better football players than LTs. There are Gs who are better players than CBs and so on. Or maybe in terms you can more readily understand: there are tier-4 players who are better than tier-1 players. Gasp!

 

 

Once again you have distorted what I've written. The example you gave was of a LB who dropped back into coverage and forced a QB to go to his second read. Because the QB was forced to hold the ball a little longer than normal, the SS was able to tip the ball into the hands of a cornerback for an INT. I never said your example was invalid. I did say I'd like to see it quantified. The reason for this quantification is to prevent the sort of vague, overly optimistic "oh, I'm sure he'll justify his very early draft position with lots of forced interceptions," type thinking of which you are guilty. Count the number of interceptions caused by good coverage linebackers and then decide where in the draft you want to take a coverage LB!

 

I've distorted nothing. I merely simplified by providing a common example from the game itself. Once again, there is no need to quantify it statistically. I don't know who you're speaking about when you mention "vague, overly optimistic "oh, I'm sure he'll justify his very early draft position with lots of forced interceptions." I realize you were just being insulting but that's your M.O. and I understand. I, and those folks I mentioned in front offices, just need to know if that LB is capable of making plays or not before we make the pick. That's based on his production in college, his athletic ability, intelligence, personality traits, and adaptability. On his assigned 'player' grade. That's 'player' grade. Not 'position' grade. Still a chance he'll be a bust though. It happens.

 

You had nothing constructive to add in the first place.

 

Sorry, Mr. Lenin.

 

You loudly and confidently expressed disagreement with my opinion, without stating logical reasons why. You gave no indication that you'd thought deeply about anything which was being discussed. Instead you cavalierly and arrogantly dismissed what I'd written, as in the below example.

 

Confidently, yes. Not sure I was being loud though. Whether you think I was being logical or not, that's up to you. I considered my responses, which are based on nearly 40 years of experience. These are issues I've worked with long before they became media events for draftniks. My confidence is based on my direct experience. I've tried to explain that player ratings are not based on position. They are based on the separate criteria each position requires in order to accurately grade that player. Nobody gets bonus points because they play a more premium position. Still, it's not an exact science. It literally starts with an observer holding a pad and a pencil and making subjective judgements.

 

> I'm calling you arrogant for suggesting that your calculations, based on a

> completely arbitrary set of numbers, can even remotely predict the career

> trajectory of a player entering the draft.

 

Instead of entering into a constructive discussion about how my formula might be modified to better represent a player's long term contribution to the team, you simply dismissed it. Thinking about how to improve a formula takes work. Negatively labeling someone who disagrees with you is easy. Given a choice between contributing something useful to the discussion on the one hand, or negatively labeling those who disagreed with you on the other, you did not hesitate.

 

How can I add anything to your formula? I don't think it's valid to begin with. That's not to say others would feel the same way. I previously encouraged you to send it out. See what happens. At the very least, start a draftnik site.

 

Previously, I asked just what data sets do you think are currently missing that are preventing NFL teams from making the best guesses they can at the time they have to make them?

 

 

> "Do us ALL a favor?" Don't you mean just you?

 

No, I mean everyone. No one benefits when people employ the persuasive techniques you've adopted. Even if you're right--which you're not--but even if you were, no one here is going to learn much of anything new if your only contribution to a discussion is a dogmatic insistence on your own perspective, coupled with one or two extremely shallow arguments in support, and plenty of attacks on those who disagree.

 

I find this highly hypocritical. Calling you arrogant is an attack? I didn't take it that way when you were the first to use the word in the thread. I think you also said I was 'annoying' in addition to being arrogant. Perhaps I'm lazy with the language but when someone can take four highly rated prospects, assign a tiered positional grade, apply a formula comprised of arbitrary numbers and then predict expected career results in 20 minutes when I KNOW it takes thousands and thousands of man-hours to compile data, run tests, interviews, etc. and STILL have a fair chance of being wrong, what word, other than arrogant, applies? Seriously. I don't know what other word that applies.

 

 

> Or can you speak for everyone on the board?

 

Of course not! On the other hand, I haven't heard anyone say, "We need to start replacing logical, football-related discussions with petty personal squabbles." Until people start endorsing the techniques you use, don't consider those techniques endorsed.

 

Again, more hypocrisy. The minute I rejected your formula on it's merits, you decided to make this a 'personal squabble.' You chose to ignore my insight into how players are ranked and the work that goes into it and decided to label my input "illogical." There is nothing illogical about assigning grades to players based on their ability to play their positions. That is how draft boards are constructed. Again, to put it in your terms, that is how tier-4 players are often better than tier-1 players. You reject the idea that this is how it's done around the league. Well it is. Can he play the position? Is he a FOOTBALL player. Can he help our team? Is there a reasonable chance he'll be there when we select? That is all personnel people care about. You implying that I'm lying about that isn't going to change it.

 

I'll wait for the answer to my question: just what data sets do you think are currently missing that are preventing NFL teams from making the best guesses they can at the time they have to make them?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Ramius]

That's the kind of logic which causes the Bills to take a first round RB every 3.5 years.

 

Aaron Maybin was a one year wonder. The lesson to be learned there is that you don't take a 220 lb DE at 11th overall on the basis of one good year.

 

Steve Hutchinson is better than Mike Williams. And according to you, Aaron Maybin should always be drafted because he playes a premium position, regardless how much better other players may be than him. You're the one who insists that position is the most important criteria for drafting players, and not actual talent.

 

The Bills haven't drafted a RB every 3 years because of BPA. (Spiller was the only BPA) They continually draft RBs because they decide to continually get rid of their current RB.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Ramius

[Cash]

Valuing position over absolute ability gives you draft picks such as Aaron Maybin. All things being equal, then you take the LT, DE, etc. But since all things are NOT equal, you take the best football player on the board.

The Maybin fiasco had nothing to do with draft strategy or positional value and everything to do with poor scouting. The best pick for the Bills would have been Brian Orakpo, who played the same position as Maybin.

 

Steve Hutchinson is better than Mike Williams. And according to you, Aaron Maybin should always be drafted because he playes a premium position, regardless how much better other players may be than him. You're the one who insists that position is the most important criteria for drafting players, and not actual talent.

 

The Bills haven't drafted a RB every 3 years because of BPA. (Spiller was the only BPA) They continually draft RBs because they decide to continually get rid of their current RB.

JPP was BPA, not Spiller. Drafting the best player available doesn't have to mean drafting a guy who specifically plays a position you don't need. And drafting for need doesn't have to mean drafting a guy who can't play.

 

But that's neither here nor there. I feel like the last page or so of this thread has devolved into a typical internet flame argument, with both sides beating up their respective strawmen. Obviously you want to draft good players and not busts, but it's very hard in advance to tell which will be which. (Especially for us fans, who only have very limited scouting access.) And obviously some positions are more important than others, so you'd always take a Pro Bowl QB over a Pro Bowler at any other position. But the question is, how much should positional value be weighed at the top of the draft? In other words, if you're a GM, and you are confident that two players at different positions will both develop into really good pros, which one should you take?

 

One of the frequently-used examples for this debate is the 2008 draft. Most people would agree that Jake Long is a better LT than Matt Ryan is a QB. (Long has made the Pro Bowl all 4 years of his career, and was 2nd team All-Pro in 2009 and 1st team All-Pro in 2010. Most experts consider Long and Joe Thomas the clear top 2 OTs in the NFL. On the other hand, Ryan has made 1 Pro Bowl in 2010, and you'd be hard-pressed to find any NFL analyst who considers him a top 5 QB. Most probably have him as a borderline top 10 QB. Above average, but not great.) So the question is, which are you better off with? I say Matt Ryan, and I don't think it's close.

 

This is why I generally tend to favor drafting money positions in the first round. YES OBVIOUSLY IT IS BETTER TO TAKE A PRO BOWL LB OR S THAN A BUST QB OR LT. Duh. But I don't know who will be a Pro Bowler and who will be a bust. So I tend to prefer guys that, if they pan out, will provide the maximum benefit to the team. Kuechly could easily become a really good player, but just another AJ Hawk. Whitner was and is a good NFL starter at S. But if Mark Barron became another Whitner, that's pretty disappointing at #10 overall. Trent Richardson might have a really strong 5-year career. On the other hand, if we draft a WR, or an LT, or a CB, and he develops into a player who's good but not great, that will help our team a lot more than a S or LB or RB or OG who turns out to be good but not great.

[Cynical]

Again, if it's a choice between a top-15 LT and a Pro Bowl OG, you take the LT. The fact that you flat-out disagree with this causes me to know--not just think, but know--that you're not speaking for NFL GMs. Most teams aren't run the way you say they're run. Over the last decade, many more LTs have been taken in the top-10 of the draft than OGs. Many more QBs have been taken in the top 5 than non-pass rushing LBs. NFL GMs are taking position value into account.

 

And you can provide some sort of proof for this?

You are trying to tell us they are not, you are wrong, and the NFL draft history proves you are wrong.

 

Actually, draft history in of itself says no such thing. Your interpretation may say that, but draft history, like any other stat, is just a record of what was done. There is nothing in the draft history that says why.

In order to understand why, you would need to look at each pick, attempt to understand the rationale of why the pick happened.

A logical reason more QB's have been picked in the top 5 than non-pass rushing LBs may have more to do with the fact finding a competent NFL QB is far harder than finding a competent non-passing LB.

[Orton's Arm]

The Maybin fiasco had nothing to do with draft strategy or positional value and everything to do with poor scouting. The best pick for the Bills would have been Brian Orakpo, who played the same position as Maybin.

 

 

JPP was BPA, not Spiller. Drafting the best player available doesn't have to mean drafting a guy who specifically plays a position you don't need. And drafting for need doesn't have to mean drafting a guy who can't play.

 

But that's neither here nor there. I feel like the last page or so of this thread has devolved into a typical internet flame argument, with both sides beating up their respective strawmen. Obviously you want to draft good players and not busts, but it's very hard in advance to tell which will be which. (Especially for us fans, who only have very limited scouting access.) And obviously some positions are more important than others, so you'd always take a Pro Bowl QB over a Pro Bowler at any other position. But the question is, how much should positional value be weighed at the top of the draft? In other words, if you're a GM, and you are confident that two players at different positions will both develop into really good pros, which one should you take?

 

One of the frequently-used examples for this debate is the 2008 draft. Most people would agree that Jake Long is a better LT than Matt Ryan is a QB. (Long has made the Pro Bowl all 4 years of his career, and was 2nd team All-Pro in 2009 and 1st team All-Pro in 2010. Most experts consider Long and Joe Thomas the clear top 2 OTs in the NFL. On the other hand, Ryan has made 1 Pro Bowl in 2010, and you'd be hard-pressed to find any NFL analyst who considers him a top 5 QB. Most probably have him as a borderline top 10 QB. Above average, but not great.) So the question is, which are you better off with? I say Matt Ryan, and I don't think it's close.

 

This is why I generally tend to favor drafting money positions in the first round. YES OBVIOUSLY IT IS BETTER TO TAKE A PRO BOWL LB OR S THAN A BUST QB OR LT. Duh. But I don't know who will be a Pro Bowler and who will be a bust. So I tend to prefer guys that, if they pan out, will provide the maximum benefit to the team. Kuechly could easily become a really good player, but just another AJ Hawk. Whitner was and is a good NFL starter at S. But if Mark Barron became another Whitner, that's pretty disappointing at #10 overall. Trent Richardson might have a really strong 5-year career. On the other hand, if we draft a WR, or an LT, or a CB, and he develops into a player who's good but not great, that will help our team a lot more than a S or LB or RB or OG who turns out to be good but not great.

Good post. I sense you're not feeling as frustrated with this discussion as I've become, which may be why you've expressed yourself better than I would have had I addressed the points you've made.

 

Instead, I'll take this opportunity to step back, and address a few of the points which have been made.

 

Regarding Cutler, I wanted him before the 2006 draft--so much so that The Dean began derisively referring to me as Cutler's Arm. Regarding Losman, I was unhappy with the pick from the beginning, because I felt he hadn't demonstrated himself to be a good, polished pocket passer at the college level. I felt a first round pick was used on him because of his physical gifts. I would never use a first or second round pick on a QB with that as a primary basis.

 

K-9 has repeatedly asked me what data sets NFL teams lack, that they would need to make optimal decisions. I don't know why he's asking this. He already knows that I have no inside knowledge of front offices' workings. How can I know what data sets they do or don't lack?

 

In answer to Cynical's post, the fact that QBs and LTs are far more likely to be taken in the top 5 or top ten than are interior OL or non-pass-rushing LBs proves only that NFL teams are more likely to draft players at some positions (the ones I've labeled tier 1 and tier 2) than they are at positions I've labeled tier 4. If a good QB or RDE is harder to find than a good OG, it may be because the good QB or RDE is far more valuable than the good OG. Initial fan attempts to quantify that difference will be subjective (not arbitrary), and a well run front office should seek more sophisticated measurements of the relative values of positions. (The alternative is to assume that, because relative position values cannot be exactly measured, they should be ignored and labeled "arbitrary.")

 

Some in this thread have made inaccurate statements about my formula. To resolve the resulting confusion, it may be better to explain its intended meaning with words.

 

1. If you have a pick in the top-15 of the draft, your best bet is to see if there's at least one player from a premium or close-to-premium position with whom you feel comfortable. If there is, you should probably take that player, even if there's a player at a non-premium position who has a moderately higher player grade. In this draft, for example, I feel the Bills should be looking closely at the available LTs, WRs, CBs, and QBs, to see if there's someone from those categories with whom they feel comfortable.

 

2. If you know that a player isn't going to be with your team for a long period of time, either because his position is associated with a short career, or because your team has adopted a policy of allowing first round CBs to go first-contract-and-out, then you devalue his position accordingly. If a successful CB is expected to remain with your team half as long as a successful LT, then you multiply the CB's value by 0.5 when comparing him to the LT.

 

3. The purpose of the first two steps isn't to tell you which specific player you should take. The purpose of those steps is to allow you to focus on a relatively small subset of players. If three or four guys have roughly similar values according to the formula, it's okay to choose from among the three or four based on need and on your overall strategy for building the team. It's also okay to incorporate a gut level "feel" for whether a player will be successful.

 

The Bills have shown us why the first two steps are necessary. Over the last 40 years, they've used 25% of their first picks of the draft on RBs, and another 25% on DBs. 0% - 3.8% have been used on QBs (depending on how you want to do the counting), and 5% have been used on OTs. A team which jumped straight to step 3 would be liable to make these kinds of mistakes. The formula is largely a response to these errors in drafting. It's intended to stop teams from ignoring premium positions to focus on RBs (as the Bills have traditionally done). It also states that if you're going to let your best DBs go first-contract-and-out, then you don't take a DB in the first round.

[Ramius]

The Maybin fiasco had nothing to do with draft strategy or positional value and everything to do with poor scouting. The best pick for the Bills would have been Brian Orakpo, who played the same position as Maybin.

 

 

JPP was BPA, not Spiller. Drafting the best player available doesn't have to mean drafting a guy who specifically plays a position you don't need. And drafting for need doesn't have to mean drafting a guy who can't play.

 

 

Claiming JPP was the BPA is nothing more than disingenuous hindsight at its finest. Spiller was one of the top talents in the 2010 draft. JPP on the other hand, was a one-year wonder from a low class (football wise) school in a bad conference. He was far from the clear cut BPA, even when the Giants picked him. Yes, he has worked out greatly for them, but that doesn't change how he was viewed coming out of college.

[BobChalmers]

It really is no more complicated than this. Regardless of all the 'moneyball' metrics that people want to throw at it to make the point. NFL personnel people do not assemble their boards in association with the terms 'value' and 'reach'. Nor do they 'tier' the positions in order of 'importance'.

 

Players will rise and fall, make it or bust. And NONE of that will have depended on his 'value', position, or round selected.

 

 

You seemingly haven't been reading - it's true the individual results for mone player don't depend much on what round he was drafted - but the total resutls for the TEAM depend greatly on how smart they are about what round they use to select each player!!! The draft is NOT about picking one guy!!

 

"Reaching" means taking a guy before you have to to get him, and it hurts your team, period.

 

---

 

 

So the proof that good front offices really DO think in terms of when to take a player relative to their "reachednesss" was on one of NFLN's "Top 10" shows that re-ran this morning.

 

The NFL's top draft class (for a team) was rated as the Steelers' '74 draft.

 

Central in the dynamic of that amazing draft that netted the Steelers 4 HoF's in a single rookie group, was the scouts talking Art Rooney out of taking John Stallworth in the first round. Incredibly, they took a different player at the same position - WR Lynn Swann over Stallworth - NOT because they thought Swann was better, but because they knew they had better intel on Stallworth than any other team in the league, and they knew he wouldn't go early.

 

They actually believed Stallworth was the better prospect - but they took Swann in the 1st and Stallworth in the 4th round because they knew Swann from USC would go earlier than Stallworth from Savannah State.

 

It's the perfect example, and folks, it's not hypothetical, it really happened and it's really the difference between the Steelers drafting 2 HoF WR's instead of "only" 1 HoF WR.

 

Steelers' '74: QED

Edited April 22, 2012 by BobChalmers

[K-9]

You seemingly haven't been reading - it's true the individual results for mone player don't depend much on what round he was drafted - but the total resutls for the TEAM depend greatly on how smart they are about what round they use to select each player!!! The draft is NOT about picking one guy!!

"Reaching" means taking a guy before you have to to get him, and it hurts your team, period.

 

---

 

 

So the proof that good front offices really DO think in terms of when to take a player relative to their "reachednesss" was on one of NFLN's "Top 10" shows that re-ran this morning.

 

The NFL's top draft class (for a team) was rated as the Steelers' '74 draft.

 

Central in the dynamic of that amazing draft that netted the Steelers 4 HoF's in a single rookie group, was the scouts talking Art Rooney out of taking John Stallworth in the first round. Incredibly, they took a different player at the same position - WR Lynn Swann over Stallworth - NOT because they thought Swann was better, but because they knew they had better intel on Stallworth than any other team in the league, and they knew he wouldn't go early.

 

They actually believed Stallworth was the better prospect - but they took Swann in the 1st and Stallworth in the 4th round because they knew Swann from USC would go earlier than Stallworth from Savannah State.

 

It's the perfect example, and folks, it's not hypothetical, it really happened and it's really the difference between the Steelers drafting 2 HoF WR's instead of "only" 1 HoF WR.

 

Steelers' '74: QED

 

I don't disagree at all. And I don't think I implied that anywhere. Being smart about selecting players is the most critical aspect of any draft. I would even argue that you have to be smarter in each successive round. Precisely BECAUSE the draft isn't about picking one guy. But that's another argument. My point about a player being a bust (the part of my text you put in bold) is that it doesn't have anything to do with what round he is taken. Obviously a first round bust carries more of a stigma than a seventh round bust, but in both cases we are ultimately talking about a player's relative ability to succeed in the NFL or not. All those thousands of man-hours devoted to making the best informed decision you can make is no guarantee one way or the other.

 

In my experience, the term 'reach' has always been associated with taking a less talented player at a position of need rather than a better football player at a position of less perceived need. "Reach for need" has been part of the parlance for generations. If there is agreement in the draft room that you want a certain player for whatever various reasons there may be to want him, then it doesn't matter if you take that player in a slot higher than the 'outside' conventional wisdom at the time suggests. It matters a LOT to the multi-million dollar industry that the NFL draft has become but very little inside front offices. It's just not a term that's used like all the draftniks use it.

 

The 74 Steelers' draft is a good example of a great FO doing their homework. They wouldn't have 'reached' for Stallworth if they took him instead of Swann in the first round, either, as it turned out. "As it turned out." Past tense and hindsight. Nobody has that luxury BEFORE a selection is made. It also helps to get lucky. Seriously, how many times has one team's rookie class produced four HOFers? Those Steelers are the exception that never proves the rule.

 

GO BILLS!!!