A positional value chart...to apply to the draft evals

[BADOLBILZ]

I put together what I think is a fair positional value chart below(scale of 1 to 10) as it relates to the modern NFL.

 

Obviously, the main point is that the value of a QB is more than twice as much as any other position........10 to 4 is probably even too small of a spread....but that's just part of it.

 

Any BPA chart for the draft without assigning a value to the impact of their position is counterproductive, IMO.

 

I think the values I have assigned address what teams need to build quality rosters/teams in the modern NFL.

 

One of my issues with the Bills drafting in the first "decade of fail" was their tendency to select players early in the draft at positions that they OBVIOUSLY did not value. Safety, OG, RB and CB(prior to the 2010 rules changes) specifically.

 

If you haven't replaced them....and have plenty of cap room........ but still aren't willing to pay that player their market value when they reach free agency....... then it was a bad pick from the outset.

 

Additionally, when determining a players value their direct impact on the passing game is the most critical aspect of the modern NFL.

 

Which is why I tend to dismiss the idea of picking a DL in round one whose scouting report starts with "excellent run defender".

 

Translation: butterface.

 

Don't get Courtney Upshaw'd because you are indecisive about positional value.......you can stop the run on the way to the QB and if not, you can find a NT anywhere in the draft.

 

Obviously there are exceptions to positional definitions.......a guy like Myles Jack is so versatile and talented that his 3 down LB rating of 2.2 can also have slot corner and safety value added in making him an elite value prospect.

 

But that is a rare exception.

 

 

 

1) Quarterback 10

 

 

2) Pass Rusher 4

3) Passing game offensive playmaker (WR or elite TE) 3

4) Left Tackle 2.9

5) Cornerback 2.9

6) 4-3 DT 2.6

7) 3 down LB 2.2

8) Right Tackle 2

9) Center 1.5

10) Guard 1.4

10) Slot corner 1.4

10) Slot receiver 1.4

11) Safety 1.0

11) 3-4 NT 1.0

11) RB 1.0

13) 2 down LB 0.5

14) blocking TE/FB 0.3

15) Kicker 0.2

16) Punter 0.1

16) Long snapper 0.1

[thebandit27]

I would probably put an elite CB as a 4.5, as he presents the ability to take at least 1/3 of the field away from the QB.

 

I also think that positional value depends upon the scheme fit, and of course can vary from player to player.

 

Myles Jack, for me, grades out to at least a 6 on your scale because of how much he allows the rest of the defense to do. Kuechly, although not the same level of athlete, would be another example.

[GunnerBill]

I put together what I think is a fair positional value chart below(scale of 1 to 10) as it relates to the modern NFL.

 

Obviously, the main point is that the value of a QB is more than twice as much as any other position........10 to 4 is probably even too small of a spread....but that's just part of it.

 

Any BPA chart for the draft without assigning a value to the impact of their position is counterproductive, IMO.

 

I think the values I have assigned address what teams need to build quality rosters/teams in the modern NFL.

 

One of my issues with the Bills drafting in the first "decade of fail" was their tendency to select players early in the draft at positions that they OBVIOUSLY did not value. Safety, OG, RB and CB(prior to the 2010 rules changes) specifically.

 

If you haven't replaced them....and have plenty of cap room........ but still aren't willing to pay that player their market value when they reach free agency....... then it was a bad pick from the outset.

 

Additionally, when determining a players value their direct impact on the passing game is the most critical aspect of the modern NFL.

 

Which is why I tend to dismiss the idea of picking a DL in round one whose scouting report starts with "excellent run defender".

 

Translation: butterface.

 

Don't get Courtney Upshaw'd because you are indecisive about positional value.......you can stop the run on the way to the QB and if not, you can find a NT anywhere in the draft.

 

Obviously there are exceptions to positional definitions.......a guy like Myles Jack is so versatile and talented that his 3 down LB rating of 2.2 can also have slot corner and safety value added in making him an elite value prospect.

 

But that is a rare exception.

 

 

 

1) Quarterback 10

 

 

2) Pass Rusher 4

3) Passing game offensive playmaker (WR or elite TE) 3

4) Left Tackle 2.9

5) Cornerback 2.9

6) 4-3 DT 2.6

7) 3 down LB 2.2

8) Right Tackle 2

9) Center 1.5

10) Guard 1.4

10) Slot corner 1.4

10) Slot receiver 1.4

11) Safety 1.0

11) 3-4 NT 1.0

11) RB 1.0

13) 2 down LB 0.5

14) blocking TE/FB 0.3

15) Kicker 0.2

16) Punter 0.1

16) Long snapper 0.1

 

I do think 10-4 is too great of a gap I'd bump every other position 2 through 9 up 1.5 in all honesty and personally I think the order goes

 

QB

CB

Rusher

LT

[BADOLBILZ]

I would probably put an elite CB as a 4.5, as he presents the ability to take at least 1/3 of the field away from the QB.

 

I also think that positional value depends upon the scheme fit, and of course can vary from player to player.

 

Myles Jack, for me, grades out to at least a 6 on your scale because of how much he allows the rest of the defense to do. Kuechly, although not the same level of athlete, would be another example.

 

 

I don't think any position gets any higher than a 4 relative to a QB at 10.

 

The positional analysis is just something that I think needs to be heavily weighted after the overall assessment of how players stack up regardless of position.

 

I like to point to LaDanian Tomlinson versus Drew Brees as a good way to judge positional value.

 

LT was clearly the more sure-thing in that SD draft and he had a HOF career........but Drew Brees is going to have a HOF career and play effectively twice as long.

 

The difference in value of a QB as opposed to other positions goes way beyond just the week-to-week "now" impact.

 

That career longevity outlook is a very underrated aspect of positional analysis.

 

I think a LB like Jack could go on to have a really long career, but in general starters at that position are analysts on TV while the QB's of the same vintage are getting contract extensions.

 

I do think 10-4 is too great of a gap I'd bump every other position 2 through 9 up 1.5 in all honesty and personally I think the order goes

 

QB

CB

Rusher

LT

 

 

Yeah CB has grown in importance immensely since the NFL essentially disallowed hitting of QB's and WR's.

 

In the Bills system CB is definitely the most important position........which is why I think it's still their top need on D in terms of adding a high quality player.

 

I explained my take on QB to Bandit though........potential organizational impact is just so much greater with a QB that I can't see any other position player being worth even half as much to an organization.....and that's really how I evaluate the value of positions.....overall, organizational impact.

[PlayoffsPlease]

I put together what I think is a fair positional value chart below(scale of 1 to 10) as it relates to the modern NFL.

 

Obviously, the main point is that the value of a QB is more than twice as much as any other position........10 to 4 is probably even too small of a spread....but that's just part of it.

 

Any BPA chart for the draft without assigning a value to the impact of their position is counterproductive, IMO.

 

I think the values I have assigned address what teams need to build quality rosters/teams in the modern NFL.

 

One of my issues with the Bills drafting in the first "decade of fail" was their tendency to select players early in the draft at positions that they OBVIOUSLY did not value. Safety, OG, RB and CB(prior to the 2010 rules changes) specifically.

 

If you haven't replaced them....and have plenty of cap room........ but still aren't willing to pay that player their market value when they reach free agency....... then it was a bad pick from the outset.

 

Additionally, when determining a players value their direct impact on the passing game is the most critical aspect of the modern NFL.

 

Which is why I tend to dismiss the idea of picking a DL in round one whose scouting report starts with "excellent run defender".

 

Translation: butterface.

 

Don't get Courtney Upshaw'd because you are indecisive about positional value.......you can stop the run on the way to the QB and if not, you can find a NT anywhere in the draft.

 

Obviously there are exceptions to positional definitions.......a guy like Myles Jack is so versatile and talented that his 3 down LB rating of 2.2 can also have slot corner and safety value added in making him an elite value prospect.

 

But that is a rare exception.

 

 

 

1) Quarterback 10

 

 

2) Pass Rusher 4

3) Passing game offensive playmaker (WR or elite TE) 3

4) Left Tackle 2.9

5) Cornerback 2.9

6) 4-3 DT 2.6

7) 3 down LB 2.2

8) Right Tackle 2

9) Center 1.5

10) Guard 1.4

10) Slot corner 1.4

10) Slot receiver 1.4

11) Safety 1.0

11) 3-4 NT 1.0

11) RB 1.0

13) 2 down LB 0.5

14) blocking TE/FB 0.3

15) Kicker 0.2

16) Punter 0.1

16) Long snapper 0.1

Conceptually I agree that positional value needs to be factored in as part of determining BPA.

 

But your value concept is missing a big point You also need to factor in an "Expected Value" of success for each position. For example if 1 in 30 second round drafted QBs becomes a quality NFL starter, and 5 out 10 of second round safeties drafted become quality NFL starters, you would need to factor that into the equation as well.

[Dorkington]

I'd rank pass rushers and pass coverage as really high, myself.

[BADOLBILZ]

Conceptually I agree that positional value needs to be factored in as part of determining BPA.

 

But your value concept is missing a big point You also need to factor in an "Expected Value" of success for each position. For example if 1 in 30 second round drafted QBs becomes a quality NFL starter, and 5 out 10 of second round safeties drafted become quality NFL starters, you would need to factor that into the equation as well.

 

 

I don't think you can moneyball players by draft position to that extent because this years #1 WR might be the #10 WR in a better class....and perhaps be drafted multiple rounds later..........and I think that is generally accepted to be truth because when a scout says "first round grade" it generally means their actual talent, not how they rank versus their own class.

 

I get the point though........because first round QB's have a high bust rate versus other positions..........but I feel that is actually considered in their 10 value.

 

Because it's been proven that an elite QB....that one player........can be the difference between contending for a SB and otherwise possibly being the worst team in the NFL in the same season.

 

If the bust factor wasn't part of the equation.....how do you figure the difference in that kind of value versus any other position? 20 to 1? 50 to 1?

[GunnerBill]

I know we disagree on the extent to which a Quarterback solves all ills Badol and we have before. It is the most important position on the field no doubt, but I think you need other great players to be successful and genuinely contend for Championships as well as your QB. It is shown every year in the NFL. Take the second half of this season.... missing half his line and his #1 receiver and having basically no production out of his running backs Aaron Rodgers looked positively human and after a 6-0 start the Pack stuttered down the stretch.

 

I would respectfully suggest you have already come to your conclusion before constructing this post - you think a team without a franchise QB should spend their first round pick on one every year. If teams applied your positional weights that would lead them to that conclusion.

 

I happen to agree with your general premise that first round picks are for impact guys at those cornerstone positions who (so long as they don't flame out) you are willing to commit a 2nd contract to. If there isn't a QB you think can be elite there at your pick and there someone you think can be elite at one of those other key positions you should, in my view take the other guy. In a spot like the Bills this year if there is nobody who fits that mould there at #19 and they want to reach for a QB I'd be ok with that, alternatively they should take the best player on their draft board.

[mannc]

 

Great post and a great list. I might put interior d-linemen ahead of CB, because really good ones can seriously disrupt an offense, in the running and the passing game. Jurrell Casey of the Titans comes to mind, and MD at his best. IMO, good corners are easier to find and don't impact a game in the same way. I also might rank playmaking receivers even with or higher than pass-rushers, because they open things up for the entire offense. Look how hopeless the Bills' offense was this year when Watkins was out.

[Coach Tuesday]

Not totally related but kinda, I'm growing convinced/terrified that Whaley is going to try to deal next year's #1 for Miles Jack.

 

Jack is a great player - but next year we may very well need that first round pick for a QB, as your chart indicates.

[PlayoffsPlease]

 

 

I don't think you can moneyball players by draft position to that extent because this years #1 WR might be the #10 WR in a better class....and perhaps be drafted multiple rounds later..........and I think that is generally accepted to be truth because when a scout says "first round grade" it generally means their actual talent, not how they rank versus their own class.

 

I get the point though........because first round QB's have a high bust rate versus other positions..........but I feel that is actually considered in their 10 value.

 

Because it's been proven that an elite QB....that one player........can be the difference between contending for a SB and otherwise possibly being the worst team in the NFL in the same season.

 

If the bust factor wasn't part of the equation.....how do you figure the difference in that kind of value versus any other position? 20 to 1? 50 to 1?

 

How do you rank Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford and Philip Rivers vs. all other positions? They are all consider franchise QBs and they haven't been bringing home a lot of championships.

 

I think if you are getting Tom Brady or Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers at the beginning of their careers I think 100-1 is a fine ratio. I would draft a QB every year (and maybe two like the Redskins did),. But it is more akin to trying to win the lottery than to be an intelligent investment with an expected positive ROI. As a way of analogy, my best chance of ending up with $100mm is to win the power ball lottery, because I don't really think there is any other way. But I also know that its negative return on investment overall to buy lottery tickets. .

[BADOLBILZ]

I know we disagree on the extent to which a Quarterback solves all ills Badol and we have before. It is the most important position on the field no doubt, but I think you need other great players to be successful and genuinely contend for Championships as well as your QB. It is shown every year in the NFL. Take the second half of this season.... missing half his line and his #1 receiver and having basically no production out of his running backs Aaron Rodgers looked positively human and after a 6-0 start the Pack stuttered down the stretch.

 

I would respectfully suggest you have already come to your conclusion before constructing this post - you think a team without a franchise QB should spend their first round pick on one every year. If teams applied your positional weights that would lead them to that conclusion.

 

I happen to agree with your general premise that first round picks are for impact guys at those cornerstone positions who (so long as they don't flame out) you are willing to commit a 2nd contract to. If there isn't a QB you think can be elite there at your pick and there someone you think can be elite at one of those other key positions you should, in my view take the other guy. In a spot like the Bills this year if there is nobody who fits that mould there at #19 and they want to reach for a QB I'd be ok with that, alternatively they should take the best player on their draft board.

 

A franchise QB certainly doesn't solve all ills but it gives you an enormous window with which to build a team.......and that time is invaluable.

 

It can be a double edged sword for that QB and the fanbase as well..........you mentioned Rodgers......the Packers have taken the presence of a franchise QB for granted because they've had one for the last 20+ years.

 

They've left him short handed by not filling needs in free agency.....and he is right for taking a stand about it.

 

I think the same can be said for how the Patriots have treated their roster........they've been routinely 1-2 healthy players short for 10 of the past 11 years......a RIDICULOUS window of opportunity........and they are one Marshawn Lynch carry away for that being 0-11.

 

The Eagles did the same with Donovan McNabb and eventually their window closed.

 

Sometimes QB's become the crutch that supports lazy/thrifty management.

 

But I will take a 10-15 year window every time.

[BADOLBILZ]

Not totally related but kinda, I'm growing convinced/terrified that Whaley is going to try to deal next year's #1 for Miles Jack.

 

Jack is a great player - but next year we may very well need that first round pick for a QB, as your chart indicates.

 

I do see Myles Jack as a Sammy Watkins-type talent on defense.

 

Watkins was probably the most dominant big school freshman WR ever.

 

Jack was equally amazing.....but more because of his ability to do everything.

 

I think that is cool at the college level........but it will play much more valuable at the NFL level.

 

If he falls far enough to trade their #1 and #2 for him that would be OK with me.

 

I think your concern is justified though........there is a lot of pressure to win now and Jack is the kind of player who can come in and possibly be a big impact player in year one.

[BADOLBILZ]

 

How do you rank Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford and Philip Rivers vs. all other positions? They are all consider franchise QBs and they haven't been bringing home a lot of championships.

 

I think if you are getting Tom Brady or Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers at the beginning of their careers I think 100-1 is a fine ratio. I would draft a QB every year (and maybe two like the Redskins did),. But it is more akin to trying to win the lottery than to be an intelligent investment with an expected positive ROI. As a way of analogy, my best chance of ending up with $100mm is to win the power ball lottery, because I don't really think there is any other way. But I also know that its negative return on investment overall to buy lottery tickets. .

 

 

The Falcons window with Matt Ryan is larger than the likely CAREER of the guy they end up drafting in the first round this year.

 

The Chargers aren't considered a serious contender to draft a QB despite the fact that Rivers is in his mid-30's..........because they think he will play well for another 5 years.

 

Stafford........he's an enigma.....like Jay Cutler. They aren't franchise QB's but they do have enough skill that those teams find it hard to replace him.

 

I think the odds are a whole lot more favorable than the lottery though.

 

If the Bills had simply taken the first QB that was selected AFTER their original draft position during the decade of fail....... from 2000-2010.......they would have ended up with Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers and Joe Flacco.

 

All Lombardi trophy winning, franchise QB's.

 

They'd have had 7 duds in between....but those odds aren't actually much of a sacrifice.

 

It's just hard for personnel people that are on a short leash........and fans who want to play fill the blanks on the depth chart....to be patient.

 

That's why it has to be an organizational directive from ownership.

[BADOLBILZ]

Great post and a great list. I might put interior d-linemen ahead of CB, because really good ones can seriously disrupt an offense, in the running and the passing game. Jurrell Casey of the Titans comes to mind, and MD at his best. IMO, good corners are easier to find and don't impact a game in the same way. I also might rank playmaking receivers even with or higher than pass-rushers, because they open things up for the entire offense. Look how hopeless the Bills' offense was this year when Watkins was out.

 

I put a DT like Dareus who can be a double digit sack guy in the pass rusher category.

 

A typical 4-3 DT........good versus the run and the pass but not a great finisher as a pass rusher.......I value less.

 

I do put impact CB below an impact WR.......because the top priority of any organization should be maximizing QB play........but if you don't have a good QB you can't use a good WR........a good pass rusher always gets to rush the passer and the second priority of any organization should be to disrupt the opposing QB.

[mannc]

 

I put a DT like Dareus who can be a double digit sack guy in the pass rusher category.

 

A typical 4-3 DT........good versus the run and the pass but not a great finisher as a pass rusher.......I value less.

 

I do put impact CB below an impact WR.......because the top priority of any organization should be maximizing QB play........but if you don't have a good QB you can't use a good WR........a good pass rusher always gets to rush the passer and the second priority of any organization should be to disrupt the opposing QB.

Great WRs make a big difference even when they don't have great QBs throwing them the ball--Josh Gordon, D'Andre Hopkins, Sammy, AJ Green and Steve Smith come to mind. And they make everyone around them better by forcing the defense to defend the whole field.

[GunnerBill]

If the Bills had simply taken the first QB that was selected AFTER their original draft position during the decade of fail....... from 2000-2010.......they would have ended up with Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers and Joe Flacco.

 

All Lombardi trophy winning, franchise QB's.

 

They'd have had 7 duds in between....

I just think you would have to draft exceptionally well rounds 2 through 5 to mitigate the risk that when your franchise guy arrives you are ao talent depleted that you set him up to fail.

 

Peyton Manning is likely Peyto Manning whenever and wherever he is drafted... but beyond him I don't think QBs are who they are... situation and circumstance ans coaching matters hugely for me. Drew Brees was not Drew Brees in San Diego for instance.

 

I don't think your preference for picking Quarterbacks is wrong and I don't think they should be valued 1 for 1 on talent against other positions I just think valuing them over twice as much and taking one in the first every or almost every year would set one who could be good up to fail when he arrives.

[Bill from NYC]

I put together what I think is a fair positional value chart below(scale of 1 to 10) as it relates to the modern NFL.

 

Obviously, the main point is that the value of a QB is more than twice as much as any other position........10 to 4 is probably even too small of a spread....but that's just part of it.

 

Any BPA chart for the draft without assigning a value to the impact of their position is counterproductive, IMO.

 

I think the values I have assigned address what teams need to build quality rosters/teams in the modern NFL.

 

One of my issues with the Bills drafting in the first "decade of fail" was their tendency to select players early in the draft at positions that they OBVIOUSLY did not value. Safety, OG, RB and CB(prior to the 2010 rules changes) specifically.

 

If you haven't replaced them....and have plenty of cap room........ but still aren't willing to pay that player their market value when they reach free agency....... then it was a bad pick from the outset.

 

Additionally, when determining a players value their direct impact on the passing game is the most critical aspect of the modern NFL.

 

Which is why I tend to dismiss the idea of picking a DL in round one whose scouting report starts with "excellent run defender".

 

Translation: butterface.

 

Don't get Courtney Upshaw'd because you are indecisive about positional value.......you can stop the run on the way to the QB and if not, you can find a NT anywhere in the draft.

 

Obviously there are exceptions to positional definitions.......a guy like Myles Jack is so versatile and talented that his 3 down LB rating of 2.2 can also have slot corner and safety value added in making him an elite value prospect.

 

But that is a rare exception.

 

 

 

1) Quarterback 10

 

 

2) Pass Rusher 4

3) Passing game offensive playmaker (WR or elite TE) 3

4) Left Tackle 2.9

5) Cornerback 2.9

6) 4-3 DT 2.6

7) 3 down LB 2.2

8) Right Tackle 2

9) Center 1.5

10) Guard 1.4

10) Slot corner 1.4

10) Slot receiver 1.4

11) Safety 1.0

11) 3-4 NT 1.0

11) RB 1.0

13) 2 down LB 0.5

14) blocking TE/FB 0.3

15) Kicker 0.2

16) Punter 0.1

16) Long snapper 0.1

Thanks for yet another great post.

 

I think that I would have placed a bit more importance on the kickers, but I guess that is just the old school talking.

 

I also have a question.....why has the LT position seemingly lessened in importance? Here are some guesses:

 

1) Pass rushers move around more and the RT is catching up in terms of being important.

2) The quality of LTs doesn't seem (to me) to be as high. I am not seeing an Orlando Pace, Walter Jones, or Ogden. In fact, I think players such as Brad Hopkins or Jumbo Elliot might be the best LTs in the league today.

3) Qbs are getting rid of the all faster?

 

Again, I don't disagree with your rankings but a LT used to mean MUCH more to a team. I lean quite frankly towards #2 above. When Pace was at his best, 99% of defenders couldn't do a thing with him. He pancaked defenders on pass plays and trampled them on running plays.

Am I missing something or have things dramatically changed at LT? If so, why?

[BADOLBILZ]

I agree after QB pass rusher is the next most important position.

 

The problem I have is we had 4 excellent pass rushers and yet they were all neutered by Rex and his defensive system.

 

How does this get fixed?

 

They are just going to have to do it Rex way.

 

Have corners who can totally lock down the areas outside of the hashes and then just flood the middle of the field with coverage and confuse QB's with blitzes to get pressure and force them to throw the ball away.

 

I don't like it but there is a potential upside...........if you don't need stud talent to stock a capable defense you can focus cap dollars on the offense.

 

At this point, I'm not expecting much immediate help from this draft.

 

The defense is complicated........so it's going to be a very tough transition for defenders.

 

And on offense I don't see a lot of players ready to step in and contribute in Roman's offense either.

 

The draft should always be about what is better for the organization long term.......but this year I think that's even more the case this time than some.

[BADOLBILZ]

Thanks for yet another great post.

 

I think that I would have placed a bit more importance on the kickers, but I guess that is just the old school talking.

 

I also have a question.....why has the LT position seemingly lessened in importance? Here are some guesses:

 

1) Pass rushers move around more and the RT is catching up in terms of being important.

2) The quality of LTs doesn't seem (to me) to be as high. I am not seeing an Orlando Pace, Walter Jones, or Ogden. In fact, I think players such as Brad Hopkins or Jumbo Elliot might be the best LTs in the league today.

3) Qbs are getting rid of the all faster?

 

Again, I don't disagree with your rankings but a LT used to mean MUCH more to a team. I lean quite frankly towards #2 above. When Pace was at his best, 99% of defenders couldn't do a thing with him. He pancaked defenders on pass plays and trampled them on running plays.

Am I missing something or have things dramatically changed at LT? If so, why?

 

Yeah I think it used to be that the best pass rusher always attacked from the blindside...........but then teams realized that it was much easier to get around right tackles and they started putting a lot of pass rushing talent on the front side to exploit the matchup.

 

A lot of those great rushers lining up against RT's aren't really the guys with great bend........they are power guys first......guys like Reggie White and later Strahan paved the way from the left side.

 

They would have done far less damage against the great LT's of the game. Mario is a modern example of this........Mario was a force but he lacked the flexibility and arsenal of moves of a truly great pass rush specialist.

 

i think some of what might have been LT talent in the past could be ending up on the DL and at TE now.

 

I mean........what kid really wants to play a position where they don't get to make plays or even have any stats?

Edited March 9, 2016 by #BADOL