Drafting for Value

[massraider]

One other thing, does anyone know of a site that ranks the players by average position taken in mock drafts?

Do a search for mock draft muncher.

 

[007]

http://www.theobr.com/public/mdm/

That should do the trick.

 

[Sleet]

Brick: I do think depth should be accounted for. And I don't have a problem making an adjustment (moving players up in value if there is less depth at his position, and down if there's a lot of depth at the position).

The questions is, when and how to make that adjustment. You look at depth in the draft, and make an adjustment upfront, as part of your formula determining a player's value. You then adjust that number further by factoring in a team's need -- comparing the two numbers to suggest value to a team.

My point is, depth might be a factor that should be broken out, too. While there might not be much depth in a particular draft class, there might not be much need in the league, as a whole, either, cancelling out the factor. I think, here, you are taking a snap shot (one draft class) and making an adjustment that doesn't reflect all the things relevant to depth (depth in league at position, changing offensive and defenses schemes, available FA to fill need, next year's class).

Thus, I would take depth of draft class out of the equation and adjust for it seperately, closer to the time of selection, which would enable me to consider other things, such as a run at a particular position, when having to make the call as to whether to draft a player lower in value, given the lack of depth at the position, and/or possible greater need at that position of other teams.

 

[Birdwell]

My draft rule is take the guy who you think is the most likely to stick in the NFL and play for your team at a high level for a long time. I would always take the player who has the least chance of being a bust. I would pass a risky guy with a high ceiling for a player who is safer at a position of less need.

Not a bad basic rule, BT, but does that apply in the sixth and seventh rounds as well? Guys down there better have a high ceiling, 'cause if they perform as graded (no bust), they are off the roster real fast.

 

[Raider Bill]

You take the highest ranked players when they come to your pick. You don't reach on Stanford Routt and John Bowie's because you have a need somewhere.

That type of conventional wisdom is what got us Napoleon Harris instead of Ed Reed.

We need a Linebacker!

You don't take safties that high!

 

[Raider Bill]

I used to have a connection with the Eagles orginization, who has since moved on to Baltimore... anyhow he wouldn't tell me a damn thing pre draft, but told me after the draft that they had Routt as a 2nd day guy.

Even if you disagree that he was a reach, it was easy to forsee that with the constant state of flux this organization is in, Andrew Walter was a waste of a first day pick that also could have been used on Tuck IIRC.

 

[Crossbones]

I would like to join in and throw Andrew Walter under the bus. FUCK that guy. I've never seen a player come onto the field and zap the team's energy like that clown. Talk about bad Karma. In case you missed it -- fuck Walter. Let me know go into the corner and hang my head.

 

[Birdwell]

I would like to join in and throw Andrew Walter under the bus. FUCK that guy. I've never seen a player come onto the field and zap the team's energy like that clown. Talk about bad Karma. In case you missed it -- fuck Walter. Let me know go into the corner and hang my head.

Au contraire, mon fraire.

I was at M&T Satdium when Walter came in after Brooks went out. Walter showed something that dayk, in a hostile stadium, with no running game. He may be a servicable QB some day, but not here. His speaking out against the Shell/Walsh fiasco is something that Brooks and Culpepper (too eager for a big paycheck elsewhere to seem like a malcontent) didn't have the balls to say. Bully for him.

Walter was a Norv guy, and Norv's gone. I would not be surprised if Walter ends up across the Bay, and does well. God bless him, he paid his dues.

 

[paranoidmoonduck]

Hmmm.

I really like the effort. I really do. The amount of effort put in is evident.

Two issues though. One is with your method and one is with the whole process. Let's start with the process you followed.

I appreciate that you took from sources not yourself as much as possible. But this ubiquitous term "value" is a tricky thing, and Scouts Inc. might not be the place to start. I know they place a numeric value on their prospects, but simplicity shouldn't replace accuracy. I agree with Sleet on the positional depth matter (although for a different reason). So long as you are calculating for individual teams, depth only plays a role in as much as the value distance between a players available at two picks (say, at #7 and #40), not with players that figure to be taken in between. It doesn't really matter that Aaron Curry is in a draft with Rey Maualuga, Brian Cushing, and Clay Matthews. If the only linebacker who figures to be a recommended value when the Raiders pick next is Clint Sintim, then that's all that really matters to Oakland (so long as we are disregarding trading up or down, which seems totally necessary, otherwise the variables might as well be infinite). There are a few other nitpicks, but they aren't very important in light of my other point.

Value is such a subjective term, assessing it in any sort of objective way, why an admirable desire, is totally pointless. Scouts Inc.'s opinion is one in a sea of opinions. Moreover, Scouts Inc.'s opinion has nothing to do with whichever team your using to judge value opportunity. If we had the Raiders big board (and I mean, BIG BOARD; like 100 players deep), then this would at least be consistently subjective in regards to Oakland. As it is, it's a mismash of opinion posing as objective analysis because it attaches digit values to players.

And even further than that, the whole idea is erased by the fact that this...

The higher the player’s grade, the better the chance that they produce at the next level, in theory anyway.

..simply isn't true by any measurement. The truth is that value is a term that is thrown around a lot before, on, and after draft day, but the idea of value is only asserted once the player has actually had a shot to establish himself on the NFL level. Value only reaches any sort of concreteness a good while after the fact (I'd say about 3 years is a decent bet). Not to suggest that some players slip down further than their talent warrants due simply to the way teams stacked up in the order and the needs or drafting habits of those teams, but you don't need a chart to recognize when that happens (considering it's only really of any note when the conventional value attained is drastically noticeable).

Like I said, I love the energy. But what you've done doesn't really say anything beyond the fact that your threw together a bunch of random assessments. the most important of which we can't value as "good" or "bad" at this time and place.

 

[brick]

My point is, depth might be a factor that should be broken out, too. While there might not be much depth in a particular draft class, there might not be much need in the league, as a whole, either, cancelling out the factor. I think, here, you are taking a snap shot (one draft class) and making an adjustment that doesn't reflect all the things relevant to depth (depth in league at position, changing offensive and defenses schemes, available FA to fill need, next year's class).

Thus, I would take depth of draft class out of the equation and adjust for it seperately, closer to the time of selection, which would enable me to consider other things, such as a run at a particular position, when having to make the call as to whether to draft a player lower in value, given the lack of depth at the position, and/or possible greater need at that position of other teams.

The league wide need does get factored into the Adjusted NFL value with the multiplier based on the Franchise Tag number and adjusted for available FA's. And that does cancel out lack of depth at possitions like FB, where the league has devalued the possition, while boosting the value of QB's (which matches what happens in the draft).

Now there is an inherent flaw in the multiplier based on Franchise tag number, as, for example, the Franchise tag lumps all offensive lineman together, so I had to make some judgement calls for OT, G and C. Then you add that LT's are more valued by the league that RT's, and there is a hole there. But I haven't claimed that this is a finished product.

To your 2nd point, this is intended to be a tool used in conjunction with mock drafts in the weeks leading up to the drafts, where you can look at how a run would affect a teams picks, and then durring the draft as a tool to project what may be there when you pick next. To help maximize the move at the time. The chart is not a stand alone item, it has to be used in conjunction with other draft prep.

 

[Sleet]

PMD: Your point on depth I was having trouble stating. The problem is, where to draw the line. If you don't consider each player's number, but skip a few who won't realistically be available when the team drafts next, while more accurate in theory, it adds more opinions into the analysis, which may skew the results when comparing positiosn to positions, which, to me, is the value of analysis. That is why I considered to just take depth out of the initial analysis to be utilized later, separately.

Your point about the entire endeavor is well taken. That said, Brick's point is that the analysis is a tool. The process, itself, will shed light on a GM's or HC's own evaluations, which are subjective anyway. GM's and HC's will start with their own scouting departments' ratings (not Scouts, Inc.) or some compilation of other people's ratings.

So, while not a "true" indicator of value, the analysis will show a GM or HC, in plain terms, how and why they value one player more than another relative to other players at other positions. Or, it may cause them to rethink their strategy or change their opinions based on something they learned when comparing players and positions through this process.

Let me put it this way, instead of a Big Board based solely on subjective input and opinions, this list takes those subjective inputs and opinions -- which the team is going to rely upon anyway -- into an objective format that a GM or HC can utilize to make more informed (but nonetheless subjective) decisions. So, yes, take the analysis for what it is worth -- a way to compare different players at different positions. To me, it was useful. If I were a GM or HC, I would have something do this.

 

[Rupert]

There is another HUGE value to an analysis tool like this.

It allows you to record the determining factors and produce a result in a repeatable way.

The problem with doing a mock (or even the draft itself) is that unless you've got something written down, you're going to forget it at a critical decision point. Ever try doing one mock a month? Ever notice the change in where you put players? Ever wonder why they changed? Were you ever able to pin down exactly why each change happened? This kind of tool will show you why

Why did you rank one player higher than another? Was it a character issue? Maybe the combine numbers? An interview? Have a run-in with the local PD? Has anything changed to make you adjust his grade? You can do all of those things with lists, but when you have a single tool that compiles all of your thinking in one place, you've got everything you need at your fingertips.

Read Cable's interview. He says he'll be getting into draft mode this week. One week before the draft are you serious? Yeah, they've got a hell of a lot of other things to consider from day to day, like training and free agents and a roster of 80 +/- players to guide and shape and lead.

This kind of tool helps you project what your opponents are likely to do, so that when you decide who to pick at #7, you've got a good idea who'll be available at #40. And you'll know which players bring the most bang for the buck for your roster, so you don't wind up like Detroit drafting WR after WR after WR, year after year after year.