My annual rant about draft value.

[Chilly]

There are essentially three types of value in the draft: player, historical, and intradraft.

 

The idea of draft value for a player itself is pretty simple. It's a combination of:

 

1.) difficulty to acquire position

2.) Impact of position

3.) likely short-term impact of a player

4.) likely long-term impact of a player

5.) risk associated with a player

 

From there, you can compare these factors with previous years at a particular position to understand the value of a draft pick this year versus other years. When draftniks talk about draft pick "value", this is really what they are talking about. Historically, does the #10 pick afford a player that's extremely strong in all the areas listed above, and will that player likely be available at that spot this year? This is what McShay is talking about with value.

 

There's also a comparative value within a particular draft. If people recognize a player has the talent / production / etc to be a top pick, but falls for whatever reason (team needs, for example), that can provide intradraft value.

[KD in CA]

i agree with Promo's general point here.

 

However, if you take a player like Troup in the 2nd, when there's close to a 100% chance you could've gotten him a round later, you're doing your team a disservice.

 

Likewise, if you draft a player at #10, when no one has him in the top 25, that's just dumb. it doesn't matter if he turns out to be an all-pro. trade down THEN draft him.

 

Two major flaws in this logic. First is the assumption of a willing trade partner who happens to be sitting in the perfect spot for you and second is the assumption that the Bills have access to (and the bandwidth to track) the draft boards of 31 other teams.

 

Where exactly do you 'trade down' to for a guy you have as your #25?? To #24?? To #18?? Would Clay Matthews would have been a bad pick at #10 in the 2009 draft because he didn't end up going until #26? You can make that arguement if you pick a guy 2 full rounds early, but you can't slice and dice that finely among first round picks.

 

And not to mention they have ten minutes to make a pick so it's not like they have all day to sit around and dream up perfect senarios.

[A Dog Named Kelso]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone on this board would be VERY willing to patiently wait (approximately) three years (SJ), two years (KW), four years (FJ), and five years (GW) for any kind of serious production from our draft picks.

I think it is more due to perception than the player's actual ability. Many coaches don't like putting a "Un-drafted" or late rounder guy in when they have a 1st - 4th rounder in that position. Those players sit on the practice squad and rarely get the opportunity to even participate. Even after FJ proved himself he was still sitting behind Lynch. And Wilson had to wait of Donte to get traded. That is the real farce of it all. You may have great talent in later rounds but they may never get the opportunity because of their draft position not because they need that time to "Develop".

[Orton's Arm]

There are essentially three types of value in the draft: player, historical, and intradraft.

 

The idea of draft value for a player itself is pretty simple. It's a combination of:

 

1.) difficulty to acquire position

2.) Impact of position

3.) likely short-term impact of a player

4.) likely long-term impact of a player

5.) risk associated with a player

 

From there, you can compare these factors with previous years at a particular position to understand the value of a draft pick this year versus other years. When draftniks talk about draft pick "value", this is really what they are talking about. Historically, does the #10 pick afford a player that's extremely strong in all the areas listed above, and will that player likely be available at that spot this year? This is what McShay is talking about with value.

 

There's also a comparative value within a particular draft. If people recognize a player has the talent / production / etc to be a top pick, but falls for whatever reason (team needs, for example), that can provide intradraft value.

Yours is an excellent, well thought-out post. I agree with everything you've written.

[Wayne Cubed]

I think PTR has it here.

 

You can't add value to a draft pick until after the fact.

 

The Donte Whitner example is perfect. Everyone says that he was a reach at 8, which in HINDSIGHT is right. So these Draft people got 1 right. Whoopie doo. But if Donte turned into a Pro Bowl safety, does anyone say after the fact he was a reach? probably not. It works the other way too. If a player like Blackmon, Kalil, etc fall to the Bills in this draft and they select one it will be said the Bills got "great value." But if they don't turn out to be that all stat player on the field, was it great value? No it wasn't. Hell you could say it was a reach. Most would just say bust.

[Orton's Arm]

I think PTR has it here.

 

You can't add value to a draft pick until after the fact.

 

The Donte Whitner example is perfect. Everyone says that he was a reach at 8, which in HINDSIGHT is right. So these Draft people got 1 right. Whoopie doo. But if Donte turned into a Pro Bowl safety, does anyone say after the fact he was a reach? probably not. It works the other way too. If a player like Blackmon, Kalil, etc fall to the Bills in this draft and they select one it will be said the Bills got "great value." But if they don't turn out to be that all stat player on the field, was it great value? No it wasn't. Hell you could say it was a reach. Most would just say bust.

Saying Whitner was a reach was not a case of 20/20 hindsight! There are two reasons for this:

 

1. As you noted, people said "reach" at the time he was drafted, not just after the fact.

2. Whitner's body of work did not justify first round draft status, let alone eighth overall. Vic Carucci didn't have him rated as a first round talent. Carucci was right.

 

Based on the information available at the time, Whitner was a reach. Sometimes, players perform better than one would expect based on the information available at the time. Stevie Johnson lasted until the seventh round, which means available information didn't justify his selection early in the draft. (If it had, then presumably someone would have figured this out and have taken him before the seventh round.) If you take a player at a much higher draft position than the available information indicates you should, and if you get lucky with him having a great career, you still reached. That's not a good repeatable strategy, even if good luck sometimes shields you from that strategy's expected consequences. In Whitner's case, Marv didn't get lucky. He got exactly the kind of player one would expect from taking a second or third round talent at eighth overall.

[Wayne Cubed]

Saying Whitner was a reach was not a case of 20/20 hindsight! There are two reasons for this:

 

1. As you noted, people said "reach" at the time he was drafted, not just after the fact.

2. Whitner's body of work did not justify first round draft status, let alone eighth overall. Vic Carucci didn't have him rated as a first round talent. Carucci was right.

 

Based on the information available at the time, Whitner was a reach. Sometimes, players perform better than one would expect based on the information available at the time. Stevie Johnson lasted until the seventh round, which means available information didn't justify his selection early in the draft. (If it had, then presumably someone would have figured this out and have taken him before the seventh round.) If you take a player at a much higher draft position than the available information indicates you should, and if you get lucky with him having a great career, you still reached. That's not a good repeatable strategy, even if good luck sometimes shields you from that strategy's expected consequences. In Whitner's case, Marv didn't get lucky. He got exactly the kind of player one would expect from taking a second or third round talent at eighth overall.

And what I'm saying is, great Carucci was right THIS time. I'm sure I could list plenty of other times he was completely wrong. Even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.

 

If Whitner turned out to be a pro bowl/all pro then guess what? Carruci would have been wrong. And no one would be saying he was a reach.

[BillsWatch]

What do you guys say about the Troup pick then?

 

I think you guys are only looking at half the situation, ie you are assuming the player picked turns out to be good, but what if he turns out to be bad?

 

Troupe was a huge reach to fill a need on draft day, Kiper had him as a 4th rounder I think, and I bet we would have been able to draft him in the 3rd round, 4th round, or maybe even 5th round. Troup has been a player much much worse than the other players drafted around him at other posititons, like B Spikes, Gronkowski, L Houston, etc etc etc. Even Cam Thomas who was drafted 2 rounds later at the same position has out performed Troup. SO what was thought to be a reach pick on draft day ended up being very true. We lost out on better players at different positions, which ironcially now we have needs at those positions.

 

What is the established value of your opinion? If you are going to take a bet you need to know value of the bet, the odds. Did any scout's assistant ask your opinion? Do you have insider on what other teams boards looked like? Do you know how many times Kiper has been absolutely wrong when he declares a player a lock and player stock 'drops' for absolutely no reason? Troup has been described by many coaches as a gym rat but hurt his back - I guess Kiper and you both knew about the upcoming injury and just failed to start a betting pool.

 

It is REAL EASY to declare something as 'fact' after something has occurred; teams weigh various inputs not only games and measureables like reps, speed, weight, etc but medical evaluations, interviews with players and all those details which actually are involved in picking players.

[Orton's Arm]

And what I'm saying is, great Carucci was right THIS time. I'm sure I could list plenty of other times he was completely wrong. Even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.

 

If Whitner turned out to be a pro bowl/all pro then guess what? Carruci would have been wrong. And no one would be saying he was a reach.

Carucci is not a broken clock. Had he been the Bills' GM during the Levy/Jauron era, I'm sure the Bills' first through third round picks would have turned out much better than they did. They certainly couldn't have been any worse! Donte Whitner, John McCargo, Marshawn Lynch . . . busts every one of them! Surely at least one of Carucci's picks in rounds 1 - 3 would have worked out; which would have been one more early draft success story than Levy had. Not only did Levy's rounds 1 - 3 draft choices all turn out to be busts, but his free agent signings were all flops too. Every one of them.

 

When Whitner was drafted, a number of draft analysts said he was a reach. That means he was a reach, at least according to those analysts. I'll grant that if he'd turned out to be a Pro Bowl player, many of those analysts would have tried to downplay their own previous "reach" comments. But attempts to rewrite history after the fact do not make that history untrue. Whether a player is a reach gets determined at the time he gets drafted, not several years later with 20/20 hindsight!

 

It would be interesting to make a list of the players who were widely labeled "reaches," and to compare those players' success rates against those taken at similar draft positions who weren't considered reaches. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any player widely labeled a reach who went on to justify his draft position. I'm sure there have to be some, but I don't know who they are.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Edwards' Arm

[Jim in Anchorage]

Was not Clay Matthews considered a "reach" at #26?