Bill Walsh's Draftisms

[K-9]

As I suspected, you refused to retract or clarify statements which were clearly erroneous, and which dumbed down the level of the discussion. The key issue, as far as your main point is concerned, is whether an NFL team would rather draft a player projected to be the sixth-best QB in the league (Luck) or the best OG in the league (hypothetically DeCastro). You're trying to weasel out of that question by claiming that DeCastro has a lower player rating than Luck. I assume this means DeCastro isn't projected to be the best OG in the league. And you're ignoring the hypothetical question what if he was projected to be the best OG in the NFL? The reason you're ignoring it is because you don't want to admit that your statements about how position value is ignored are simply wrong. But neither do you want to look like an idiot by claiming that a typical NFL team would take an elite OG over Luck. (Which is exactly how you would look if you made that claim.) You've accused me of dishonesty, which as best I can tell means you're being dishonest by refusing to retract statements you know are wrong. You're dodging the heart of the issue, and you're using inflammatory accusations to stop people from noticing how absurd your rhetoric becomes when taken to its logical conclusion.

 

As far as the decades of experience you supposedly have: I suggest you stop bragging about that alleged experience until you've shown yourself capable of having a civil, rational discussion about football. Nothing you've written in this thread even remotely suggests that possibility.

 

This is the second time you've claimed you'd let me have the last word. Let's see if you'll do a better job of doing what you said you'd do than you had the first time around.

 

Finally, I'll release you from your promise to let me have the last word if you want to address the question I've raised in my opening paragraph, if you would like to clarify your earlier statements about player value, or if you would otherwise like to (finally!) contribute something of value to the conversation. But if your plan is to write yet another inflammatory post, with further attacks against me, I will consider you to have broken your commitment to let me have the last word.

 

You have serious issues. You will release me from my promise? Who TF are you to release anyone from anything? Especially while you continue to distort, and deceive? I should just let you attack my integrity? You hold yourself up as this great contributor to discussion and yet predictably, as evidenced by your M.O. across many posts in many threads on many subjects in many forums under many names, you get rankled when someone disagrees with you and you start with the insults. I'm supposed to let you call me stupid without responding?

 

Where are you pulling this hypothetical of Luck somehow being the 6th best QB vs. the highest rated G? Where have I REMOTELY suggested that? Luck is the highest rated player in the draft. You somehow think I would advocate taking a G who is rated far lower? It's impossible for DeCastro to be taken before Luck based on everything I've been saying about BPA. Luck is the BPA. What else can I say? Even if he busts and DeCastro goes to the HOF, Luck is STILL the highest rated player BEFORE THE FACT in this draft. Seriously? You are just making stuff up. That's dishonest at best.

 

Maybe you're confused about the idea that scouts may give a G a grade of 6 and a QB a grade of 5 and that's why the G could be considered a better player than another at a premium position? That's a hypothetical used to illustrate why teams don't grade players by position. They grade ONLY according to the criteria established to play their particular position. These grades are refined as the process moves along. I've repeated this several times in this thread. If you require more clarification, I can't make it any clearer.

 

There is nothing left to clarify about my earlier statements about player value, either. Personnel professionals don't use the term like draftniks do. They don't use the term "reach" like draftniks do. I don't care if you accept that or not. I'm not looking at the draft like draftniks do. Nor do I engage in predicting who will take whom and when. I am no longer privy to the HUGE amount of information required to make such an assessment.

 

One thing personnel execs do is ACTUALLY WATCH THE PLAYERS THEY ARE RANKING and that's just a start! Try it sometime. Then perhaps you'll at least BEGIN to understand the concept.

 

Bragging? Nope. Far from it. Just trying to give perspective. You accused me of knowing nothing about how certain information on college prospects is evaluated. I do. Big deal. I'm sure there are many others here that might as well. Should we attack them for trying to give the rest of us the benefit of their experience? To try to shed light on the discussion? To, as you so eloquently put it, "contribute something of value to the conversation?" Christ, it's just football and it ain't that complicated. I'd be much more apt to brag about other aspects of my life. But certainly not that. It's just not that important in the grand scheme of things.

 

I've been part of this community since it's inception back in 1996. I'm quite confident I've engaged in many quality conversations along the way. At least that's the feedback I've gotten over the years. So rest easy in knowing that I don't need you to qualify my ability in that regard.

 

I now release you from the burden of releasing me.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

You have serious issues. You will release me from my promise? Who TF are you to release anyone from anything? Especially while you continue to distort, and deceive? I should just let you attack my integrity? You hold yourself up as this great contributor to discussion and yet predictably, as evidenced by your M.O. across many posts in many threads on many subjects in many forums under many names, you get rankled when someone disagrees with you and you start with the insults. I'm supposed to let you call me stupid without responding?

 

Where are you pulling this hypothetical of Luck somehow being the 6th best QB vs. the highest rated G? Where have I REMOTELY suggested that? Luck is the highest rated player in the draft. You somehow think I would advocate taking a G who is rated far lower? It's impossible for DeCastro to be taken before Luck based on everything I've been saying about BPA. Luck is the BPA. What else can I say? Even if he busts and DeCastro goes to the HOF, Luck is STILL the highest rated player BEFORE THE FACT in this draft. Seriously? You are just making stuff up. That's dishonest at best.

 

Maybe you're confused about the idea that scouts may give a G a grade of 6 and a QB a grade of 5 and that's why the G could be considered a better player than another at a premium position? That's a hypothetical used to illustrate why teams don't grade players by position. They grade ONLY according to the criteria established to play their particular position. These grades are refined as the process moves along. I've repeated this several times in this thread. If you require more clarification, I can't make it any clearer.

 

There is nothing left to clarify about my earlier statements about player value, either. Personnel professionals don't use the term like draftniks do. They don't use the term "reach" like draftniks do. I don't care if you accept that or not. I'm not looking at the draft like draftniks do. Nor do I engage in predicting who will take whom and when. I am no longer privy to the HUGE amount of information required to make such an assessment.

 

One thing personnel execs do is ACTUALLY WATCH THE PLAYERS THEY ARE RANKING and that's just a start! Try it sometime. Then perhaps you'll at least BEGIN to understand the concept.

 

Bragging? Nope. Far from it. Just trying to give perspective. You accused me of knowing nothing about how certain information on college prospects is evaluated. I do. Big deal. I'm sure there are many others here that might as well. Should we attack them for trying to give the rest of us the benefit of their experience? To try to shed light on the discussion? To, as you so eloquently put it, "contribute something of value to the conversation?" Christ, it's just football and it ain't that complicated. I'd be much more apt to brag about other aspects of my life. But certainly not that. It's just not that important in the grand scheme of things.

 

I've been part of this community since it's inception back in 1996. I'm quite confident I've engaged in many quality conversations along the way. At least that's the feedback I've gotten over the years. So rest easy in knowing that I don't need you to qualify my ability in that regard.

 

I now release you from the burden of releasing me.

 

GO BILLS!!!

This is the second time you've lied about giving me the last word. Given that you've (provably) lied twice about that, I'm beginning to put less faith in your other assertions. In addition, your implication that you've figured out who I am in "many forums under many names" sounds a lot like you're just making stuff up. Enlighten me: what are the names of these "many forums," and what "many names" do I use?

 

As for the substance of your post, you continue to repeat yourself over and over, in a way which dodges the core issue. I will ask my question once again, as clearly as possible, in the forlorn hope that you will (gasp!) actually say something new.

 

The question. Player X is a quarterback. If Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady are a 10, and if Matt Ryan and Jay Cutler are an 8, this quarterback is a 9. Player Y is an offensive guard. He is expected to be the best offensive guard of the decade. If the best OGs in NFL history are a 10, this guy is a 10 as well. If you were a GM, would you take the quarterback or the offensive guard? Which player do you think a typical NFL GM would take?

[Ramius]

This is the second time you've lied about giving me the last word. Given that you've (provably) lied twice about that, I'm beginning to put less faith in your other assertions. In addition, your implication that you've figured out who I am in "many forums under many names" sounds a lot like you're just making stuff up. Enlighten me: what are the names of these "many forums," and what "many names" do I use?

 

As for the substance of your post, you continue to repeat yourself over and over, in a way which dodges the core issue. I will ask my question once again, as clearly as possible, in the forlorn hope that you will (gasp!) actually say something new.

 

The question. Player X is a quarterback. If Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady are a 10, and if Matt Ryan and Jay Cutler are an 8, this quarterback is a 9. Player Y is an offensive guard. He is expected to be the best offensive guard of the decade. If the best OGs in NFL history are a 10, this guy is a 10 as well. If you were a GM, would you take the quarterback or the offensive guard? Which player do you think a typical NFL GM would take?

 

I don't know where you're coming up with these lies. I also don't know what idiotic scale you're using to somehow claim that DeCastro is rated higher than Luck. He isn't. Draftable players are compared against one another, NOT compared to where they might stack up versus the current players in the NFL. You rate all the draftable players versus one another, and take the highest rated player available.

 

As K-9 has said numerous times, you take Andrew Luck because Luck is rated higher than DeCastro on an absolute scale of football ability. What K-9 is also saying is that in that same vein, you should also draft DeCastro over Bradon Weeden, because DeCastro is rated higher on an absolute scale of football ability.

 

You're doing nothing but being a dishonest liar by claiming that K-9 is saying to take DeCastro over Luck. He isn't.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Ramius

[thebandit27]

Wow, what have I done here?

 

I go away for 5 days and look what happens...

 

Ok, here's my thoughts on all of this stuff:

 

- Yes, teams have an overall value board, and yes, they do value some positions more than others. A perfect example of this is the fact that--between the years of 1998 and 2011, no position other than QB, DE, or OT has been selected at the No. 1 overall pick. Now, that's mostly because the guaranteed money allocated to draft picks grew so out of control during that time. However, you can't deny that teams were literally forced to pick one of the top 3 value positions (QB, DE, OT) at the No. 1 pick, as opposed to picking whomever they felt would be the best football player. You'd have a hard time convincing me that many NFL talent evaluators thought David Carr would be a better football player than Julius Peppers, that Alex Smith would be better than Ronnie Brown/Cadillac Williams/Cedric Benson, that Jamarcus Russell would be better than Calvin Johnson, Sam Bradford better than Ndamukong Suh, etc. Now, this dynamic will likely change at some point in the next decade, given that the guaranteed money given to the #1 overall pick has come back to earth, but given the system as it existed between '99 and '10, it's virtually impossible to deny that position absolutely matters when determining value.

 

- The above notwithstanding, the affect of positional value drops precipitously (again, assuming the '99-'10 guaranteed $$ boon for draft picks) outside the top 5-6 picks, so as the first round progresses, positional-related value becomes less of a factor. For example: it's much easier to justify taking something other than an OT, QB, or DE at the 15th pick than at the 2nd pick, since the guaranteed $$ drops from $50M to $12M. Again, this line of thinking will (or in the very least should) become extinct with the new rookie wage scale, but nevertheless shows the relative importance (or limitations thereof) of positional value.

 

Now, as for the tit-for-tat that seems to have taken over the thread, I think both of you need to chill a bit. Regardless of what either of you knows, think you know, assume, or are able to derive from history, nobody posting on this board is--to any of our knowledge--a member of a current NFL front office, so we cannot say with any degree of certainty how any team stacks their draft board. Sure, you can say what you feel should be done, or what you've been told that other teams/regimes do, but to simply state as fact the way all teams assess value, and expect it to be accepted as fact, is both unrealistic and short-sighted.

 

In closing, I love some of the points that Lombardi presented in the original article, and I think most of us on this board would do gain insight by remembering them when we consider what will come to pass on draft day.

 

That is all.

 

EDIT: oh, and to the poster that said Tom Brady would've been a lousy pick before the 6th round, that's exactly the point of this thread. You have no way of knowing that at the time, for any player, be it a 1st, 2nd, or 7th round pick. If a player goes on to be a hall-of-famer, it was a value pick, no matter where you take him. Had Brady been a first-round pick, he'd still be a tremendous value, to argue otherwise is--in my opinion--crazy.

Edited April 24, 2012 by thebandit27

[Sisyphean Bills]

EDIT: oh, and to the poster that said Tom Brady would've been a lousy pick before the 6th round, that's exactly the point of this thread. You have no way of knowing that at the time, for any player, be it a 1st, 2nd, or 7th round pick. If a player goes on to be a hall-of-famer, it was a value pick, no matter where you take him. Had Brady been a first-round pick, he'd still be a tremendous value, to argue otherwise is--in my opinion--crazy.

It probably sounds silly to you because no one actually said that picking Tom Brady before the 6th round would've been a lousy pick.

 

On the other hand, if you think he'd have been just as successful if he had been drafted by Bruce Coslet and the Bengals at #4 overall and started from day one, then that is a matter of your opinion and suggests that you come down heavily on the side of predestination over nurture, environment, and work ethic. You may be correct, of course. On the other hand, it may also be the case that putting him in as a starter before he was physically or mentally prepared to handle the job might have ruined him just like many other first round QBs of which there are many, many examples.

[Beerball]

Edit: I wanted to write a separate post to Cynical's question. Unfortunately, due to an annoying feature-bug, the discussion board software insists on lumping my response to him in with this post. Briefly, by "top-6 QB," I meant, "one of the six best QBs in the NFL, but not one of the three best QBs in the NFL."

Actually it works exactly like the person who makes this board available to you wants it to work. If you would like to make a suggestion about a possible change then please use the proper forum.

[K-9]

...Now, as for the tit-for-tat that seems to have taken over the thread, I think both of you need to chill a bit. Regardless of what either of you knows, think you know, assume, or are able to derive from history, nobody posting on this board is--to any of our knowledge--a member of a current NFL front office, so we cannot say with any degree of certainty how any team stacks their draft board. Sure, you can say what you feel should be done, or what you've been told that other teams/regimes do, but to simply state as fact the way all teams assess value, and expect it to be accepted as fact, is both unrealistic and short-sighted.

 

I've been chilled the entire time. But I don't think you or anyone else appreciates being called stupid while having your words distorted out of context, and tried to be made a fool. Especially by a poster who has had a history of doing just that here and in other forums under different user names.

 

That said, here is what I DO know for certainty. It isn't something I 'think' I know. And again, I say that knowing that EVERYTHING anyone says on an anonymous BB is full of crap. Take it is as you will. I'm only trying to shed light on a VERY small part of the process.

 

There are thousands of potential NFL prospects annually.

 

Through a collaborative scouting effort, the NFL seeks to narrow that down to the top 300 or so each year (FWIW, this list is intentionally leaked by the league every year). This process takes thousands and thousands of man-hours. And even at the end of it all, it comes down to the best guess a team can make. My antagonist, who admits to not having watched any college football this past year, came up with a tiered positional value system and assigned arbitrary numbers in a formula and then proceeded to predict the future career paths of four highly rated prospects in this year's draft. All in 20 minutes. Perhaps it's my bias and empathy to past colleagues in the business, but that didn't sit well.

 

Each position has certain criteria. For example, does a WR 'fight' the ball when catching, does an RB run aggressively to the hole or dance, does a safety take proper angles, is a DL's pad level too high, etc. It's VERY subjective and it goes on and on. Scouts give an initial grade to each player based on these criteria. This is used to determine a player's ability to play his particular position. To gauge his ability to play FOOTBALL, regardless of the position he plays. These numerical grades go up and down as teams refine the data through further evaluations.

 

Main draft boards ARE constructed according to the player grades assigned through the process above. They are certainly not static and will fluctuate according to various factors that may or may not effect draft strategies.

 

There is no 'tiered' positional ranking system where teams automatically assign a higher numerical value to the POSITION before they grade a player. This is what my antagonist would have me believe and I reject it out of hand. That is NOT to say, and I've NEVER said it, that there aren't 'premier' positions. There are and always have been. And there always will be as the league evolves. Currently they are QB, DE, LT, WR, CB. The first four have been the case for decades. RB used to be there as well. But given the evolution of the game, CBs are now at a higher premium. But again, scouts do not give bonus points if you play one nor do they deduct points if you don't. It's all about grading the PLAYER.

 

The simplest explanation I can give is that teams would not automatically assign a higher numerical value to a QB vs. a G, for example, because it would skew the analysis made to determine their relative abilities as FOOTBALL players. It would enable the idea that Weeden is a better FOOTBALL player than DeCastro as someone mentioned above for example.

 

Like I said, take it for what it's worth.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[K-9]

This is the second time you've lied about giving me the last word. Given that you've (provably) lied twice about that, I'm beginning to put less faith in your other assertions. In addition, your implication that you've figured out who I am in "many forums under many names" sounds a lot like you're just making stuff up. Enlighten me: what are the names of these "many forums," and what "many names" do I use?

 

Holcomb's Arm. PPP forum. 3.5. I should have said 'other' forums and 'other' names instead of 'many.' Sucks when people distort things. Right, Mr. Lenin (I figured it was ok to call you that after you first opened the hypocritical door by equating me with Lenin in the first place). I will stick with 'many' threads, though. They are too numerous to simply be 'other.'

 

I rest my case.

 

I now re-release you from the burden of re-releasing me.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[thebandit27]

I've been chilled the entire time. But I don't think you or anyone else appreciates being called stupid while having your words distorted out of context, and tried to be made a fool. Especially by a poster who has had a history of doing just that here and in other forums under different user names.

 

 

No, nobody appreciates being called stupid, and perhaps I'm not as well aversed in Edwards' Arm's posting history as you are.

 

 

There are thousands of potential NFL prospects annually.

 

Through a collaborative scouting effort, the NFL seeks to narrow that down to the top 300 or so each year (FWIW, this list is intentionally leaked by the league every year). This process takes thousands and thousands of man-hours. And even at the end of it all, it comes down to the best guess a team can make. My antagonist, who admits to not having watched any college football this past year, came up with a tiered positional value system and assigned arbitrary numbers in a formula and then proceeded to predict the future career paths of four highly rated prospects in this year's draft. All in 20 minutes. Perhaps it's my bias and empathy to past colleagues in the business, but that didn't sit well.

 

Each position has certain criteria. For example, does a WR 'fight' the ball when catching, does an RB run aggressively to the hole or dance, does a safety take proper angles, is a DL's pad level too high, etc. It's VERY subjective and it goes on and on. Scouts give an initial grade to each player based on these criteria. This is used to determine a player's ability to play his particular position. To gauge his ability to play FOOTBALL, regardless of the position he plays. These numerical grades go up and down as teams refine the data through further evaluations.

 

Main draft boards ARE constructed according to the player grades assigned through the process above. They are certainly not static and will fluctuate according to various factors that may or may not effect draft strategies.

 

I certainly am not arguing that your description isn't accurate regarding the process. All I was saying is that position does in fact enter into the evaluation process.

 

 

There is no 'tiered' positional ranking system where teams automatically assign a higher numerical value to the POSITION before they grade a player. This is what my antagonist would have me believe and I reject it out of hand. That is NOT to say, and I've NEVER said it, that there aren't 'premier' positions. There are and always have been. And there always will be as the league evolves. Currently they are QB, DE, LT, WR, CB. The first four have been the case for decades. RB used to be there as well. But given the evolution of the game, CBs are now at a higher premium. But again, scouts do not give bonus points if you play one nor do they deduct points if you don't. It's all about grading the PLAYER.

 

The simplest explanation I can give is that teams would not automatically assign a higher numerical value to a QB vs. a G, for example, because it would skew the analysis made to determine their relative abilities as FOOTBALL players. It would enable the idea that Weeden is a better FOOTBALL player than DeCastro as someone mentioned above for example.

 

Like I said, take it for what it's worth.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Yes, player grades are compiled strictly based on the player, not the position. I think the divergence regarding "draft value" is that teams may be more inclined to take a premier position player that has a grade of 8.8 (out of 10 for example) than a non-premier position player that has a grade of 9.0. I think that Edwards' Arm was trying to say this, but botched his point horribly with his convoluted equation argument.

Edited April 24, 2012 by thebandit27

[K-9]

... Yes, player grades are compiled strictly based on the player, not the position. I think the divergence regarding "draft value" is that teams may be more inclined to take a premier position player that has a grade of 8.8 (out of 10 for example) than a non-premier position player that has a grade of 9.0. I think that Edwards' Arm was trying to say this, but botched his point horribly with his convoluted equation argument.

 

That made me chuckle and my heart skip a beat for a split second and then I saw 'out of 10.' Reason is that the scale use to be 1-8, with 8 being a can't miss HOF prospect at his position. To my knowledge, and I may be wrong since it's been a while, nobody every graded as an 8 going into the draft.

 

One of the interesting things, although a pet peeve of mine, is how important the tenths of points became in the grading process. Huge arguments about player x being a 6.8 and player y being a 6.9. You'd think they were exponential differences like on the Richter scale or something. Hilarious stuff. But it was the essence of guys in the field and at the table trying to cover their asses.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[thebandit27]

That made me chuckle and my heart skip a beat for a split second and then I saw 'out of 10.' Reason is that the scale use to be 1-8, with 8 being a can't miss HOF prospect at his position. To my knowledge, and I may be wrong since it's been a while, nobody every graded as an 8 going into the draft.

 

One of the interesting things, although a pet peeve of mine, is how important the tenths of points became in the grading process. Huge arguments about player x being a 6.8 and player y being a 6.9. You'd think they were exponential differences like on the Richter scale or something. Hilarious stuff. But it was the essence of guys in the field and at the table trying to cover their asses.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I thought I remembered recently the "scale" being used topped out at 9.0, but couldn't be sure, so I picked something arbitrary to use as an example.

[K-9]

I thought I remembered recently the "scale" being used topped out at 9.0, but couldn't be sure, so I picked something arbitrary to use as an example.

 

BLESTO's was always 1-8. It may have changed but the grading criteria is still the same. And so are the squabbles about tenths of points.

 

There are a myriad of sites out there that utilize all sorts of different scales. I've seen 1-6 and 1-10 for instance.

 

Anyway, it all comes down to your best guess at the time.

 

Just remember, playmaker is ALWAYS a position of need.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[thebandit27]

BLESTO's was always 1-8. It may have changed but the grading criteria is still the same. And so are the squabbles about tenths of points.

 

There are a myriad of sites out there that utilize all sorts of different scales. I've seen 1-6 and 1-10 for instance.

 

Anyway, it all comes down to your best guess at the time.

 

Just remember, playmaker is ALWAYS a position of need. GO BILLS!!!

 

I have never implied differently, nor would I.

[Orton's Arm]

Holcomb's Arm. PPP forum. 3.5. I should have said 'other' forums and 'other' names instead of 'many.' Sucks when people distort things. Right, Mr. Lenin (I figured it was ok to call you that after you first opened the hypocritical door by equating me with Lenin in the first place). I will stick with 'many' threads, though. They are too numerous to simply be 'other.'

 

I rest my case.

 

I now re-release you from the burden of re-releasing me.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Your response is a mix of true statements and incorrect ones. It's true that my screen name used to be Holcombs_Arm. I've even noted as much in my signature, and have done so for years. It's also true that I had posted on the PPP boards. But your characterization of my participation there bears no relationship to reality.

 

One of the worst human beings I've encountered in any venue--DC Tom--disagreed with some of the positions I had taken, and chose to engage me in an online flame war. DC Tom's reputation is well-known, and I make no apology for fighting back against that online bully. 3.5 is an excellent example of Tom pretending to know more than he actually did. (If he was unfamiliar with the concept of expected value he could have admitted as much, or else looked it up. Instead he chose to attack me, without bothering to do either.)

 

As for the substance of this discussion: you have repeatedly stated that 1) you are deeply familiar with how NFL teams grade players, 2) that they do not take position value into account when assigning those grades, and 3) that on draft day they will take a higher graded player over a lower graded player.

 

And yet . . . plenty of QBs, LTs, and RDEs are taken in the top 5, whereas I can't remember an OG ever having been taken that early. The most logical explanation for this is that GMs are taking position value into account, despite your repeated attempts to tell us they are not. You have not provided any alternative explanation for why the top-5 contains far more QBs and LTs than OGs or Cs. Whenever I ask you for clarity on this question, you either ignore it, or answer it in a way which manages to dodge the core issue. (The core issue here being that NFL teams are taking position value into account, as demonstrated by draft history.)

 

In contrast, when someone has challenged me on a legitimate point, I've done my best to respond to the core issue which had been raised. I have not claimed to have more knowledge than I actually do. When I provided estimates for the respective player values of Kuechley, Barron, etc., I acknowledged I haven't watched any college football this past year, and invited comment from those who know more about those players than me. When I first introduced my formula into this discussion, I wrote, "The above formula is far from perfect, and I'm sure someone who's put more time and thought into this than I have could come up with something better." Amazingly, you found it necessary to interpret that formula as a sign of my arrogance! Most people would have seen it for what it was: an intended starting point for an intelligent discussion about position value. Instead of making constructive contributions to that discussion, you have repeatedly told us NFL teams don't take position value into account (despite incontrovertible evidence that they do), and you've told us that teams shouldn't take position value into account. This, despite the self-evident fact that a Pro Bowl QB is far more valuable to his team than a Pro Bowl non-pass-rushing LB. The fact that a Pro Bowl QB or LT is more valuable than a Pro Bowl OG or non-pass-rushing LB is a second core issue you've ignored. While I don't object to people holding different opinions than me, it kind of gets annoying when they support those opinions via personal attacks and over and over and over again repetitions that they are right, while dodging core issues.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Edwards' Arm

[K-9]

As for the substance of this discussion: you have repeatedly stated that 1) you are deeply familiar with how NFL teams grade players, 2) that they do not take position value into account when assigning those grades, and 3) that on draft day they will take a higher graded player over a lower graded player. ...

 

1.) That's true. Although I'd rather use the term "how SCOUTS" grade players.

 

2.) That's true, too. They only grade based on the ability to play their respective positions, subject to the established criteria for playing those positions. Again, no bonus points because a player happens to play at one of the five premium positions. And, just as importantly, no demerits because he doesn't.

 

3.) Most of the time. But certainly not always. The idea is to draft as many good players as you can. That's why I love the point Bob Chalmers made: the draft isn't about taking one player in the first round. I also mentioned in a response to him that I could argue why teams have to be SMARTER after the first round.

 

But that's another discussion I am not willing to have.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[thebandit27]

It probably sounds silly to you because no one actually said that picking Tom Brady before the 6th round would've been a lousy pick.

On the other hand, if you think he'd have been just as successful if he had been drafted by Bruce Coslet and the Bengals at #4 overall and started from day one, then that is a matter of your opinion and suggests that you come down heavily on the side of predestination over nurture, environment, and work ethic. You may be correct, of course. On the other hand, it may also be the case that putting him in as a starter before he was physically or mentally prepared to handle the job might have ruined him just like many other first round QBs of which there are many, many examples.

 

You're technically correct, as one poster called it a "stupid" pick, not "lousy":

 

OMG this whole anti-intellectual argument is tiresome and foolish, and this has further lowered my regard for Trent Edwards' talent scout.

 

 

Please all try to follow this:

 

1. The draft is not about making one pick. If it was, then all this idiotic blather about "just take the top guy when it's your turn" would make sense.

2. If you don't want to suck, you need to think about the whole of your draft as you go.

3. Taking someone BEFORE YOU HAVE TO is STUPID - even he turns out to be a Hall of Famer.

4. BECAUSE you were wasting opportunities to ALSO take someone else who would help your team.

 

Assume your draft board is researched and prepared thoroughly and you believe in your scouts - if you don't, rewind to this step and improve your scouting until you get it right.

 

Suppose you are the Chicago Bears and it's the year 2000. You believe Tom Brady might be a HoF player, but you know noone else will take him before New England in round 6:

 

Taking Tom Brady in the first round would have been a stupid move. Sure, you got a hall of fame QB, but you just missed out on a hall of fame middle linebacker in Brian Urlacher.

Taking Tom Brady in the sixth round ahead of New Englend would have been brilliant. Now you've got Urlacher AND Brady, although you have cost yourself Kicker Paul Edinger.

 

That's the trick to it that makes Walsh's argument stupid: each pick is not just a choice of who to take - it's also a choice (cost) to not take someone else. History shows that the higher round picks generally do better, so using a higher pick to get someone when you didn't have to is to foolishly pay a self-inflicted cost of not taking someone else who could have also helped you.

 

Obviously, your knowledge is never that perfect - but operating without the basic sense that the draft is a game within the game, where you are trying to improve your whole team by getting the most total value from all your picks (including trading them up or down to line up with where you see the better players) is idiocy that leads to failure. Advocating that behavior for one's team or others is to expose one's mental laziness.

[DC Tom]

Your response is a mix of true statements and incorrect ones. It's true that my screen name used to be Holcombs_Arm. I've even noted as much in my signature, and have done so for years. It's also true that I had posted on the PPP boards. But your characterization of my participation there bears no relationship to reality.

 

One of the worst human beings I've encountered in any venue--DC Tom--disagreed with some of the positions I had taken, and chose to engage me in an online flame war. DC Tom's reputation is well-known, and I make no apology for fighting back against that online bully. 3.5 is an excellent example of Tom pretending to know more than he actually did. (If he was unfamiliar with the concept of expected value he could have admitted as much, or else looked it up. Instead he chose to attack me, without bothering to do either.)

 

As for the substance of this discussion: you have repeatedly stated that 1) you are deeply familiar with how NFL teams grade players, 2) that they do not take position value into account when assigning those grades, and 3) that on draft day they will take a higher graded player over a lower graded player.

 

And yet . . . plenty of QBs, LTs, and RDEs are taken in the top 5, whereas I can't remember an OG ever having been taken that early. The most logical explanation for this is that GMs are taking position value into account, despite your repeated attempts to tell us they are not. You have not provided any alternative explanation for why the top-5 contains far more QBs and LTs than OGs or Cs. Whenever I ask you for clarity on this question, you either ignore it, or answer it in a way which manages to dodge the core issue. (The core issue here being that NFL teams are taking position value into account, as demonstrated by draft history.)

 

In contrast, when someone has challenged me on a legitimate point, I've done my best to respond to the core issue which had been raised. I have not claimed to have more knowledge than I actually do. When I provided estimates for the respective player values of Kuechley, Barron, etc., I acknowledged I haven't watched any college football this past year, and invited comment from those who know more about those players than me. When I first introduced my formula into this discussion, I wrote, "The above formula is far from perfect, and I'm sure someone who's put more time and thought into this than I have could come up with something better." Amazingly, you found it necessary to interpret that formula as a sign of my arrogance! Most people would have seen it for what it was: an intended starting point for an intelligent discussion about position value. Instead of making constructive contributions to that discussion, you have repeatedly told us NFL teams don't take position value into account (despite incontrovertible evidence that they do), and you've told us that teams shouldn't take position value into account. This, despite the self-evident fact that a Pro Bowl QB is far more valuable to his team than a Pro Bowl non-pass-rushing LB. The fact that a Pro Bowl QB or LT is more valuable than a Pro Bowl OG or non-pass-rushing LB is a second core issue you've ignored. While I don't object to people holding different opinions than me, it kind of gets annoying when they support those opinions via personal attacks and over and over and over again repetitions that they are right, while dodging core issues.

 

Seriously? I'm one of the "worst human beings you've ever encountered in any venue" because you're a mathematical idiot? Get over yourself, man. In - what, six? - years of claiming "But I was right!" you could have actually cured your ignorance by now.

 

But it's far more important for you to PRETEND you're erudite, like you're doing now. You're arguing a value-based system for establishing draft priority...while admitting that your "estimates" for respective player values is based on complete ignorance? You pretend to have introduced some sort of a coherent starting point for "intelligent discussion about position value"...when you provided a mathematical formula (from you! ) as a basis that requires the ability to concretely predict the future? And now you're claiming that it's a "self-evident fact" that Pro-Bowl QBs are more valuable than Pro-Bowl LBs who don't pass rush? Prove it. If it's self-evident, it should be easy to prove.

 

Once again, you're demonstrating that unique ability of yours to be all over the map to such a degree, spouting absolutely mindless nonsense, that you don't even understand your own posts. But I have trouble admitting I'm wrong.

[Beerball]

Seriously? I'm one of the "worst human beings you've ever encountered in any venue" because you're a mathematical idiot? Get over yourself, man. In - what, six? - years of claiming "But I was right!" you could have actually cured your ignorance by now.

 

But it's far more important for you to PRETEND you're erudite, like you're doing now. You're arguing a value-based system for establishing draft priority...while admitting that your "estimates" for respective player values is based on complete ignorance? You pretend to have introduced some sort of a coherent starting point for "intelligent discussion about position value"...when you provided a mathematical formula (from you! ) as a basis that requires the ability to concretely predict the future? And now you're claiming that it's a "self-evident fact" that Pro-Bowl QBs are more valuable than Pro-Bowl LBs who don't pass rush? Prove it. If it's self-evident, it should be easy to prove.

 

Once again, you're demonstrating that unique ability of yours to be all over the map to such a degree, spouting absolutely mindless nonsense, that you don't even understand your own posts. But I have trouble admitting I'm wrong.

It works in Madden dammit!

[Sisyphean Bills]

You're technically correct, as one poster called it a "stupid" pick, not "lousy":

Thanks. I did not find that earlier.

 

I think I agree with him though. It wouldn't have been the best utilization of resources to pass on 1 HOFer just to take a less likely HOFer, even with perfect foresight. Indeed, if you knew which players were going to be great and where they were going to get drafted in some "Back To The Future" perfect clairvoyance, then the best approach to maximize the influx of talent would be to pick Tom Brady immediately before the Patriots would have in the 5th or 6th round, not the 1st.

[GG]

 

One of the worst human beings I've encountered in any venue--DC Tom--

 

 

No, that would be Ed.