maryland-bills-fan Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Okay, lets get one thing out in the open. IF anyone out there has a better chart for estimating the relative value of draft picks, then the old Cowboy draft value chart.....please publish it so everybody can have then benefit of you overwhelming wisdom. The internet allows anyone to publish things that will get to a wide audience. I haven't seen anybody put anything out there. (if I've missed it, hey, tell me and everyone else! Honest!). Every time I've checked draft day trades, they are pretty much in line with that draft value chart. That is a bit surprising to me because it was set up to predict the chances of getting a starting NLF QB, but it is being used for all positions. ....I am a bit surprised that nothing better (to my knowledge) has come out. (as an aside, I wonder if it might be modified some years by consideration of the quality depth of the draft pool )There are a lot of mathematical tools out there- from simple spread sheets to complicated stat analysis packages. To me why hasn't someone compared NFL success (input independent parameters (such as position value, games started, probowl appearances, salary paid rank by position etc.) versus draft position and done it as overall and by position-played subsets? i'm too lazy to carry that out- I'm retired and it sounds like work. But there gotta be enough geeks/football fans out there to have tried it.....and there are no alternates to the draft value chart published. Enough rant for now......................On a second note, it would be nice if the draft-nik sites would rank players by some formula saying this guy is worth 74.34 and another worth 90.15, either by position or overall. IT would then be easy for us fans to figure out how accurate each draft predicting site was and cut some of the crzz. Edited April 24, 2014 by maryland-bills-fan
Buffalo Barbarian Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 My thing has been this. For more than a decade. I think "draft value" is kinda stupid in the first round (other than RB of course - never ever take a RB in the first round. Ever. Seriously). People say "oh, you cant take a RT or TE or OG at 9," etc. I understand its a risk/reward thing. But if you cant find good players (meaning you cant properly estimate the reward), then hire better scouts. If you look back at past 1st round drafts, maybe 10-12 of the 32 guys turn out to be worth anything. If you think you know who one of those guys is, take him. Whether you pick 1, or 9, or 25. For example, look at this "crock-of-shtt" draft. There arent really 5 guys worth a damn in the first round: http://www.nfl.com/d...aft?season=2008 And if you tell me that Kiper-types said "oh, flacco isnt a good value at 11" or "Ryan Clady isnt good value at 11" I'd say you're stupid. Again. Only a handful of these guys will be worth a damn. No matter where you pick, if you think a guy will be a true NFL player, take him and never look back. Seriously, scroll through the first 3-4 rounds of that draft and really see how much garbage there is. If you draft enuf guys who are worth a damn, regardless of position or Kiper-esque "value," and hire decent coaches, you will soon have a good team. (I guess this is another way of saying to take BPA, almost regardless of position. And I kinda trust Whaley to do this. If he thinks HaHa is the best true NFL player still remaining at 9, i'll try my best to be cool with that) It worked for buddy Nix
CSBill Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 What if there was the best field goal kicker ever? I mean, like a guy who can consistently drill FG's from 70+ yards. Do we take him at 9? yes!
machine gun kelly Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 "Draft Value" and "BPA" are dependent on the needs of the team doing the drafting. Back when SF had both Montana and Young, would they have drafted another QB just because he was the BPA? No. And as to never taking a RB in the first round, what if you had the chance to grab the second coming of Jim Brown, Cookie Gilchrist, Earl Campbell or OJ Simpson? Sounds like you'd pass on them but I would run up to the podium to put in the card. You make a good point. This came up yesterday morning on NFL Radio, and Ross Tucker was stating this "BPA" that just so happens to be a position of need for 25 of 32 teams last years is quite a coincidence. I thought it was a good conversation, and agree. Just watch the draft and count of the 32 teams in the first round, how many pick a player in one of their top 2 positions of need. I think it will be fun to watch. Oh, and you can bet our #9 pick will be either a T, DE, WR, or TE. I'm still guessing T.
maddenboy Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) All i'm really saying is this: Trust your board. Dont worry about "value." You think there are 12 guys in this draft who will be good and you pick at 9, and most of them are gone when you're on the clock. The next one you think is actually one of the 12 guys is "projected" to go at 17 based on "value," then you take him at 9 (if you cant trade back). Five days later the fans will bring the pitchforks. Five years later you'll be smelling like roses. The more I think about it, I guess i'm really saying I trust Whaley. Because when Nix, Jauron, RW and all of them used to make "i'm the smartest guy in the room" picks I hated it. Because they werent the smartest guys in the room. NOW, if Whaley wants to take a RT or TE or OG or whatever at 9, even if the "value" says you dont do that at #9, I will trust it. Edited April 24, 2014 by maddenboy
BobChalmers Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) wait. What? I am not saying we cannot predict which player will live up to potential. I'm saying we can. But to say "this player will be excellent, but we cant take him at 9 because he's a RT or OG, etc." is the problem. 5 years from now we will look back at this first round draft and see that only 7-10 players were worth a shtt. If you keep drafting real NFL players, regardless of position, instead of Aaron Maybin or John McCargo, you will soon have a good team. I think the problem with your argument is that there are 31 other teams that are also drafting. The team's objective in the draft process is to get the most good players in the whole draft, not just the best one player you can - to do that, you necessarily have to consider how soon players are going to be drafted by other teams. A "reach" is a player taken before you needed to take him - regardless of how good he turns out to be, reaching is BAD. Any team that took Brady in the 1st through 4th rounds would have been reaching - he was still there in round 6, so taking him in the 1st would mean losing another 1st round talent when you didn't have to. There is a game within a game in the draft - which is what guys like KIper have been trying to explain when they talk about reaches, etc. By now most all the NFL front offices get it - but back in the day when Kiper was really ruffling feathers, there were teams that really were clueless about it. Edited April 24, 2014 by BobChalmers
maddenboy Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 A "reach" is a player taken before you needed to take him - regardless of how good he turns out to be, reaching is BAD. I slightly disagree. A "reach" doesnt just mean you can get him later. To me, a "reach" means that the player has risk. All players in the draft have risk. But again, this idea of "reach" is based on some idea of draft value. If you took Brady in the 3rd, AND you and your scouts decided he was a franchise QB, then its not a "reach" because there wasnt any risk. But if you and your scouts were gambling on brady, and your board said he was a 7th, then yes, taking him in the 3rd would be a big "reach." If there is a guy you have decided will be a good/great player, then take him. Dont worry about where you take him. Because a couple years from now we will look back at all the scrubs and all the good players. w/r/t the good players, we will say "damn, why didnt we take him at 9 or 41? Why didnt we see he was a good player? So what if he was projected at 17 or 55? FIND GOOD PLAYERS AND TAKE THEM A.S.A.F.P.
Iraq Vet Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) It is this simple, if we take a CB in the 1st RD (in a position we don't need) because he is BPA and he becomes a superstar...How is that bad? We need superstars... every great team has at least 4-5 super stars, HOF types. We don't have one superstar. M. Williams might be counted as one if he has a better year than last this year. I hate reaching, at all!!! If we must reach, that is what rounds 4-7 are for. Edited April 24, 2014 by Iraq Vet
maddenboy Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 We dont have any superstars. Mario is on the downslope of his career. Nobody wants to take a CB in round one, for outdated reasons. Gimme as many good/great players as you can and lets see what we can make. Just dont gamble. And dont pass on what you think is an excellent player because the draft slot "value" isnt right. That's dumb. Draft "value" seems to assume that every player will be good. So since they're all going to be good, we can rank them. Instead, find the 4 or 5 or 10 or 20 ones who will actually be worth a shtt and get them as fast as you can.
Bill from NYC Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 It is this simple, if we take a CB in the 1st RD (in a position we don't need) because he is BPA and he becomes a superstar...How is that bad? It's bad because early draft picks are the best resource an NFL team has. You should never, ever build your team around the secondary, or for that matter running backs. This is historically what the Bills do, and it has resulted in losing football games.
Mark80 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 I don't like any of the BPA or Value picking mentality at all. If I were running things I'd grade out my entire team and grade out the draft class. If I have a offensive or defensive starting position graded out at say a 65 Guard (on a 0-100 scale for instance) and there was a guard on the board who I rated as a 90, I would take him over a 95 RT when I already have a 80 RT on the roster. 90-65=25 95-80=15. 25>15. You would improve your team more this way. Draft the player that will provide the biggest impact on your squad and build around what you already have. This is a win now league for the most part, and this is the best way to win now. Obviously not a perfect system as some positions are more valuable (namely QB) but I think you get the jist of what I'm trying to say.
OCinBuffalo Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Okay, lets get one thing out in the open. IF anyone out there has a better chart for estimating the relative value of draft picks, then the old Cowboy draft value chart.....please publish it so everybody can have then benefit of you overwhelming wisdom. The internet allows anyone to publish things that will get to a wide audience. I haven't seen anybody put anything out there. (if I've missed it, hey, tell me and everyone else! Honest!). Every time I've checked draft day trades, they are pretty much in line with that draft value chart. They will not. Why? Because that would mean admitting that the RG3 trade was exactly as preposterous as people like us, who point to the DVC, said it was. That would mean admitting that even with the last 15 years of the Redskins being aggressive(read: stupid), they ignorned that history, and told us that the Redskins know what they are doing. That's what this has been about: the draft isn't the draft, and the rules aren't the rules...because that doesn't fit their narrative. They would rather believe in "click-rate" media hype, and when the ass falls out of that hype, will never admit that they were suckered. Look at what is happening with Jaws right now: he is being pressured to adjust his views on Manziel. Why? Because the "click-rate" media says Manziel will be awesome, and not only awesome, he may even end up at the Cowboys! Jim Rome literally said today: "I get on my knees and pray that Manziel goes to the Cowboys". Consider that. Why? Why does Jim Rome want that? Easy. Because of the clicks and calls that will generate. EDIT: Rome is saying it right now, all over again. EDIT2: Direct Quote from Rome: "It's not about whether it makes football sense" See? They aren't even trying to hide it anymore. Big Market-driven NFL in technicolor. Jesus. Now? Rome is saying "we shoud draft guys based on their twitter followers". He is laying it right out for you. Yeah, tell me more about how the media isn't totally corrupt. So, I'll say what I say again: telling a lot of people what they want to hear, is a great way of making $, or getting elected, or driving an agenda, provided those people are unmitigated morons, are too lazy to do their own thinking, or are just as corrupt as the people doing the telling. Edited April 24, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
maryland-bills-fan Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 It is this simple, if we take a CB in the 1st RD (in a position we don't need) because he is BPA and he becomes a superstar...How is that bad? We need superstars... every great team has at least 4-5 super stars, HOF types. We don't have one superstar. M. Williams might be counted as one if he has a better year than last this year. I hate reaching, at all!!! If we must reach, that is what rounds 4-7 are for. It is bad if you are so weak at several other positions that you go 5-11.
Recommended Posts