Our second Defensive series- Perfect example

[VABills]

 

God damn that's funny, Mr. Correlation = Causation.

Cafeful, do you want to join the quickly and ever growing list of ignored?

[MRW]

On the issue of a "draft pick value" study, and realizing under any case that would be subjective, the first link you gave has pretty wild deviations with no explanation in it for the major value difference seemingly at random throughout their chart. I'm sure you can find something far more logical in assigning some average value increases across the body of the whole NFL draft if that's information you're looking for. You probably want to start with studies that provide details of their methodology, something I didn't see with that first link.

Your method of assigning value is not less arbitrary than the draft value chart, and in fact if you want to examine "draft equity" the value chart at least comes closer to capturing how teams actually value picks. So while the values assigned to the picks don't follow any easily described pattern, they would provide a useful way to standardize the draft resources being put into picks.

[DonInBuffalo]

You're confusing "value" of draft picks (which is a different and subjective measure) with position of picks, which is totally objective. If we were seeking to determine values of picks you would be correct- if we wanted to say pick #4 was "this much" more valuable than pick #20, you'd probably want to include the whole draft. But the necessity in this case is to establish a simple and accurate positional value of the first 64 picks, with the notice given in the original post that any picks awarded at the end of the second round would be given the same positonal value.

 

The study is to establish the equity teams use in the first two rounds by position, so what is required is a quantification of the actual position of the picks. For accuracy, the best way to do this is with an exact and equal gradient between picks. With 64 picks the logical ways to do that are to call them 64-1 or 1-1/64th. This provides exactly what I proposed, an exact quantification of the picks in the first two rounds. This lets you go on to examine and compare equity of the selections between teams in the first two rounds.

 

On the issue of a "draft pick value" study, and realizing under any case that would be subjective, the first link you gave has pretty wild deviations with no explanation in it for the major value difference seemingly at random throughout their chart. I'm sure you can find something far more logical in assigning some average value increases across the body of the whole NFL draft if that's information you're looking for. You probably want to start with studies that provide details of their methodology, something I didn't see with that first link.

I don't think I'm confusing anything. The "equity" of a draft pick is it's relative value compared to other things. When comparing just draft picks to other draft picks, their "equity" is their value in relation to those other picks. There is no "positional value" of a pick separate from that pick's value in relation to other picks. More precisely, the "positional value" as you describe it bears no direct relation to the actual value, or equity of the pick, (other than lower picks obviously being worth more) , so that number is essentially meaningless in any discussion of that pick's value in relation to other draft picks.

 

As I stated in my previous post, all NFL teams use charts similar to that when negotiating trades of draft picks with other teams. There aren't "wild deviations with no explanation"; it's an exponential scale with some of the numbers rounded off for convenience:

http://72.228.166.24:81/DraftChart.xls

[Pirate Angel]

Adding Stoud and Johnson in the offseason and giving Kevin williams a new deal says enough about McCargo.