thoughts on draft strategy and depth of talent at positions

[theyhateme45]

http://www.panthers.com/media-vault/videos/Marty-Hurney-on-Jimmy-Clausen/c6387ca5-434f-4300-ab54-179702d7cf82

@ the 1:20 mark

clausen was the best player on their board. not just best QB, but best player....on their board.

I am only speculating, but it is my opinion that's just talk... I can't imagine them saying anything else even f they had a player ranked higher than him. My point is that it's my opinion that we only drafted him out of true need for QB.

when we took beason, we had the very oft injured and IRed dan morgan starting for us. MLB was very much a need.

when we took stewart, fox wanted a dual threat. running the ball was the most important part of his offense. we had done that with steven davis and deshaun foster. then we got williams to replace davis whom we let go in '06. we then drafted stewart to replace foster who was released in '08.

otah filled a need that existed at RT. who was his prime competition at that point? travelle wharton who we figured out was better as a guard than a tackle. they wanted a big RT mauler so they got one.

point is that this team typically does address needs in the first round, which it should. you can get away just going BPA after the first, but imo, you do more harm than good by overlooking need and just going strictly by BPA regardless of position or need.

If you use this logic then we will never draft BPA as all draft picks can be considered a need... This year.. saftey can be considered a need a long with corner, linebacker, D-Line, O-line, WR, K, KR/PR, ... Only position exempt would be QB and maybe RB.

The thing I am talking about is people picking 1 specific position and stating that is the biggest need or glaring hole and drafting that specific position. My point was also that in those years there were positions that had much bigger holes that most thought we would try to address first. BPA means this year from S, to CB, WR, to O-Line, to D-line, ect we draft the best player available who plays any of those positions, not out 1 biggest hole first.

[Marguide]

With the exception of just a few positions, the defense lacks top notch talent. This team needs more balance, and just getting Beason back is not going to suddenly fix our defense. I might feel a little differently in TD was not coming off 3 surgeries, but he is, and we just can't count on him.

Best defensive player available with the first 2 picks please. If we don't think Schwartz is good enough (and I think he is), go get a decent guard in FA. At RT, I think we are okay with the trio of Otah, Williams, Bell.

We just have to infuse this D with more talented players, and the best route is through the draft.

[rayzor]

The thing I am talking about is people picking 1 specific position and stating that is the biggest need or glaring hole and drafting that specific position. My point was also that in those years there were positions that had much bigger holes that most thought we would try to address first. BPA means this year from S, to CB, WR, to O-Line, to D-line, ect we draft the best player available who plays any of those positions, not out 1 biggest hole first.

then you pretty much agree with me on that part.

typically when people say BPA they are talking about BPA overall, regardless of need. that is what i have a problem with. you do need to take into consideration the scarcity of talent at that position in the draft. that can't be ignored either. that is my point in the thread. taking a bigger picture approach to the draft rather than focusing on just one round.

[rayzor]

With the exception of just a few positions, the defense lacks top notch talent. This team needs more balance, and just getting Beason back is not going to suddenly fix our defense. I might feel a little differently in TD was not coming off 3 surgeries, but he is, and we just can't count on him.

Best defensive player available with the first 2 picks please. If we don't think Schwartz is good enough (and I think he is), go get a decent guard in FA. At RT, I think we are okay with the trio of Otah, Williams, Bell.

We just have to infuse this D with more talented players, and the best route is through the draft.

agreed. my preference is to have at least one top notch talent for every position and then build out from there.

[nagai]

I disagree with you and here's why.

1. The media can believe that there's depth at a position, but that doesn't mean your team sees it the same way. The fundamental truth of the draft is that we are projecting how well certain players will transition into the NFL. Half of them won't transition well. This isn't me being pessimistic, this is me learning a lesson based on the history of the draft. So whenever you think there's a lot of players left later on in the draft, remember that it doesn't mean jack if you get one of those that aren't ready for the big leagues.

2. You don't know how the other teams rank their prospects. Let's get one thing straight, none of the draftniks really know what teams' big boards will will look like. The standard ranking that the media preaches only accounts for who they think will go where, and that's always bound to be off. Why do you think Jimmy Clausen fell that far? Why do you think Mallet fell that far? Why do you think Tyson Alualu - a guy who was projected to go in the 2nd round went 7th overall? If you think I'm cherry picking then you haven't been following the draft, because the list goes on and on and on.

3. Trades introduce an extra level of randomness that people hardly ever account for when they're doing their mock drafts (ie. trying to predict what will happen on draft day). Even the mocks with trades usually only involve 2 trades at most, both of them usually being wrong. When draft day comes, you can expect that number to double or triple.

What does all of this mean? OK, say you're deciding between the BPA DT and a decent CB in the first round. You decide to pick the CB because (just hypothetically, for the sake of argument) there are maybe 5 other DT's projected to go in late 1st to early 2nd round. First of all, not all 5 of those guys should be prospects that you like. There's a reason teams do their own scouting, there's a reason players drop, there's a reason players bust. Let's take that number down to 3 guys now (truth be told, this is already a charitable estimate).

Now, you may still really like those guys, you may think that you're getting a steal in the 2nd round. Here's the problem - other teams scout too. You won't be the only one the room with this godly insight. You therefore have to sit through 31 freaking picks just hoping that one of your 3 guys will still be left by the time you're on the clock again.

Furthermore, even if you think that there will only be 2 teams after you with a chance of picking a DT for example, crazy things happen in the draft. I remember when we traded down the year Minter retired and I counted all the possible teams that would pick a safety in the first. IIRC there were 4 safeties left with 3 teams projected to grab one, so I thought we were safe. Then suddenly, out of fuging nowhere, Tennessee makes what they thought was a BPA pick and grabs Michael Griffin (even though he was projected to go lower, Jeff Fisher never really gives a crap and just goes by his own scouting). Suddenly, there were no safeties left worthy of the 1st round. This isn't even accounting for trades yet! Let's go back to our DT, CB hypothetical scenario. If you picked the CB because you thought there would be more DT's left, you are putting yourself in a prime position to get fuged up the ass because those guys you were banking on could go earlier than you think.

Tl;dr, the draft isn't half as neat and tidy as people make it out to be. It's messy, it's a scrap, players bust, projections go wrong, random poo no one predicted happens on draft day. The best thing you can do in this messy situation is to accept it and do your best with each pick individually. That's why top teams like Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Green Bay always adopt the BPA strategy, because no matter what happens afterwards, you've at least gotten a player you're comfortable with.

[frash.exe]

Lets say with our first 2 picks we decided we are targeting the bpa at 3 different positions.

Lets say Position when our pick comes around in the first you have your choice of position A. with a 97 grade, Position B. with a 92 grade and position C. With a 91 grade.

Now history tells you Position A.(the deepest) historically has 7-8 picks gone before you pick again in the 2nd round and Positions B. And C. have 4-5 picks gone before you 2nd round selection.

Looking ahead the players you assume should be available at our 2nd pick carry the following grades.

Position A. 88

Position B. 85

Position C. 87

Position A. in the first and Position C in the 2nd total out to 184. That is the highest total between any combination of the 2 and the route I would take.

Btw does anybody remeber "Draft Confidential: with Bill Parcells' from last year?? I am sure you can find a video of it on Hulu or something, worth watching if you missed it last year. It was 100% the best thing I have ever seen behind the inner workings of a draft war room.

this is an incredibly unrealistic assessment of players

when you scout players you don't assign a number from 1 to 100 for every prospect

[chubs2496]

I disagree with you and here's why.

1. The media can believe that there's depth at a position, but that doesn't mean your team sees it the same way. The fundamental truth of the draft is that we are projecting how well certain players will transition into the NFL. Half of them won't transition well. This isn't me being pessimistic, this is me learning a lesson based on the history of the draft. So whenever you think there's a lot of players left later on in the draft, remember that it doesn't mean jack if you get one of those that isn't ready for the big leagues.

2. You don't know how the other teams rank their prospects. Let's get one thing straight, none of the draftniks really know what teams' big boards will will look like. The standard ranking that the media preaches only accounts for who they think will go where, and that's always bound to be off. Why do you think Jimmy Clausen fell that far? Why do you think Mallet fell that far? Why do you think Tyson Alualu - a guy who was projected to go in the 2nd round went 7th overall? If you think I'm cherry picking then you haven't been following the draft, because the list goes on and on and on.

3. Trades introduce an extra level of randomness that people hardly ever account for when they're doing their mock drafts (ie. trying to predict what will happen on draft day). Even the mocks with trades usually only involve 2 trades at most, both of them usually being wrong. When draft day comes, you can expect that number to double or triple.

What does all of this mean? OK, say you're deciding between the BPA DT and a decent CB in the first round. You decide to pick the CB because (just hypothetically, for the sake of argument) there are maybe 5 other DT's projected to go in late 1st to early 2nd round. First of all, not all 5 of those guys should be prospects that you like. There's a reason teams do their own scouting, there's a reason players drop, there's a reason players bust. Let's take that number down to 3 guys now (truth be told, this is already a charitable estimate).

Now, you may still really like those guys, you may think that you're getting a steal in the 2nd round. Here's the problem - other teams scout too. You won't be the only one the room with this godly insight. You therefore have to sit through 32 freaking picks just hoping that one of your 3 guys will still be left by the time you're on the clock again.

Furthermore, even if you think that there will only be 2 teams after you with a chance of picking a DT for example, crazy things happen in the draft. I remember when we traded down the year Minter retired and I counted all the possible teams that would pick a safety in the first. IIRC there were 4 safeties left with 3 teams projected to grab one, so I thought we were safe. Then suddenly, out of fuging nowhere, Tennessee makes what they thought was a BPA pick and grabs Michael Griffin (even though he was projected to go lower, Jeff Fisher never really gives a crap and just goes by his own scouting). Suddenly, there were no safeties left worthy of the 1st round. This isn't even accounting for trades yet! Let's go back to our DT, CB hypothetical scenario. If you picked the CB because you thought there would be more DT's left, you are putting yourself in a prime position to get fuged up the ass because those guys you were banking on could go earlier than you think.

Tl;dr, the draft isn't half as neat and tidy as people make it out to be. It's messy, it's a scrap, players bust, projections go wrong, random poo no one predicted happens on draft day. The best thing you can do in this messy situation is to accept it and do your best with each pick individually. That's why top teams like Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Green Bay always adopt the BPA strategy, because no matter what happens afterwards, you've at least gotten a player you're comfortable with.

Couldnt have put it any better

[rayzor]

I disagree with you and here's why.

1. The media can believe that there's depth at a position, but that doesn't mean your team sees it the same way. The fundamental truth of the draft is that we are projecting how well certain players will transition into the NFL. Half of them won't transition well. This isn't me being pessimistic, this is me learning a lesson based on the history of the draft. So whenever you think there's a lot of players left later on in the draft, remember that it doesn't mean jack if you get one of those that aren't ready for the big leagues.

i wasn't saying how the media views it. i never did. i'm talking about what the team views (not assuming that i or anyone in here has a clue what the team thinks).

2. You don't know how the other teams rank their prospects. Let's get one thing straight, none of the draftniks really know what teams' big boards will will look like. The standard ranking that the media preaches only accounts for who they think will go where, and that's always bound to be off. Why do you think Jimmy Clausen fell that far? Why do you think Mallet fell that far? Why do you think Tyson Alualu - a guy who was projected to go in the 2nd round went 7th overall? If you think I'm cherry picking then you haven't been following the draft, because the list goes on and on and on.

true. you still have to go in there with a strategy, amiright?

are you going to have to deviate? of course, unless you're john fox you survive by adapting. this is just a strategy.

3. Trades introduce an extra level of randomness that people hardly ever account for when they're doing their mock drafts (ie. trying to predict what will happen on draft day). Even the mocks with trades usually only involve 2 trades at most, both of them usually being wrong. When draft day comes, you can expect that number to double or triple.

agreed. still you've got to go in with a strategy of some kind. can't go in there and say "hey..we don't have any kind of idea about trades that might happen or how teams have players ranked so we'll just go in there and pick some guys we like. you've got to have a big picture plan or two or four with a few contingency plans.

What does all of this mean?

OK, say you're deciding between the BPA DT and a decent CB in the first round. You decide to pick the CB because (just hypothetically, for the sake of argument) there are maybe 5 other DT's projected to go in late 1st to early 2nd round. First of all, not all 5 of those guys should be prospects that you like. There's a reason teams do their own scouting, there's a reason players drop, there's a reason players bust. Let's take that number down to 3 guys now (truth be told, this is already a charitable estimate).

Now, you may still really like those guys, you may think that you're getting a steal in the 2nd round. Here's the problem - other teams scout too. You won't be the only one the room with this godly insight. You therefore have to sit through 31 freaking picks just hoping that one of your 3 guys will still be left by the time you're on the clock again.

it's a calculated risk. no strategy is foolproof. going blindly BPA can get you in some ugly holes and some unbalanced teams if you haven't already built a winning team.

Furthermore, even if you think that there will only be 2 teams after you with a chance of picking a DT for example, crazy things happen in the draft. I remember when we traded down the year Minter retired and I counted all the possible teams that would pick a safety in the first. IIRC there were 4 safeties left with 3 teams projected to grab one, so I thought we were safe. Then suddenly, out of fuging nowhere, Tennessee makes what they thought was a BPA pick and grabs Michael Griffin (even though he was projected to go lower, Jeff Fisher never really gives a crap and just goes by his own scouting). Suddenly, there were no safeties left worthy of the 1st round. This isn't even accounting for trades yet! Let's go back to our DT, CB hypothetical scenario. If you picked the CB because you thought there would be more DT's left, you are putting yourself in a prime position to get fuged up the ass because those guys you were banking on could go earlier than you think.

again, a calculated risk.

Tl;dr, the draft isn't half as neat and tidy as people make it out to be. It's messy, it's a scrap, players bust, projections go wrong, random poo no one predicted happens on draft day. The best thing you can do in this messy situation is to accept it and do your best with each pick individually. That's why top teams like Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Green Bay always adopt the BPA strategy, because no matter what happens afterwards, you've at least gotten a player you're comfortable with.

the top teams can afford to go BPA because they've already put together a winning team, but to think that they just go straight BPA is naive. when the packers decided they were going to go to a 3-4 D, who was their first pick? bj raji. was that just a matter of him being the BPA or the biggest need? was that just a coincidence that the biggest thing they were missing (a stud NT to anchor their 3 man front) just happened to be the BPA at the time?

teams that have built a successful and well rounded team already can afford to just take the BPA. until that point you have to address biggest needs. once we've reached the status that those successful teams have reached, then we can afford to go more BPA, but until then we do what makes teams arrive there, and that is building up the things that need built up. diagnosing needs and then picking the best player available via draft, FA, or trade until you have a solid team that all you have to do is reload.

[davos]

A certain class being deep shouldn't completely justify a first round decision in my book. If there is a potential all-pro stud in there but at the same time a guy that's a type you know you want on your team...that supersedes this idea that oh, I can scoop up someone later in the draft because that one position is deep. The late picks that people think are part of the deep classes have just as big of boom/bust as the top...it just depends on the hype of particular individuals. When you move past the hype positions and round 1, that's when this whole media projection officially goes out the window if it isn't already.

A team going BPA on their own big board most likely correlates with positional needs so I don't see the need to split these sides so decisively.

[rayzor]

A certain class being deep shouldn't completely justify a first round decision in my book. If there is a potential all-pro stud in there but at the same time a guy that's a type you know you want on your team...that supersedes this idea that oh, I can scoop up someone later in the draft because that one position is deep. The late picks that people think are part of the deep classes have just as big of boom/bust as the top...it just depends on the hype of particular individuals. When you move past the hype positions and round 1, that's when this whole media projection officially goes out the window if it isn't already.

A team going BPA on their own big board most likely correlates with positional needs so I don't see the need to split these sides so decisively.

agreed, though i think that those rankings would have some weighted element to them as far as what would be considered a priority.

[nagai]

OK sorry for the late reply, but I got busy with my thesis. Sorry if I'm brief with this post.

1. Calculated risks involve risk and reward. For that calculated risk to be worth it, you gotta a) have the rewards be the same or outweigh the risk and b) there can't be a strategy that's lower risk higher reward. Honestly, the rewards aren't as great as you think. It's fairly unlikely that you get probowl type players or even starters for all your positions of needs. I mean the very fact that they received lower grades should mean that they have a smaller chance to succeed right? The rewards of having high quality players should not be downplayed. The rewards of having multiple players with high grades has just as much of a reward than your strategy, yet it involves less risk.

2. BPA is a strategy. Don't get blinded by the idea that you have to be some sort of super manipulator with lots of moves for you to have a good strategy. The simple decision can be the good decision.

3. On the GB thing going BPA, you need to check up on their history. The year they transitioned to a 34, GB had positional preferences, this is true. However, realise that this is different from the type of thinking you're thinking of. They didn't choose a particular position because of depth down the draft. Furthermore, given the success of the players, I find it hard to say that they weren't the BPA's. You can bet your ass that Ted Thompson would not draft a prospect he wasn't comfortable with despite positional needs. It just all worked out for him that year.

They were also a BPA team during their off years. Seriously, TT is like the cover boy for BPA. Aaron Rodgers for example was a BPA pick, everyone said WTF because Favre still had a few good years left in him.

4. When we say that a team drafts BPA, that doesn't necessarily mean they're PURE BPA, because it rarely has to be like that. It's just a scale between positional needs and being the best player. BPA teams are just teams that favor the latter more. You can sort prospects into tiers and simply pick the player in the highest tier first and foremost, then sort them by positional needs.

We have been a BPA team during the Fox era. What happened was that we may have a few positions of need, say, DT > CB > DE > OT > S for example, and still draft a DE first because that particular player was in the highest tier. The year Beason was drafted, LB was probably the 2nd biggest hole, with safety being far and away our biggest worry. It didn't matter though, there were no safeties left with top grades, so we went with the beast and the rest was history. It is worth noting however that there are positions that are more important than others, even in a BPA philosophy, they're just in the minority. QB, LT and DE have typically been prized positions; I think DT's are now being seen in the same light.

[jarhead]

my thoughts were the same as this year. you draft to fix what is screwed up the most.

last year it was the offense and the biggest thing we were missing was a legit QB. we drafted accordingly, even though newton was seen as a project and wasn't considered to be the BPA by many. it was all about perceived value and raw potential.

drafting clausen in the 2nd when we did was all about going for the BPA with the best actual value. he was considered by most to be the 2nd best QB in that draft and a legit top 10 talent.

point of it all, though, is if are you not better off getting 2 legit starters and upgrades over what you have currently than just one? if, like in this scenario, you take a OG in the first and wait until the 2nd to address an area of need without much depth in the draft then you very likely only come out with one legit starter.

if you go for just the BPA all the time, esp. early, you lose any real hope of being a balanced team and can find yourself overloaded in one position or in a few positions and lacking in talent at many more.

WEll in theory you want to address what is screwed up the most.For a fan that is easier said than done.For example if we can run the ball one year and cant the next is it the running backs or the ability to block for the rbs.Our running game was best when Otah was healthy.If you cannot get pressure on the qb it is easy to say that our cbs are trash.These are just examples but I feel you build your team from the inside out.

[rayzor]

OK sorry for the late reply, but I got busy with my thesis. Sorry if I'm brief with this post.

this is brief?

1. Calculated risks involve risk and reward. For that calculated risk to be worth it, you gotta a) have the rewards be the same or outweigh the risk and b) there can't be a strategy that's lower risk higher reward. Honestly, the rewards aren't as great as you think. It's fairly unlikely that you get probowl type players or even starters for all your positions of needs. I mean the very fact that they received lower grades should mean that they have a smaller chance to succeed right? The rewards of having high quality players should not be downplayed. The rewards of having multiple players with high grades has just as much of a reward than your strategy, yet it involves less risk.

it shouldn't be unlikely, and it should be something you are striving for.

2. BPA is a strategy. Don't get blinded by the idea that you have to be some sort of super manipulator with lots of moves for you to have a good strategy. The simple decision can be the good decision.

did i say you needed to?

3. On the GB thing going BPA, you need to check up on their history. The year they transitioned to a 34, GB had positional preferences, this is true. However, realise that this is different from the type of thinking you're thinking of. They didn't choose a particular position because of depth down the draft. Furthermore, given the success of the players, I find it hard to say that they weren't the BPA's. You can bet your ass that Ted Thompson would not draft a prospect he wasn't comfortable with despite positional needs. It just all worked out for him that year.

They were also a BPA team during their off years. Seriously, TT is like the cover boy for BPA. Aaron Rodgers for example was a BPA pick, everyone said WTF because Favre still had a few good years left in him.

they had most of the parts they needed at that time. they could afford to go BPA.

4. When we say that a team drafts BPA, that doesn't necessarily mean they're PURE BPA, because it rarely has to be like that. It's just a scale between positional needs and being the best player. BPA teams are just teams that favor the latter more. You can sort prospects into tiers and simply pick the player in the highest tier first and foremost, then sort them by positional needs.

many people mean pure BPA. i've always said BPA according to need....but even with that, those needs need to be prioritized and a long view needs to be/should be taken regarding what players are going to be available and every team that goes into the warroom has an idea of what direction teams are going to be going and include that as part of their drafting strategy.

We have been a BPA team during the Fox era. What happened was that we may have a few positions of need, say, DT > CB > DE > OT > S for example, and still draft a DE first because that particular player was in the highest tier. The year Beason was drafted, LB was probably the 2nd biggest hole, with safety being far and away our biggest worry. It didn't matter though, there were no safeties left with top grades, so we went with the beast and the rest was history. It is worth noting however that there are positions that are more important than others, even in a BPA philosophy, they're just in the minority. QB, LT and DE have typically been prized positions; I think DT's are now being seen in the same light.

agreed.

[nagai]

You said that you have to go into the draft with a strategy, I said BPA IS a strategy. Sorry for the confusion. I'm just saying you don't need to approach the draft in the way you do for it to be a strategy.

Look, here's where I disagree with you fundamentally, I don't think you should aim for patching up all your holes through the draft. In a perfect world that would work, but realistically, that's just not going to happen. Teams like KC have had great draft grades every year because they tried your approach but 3 years later they look back and none of their guys are any good. They've outsmarted themselves; they got too cute. I can see that neither of us are ultimately not going to budge on this issue, so let's just agree to disagree.