Pats 2022 draft class

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
470
Boston
And they generally do a good job of predicting the overall range a player will be drafted! 82% of this draft's first 150 picks were on the consensus big board top 150, which to me is a great result.
This is a great argument that its directionally accurate; not so much that it is precise to use it as to whether someone would still be out there in 15, 20, or 30 picks. Its proof of accuracy without precision.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
40,728
Hartford, CT
I asked this earlier but is it? Or more to the point is there a better metric? Willis, Dean, Strange, Corral and others were drafted in the top 150 but most would agree that media projections for them were not very accurate.
I expect that the accuracy figure is to a degree misleading in that is insensitive as to the range within the top 150 a player is selected (a guy at 20 who is picked at 80, a la Willis, would count as a ‘hit’) and, I suspect, it performs a lot worse from picks 75-100, 100-125, etc. If your top 50 are almost all picked in the top 150, that’s not very impressive.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
26,721
I expect that the accuracy figure is to a degree misleading in that is insensitive as to the range within the top 150 a player is selected (a guy at 20 who is picked at 80, a la Willis, would count as a ‘hit’) and, I suspect, it performs a lot worse from picks 75-100, 100-125, etc. If your top 50 are almost all picked in the top 150, that’s not very impressive.
yeah 150 is way too deep to tell you much. What I'd want to see is something like.... How many players were you within 20 picks on.
So did your top 10 all go 1st round... did your late 1sts go before late 2nd, that would be a better indicator to me.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
3,574
I expect that the accuracy figure is to a degree misleading in that is insensitive as to the range within the top 150 a player is selected (a guy at 20 who is picked at 80, a la Willis, would count as a ‘hit’) and, I suspect, it performs a lot worse from picks 75-100, 100-125, etc. If your top 50 are almost all picked in the top 150, that’s not very impressive.
Right. I don't find that 82% figure to be very useful for this reason.

There has to be a better metric. I'd love to see what % of picks were picked with +/- 5 slots of general consensus, 10 slots, 20 slots, etc. It'd be fascinating to look at.
This is what I'd like to see but don't don't think anyone has taken the time. Be interesting to see how quickly those intervals change as well. How well does the consensus predict in the back half of the 1st vs the back half of the 2nd, etc?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
14,957
What good is evaluating a player well if there is no value added? Take Ted Larsen, a center drafted by the Pats in the sixth round in 2010. He didn't even make the team out of training camp but went on to have a decent enough career. Yes, he was properly identified but he took reps and a roster spot away from another guy. The team got no trade value from him and could have traded the pick for a useful player or into a future year. Yes, sixth-rounders are crapshoots but I would argue that selecting a guy that is then cut makes the team worse off than just forfeiting the pick altogether.
"In the sixth round of the 2010 NFL Draft, the New England Patriots have decided not to select anyone ... and will just forfeit the pick."

Kiper: Excellent value in this spot
"And the New England Patriots, with the 199th pick of the 2000 NFL Draft, decide to forfeit the pick. The New Orleans Saints are now on the clock...."
 

Cousin Walter

lurker
Jun 26, 2006
151
Manhattan, KS
All I'm saying is there is opportunity cost to consider. You shouldn't get credit for drafting well if a guy just clogs up your roster only to be cut and go start for another team.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,170
Hingham, MA
Right. I don't find that 82% figure to be very useful for this reason.

This is what I'd like to see but don't don't think anyone has taken the time. Be interesting to see how quickly those intervals change as well. How well does the consensus predict in the back half of the 1st vs the back half of the 2nd, etc?
I would imagine there is very little variance in the top 5-10 picks, and then increasing variance into the middle rounds... but then in the 6th-7th rounds + UDFA it probably gets more accurate. In other words, the guys who are ranked consensus 180-250 probably almost all end up in the 6th-7th or UDFA.
 

Cousin Walter

lurker
Jun 26, 2006
151
Manhattan, KS
He took reps during training camp that prevented the team from getting a better look at other guys. And a sixth-round pick probably takes up marginally more cap space than a street/UDFA. It's a small but nonzero waste of resources.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,497
Using this as a standard - https://ftw.usatoday.com/gallery/nfl-mock-draft-2022-consensus-round-1-final

Here's their methodology: "We’re using a bunch of mocks — specifically, our latest mock from Christian D’Andrea, one from Draft Wire, ESPN’s Matt Miller, CBS Sports and NFL.com. We look at the picks each made and average out each player’s positions and match them to each of the first 32 picks. Anyone left out of a first-round mock was assigned the 33rd pick."

Comparing their "consensus" 1st round mock draft with where those players actually went.

1. Aidan Hutchinson - 1st round, #2 - diff of 1
2. Travon Walker - 1st round, #1 - diff of 1
3. Kayvon Thibodeaux - 1st round, #5 - diff of 2
4. Ahmad Gardner - 1st round, #4 - diff of 0
5. Evan Neal - 1st round, #7 - diff of 2
6. Ikem Ekwonu - 1st round, #6 - diff of 0
7. Derek Stingley - 1st round, #3 - diff of 4
8. Jermaine Johnson - 1st round, #26 - diff of 18
9. Charles Cross - 1st round, #9 - diff of 0
10. Kenny Pickett - 1st round, #20 - diff of 10
11. Kyle Hamilton - 1st round, #14 - diff of 3
12. Garrett Wilson - 1st round, #10 - diff of 2
13. Malik Willis - 3rd round, #86 - diff of 73
14. Drake London - 1st round, #8 - diff of 6
15. Trevor Penning - 1st round, #19 - diff of 4
16. Trent McDuffie - 1st round, #21 - diff of 5
17. Jordan Davis - 1st round, #13 - diff of 4
18. Jameson Williams - 1st round, #12 - diff of 6
19. Devin Lloyd - 1st round, #27 - diff of 8
20. Chris Olave - 1st round, #11 - diff of 9
21. Zion Johnson - 1st round, #17 - diff of 4
22. Treylon Burks - 1st round, #18 - diff of 4
23. George Karlaftis - 1st round, #30 - diff of 7
24. Andrew Booth - 2nd round, #42 - diff of 18
25. Tyler Linderbaum - 1st round, #25 - diff of 0
26. Kenyon Green - 1st round, #15 - diff of 11
27. Devonte Wyatt - 1st round, #28 - diff of 1
28. Jahan Dotson - 1st round, #16 - diff of 12
29. Tyler Smith - 1st round, #24 - diff of 5
30. Desmond Ridder - 2nd round, #74 - diff of 44
31. Lewis Cine - 1st round, #32 - diff of 1
32. Daxton Hill - 1st round, #31 - diff of 1

Actual 1st rounders and where the Sporting News 7-round mock draft had them
22. Quay Walker - projected 3rd round, #70 - diff of 48
23. Kaiir Elam - projected 2nd round, #37 - diff of 14
29. Cole Strange - projected 3rd round, #90 - diff of 61

So let's evaluate these 35 picks - the 32 projected in the first round, and then the 3 who weren't, but who actually got drafted in the first round.

- 29 of 35 (82.9%) were correctly projected in the round in which they were drafted.
- 20 of 35 (57.1%) were projected +/- 5 spots from where they were drafted.
- 12 of 35 (34.3%) were projected +/1 3 spots from where they were drafted.

Using this tool - the updated draft value chart - https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart-Rich-Hill.asp ... here's some interesting info...

- Jermaine Johnson was projected at #8 (406 points), and dropped to #26 (223 points). That's a difference of 183 points.
- Malik Willis was projected at #13 (336 points), and dropped to #86 (49 points). That's a difference of 287 points.
- Andrew Booth was projected at #24 (237 points), and dropped to #42 (142 points). That's a difference of 95 points.
- Desmond Ridder was projected at #30 (196 points), and dropped to #74 (64 points). That's a difference of 132 points.
- Kenny Pickett was projected at #10 (369 points), and dropped to #20 (269 points). That's a difference of 100 points.
- Drake London was projected at #14 (325 points), and rose to #8 (406 points). That's a difference of 81 points.
- Quay Walker was projected at #70 (70 points), and rose to #22 (253 points). That's a difference of 183 points.
- Kaiir Elam was projected at #37 (162 points), and rose to #23 (245 points). That's a difference of 83 points.
- Cole Strange was projected at #90 (45 points), and rose to #29 (203 points). That's a difference of 158 points.

So I think for the most part, the consensus mock drafts did a pretty good job. But Cole Strange was not the biggest mover among these 35 players, if you are looking at the draft value chart. Jermaine Johnson's drop from #8 to #26 was a bigger difference in terms of value than Cole Strange's rise from #90 to #29. Quay Walker's rise from #70 to #22 was also bigger than Strange's rise, from a value point of view.

Now looking at that Sporting News mock, here's the Patriots' selections compared to their mock (along with +/- draft value points)...Note: any UDFA automatically got placed in spot #263, since there were 262 players drafted.

1-29 (203 pts) - Cole Strange - projected 3-90 (45 pts) - diff of 61 spots, diff of 158 pts
2-50 (115 pts) - Tyquan Thornton - projected 5-166 (9 pts) - diff of 116 spots, diff of 106 pts
3-85 (50 pts) - Marcus Jones - projected 3-91 (44 pts) - diff of 6 spots, diff of 6 pts
4-121 (25 pts) - Jack Jones - projected 7-244 (2 pts) - diff of 123 spots, diff of 23 pts
4-127 (22 pts) - Pierre Strong - projected 5-179 (7 pts) - diff of 52 spots, diff of 15 pts
4-137 (18 pts) - Bailey Zappe - projected 4-122 (25 pts) - diff of 15 spots, diff of 7 pts
6-183 (7 pts) - Kevin Harris - projected UDFA (0 pts) - diff of 80 spots, diff of 7 pts
6-200 (5 pts) - Sam Roberts - projected UDFA (0 pts) - diff of 63 spots, diff of 5 pts
6-210 (4 pts) - Chasen Hines - projected 7-250 (2 pts) - diff of 40 spots, diff of 2 pts
7-245 (2 pts) - Andrew Stueber - projected UDFA (0 pts) - diff of 18 spots, diff of 2 pts

So of their 10 picks, NE drafted 9 of them higher than projected. And the one guy that they drafted lower than projected was a QB that many people didn't even think was on NE's radar, given that they've already got three QBs on the roster. On average, NE drafted their players 54 spots higher than projected.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,170
Hingham, MA
He took reps during training camp that prevented the team from getting a better look at other guys. And a sixth-round pick probably takes up marginally more cap space than a street/UDFA. It's a small but nonzero waste of resources.
They get 90 roster spots. It's really not an issue. It's about creating competition. If a 6th rounder gets beat out by a UDFA, so be it. It's about finding the best talent. Rookie draft picks get cut every single year by every single team. There aren't enough roster spots for all 250 rookies to make NFL rosters.
 
Lots of good stuff
This has to be the way to think about it IMO. I don't agree with those people arguing there's no such thing as a reach, but I do agree that once you're past the first few rounds it's pretty meaningless because those picks just aren't worth all that much anyway. The Pats "reach" in the 4th round - more than 120 spots over projection - costs them only 23 points of value according to the chart. Not a huge deal, and that's for a guy taken way earlier than expected. I wouldn't consider any pick after the 3rd round to be a meaningful reach really.

Round selected is much too blunt a metric on the other hand. A guy ranked 30th who gets taken inside the top 10....that's much more of a reach situation, even though it's only 20 or so spots and it's a first rounder taken in the first round.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,497
Yeah the Jack Jones pick....when it's phrased as "they took a projected 7th rounder in the 4th round" or even "they took a guy projected to go 244th way up at #121", it looks and sounds like a massive reach. But that assumes a lot of wrong things about how this stuff works. You're right @NobodyInteresting - it's just 23 points of value. That's the same as drafting a guy projected to go #26 (223 points) at #23 (245 points - a difference of 22 points).

I mean, it's actually in terms of how these picks are truly valued, barely anything at all.

If we kind of want to be a little crazy about it, think about the Jags taking Walker at #1. He was projected to go #2 (717 points), but he went #1 (1,000 points). That's a difference of 283 points. It's the same difference as that between #18 (287 points) and #204 in the 6th round (4 points).

In other words, going by the draft value chart (and yes this is a crazy extreme example), the Jags "reaching" one spot for Walker at #1 is like if Tennessee drafted at #18 a guy projected to be in the late 5th or early 6th round.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,571
The only true way (imo) to look at a reach is "would this guy be available next time we pick".

If the answer is definitively yes, it's a reach. If the answer is maybe, then you have to evaluate how much it would bother you if someone did take them before then & compare it to the likelihood of it happening.

Draft value charts are fine, but they don't actually have anything to do with what engenders a reach - just how potentially damaging making the wrong reach may be.

At some point you kind of just have to trust your process for evaluating what players suit your team, with as much knowledge as possible regarding what other teams may do but that's obviously an even more inexact science than the grading of players itself.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
31,170
Hingham, MA
Am I missing something in this tweet? If the class counts over 10 million and they only have 765k how do they need only 1.74 million?
It's poorly worded, but he is basically saying they need to clear another ~$1M in cap room to fit the rookies in, due to the Top 51 rule. They drafted 10 guys, those 10 guys will bump players 42-51 off the Top 51, thus creating some space, but leaving the Pats ~$1M short. I think.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
3,488
Somerville, MA
It's poorly worded, but he is basically saying they need to clear another ~$1M in cap room to fit the rookies in, due to the Top 51 rule. They drafted 10 guys, those 10 guys will bump players 42-51 off the Top 51, thus creating some space, but leaving the Pats ~$1M short. I think.
Thanks. So they’re bumping guys making roughly 7.5 million which seems like a lot but I guess it’s 10 guys and the vet minimum is 660k.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,497
The only true way (imo) to look at a reach is "would this guy be available next time we pick".

If the answer is definitively yes, it's a reach. If the answer is maybe, then you have to evaluate how much it would bother you if someone did take them before then & compare it to the likelihood of it happening.

Draft value charts are fine, but they don't actually have anything to do with what engenders a reach - just how potentially damaging making the wrong reach may be.

At some point you kind of just have to trust your process for evaluating what players suit your team, with as much knowledge as possible regarding what other teams may do but that's obviously an even more inexact science than the grading of players itself.
I think you're close. The calculus if *I* was running the team would be: How badly do I want this player, what do I think the likelihood is that he'll be gone by the time I pick again, and how much am I willing to lose out on him?

In some cases, you can be pretty confident that player X will be around for your next pick and be shocked that he's not, like McVay was when the Pats picked Strange. In other cases, you can want a guy really badly and think he won't be around next time your pick arrives, so whether he's a "reach" according to the pundits (or even your own big board) is irrelevant; if you want him badly enough, you take him now and don't sweat whether he's a "reach". And in other cases still, you want player X but are willing to risk him being gone because you figure if he is gone, you can go with plan B (or C or D) and you'll be okay with that.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,571
I think you're close. The calculus if *I* was running the team would be: How badly do I want this player, what do I think the likelihood is that he'll be gone by the time I pick again, and how much am I willing to lose out on him?

In some cases, you can be pretty confident that player X will be around for your next pick and be shocked that he's not, like McVay was when the Pats picked Strange. In other cases, you can want a guy really badly and think he won't be around next time your pick arrives, so whether he's a "reach" according to the pundits (or even your own big board) is irrelevant; if you want him badly enough, you take him now and don't sweat whether he's a "reach". And in other cases still, you want player X but are willing to risk him being gone because you figure if he is gone, you can go with plan B (or C or D) and you'll be okay with that.
Aren't the 1st & 3rd thing just the same thing stated differently?

I think giant reaches on your own big board are problematic for long-term success but I guess I would already have positional scarcity (& positional value) factored into my conglomerate big board.

I think we're on the same page, though.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Thanks. So they’re bumping guys making roughly 7.5 million which seems like a lot but I guess it’s 10 guys and the vet minimum is 660k.
I think of it as a temporary accounting measure - they aren't bumping them in terms of complete replacement - it's just the salary cap game the NFL imposes during offseason roster swelling. I guess the reasoning is that only the top X players are likely to make the team (and therefore should be counted against the cap) and if you bothered to draft these players, you must feel they are likely to be in the top X so they count. Surprisingly, it seems like a pretty reasonable approach.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Aren't the 1st & 3rd thing just the same thing stated differently?

I think giant reaches on your own big board are problematic for long-term success but I guess I would already have positional scarcity (& positional value) factored into my conglomerate big board.

I think we're on the same page, though.
I think your statement is true, but there are obvious exceptions if a team has certain strategic approaches, combined with GM job security. Additionally I think the Patriots do everything they can to ensure the draft is about talent acquisition and rarely constrain themselves in the draft with respect to position. I believe the Patriots utilize positional scarcity and positional value while making an intentional choice governing their 'reaching' decisions. Rather than artificially inflate a players valuation because of positional scarcity (& positional value) they take a longer term view and draft higher skilled players that meet their desired criteria (at that premium position) and pay the premium for 'reaches' when necessary.

Some exceptions where long term success is not impeded by 'reaching':
  • A team ahead of the curve a bit (like during the various Pats runs) or simply willing to invest in the future, reaching to net a player with highly desirable skills but a longer development process can be viable to sustain the team long term. In that moment, the pick is already for the future and a 1 or 2 round 'reach' becomes less meaningful (even if the present day value/results are sacrificed). We see that with the Pats reasonably often, and over time it makes more sense if the team perceives the draft is thin in higher end (ready to contribute talent) versus other years. [Getting the player without the reach is obviously preferable, but if the player is valued for/into the future then a premium may be justified in the context of the total draft effort.]
  • Leveraging the discount of a player with a medical issue/redshirt year. A healthy player that would go in round 2 this year drops and he is projected now into the 4th round. Picking him in round 3 as a reach with intent for next year is the same as trading back a pick into the future for increased round value. McGrone is an example - a physical skill set if healthy would have made him a much higher round pick than where consensus had him actually falling. Even if he is a 'reach' he is still cheaper than if you had paid full price on the same skill set for a healthy player this year - if one was available without a draft premium of their own. [Ignoring discussion about present value/future valuation of a given pick, because the goal is getting the best talent versus winning the draft capital game in the short term.]
  • As stated above/elsewhere if your desirable player pool is small enough, over reaching might be necessary to ensure an influx of players that are likely to make/contribute to the team given various constraints like mental makeup, or scheme, or whatever. If the college game isn't producing many players comfortable with a given scheme, reaching might be the only alternative to changing scheme. If you believe in your scheme and it's long term viability then reaching is simply the premium you pay for the belief.
  • As we've seen with the Pats, if a team does have flexibility (or surplus capital) drafting impact players on ST early if you can afford the draft capital is a theoretical mechanism to maintain high quality/reliable ST and not lose someone you value to another team. This is especially viable if your coach places a extremely high value on reliability, field position, and pressuring other teams to make long drives while your defense bends and doesn't break. Additionally as I've stated elsewhere, those impact special teamers (particularly kickers) tend to have longer careers (and that spreads the cost of the reach over a longer term) - increasing long term success for the team.
  • I think paying a premium in draft capital to get a desirable player is also an example of reaching - perhaps in reverse? Barmore is an example (terminology aside, but they 'reached'/overpaid to get him in his likely draft position). It certainly falls into generally being 'problematic for long-term success'. And yet if you have a limited pool of players who you think are impactful or high end contributors, a reach is less painful if you meet your roster construction goals (actual on field results/performance aside).

I understand these are obvious scenarios - but they all represent exceptions to simply maxing out THIS years draft in any given year, and in some cases are designed to ensure long term success versus immediate ROI. I still agree with your point in general - I just think the times where the Patriots 'unnecessarily' reach for a player against the long term interests of the team are smaller in number than at first blush.
 
Last edited:

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,675
Mansfield MA
Aren't the 1st & 3rd thing just the same thing stated differently?

I think giant reaches on your own big board are problematic for long-term success but I guess I would already have positional scarcity (& positional value) factored into my conglomerate big board.

I think we're on the same page, though.
What does it mean to have "giant reaches on your own big board"? Like, they didn't think Strange and Thornton were the best available players when they picked them?
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,924
New York City
What does it mean to have "giant reaches on your own big board"? Like, they didn't think Strange and Thornton were the best available players when they picked them?
I think he means don't pick the number 75 player at guard with the number 29 pick because you need a guard wicked bad when there's a [corner/receiver/DT/any position other than kicker/LS/special tamer avialble who is 35 on your board].

We'll never know but I wouldn't be shocked if there was a non guard who had a ranking higher than strange when they picked strange--Logan Hall? McCreary?--of if perhaps Marcus Jones was ahead of Thornton on their board but they went receiver first corner second because of the likelihood of a run on receivers. BUt it's impossible to tell how much they deviated because of tactical concerns.

I assume since BB is smart he will approach the draft in a somewhat tactical matter and I have no particular issue with that. Whatever draft problems the Pats have it isn't picking a guy 10 picks too early, it's picking a few too many guys who can't play.
 

GB5

lurker
Aug 26, 2013
325
Not sure this is the right thread for it, but the Pats are poaching a scout from Tampa Bay. Tony Kinkela. 13 years with TB.
 

Over Guapo Grande

panty merchant
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2005
3,016
Worcester
I think he means don't pick the number 75 player at guard with the number 29 pick because you need a guard wicked bad when there's a [corner/receiver/DT/any position other than kicker/LS/special tamer avialble who is 35 on your board].
Special Tamers could come in handy playing the Lions, Dolphins, Bears, Colts, etc.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,571
What does it mean to have "giant reaches on your own big board"? Like, they didn't think Strange and Thornton were the best available players when they picked them?
I was responding to BaseballJones' post where he suggested that was ok.

I don't think they do that or that it's particularly ok but you would have to ask him what he meant by it.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,571
I was responding to BaseballJones' post where he suggested that was ok.

I don't think they do that or that it's particularly ok but you would have to ask him what he meant by it.
I just realized I might have misread when he wrote "your own big board" & he might not have meant the team's own big board.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,571
I think he means don't pick the number 75 player at guard with the number 29 pick because you need a guard wicked bad when there's a [corner/receiver/DT/any position other than kicker/LS/special tamer avialble who is 35 on your board].

We'll never know but I wouldn't be shocked if there was a non guard who had a ranking higher than strange when they picked strange--Logan Hall? McCreary?--of if perhaps Marcus Jones was ahead of Thornton on their board but they went receiver first corner second because of the likelihood of a run on receivers. BUt it's impossible to tell how much they deviated because of tactical concerns.

I assume since BB is smart he will approach the draft in a somewhat tactical matter and I have no particular issue with that. Whatever draft problems the Pats have it isn't picking a guy 10 picks too early, it's picking a few too many guys who can't play.
I am of the school of thought that positional need should be a tiebreaker not a decision-maker, though, yeah, but it all factors in.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
17,497
I was responding to BaseballJones' post where he suggested that was ok.

I don't think they do that or that it's particularly ok but you would have to ask him what he meant by it.
What *I* meant was that maybe even on your own board you have player X as a 2nd round player, but you use a 1st round pick on him because by the time your 2nd round pick comes, you're not sure he'll be available. Like if you draft #29 and you like Strange, but your next pick is the 21st pick of the 2nd round. You might think he's really a player that is a 2nd round talent, but you suspect he'll be gone by, say, the 15th pick of the 2nd round, so you figure, ugh, I'd rather not use a 1st round pick on him but if I want him, I kind of have to pick him here because he won't be around for MY 2nd round pick, even though he's really a 2nd round talent. That would be a "reach" according to your own big board (drafting a player a round ahead of where he probably normally would go).

Not sure if that makes sense to you all. It does to me but I'm not sure I am explaining myself well.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,571
What *I* meant was that maybe even on your own board you have player X as a 2nd round player, but you use a 1st round pick on him because by the time your 2nd round pick comes, you're not sure he'll be available. Like if you draft #29 and you like Strange, but your next pick is the 21st pick of the 2nd round. You might think he's really a player that is a 2nd round talent, but you suspect he'll be gone by, say, the 15th pick of the 2nd round, so you figure, ugh, I'd rather not use a 1st round pick on him but if I want him, I kind of have to pick him here because he won't be around for MY 2nd round pick, even though he's really a 2nd round talent. That would be a "reach" according to your own big board (drafting a player a round ahead of where he probably normally would go).

Not sure if that makes sense to you all. It does to me but I'm not sure I am explaining myself well.
How far down your big board is he? Like presumably the people you have ranked ahead of him are players you want more who you also expect to be gone by your next pick?

I've only ever made Madden & fantasy football big boards, but if there is a super deep positional group where the talent is flat but only 1 or 2 guys at another position then a huge drop off, I would rank the scarcity guys ahead of the deep guys if the talents were remotely similar because what's the point of making a big board if you don't intend to roughly follow it if everything goes to plan? Obviously if there's a huge run on the deep guys you could "reach" on your big board to make sure you get one before the tier drop off.

Bottom line, though, teams should probably have 3 boards, plus a tiered list:

1) Big Board ordered by talent + positional value (which I believe is the list you are envisioning) - could make sense to reach on this board for need, but generally best not to go into drafts with needs & not wants.

2) Big Board ordered by the order you would actually expect to draft players - should not really be in a position to have to reach.

3) A mock draft board which includes your best Intel on where you expect players to go - can reach if you are not completely sure on your Intel and/or really want a specific player.

4) A list of the order you rank players by position with tiers - & not standard positions, how you use the player. Like separate lists for slot corners/outside corners, X/Y/slot receivers, move guard/big guard, etc - should always be taking your top guy from any particular list unless you are sure he'll be there later & intend on double dipping at the position.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,130
All I'm saying is there is opportunity cost to consider. You shouldn't get credit for drafting well if a guy just clogs up your roster only to be cut and go start for another team.
Doesn't this overlook the real-world likelihood that the putatively well-drafted guy who got cut only got cut because the team drafted/acquired/developed someone better at roughly the same time? I think you might be missing the forest (draft good players) for the trees (*this* guy was good enough for someone, but not for us).
Obviously, at the extremes, you'd be right. There's no reason to draft a player at position x in round 1 when you have a 25 year old all-pro player at that position signed to a team-friendly long-term deal.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
14,957
He took reps during training camp that prevented the team from getting a better look at other guys. And a sixth-round pick probably takes up marginally more cap space than a street/UDFA. It's a small but nonzero waste of resources.
Doesn't really work that way. If after some training camp reps it's obvious a player is not going to play, his reps get dialed back to those with other players that are likely to be cut. Between practice squad, shadow roster, and future considerations, there is still value to be had with those 3rd team reps while the others are resting.
 

Bowser

lurker
Sep 27, 2019
127
Apologies if this has been covered, but I see no reference in this thread to BLESTO and The National, the two scouting services most (27 out of 32) NFL franchises are currently affiliated with. Both emerged in the 1960s as ways for teams to pool resources and achieve more scouting coverage nationwide. Given this, it's no surprise that teams develop a shared understanding of a player's value -- a true consensus, and one pundits and the media would not have access to. Read more here and here.

BLESTO has ATL, BUF, CHI, CLE, DAL, DET, HOU, JAC, MIA, MIN, NYG, PIT.

The National has AZ, CAR, CIN, DEN, GB, KC, NO, NYJ, PHI, STL, SD, SF, SEA, TB, TEN.

The five unaffiliated teams are BAL, IND, OAK, WSH and you know who.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
5,797
Should have heeded the unwatchable warning. At least this takes the mystery out of " But how many teammates were at his draft party?" out of the equation for future debate on a big second contract.
It was totally unwatchable - I had no idea what was happening but I did learn about portable hibachi in tents...so that was something. Based on Bourne's reaction to the trade down by BB, he hasn't paid attention for 20 years. This was me in year 1 or 2 of the the pats drafts

View: https://twitter.com/Patsperfect_/status/1521984860331679744
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
15,087
It was totally unwatchable - I had no idea what was happening but I did learn about portable hibachi in tents...so that was something. Based on Bourne's reaction to the trade down by BB, he hasn't paid attention for 20 years. This was me in year 1 or 2 of the the pats drafts

View: https://twitter.com/Patsperfect_/status/1521984860331679744
I learned that Mac Jones has the same deck railing that I have (it's pretty common, though). I just had to wash mine a week or so ago -- I imagine someone will do his for him.
 

Ale Xander

killed off Vin Scully
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
50,426
It was totally unwatchable - I had no idea what was happening but I did learn about portable hibachi in tents...so that was something. Based on Bourne's reaction to the trade down by BB, he hasn't paid attention for 20 years. This was me in year 1 or 2 of the the pats drafts

View: https://twitter.com/Patsperfect_/status/1521984860331679744
Back Bay ceilings with Nantucket decor. I like it. Mac is definitely showing more coastal Florida (home) than Tuscaloosa.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,675
Mansfield MA
Apologies if this has been covered, but I see no reference in this thread to BLESTO and The National, the two scouting services most (27 out of 32) NFL franchises are currently affiliated with. Both emerged in the 1960s as ways for teams to pool resources and achieve more scouting coverage nationwide. Given this, it's no surprise that teams develop a shared understanding of a player's value -- a true consensus, and one pundits and the media would not have access to. Read more here and here.

BLESTO has ATL, BUF, CHI, CLE, DAL, DET, HOU, JAC, MIA, MIN, NYG, PIT.

The National has AZ, CAR, CIN, DEN, GB, KC, NO, NYJ, PHI, STL, SD, SF, SEA, TB, TEN.

The five unaffiliated teams are BAL, IND, OAK, WSH and you know who.
FWIW I think the Kipers of the world do get their hands on the NFS / BLESTO reports and it serves as a starting point / anchor for their work. For teams, a lot of the value of NFS / BLESTO is boilerplate stuff (names, ages, basic height / weight) that lets them filter out, say, 5'9" LBs from DII schools. The real scouting is built on top - the NFS / BLESTO scouts are entry-level guys.