RD2/#62 - Brady's Heir to the Throne

[Phragle]

That list is not particularly relevant.

 
I'm trying to stick to the theme of the thread. Blah blah, Trent Green joke, blah blah
 

I think over the course of multiple seasons, there is a real chance a good backup could make a difference if the rest of the team is Superbowlcaliber.

 
Trent Baalke thinks Blaine Gabbert is a worthy backup.
John Schneider: Tavaris Jackson
Ozzie Newsome: Tyrod Taylor
Kevin Colbert: Bruce Gradkowski
 
Maybe Bill is going to unleash an innovative three QB offense. I can't wait. 
 

Add in the fact that now Brady is 37,

36*
 

and you want to start grooming potential replacements, it makes sense to draft a QB that you like.  We're not talking about a top 10 pick.  It was #62.  I think some people upset about the pick are overrating how much value that pick is likely to produce.

 
Second round picks are pretty valuble. They can bust, but so can Garopollo. I discussed this earlier with SN.

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

If you read that entire article GM it helps Waldmans case. Everyone has opinions yes, but some people put a lot of effort into forming them.

Overcompensating is possible yes, but doubtful.

 

[Devizier]

In fairness to Waldman (and ESC), he is a pretty assiduous student of film. He also predicted Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder would be superb pros, and did not think much of Kaepernick (all of which he has painfully admitted), so his methodology is hardly flawless...

 
Which kind of film?

 

[Devizier]

Interestingly, if you look at the teams that faltered because of poor backup QB play, the starting quarterbacks begin to sound awfully familiar: Brian Griese, Michael Vick...

 

[Golddust Man]

If you read that entire article GM it helps Waldmans case. Everyone has opinions yes, but some people put a lot of effort into forming them.

Overcompensating is possible yes, but doubtful.

 
Waldman comes across as very genuine and studious, lot of effort, but his is still just an opinion. Consider that 3 years ago he thought Gabbert was the best QB, then two years later he admitted what he got wrong - ah, didn't consider that
 
I trust the NEP put in more effort.
 
He's a good read though, that's for sure.

 

[kolbitr]

 
Which kind of film?

Noir and slapstick, one would guess.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

 
Tom Brady wasn't that backup, he started the SB. I'm not sure you understood the question. Maybe my fault, not important. Who was the backup on recent SB teams? 
 
2013: Tavaris Jackson
2012: Tyrod Taylor
2011: David Carr
2010: Matt Flynn
2009: Mark Brunell
2008: Byron Leftwich
2007: Jared Lorenzen
2006: Jim Sorgi
2005: Tommy Maddox
2004: Rohan Davey
2003: Rohan Davey
 
Not exactly a HoF list there. People here are blowing the value of the backup way out of proportion. I know the backup plays when the start can't. You guys can stop telling me that. I think there's some fanyboyism going on in this thread (shocking, I know). Not every decision is perfect.
 
 

We're trying to tell you that some of the methodology you're using to make your points are extremely flawed. Take this list for example.....you discount Brady as a backup because he started the Super Bowl which isn't relevant to the discussion. Tom Brady began the season as the backup as did all those others I listed which is what we are discussing on how to value the projected backup QB when constructing a team in the offseason.. Those were the insurance policies that you don't feel were valuable.......and they all led their teams to win the Super Bowl.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Second round picks are pretty valuble. They can bust, but so can Garopollo. I discussed this earlier with SN.

Historically second round picks carry an extraordinarily high rate of failure. I heard something recently that the 1st round has produced 49% "impact players" (whatever their definition of impact was), 2nd round 15%, 3rd round 14% and 4th round 9%.

If this is indeed accurate the dropoff from 1st to 2nd is huge while not much difference in the success rate of rounds 2 to 3 and a slight dropoff to the 4th round.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

Well, everyone forgot about Easley's knees all of a sudden.

All part of the Belichikian master plan...

When BB retires and Pats go 3-13, This forum will be renamed Easley's Wounded Knees

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

On JG, if he truly loves to do film studies and "lives football" as the scouting reports say, BB must have felt he was entirely coachable and get better each season.

If so, then I see the second rounder as a pretty fair opportunity cost, not as a value put on Garrapolo's past productions nor his measurables.

 

[Phragle]

We're trying to tell you that some of the methodology you're using to make your points are extremely flawed. Take this list for example.....you discount Brady as a backup because he started the Super Bowl which isn't relevant to the discussion. Tom Brady began the season as the backup as did all those others I listed which is what we are discussing on how to value the projected backup QB when constructing a team in the offseason.. Those were the insurance policies that you don't feel were valuable.......and they all led their teams to win the Super Bowl.

 
Every methodology is flawed in one way or anther. Fact is the teams that have accomplished their goal in the last ten years haven't invested in the backup QB. It doesn't mean much but again neither does comparing Tom Brady to Trent Green and Gus Frerotte.
 
I never said backup QBs were meaningless, just not as valuable as starters. No one has made a point otherwise.
 

Historically second round picks carry an extraordinarily high rate of failure. I heard something recently that the 1st round has produced 49% "impact players" (whatever their definition of impact was), 2nd round 15%, 3rd round 14% and 4th round 9%.

If this is indeed accurate the dropoff from 1st to 2nd is huge while not much difference in the success rate of rounds 2 to 3 and a slight dropoff to the 4th round.

 
1. You're going to have to do better than that. Links or it didn't happen.
 
2. A 15% chance at an impact player isn't "pretty valuable"? I don't know how to respond to something so dense. I guess my next question would be what is valuable? Or what is value, in your opinion?

 

[Royal Reader]

 
Every methodology is flawed in one way or anther. Fact is the teams that have accomplished their goal in the last ten years haven't invested in the backup QB. It doesn't mean much but again neither does comparing Tom Brady to Trent Green and Gus Frerotte.
 
I never said backup QBs were meaningless, just not as valuable as starters. No one has made a point otherwise.
 
 
1. You're going to have to do better than that. Links or it didn't happen.
 
2. A 15% chance at an impact player isn't "pretty valuable"? I don't know how to respond to something so dense. I guess my next question would be what is valuable? Or what is value, in your opinion?

No one has made a point otherwise because literally no-one thinks backups, at any position, are as valuable as starters - that's absurd.  You're not saying they have literally zero value, and the people you're arguing with aren't saying they're as valuable as starters.  Now we've got the respective strawmen out of the way, your argument is still flawed.  I think you're right in saying that the fact that Tom f'in Brady was able to win the Superbowl after taking over midseason isn't really evidence in favor of drafting a backup high, because any quarterback taken anywhere is incredibly unlikely to turn into Tom Brady.  But the value of a decent backup doesn't seem to me to be in leading the team to a title himself.  It's in holding things together for long enough for the starter to come back with the season still alive, combined with the cap space you save by not having to sign a veteran, and the small but real possibility that the backup in three-four years time turns into an Eli or Flacco-level guy that's good enough to compete with when Tom's done.

The Steelers made the Superbowl in 2010 and the playoffs in 2012 with Roethlisberger missing four and three games respectively.  Aaron Rodgers missed four games last season, and Green Bay won three of them behind Matt Flynn to make the postseason.  2012 Washington Football Club, Kirk Cousins steps in for RGIII late on against Baltimore and wins the game, then wins in Cleveland as the starter.   In any given year, a team whose starting QB doesn't go down at all is going to have a better shot.  They aren't winning the Superbowl behind Jimmy Garoppolo in the next three years.  But there seems to be a reasonably large grey area in which the starter goes down for a handful of games midseason, and going 2-2 rather than 1-3 might make the difference between a healthy Tom Brady starting a playoff game, and a healthy Tom Brady sitting at home kicking his heels because they've missed the postseason on a tiebreak.  


 

 

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

 
Tom Brady wasn't that backup, he started the SB. I'm not sure you understood the question. Maybe my fault, not important. Who was the backup on recent SB teams? 
 
2013: Tavaris Jackson
2012: Tyrod Taylor
2011: David Carr
2010: Matt Flynn
2009: Mark Brunell
2008: Byron Leftwich
2007: Jared Lorenzen
2006: Jim Sorgi
2005: Tommy Maddox
2004: Rohan Davey
2003: Rohan Davey
 
Not exactly a HoF list there. People here are blowing the value of the backup way out of proportion. I know the backup plays when the start can't. You guys can stop telling me that. I think there's some fanyboyism going on in this thread (shocking, I know). Not every decision is perfect.
 
 
I don't consider the backup to the backup to be worth a second round pick. I don't even consider the backup worthy of a second round pick if he's sitting behind a 36 YO Brady. A third, like Mallet is defensible, but not a great use of resources. Using DE as an example, the first backup is a rotational player. In the league today, assuming health, and with a player like CJ on the team, a backup DE can easily see 500 snaps, plus postseason snaps. In the same scenario a backup QB to Brady sees none.
 
Did that answer your question?
 
 
On a macro level my point is that teams often get criticized for the players they pick or for being too aggressive, but they're rarely criticized for the players they pass or for being too conservative. Why is that? I don't think it's right. If you can criticize them for one fault you can criticize them for the same fault at the other end of the scale. Both faults hurt the team. 

As far as the "Super Bowl backups" go, others have made this point but the discussion here is about overall team construction. Why you would throw out all of the examples of guys who began the year as the backup and ended up leading their teams to the Super Bowl is completely beyond me. There are many examples (which have been provided to you) of teams benefitting greatly from having a good backup quarterback--winning playoff games, or important regular season games. 
 
I like how you just threw "assuming health" in there. Do you really think that's a sound way to build an NFL roster? "Assuming health"? Absolutely everyone can and will get hurt, and while certain players are less likely to do so than others, it's not too smart to stake your entire season on your 37-year-old (when the season starts) quarterback staying healthy for every single snap, even if there are certain factors that suggest he is more likely to stay healthy than your typical 37-year-old. And while the amount of snaps you'd project for your backup QB is certainly lower than the amount for a backup defensive lineman, in the scenario where your starting QB goes down, the quality of the backup QB becomes crucial for the team's success, far more so than the quality of the backup defensive lineman. I would expect any smart organization to consider more factors than just projected amount of snaps when assembling the roster, and it appears that the Patriots have done so here. 
 
Also, it's been said but just one more time: Mallett's contract is up after this season. Like it or not, this regime always tries to be a year ahead with these things, and while you might not consider 3rd-string QB to be too important in 2014, I'm sure you'd agree that having a young backup with upside and a year in the system on his rookie contract from 2015-17, as Brady approaches 40, figures to be nice, especially given the fact that 2014 was supposed to have an exceptionally deep QB crop--they may have felt that it was a rare opportunity, unlikely to happen again in the next year or two, to get a guy like Garoppolo for this kind of price.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
 
 

 
36*

 
Brady will start the upcoming NFL season at the age of 37.  Is that better?
 
Again, as everyone else has said, backup QBs can make a difference.  As important as a starter?  Of course not.  It's a unique position because unlike a 3rd down back or a 2nd TE, they have zero role on the team if the starter is healthy.  But just because a backup QB's role is binary (they either have no role or a huge role), that doesn't mean it's a position you should just forget about.  
 
Using a pick in the 60's on a backup QB that could also be groomed into a starter a few years down the road feels like a decent use of resources to me.  Anyone can bust out at any position, and JG may turn out to suck.  But just because it's more of a long term pick, I don't think it's automatically bad.  I understand the desire to be in GFIN mode with Brady aging, but I'm glad the team is balancing the future with the present.  

 

[Stitch01]

While to me it seemed about a round early to take a QB given the Pats current situation, I have no idea how to label the pick a mistake already.  Good QBs are so valuable that he only has to hit a small % of the time as a top tenish NFL QB as Brady's successor to make this a really good pick.  Of course its possible the player sucks, but I don't have anywhere near a strong enough opinion about whether BB and company can develop this guy into a really good QB to write the pick off as a mistake already.
 
I will say Im much happier with them taking a QB in the 2nd round than I would have been with taking a WR or one of this TE crop in the 2nd round.

 

[Phragle]

While to me it seemed about a round early to take a QB given the Pats current situation, I have no idea how to label the pick a mistake already.  

 
Then you're a results-orientated thinker? I don't care much about results. I care about the process. There's too much luck/variance in the roster building process to worry much about results in SSS. Jon Bales tweeted about this yesterday.
 
 

Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14h

I think the idea that we should wait years to grade drafts is silly and misleading. The choices are either good or bad right now, right?
 

Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14h

If we wait, we're seeing one possible path for the player selected..one path of many.
 

Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14h

We wouldn't say that someone who hits on 18 in blackjack and gets a 3 made a good decision after the fact, right?
 

Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14h

In the same way, a team that makes a high-percentage pick that doesn't work out didn't mess up after the fact.
 

Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14h

I think that sort of results-oriented thinking is what plagues a lot of the really poor drafting organizations.
 

Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14h

We don't need to wait to see the prospects play to grade them. In fact, doing so could be really detrimental to future decisions.
 

Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14h

Not only are current draft grades fine, they're the ONLY time we should be grading the choices.
 

Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14h

To be clear, I don't think teams should draft players and then just forget about them and make future picks independently of past results..
 

Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14h

..just that those player results need to be collected on the level of a position or player type...
 

Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14h

...as opposed to individual level, i.e. saying the Beckham pick for NYG, for example, was a good one if he has a good first few seasons.
 

Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14h

I think there's good evidence with WR size/college market share stats to suggest that pick in particular was a poor one...
 

Jonathan Bales @BalesFootball · 14h

So if he has a good career, that's just going to be a small part of the overall picture...a '3' that follows hitting on 18.

 

[bowiac]

The counter to that, is that unlike the blackjack player hitting on and 18 and getting a 3, the teams have more information than we do. Grading now is grading to see how closely a team's scouting lines up with your own. That's fine and worth doing, but it's also leaving out the fact that the teams know more than we do.
 
Put another way, I agree it's fine to grade now, but we should also take any amateur scouting with a grain of salt. The most we're really gonna be able to do is try and figure out what a team was thinking.

 

[SMU_Sox]

I made a post in the Cowboys thread...
 
I'm very sympathetic to BPA and on a more complete team I'd say that's a valid strategy. 
 
A few things with BPA:
 
I'm coming at this from a different perspective.
 
1) I would rather draft for greatest incrementality which is how much of an incremental upgrade over current assets considering things like length of contract, importance of position, salary, etc.
 
2) Let's pretend Taylor Lewan was BPA at pick 11. It made absolutely no sense for the Titans to take him given their current offensive line. You're basically giving up a year of possible incremental gain for another guy and Lewan or one of your other high paid assets gets bench time. Your incremental gain could be a negative when you factor into that the salary costs of a benched player.
 
3) If you model expected incremental value and want to maximize the overall pool of talent you get from a draft you use my strategy and not BPA - now BPA could line up with the way I'd do it but that is just coincidence if that is the case. But I guarantee you the incremental approach should yield, on average, a better draft than just BPA. 
 
4) The last part of the incremental strategy is a bit subjective because you have to look at positional scarcity in the draft and try to predict what talents will be left when you pick next. That's the biggest drawback to it. You have a lot of unknowns. Now I'd argue that last night it was pretty obvious that safety was a shallow pool but interior OL a deeper one.
 
 
Both models have drawbacks. With incrementality you risk not being able to predict how many talents will drop to you. I think this risk is somewhat overblown though as you'd have various positions and can practically guarantee at least one of the picks you like will be there by sheer volume alone. With BPA you have redundancy issues (e.g. Lewan and the Titans), risk not evaluating scarcity of certain positions, not addressing needs, even a possible negative incremental value almost by default. But you are getting a good player.
 
A mixed strategy that takes both into account seems interesting too.
 
Edit: there are two incremental strategies - one that tries to model the entire draft and one that just models incrementality of that one pick. The former would be complex but I think you can pull it off even with a high level of unknowns. The latter is simple enough to comprehend without further explanation.
 
 
Basically what Phragle said but put that into a model. This shit is just a gigantic math puzzle with human variables thrown in. But the strategy COULD be very quant heavy.
 
 
 
Phragle the problem with grading now is that part of this process is that the coaches think they can take unfinished products and turn them into finished ones. If you think you know a kid can turn into x, y, z, better than other people on the board that's like identifying a 3 by it's torn edge. I like the evaluation right after the draft and then a few years later when we can give the coaches the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Super Nomario]

 
Waldman's top 20 QB's chosen 2006-11, based on their upside:
 
No Flacco, Kaep, Dalton.. lots of Sanchez. Just opinions, everyone has one.
 
Link: http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2011/11/07/the-rsp-blogs-top-qbs-2006-2011/
 

I think the list is illustrative of the problems evaluating quarterbacks. We shouldn't dismiss Waldman's analysis entirely, but we can't take it too seriously either. But NFL teams don't have a great track record evaluating QBs on the whole - during the 2006-2011 span, JaMarcus Russell was a #1 overall pick, Vince Young and Mark Sanchez went in the top 5, Jake Locker, Matt Leinart, and Blaine Gabbert went in the top 10, Christian Ponder, Josh Freeman, Brady Quinn, and Tim Tebow were first-rounders, and guys like John Beck, Pat White, and Brian Brohm went in the second round.
 
Waldman does a good job isolating factors he thinks are important and evaluating the skills and talents of QBs relative to those factors. Unfortunately, he only has tape of those players from college - he doesn't get to see into the future and see what those players are like as pros. The best QBs in the league were not good right away. Rodgers, Brady, Rivers, and Brees didn't start their rookie years (and Brees sucked his first two years as a starter). Uber-prospects Manning, Newton, and Luck were dynamic playmakers as rookies but were also mistake-prone turnover machines. The most effective rookies were game managers in run-first offensives - I'm thinking Wilson and Roethlisberger. The struggles of rookies suggests that where a player is at 21-22 (the only thing Waldman is in a position to evaluate) is only part of the picture of where that player is going to be at 25-26-27. No one entering the league has faced NFL defenses; they all need a ton of work reading and understanding coverages and protections, making the correct pre-snap and post-snap reads, and getting adjusted to the speed of the game. Almost everyone needs a ton of work on footwork and mechanics.
 
So if I'm evaluating quarterbacks, I'm looking for:
1) Does he have the requisite physical tools? The list of top QBs shows you don't need a cannon arm or incredible athleticism, but you need to look for a modicum of arm strength, accuracy, and athleticism.
2) The mental / psychological / "it" factors. Does he want to be great and has the confidence that he can and will be great? How hard is he willing to work? Is he already putting the time in in film study? Does he live for football? Can he take hard coaching? Is he working with a throwing coach already? Is he a sponge willing to learn from anyone and everyone? Is he intelligent enough to get learn everything he needs to? How is his recall? Does he grasp difficult concepts quickly? Once he understands it conceptually, is he willing to drill it over and over and over again until it's second nature? Is he honest with himself about his flaws and willing to put in the time to fix them? Is he a leader who pushes his teammates to be great as well?
 
Coming out of Michigan, Tom Brady didn't have a great arm, his college stats were fine but not remarkable, and he rated pretty poorly in conventional measures of athleticism. But he became a much better player at 24 than he was at 22 and a better player at 30 than at 24. He wanted to be great and was willing to put in the work. After a dozen years in the NFL and all his unbelievable success he still literally wakes up in the middle of the night thinking about his mechanics.
 
Waldman can evaluate #1, and rates Garoppolo pretty well in these dimensions - but, as he points out, Gabbert and Ponder had these characteristics also. They also had some deficiencies and bad habits that he sees in Garoppolo. Waldman's not in any position to evaluate #2, however. It's arguable whether anyone is. From what I've read (stuff like this and this and this), I can see where the Patriots feel that he's got the mental, psychological, and personal characteristics to make himself into a great quarterback, but only time will tell.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Waldman significantly changed the way he looks at QB's. This year is a lot different from year's past. He knows his methodology wasn't doing a great job before and has since changed it. JG was a guy who he might have been very high on before, like Gabbert. 
 
His "standing fetal position" videos remind me a lot of Gabbert actually who used to do this funky shoulder dip when he senses pressure too (even if it was nowhere near). 

 

[Phragle]

The counter to that, is that unlike the blackjack player hitting on and 18 and getting a 3, the teams have more information than we do. Grading now is grading to see how closely a team's scouting lines up with your own. That's fine and worth doing, but it's also leaving out the fact that the teams know more than we do.
 
Put another way, I agree it's fine to grade now, but we should also take any amateur scouting with a grain of salt. The most we're really gonna be able to do is try and figure out what a team was thinking.

 
I agree but waiting to see if a pick pans out to grade it is worth less to me than the grain of salt from the amateur scout/statistician. You should follow him Bowiac. You'd like his content, I think.
 
 

Phragle the problem with grading now is that part of this process is that the coaches think they can take unfinished products and turn them into finished ones. If you think you know a kid can turn into x, y, z, better than other people on the board that's like identifying a 3 by it's torn edge. I like the evaluation right after the draft and then a few years later when we can give the coaches the benefit of the doubt.

 
No you're looking at it backwards. You're giving the GM credit for making a good pick even if the coaches are responsible. This is another example for grading now, not against it. This is the variance I'm talking about. Coaches aren't equal.

 

[SMU_Sox]

That's where I want to disagree. Look, if you have a seafood restaurant with veteran seafood chefs you don't buy them filet mignon to cook with. You get them the players they can really coach up/cook with. A GM is one part of a player development institution.
 
 
If I am grading:
 
It's a mix of two things:
 
A) Quality of the Player
1) Overall - for where they want to slot the player - does he have skills for that position?
2) More specifically does he project to fit into their system well?
3) Any character issues?
 
B) Quality of the Pick
1) Was this BPA? (not saying good or bad thing - just want to know)
2) Did this address a need? How pressing was the need?
3) Were there players who I thought addressed a more pressing need who were of or around the same quality.
4) What's the incremental benefit over the years? Obviously this is just a guess.

 

[Devizier]

Following up bowiac's analogy, criticizing a successful NFL franchise for their draft picks is kind of like criticizing an investment firm for their portfolio. You may be right to do so, but there's serious information asymmetry there.

 

[Tony C]

that is a good analogy, actually
 

When BB retires and Pats go 3-13, This forum will be renamed Easley's Wounded Knees

 
heh, made me laugh.
 
Or maybe "Bury My Heart at (Easley's) Wounded Knee"? 

 

[dcmissle]

Following up bowiac's analogy, criticizing a successful NFL franchise for their draft picks is kind of like criticizing an investment firm for their portfolio. You may be right to do so, but there's serious information asymmetry there.

There also is enormous competence asymmetry, in an area that is highly judgmental with many shades of gray. So while logic dictates judging things now, very, very few are equipped with the experience, talent and information base to do so.

It is quite the cottage industry that Kiper, McShay and others have whipped up. The few who do know what they are talking about -- usually because they have actually done it at this level with some measure of success -- tend to approach their work with a measure of modesty utterly lacking almost every place you look.

 

[SMU_Sox]

 
I may be remembering incorrectly, but isn't this the exact process and strategy described in War Room? That the Pats view guys not just as BPA but also in reflection to their current roster and where everyone stands in all those areas? So while a LT, CB, QB and RB may be highest rated, the DT they have fifth is the pick because they offer the biggest upgrade over a current rostered player, factoring in contract, position, etc. 

 
Yes it is, but it is also the best way to model it even with uncertainties. If I liked JG I would be ok with this pick because of the importance of the QB position and Brady's age. I still would have waited another year but that's me. My biggest problem is I don't like JG as a player. I'm also aware that I know less than 1% about JG than BB and the scouts do so my opinion means jack & shit. I also have the advantage of being down on a guy because more players than not do not work out. So I might be right about him for the wrong reasons and look like I know something but I don't.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

 
Every methodology is flawed in one way or anther. Fact is the teams that have accomplished their goal in the last ten years haven't invested in the backup QB. It doesn't mean much but again neither does comparing Tom Brady to Trent Green and Gus Frerotte.
 
I never said backup QBs were meaningless, just not as valuable as starters. No one has made a point otherwise.
 

 
Except for Green Bay spending a late first round pick on Aaron Rodgers, the year after Favre threw 30 TD's and 4000+ yards.
 
Phrasing the Garoppolo pick as "investing in a backup QB" isn't telling the whole story, and you know it.
 
There are two arguments against making this pick that have come up over and over again.
 
"The team has other needs and making this pick now doesn't help them win this year."
 
Ok. 
 
So what? Does every pick have to be made as a short-sighted endeavor? Why can't the team choose a long term approach with their draft picks?
 
This generally leads to:
 
"No, of course not. But McCaron and Murray were available in the 5th round, though!"
 
Ok.
 
So what? This argument (which I heard on D&C this morning) is completely moronic. People would rather have the team draft a player they don't like and may not even think can succeed in the NFL because...well...they were available later in the draft!
 
People hating this pick baffle me. If the pick doesn't work out, is it any worse then the handful of 2nd rounders this team has drafted (whats up Chad Jackson, Terrence Wheatley, Ron Brace, Darius Butler, Jermaine Cunningham, Ras-I Dowling...) that bust out of the league? If the team had drafted a tight end, there are people that would have declared "We won the draft! We got what we needed!", but what happens if the guy is a pile of garbage and ends up washing out in 3 years? Great, we filled a roster spot we needed with someone that sucks. The team would have spent a draft pick on a shitty player and set the position back another 3 years while they figure out how much he sucks.
 
Conversely, what happens if Brady's contract runs out in 3 years, and they let him walk (or he retires), and Garoppolo steps in with 3 years of NFL practice under his belt and is a very good QB for the Patriots for the next 12 years? 
 
The pick still sucks because we needed a 2nd tight end? 
 
It's amazing that some of the same guys that take part in the real fantasy league and put such an emphasis on the QB position can not see the benefit of sacrificing a little in the short term for what could be a franchise QB in the long term. If the Patriots feel that Garoppolo was always their guy, and he'll be the QB of their future, then they may have just gained this team another generation of winning football.
 
Also, all the hand-wringing about "we won't get any production from our 2nd round pick for at least 3 years!" is fucking lame. The majority of rookies, especially second rounders, barely produce their first season anyway. So, really, if the team drafted an above average player (which is far from a lock), they would lose 2 years of production. Considering the value of a QB in the NFL, if Garoppolo starts in 3 years and even produces at an average level for 3-4 years, you could argue the player they drafted in his place would have to have been a pro-bowl level player in order to equal that kind of QB production.

 

[SMU_Sox]

I hear that KFP and I think you raise some good points. Let me provide a few follow up questions though.
 
Given that RM's k expires after this year AND that this was supposedly a very deep draft...
 
1) Why not wait until RM's contract is up and draft a guy next year instead?
 
2) If the draft this year is deep and you already have a backup QB why not draft for a different position of need?
 
I'm not challenging you here. It's more of a discussion and I think those are the two logical questions that would go with what you are saying.
 
 
They must have really liked JG is my answer to both questions btw.

 

[Shelterdog]

I hear that KFP and I think you raise some good points. Let me provide a few follow up questions though.
 
Given that RM's k expires after this year AND that this was supposedly a very deep draft...
 
1) Why not wait until RM's contract is up and draft a guy next year instead?
 
2) If the draft this year is deep and you already have a backup QB why not draft for a different position of need?
 
I'm not challenging you here. It's more of a discussion and I think those are the two logical questions that would go with what you are saying.
 
 
They must have really liked JG is my answer to both questions btw.

 
BB often drafts for needs two years away--I assume he just doesn't think the vast majority of rookies are ready to play.  So he got Ridley and Vereen when BJGE was in a walk-year, Vollmer when Light and Kaczur were the starters, Solder when Vollmer was a starter and there was a real chance of Light coming back (and they signed Light after drafting Solder), Maroney when Dillon was in his walk year, Mallet when Hoyer was in his last year, etc. 

 

[HomeRunBaker]

 
Yes it is, but it is also the best way to model it even with uncertainties. If I liked JG I would be ok with this pick because of the importance of the QB position and Brady's age. I still would have waited another year but that's me. My biggest problem is I don't like JG as a player. I'm also aware that I know less than 1% about JG than BB and the scouts do so my opinion means jack & shit. I also have the advantage of being down on a guy because more players than not do not work out. So I might be right about him for the wrong reasons and look like I know something but I don't.

The fact that more players do not work out is a large part of my reasoning for LIKING this pick. I'm reading many here saying we have Brady under contract for 4 more years so we should wait at least 2 more to begin the search for his successor......and using that most prospects don't pan out as their reasoning.

That's ass backward thinking as you recognize that whoever we draft has a very good chance of failing yet wanting to shorten the window to locate this successor. This doesn't make much sense to me.

By starting the search now without investing a first-round pick you open the window sooner to find the right guy with additional opportunities should Garoppolo not work out. Belichick doesn't want to be the guy drafting a QB in 2016 with one crack at nailing a pick at a position where the majority fail. It's a numbers game.......and we are giving ourselves multiple opportunities so we aren't stuck with Jake Locker in 5 years after being forced to give up assets to desperately trade up high into the first round to get him because we didn't plan properly years earlier. "It's better to be early than to be late."

 

[SMU_Sox]

That leads to the question though if we can assess if JG is going to be a hit or miss given his position will be backup QB. I think you raise good points. This is a numbers game, just like the rest of the draft. The more picks and chances you have the better your overall chance of getting a good one. That applies to QB's too. I get that. I just wonder how much they can assess from him without seeing too many live action snaps. Now I might be way off on how much they can assess from a backup QB without him playing a live game. I imagine it is quite a bit but is it enough? I don't know and won't pretend to know. This isn't really poking holes at you but generating discussion/discussion-questions.

 

[soxfan121]

Given that RM's k expires after this year AND that this was supposedly a very deep draft...
 
1) Why not wait until RM's contract is up and draft a guy next year instead?
 
2) If the draft this year is deep and you already have a backup QB why not draft for a different position of need?
 

 
1. Because expecting a rookie to come in, learn the offense and be ready to take over in the first quarter of the first game of the season is unrealistic. Having JG in the building, as the #3, as one of the seven weekly inactives and watching film, learning the game plan, working with the scout team and getting used to the routine, etc. has tremendous value.
 
2. If the draft is deep, it necessarily assumes that quality players at certain positions would fall into the later rounds. Trading out of the 3rd for a 4th and a 6th turned into a RB or a C and a G - two guys who may contribute this season. The mistake is in assuming that the Pats had Sankey or Hyde rated much higher than White (for example). Based on what I've read, White fits a role nicely so is that a viable example of how a deep draft can provide help at a position of need, regardless of what position it is?
 
If they had 5 QBs they liked and 15 RB they liked, and when #62 came up there were 2 and 12...seems like the scarcer position is the better value. 
 
As for already having a backup - not after next year they don't. Mallet isn't going to be franchised and he's not going to give up a chance to play for the honor of backing up Brady some more. Refer back to #1.

 

[dcmissle]

I hear that KFP and I think you raise some good points. Let me provide a few follow up questions though.
 
Given that RM's k expires after this year AND that this was supposedly a very deep draft...
 
1) Why not wait until RM's contract is up and draft a guy next year instead?
 
2) If the draft this year is deep and you already have a backup QB why not draft for a different position of need?
 
I'm not challenging you here. It's more of a discussion and I think those are the two logical questions that would go with what you are saying.
 
 
They must have really liked JG is my answer to both questions btw.

Last year when Rodgers went down, Packers were leading the division. They then went winless for 5 consecutive games. Reacquired Flynn, who at least stabilized the situation and kept them in the running, enabling Rodgers to get them into the postseason with a win the final week.

If Brady were to go down for 9 games next season, who do you want filling the void -- a guy with a year under his belt, or a rookie?

This makes sense of getting a QB a year early if you can get someone you like, and it makes sense of carrying 3 QBs during transitional years.

 

[Devizier]

Technically, Butler is still in the league, but your point still stands. Especially because Butler sucked as a Patriot, as decent as he may be with the Colts.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

 
Then you're a results-orientated thinker? I don't care much about results. I care about the process. There's too much luck/variance in the roster building process to worry much about results in SSS. Jon Bales tweeted about this yesterday.
 

 
I can't for the life of me understand why you would ever judge a team's drafting ability without looking at how good the players ended up being.  That is literally the only reason the draft exists.  In and of itself it is a pointless exercise except as it relates to making your football team better.  Who cares who has the best process if it doesn't translate into results? 
 
Rating a draft the day after the draft makes zero sense to me.  Everyone is just guessing about these players anyway, why does it make more sense to evaluate who allocated their guesses more efficiently, as opposed to whose ended up guessing right most often?  From an academic perspective it might be interesting, but as a Pats fan what I really care about is that more of our guys pan out than the other teams' guys.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

That leads to the question though if we can assess if JG is going to be a hit or miss given his position will be backup QB. I think you raise good points. This is a numbers game, just like the rest of the draft. The more picks and chances you have the better your overall chance of getting a good one. That applies to QB's too. I get that. I just wonder how much they can assess from him without seeing too many live action snaps. Now I might be way off on how much they can assess from a backup QB without him playing a live game. I imagine it is quite a bit but is it enough? I don't know and won't pretend to know. This isn't really poking holes at you but generating discussion/discussion-questions.

This isn't a perfect science nor is there a dream scenario to develop certainty since that certainty rarely exists. It is a numbers and information game. When a seasoned evaluator like Belichick is working with a QB every day including extended pre-season action to see how JG makes the necessary adjustments I feel he should have a very good idea within 12-24 months if not much sooner.

 

[dcmissle]

 
I can't for the life of me understand why you would ever judge a team's drafting ability without looking at how good the players ended up being.  That is literally the only reason the draft exists.  In and of itself it is a pointless exercise except as it relates to making your football team better.  Who cares who has the best process if it doesn't translate into results? 
 
Rating a draft the day after the draft makes zero sense to me.  Everyone is just guessing about these players anyway, why does it make more sense to evaluate who allocated their guesses more efficiently, as opposed to whose ended up guessing right most often?  From an academic perspective it might be interesting, but as a Pats fan what I really care about is that more of our guys pan out than the other teams' guys.

Depends on the purpose of the look back.

If the purpose is to determine whether a draft was productive or not, you are absolutely right. It either was, or wasn't, or was mixed, and you're crazy to reach that judgment until some results are in

If your purpose is to critique the decision making at the time, the look back is providing perfect hindsight and in that sense is unfair. If your evaluating this way, it ought to be in real time. The problems, however, are that the teams almost always know more than the critics, and there are very few critics who really are expert. So apart from extreme cases, this is a fool's errand on very treacherous terrain.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Depends on the purpose of the look back.

If the purpose is to determine whether a draft was productive or not, you are absolutely right. It either was, or wasn't, or was mixed, and you're crazy to reach that judgment until some results are in

If your purpose is to critique the decision making at the time, the look back is providing perfect hindsight and in that sense is unfair. If your evaluating this way, it ought to be in real time. The problems, however, are that the teams almost always know more than the critics, and there are very few critics who really are expert. So apart from extreme cases, this is a fool's errand on very treacherous terrain.

 
I get that (and I am not saying there is no value in looking at the draft this way), but ultimately who cares if good decision making doesn't lead to good draft results? 

 

[Phragle]

As far as the "Super Bowl backups" go, others have made this point but the discussion here is about overall team construction. Why you would throw out all of the examples of guys who began the year as the backup and ended up leading their teams to the Super Bowl is completely beyond me. There are many examples (which have been provided to you) of teams benefitting greatly from having a good backup quarterback--winning playoff games, or important regular season games. 
 
I like how you just threw "assuming health" in there. Do you really think that's a sound way to build an NFL roster? "Assuming health"? Absolutely everyone can and will get hurt, and while certain players are less likely to do so than others, it's not too smart to stake your entire season on your 37-year-old (when the season starts) quarterback staying healthy for every single snap, even if there are certain factors that suggest he is more likely to stay healthy than your typical 37-year-old. And while the amount of snaps you'd project for your backup QB is certainly lower than the amount for a backup defensive lineman, in the scenario where your starting QB goes down, the quality of the backup QB becomes crucial for the team's success, far more so than the quality of the backup defensive lineman. I would expect any smart organization to consider more factors than just projected amount of snaps when assembling the roster, and it appears that the Patriots have done so here. 
 
Also, it's been said but just one more time: Mallett's contract is up after this season. Like it or not, this regime always tries to be a year ahead with these things, and while you might not consider 3rd-string QB to be too important in 2014, I'm sure you'd agree that having a young backup with upside and a year in the system on his rookie contract from 2015-17, as Brady approaches 40, figures to be nice, especially given the fact that 2014 was supposed to have an exceptionally deep QB crop--they may have felt that it was a rare opportunity, unlikely to happen again in the next year or two, to get a guy like Garoppolo for this kind of price.

 
Without assuming health there's no way to make a basic example, and that's what I wanted to do.
 
I'm fine with them being a year ahead of schedule replacing Mallett. I like the backup having experience in the system, and it's not only incase he has to play. It's cause he has an affect (perhaps small, but maybe not, we don't know) on every game. He's there in the film room, he's throwing to the WRs, other stuff like that. That's not one of the issues I have with this. I don't want them to always carry 3 QBs, but if you want to carry two, one can't be a rookie.
 
If you told me predraft they'd pick up a QB I'd be ok with it if it was done right. I don't think the did it right.
 

Brady will start the upcoming NFL season at the age of 37.  Is that better?
 
Again, as everyone else has said, backup QBs can make a difference.  As important as a starter?  Of course not.  It's a unique position because unlike a 3rd down back or a 2nd TE, they have zero role on the team if the starter is healthy.  But just because a backup QB's role is binary (they either have no role or a huge role), that doesn't mean it's a position you should just forget about.  
 
Using a pick in the 60's on a backup QB that could also be groomed into a starter a few years down the road feels like a decent use of resources to me.  Anyone can bust out at any position, and JG may turn out to suck.  But just because it's more of a long term pick, I don't think it's automatically bad.  I understand the desire to be in GFIN mode with Brady aging, but I'm glad the team is balancing the future with the present.  

 
Are you saying I said those things? I didn't.
 

 
Except for Green Bay spending a late first round pick on Aaron Rodgers, the year after Favre threw 30 TD's and 4000+ yards.
 
Phrasing the Garoppolo pick as "investing in a backup QB" isn't telling the whole story, and you know it.
 
There are two arguments against making this pick that have come up over and over again.
 
"The team has other needs and making this pick now doesn't help them win this year."
 
Ok. 
 
So what? Does every pick have to be made as a short-sighted endeavor? Why can't the team choose a long term approach with their draft picks?
 
This generally leads to:
 
"No, of course not. But McCaron and Murray were available in the 5th round, though!"
 
Ok.
 
So what? This argument (which I heard on D&C this morning) is completely moronic. People would rather have the team draft a player they don't like and may not even think can succeed in the NFL because...well...they were available later in the draft!
 
People hating this pick baffle me. If the pick doesn't work out, is it any worse then the handful of 2nd rounders this team has drafted (whats up Chad Jackson, Terrence Wheatley, Ron Brace, Darius Butler, Jermaine Cunningham, Ras-I Dowling...) that bust out of the league? If the team had drafted a tight end, there are people that would have declared "We won the draft! We got what we needed!", but what happens if the guy is a pile of garbage and ends up washing out in 3 years? Great, we filled a roster spot we needed with someone that sucks. The team would have spent a draft pick on a shitty player and set the position back another 3 years while they figure out how much he sucks.
 
Conversely, what happens if Brady's contract runs out in 3 years, and they let him walk (or he retires), and Garoppolo steps in with 3 years of NFL practice under his belt and is a very good QB for the Patriots for the next 12 years? 
 
The pick still sucks because we needed a 2nd tight end? 
 
It's amazing that some of the same guys that take part in the real fantasy league and put such an emphasis on the QB position can not see the benefit of sacrificing a little in the short term for what could be a franchise QB in the long term. If the Patriots feel that Garoppolo was always their guy, and he'll be the QB of their future, then they may have just gained this team another generation of winning football.
 
Also, all the hand-wringing about "we won't get any production from our 2nd round pick for at least 3 years!" is fucking lame. The majority of rookies, especially second rounders, barely produce their first season anyway. So, really, if the team drafted an above average player (which is far from a lock), they would lose 2 years of production. Considering the value of a QB in the NFL, if Garoppolo starts in 3 years and even produces at an average level for 3-4 years, you could argue the player they drafted in his place would have to have been a pro-bowl level player in order to equal that kind of QB production.

 
I don't know what you're talking about. Can you be more concise or point out my quotes that you have a problem with?
 

 
I can't for the life of me understand why you would ever judge a team's drafting ability without looking at how good the players ended up being.  That is literally the only reason the draft exists.  In and of itself it is a pointless exercise except as it relates to making your football team better.  Who cares who has the best process if it doesn't translate into results? 
 
Rating a draft the day after the draft makes zero sense to me.  Everyone is just guessing about these players anyway, why does it make more sense to evaluate who allocated their guesses more efficiently, as opposed to whose ended up guessing right most often?  From an academic perspective it might be interesting, but as a Pats fan what I really care about is that more of our guys pan out than the other teams' guys.

 
A lot of fans have the same problem you have.
 
If you don't have any experience gambling for a living I can see how it's hard not to equate the decision making process with the outcome.

 

[wutang112878]

After some more reflection I still dont like this pick.  While Brady is in uniform I would prefer the team not prepare for life without him, thats a team building philosophy thing not an analytical team. 
 
With that, I dont see much incremental value in the pick during Brady's tenure, the way I see it the teams chances without a healthy Brady just plummet.  Even when Cassel stepped in and did an amazing job, the team has a very outside chance at winning.  I'd rather take my chances on Brady staying healthy and giving him one more pick that sees the field rather than reducing the risk of a Brady injury.  I just want one last title for the BB/TB combination to have an unheard of legacy that I genuinely do not care about the future.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Not to be snarky but that's not true, Phragle. That's some basic micro economic decision making - don't need to be a gambler to know that :/... You can be a business analyst, statistician, etc. It's not just in gambling. 

 

[Phragle]

Not to be snarky but that's not true, Phragle. That's some basic micro economic decision making - don't need to be a gambler to know that :/... You can be a business analyst, statistician, etc. It's not just in gambling. 

 
That's true. I should have just said gambling is why I think that way.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

 
A lot of fans have the same problem you have.
 
If you don't have any experience gambling for a living I can see how it's hard not to equate the decision making process with the outcome.

 
I am familiar with the concept of a making a good decision (based on the odds, or in business, based on a set of assumptions) that yields a bad result.  I just don't think it really applies in this particular case because of the incredibly imprecise nature of evaluating football players coming out of college.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I hear that KFP and I think you raise some good points. Let me provide a few follow up questions though.
 
Given that RM's k expires after this year AND that this was supposedly a very deep draft...
 
1) Why not wait until RM's contract is up and draft a guy next year instead?
 
2) If the draft this year is deep and you already have a backup QB why not draft for a different position of need?
 
I'm not challenging you here. It's more of a discussion and I think those are the two logical questions that would go with what you are saying.
 
 
They must have really liked JG is my answer to both questions btw.

 
 
I think guys like you and Phragle are very process-orientated. That makes a lot of sense, considering the hoops ones brain has to jump through in order to look at as many prospects as you guys do, rank them, decide their best traits, decide if they're a fit for your team, where/when they're a fit, etc. 
 
When your process is "I rank quarterback A at a 83 out of 100, quarterback B at 79 out of 100, quarterback C at 76 out of 100", it's very easy to say "you'll get comparable talent later in the draft or in the next few years. It's all a crap shoot anyway." That type of thought process works great for draftniks, and it makes a lot of sense that members of this particular message board feel this way.
 
But what if you're a head coach of a team and your process is different? What if BB looks at a quarterback and says, "I see these two QB's as guys with the ability to mature their skill set to become SuperBowl winning quarterbacks"? If BB thinks that Garropolo has the ability to develop his talent to be a SB winning QB, then you draft that guy without hesitation. 
 
Hell, BB basically said so himself. 
 

 

"I think you’re better being early rather than late at that position.”

"We know what Tom’s age and contract situation is. I don’t think you want to have one quarterback on your team. I don’t think that’s responsible to the entire team or the organization."

 
 
It really doesn't get any more clear then that. He knows Brady is getting old and his contract ends in a few years. He thinks JG can replace him when the time comes. If BB sees him as a guy who can carry the torch, you draft him and you do it now.
 
 
 

 
I don't know what you're talking about. Can you be more concise or point out my quotes that you have a problem with?
 

 
Of course, Phragle.
 
 

 
Every methodology is flawed in one way or anther. Fact is the teams that have accomplished their goal in the last ten years haven't invested in the backup QB. It doesn't mean much but again neither does comparing Tom Brady to Trent Green and Gus Frerotte.

 
I started out explaining that your statement was completely void of fact (Aaron Rodgers), but then went off on a bit of a tangent. My apologies.
 
Your statement is dumb. It implies one of two things:
 
1.) Only QB's that are drafted and start immediately (not a backup) are successful.
 
or
 
2.) JP was drafted with the sole purpose of being a backup and can only be judged as such.
 
Whichever point you were trying to make, it's a dumb one.

 

[dcmissle]

 
I get that (and I am not saying there is no value in looking at the draft this way), but ultimately who cares if good decision making doesn't lead to good draft results? 

Given time, it usually will because luck will even out. If course, coaching can be a huge confounding factor, and the coaching needs to be good too for obvious reasons. You should care because you need to know what, if anything needs to be fixed.

 

[SMU_Sox]

 
I am familiar with the concept of a making a good decision (based on the odds, or in business, based on a set of assumptions) that yields a bad result.  I just don't think it really applies in this particular case because of the incredibly imprecise nature of evaluating football players coming out of college.

 
2 things: 
 
1) I think you are mistaken because, again, there is plenty of data showing some statistical correlations between college, the combine and the pros. While it is not a foolproof model you can help evaluate players that way and add in qualitative data and tape studies.
 
2) Modeling can be better applied to incrementality, scarcity of position, etc - not just evaluating a prospect but determining who and when to draft someone. So the whole draft game can also be modeled. 
 
 
I am fully in agreement with Phragle about a process - and I'm somewhat surprised that a good process/draft-methodology is met with anything but open arms... 

 

[EricFeczko]

 
Second round picks are pretty valuble. They can bust, but so can Garopollo. I discussed this earlier with SN.

Historically second round picks carry an extraordinarily high rate of failure. I heard something recently that the 1st round has produced 49% "impact players" (whatever their definition of impact was), 2nd round 15%, 3rd round 14% and 4th round 9%.

If this is indeed accurate the dropoff from 1st to 2nd is huge while not much difference in the success rate of rounds 2 to 3 and a slight dropoff to the 4th round.

 
 

 
Every methodology is flawed in one way or anther. Fact is the teams that have accomplished their goal in the last ten years haven't invested in the backup QB. It doesn't mean much but again neither does comparing Tom Brady to Trent Green and Gus Frerotte.
 
I never said backup QBs were meaningless, just not as valuable as starters. No one has made a point otherwise.
 
 
1. You're going to have to do better than that. Links or it didn't happen.
 
2. A 15% chance at an impact player isn't "pretty valuable"? I don't know how to respond to something so dense. I guess my next question would be what is valuable? Or what is value, in your opinion?

 There's a nice presentation by Case Massey that speaks to this problem: http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=708flipping-coins-in-the-war-room-skill-and-chance-in-the-nfl-draft

Slides are here, but they seem to be a bit screwed up: http://www.slideshare.net/sloansportsconf/flipping-coins-in-the-war-room-skill-and-chance-in-the-nfl-draft

In any case, the value of picking in the draft is may be pretty much chance-levels; in other words, drafting is governed by chance. The skill is managing the chances you have to pick. Therefore, increasing the number of chances for drafting (i.e. by trading down and picking up multiple picks, and conversely, not trading up for multiple picks), and drafting based on consensus (as opposed to a single expert/strategy) are the best strategies.

To me, picking up a QB in the 2nd round can't really be evaluated until we know what happens with Ryan Mallet, because the process isn't finished yet. If we trade Mallet for a couple of future picks, then selecting a backup QB isn't a bad idea. If we let Mallet go, then we may have wasted surplus value in the draft by not trading down and increasing the number of picks.


 

 

[EricFeczko]

 
2 things: 
 
1) I think you are mistaken because, again, there is plenty of data showing some statistical correlations between college, the combine and the pros. While it is not a foolproof model you can help evaluate players that way and add in qualitative data and tape studies.
 
2) Modeling can be better applied to incrementality, scarcity of position, etc - not just evaluating a prospect but determining who and when to draft someone. So the whole draft game can also be modeled. 
 
 
I am fully in agreement with Phragle about a process - and I'm somewhat surprised that a good process/draft-methodology is met with anything but open arms... 

 I'd love to see some citations for that data...

 

 

[Ralphwiggum]

 
2 things: 
 
1) I think you are mistaken because, again, there is plenty of data showing some statistical correlations between college, the combine and the pros. While it is not a foolproof model you can help evaluate players that way and add in qualitative data and tape studies.
 
2) Modeling can be better applied to incrementality, scarcity of position, etc - not just evaluating a prospect but determining who and when to draft someone. So the whole draft game can also be modeled. 
 
 
I am fully in agreement with Phragle about a process - and I'm somewhat surprised that a good process/draft-methodology is met with anything but open arms... 

 
Sorry, I am having trouble making my point.  I fully agree that having a good draft process/methodology is key.  I am not in any way, shape or form saying that a team should not try to understand the draft to improve their process.
 
What I am saying is that ultimately if your process does not result in good drafts (on average), then your process sucks.  At some point you have to look at the results.  You can have the greatest process in the world and if your team isn't having good drafts then what's the point of the process?  A business that thinks it has great decision making processes that continually yield piss poor results isn't going to be around very long.
 
In terms of player evaluation, again, I agree that there is a ton of data and it can be studied and teams would be idiotic not to use this.  But, just look at the threads in this forum during the draft.  The Pats pick a player and half the draft gurus in here love it, the other half hate it.  The variance is off the charts.  So trying to evaluate process right after the draft by pointing to the Pats drafting Player A rather than Player B is, to me, highly, highly, subjective.

 

[SMU_Sox]

 I'd love to see some citations for that data...
 

 
Check out stuff like the LCF for QB's. You can look at height-handsize ratio's too. Look at SACKSeer. Google it - you'll find some interesting stuff.