Absolute Draft Value vs. Value Possible With Available Picks

[Shinywalrus]

So there seems to be a bit of disconnect in my mind in the way various people and media outlets choose to grade drafts. There are two ways you can evaluate it – the absolute value of the players that each team selected, and the value of the draft strategy (ie – how much value each team got from the picks that they had). My personal view, of course, is that next day grading should be confined to media pundits who are forced by their employers to submit next day grades, and to those who don't know well enough to be embarrassed to admit that they think a draft can be evaluated the next day. So, of course, it seems silly to evaluate the absolute value of the draft, but let's take as a given that not having a #1/#2 pick, and ignoring Roy Williams as TBD, the absolute value is less than in past years.


But what in the world does that have to do with what we did with the picks we had?


Did the value we get justify a D or D+ like we've been getting? Well, let's look at the “value” we got relative to team that got a B+...let's look at the New England Patriots.


Assuming that Gosselin's list is a fair proxy for the “general” consensus of NFL teams for the top 100, after which let's say that NFLDraftScout, while flawed, is the next best choice.


At 69 overall, the Cowboys took Gosselin's 84th rated player.
At 75 overall, the Cowboys took Gosselin's 81st rated player.
At 101 overall, the Cowboys took NFLDraftScout's 96th rated player
At 110 overall, the Cowboys took NFLDraftScout's 263rd rated player (NFLDraftScout proceeded to rate this our best pick of the day)
At 120 overall, the Cowboys took NFLDraftScout's 129th rated player.
At 143 overall, the Cowboys took NFLDraftScout's 105th rated player
At 166 overall, the Cowboys took NFLDraftScout's 109th rated player
At 172 overall, the Cowboys took NFLDraftScout's 134th rated player
At 197 overall, the Cowboys took NFLDraftScout's 231st rated player
At 208 overall, the Cowboys took NFLDraftScout's 194th rated player
At 227 overall, the Cowboys took NFLDraftScout's 70th rated player.
At 229 overall, the Cowboys took NFLDraftScout's 349th rated player


We drafted around consensus ranking 5 times.
We “reached”, using the above measures, 3 times.
We got “value”, using the above measures, 4 times.


At 34 overall, the Patriots took Gosselin's 51st rated player.
At 40 overall, the Patriots took Gosselin's 58th rated player.
At 41 overall, the Patriots took Gosselin's 28th rated player.
At 58 overall, the Patriots took Gosselin's 76th rated player.
At 83 overall, the Patriots took NFLDraftScout's 191st rated player, and a character concern.
At 97 overall, the Patriots took Gosselin's 97th rated player.
At 123 overall, the Patriots took NFLDraftScout's 326th rated player.
At 170 overall, the Patriots took NFLDraftScout's 634th rated player.
At 198 overall, the Patriots took NFLDraftScout's 222nd rated player.
At 207 overall, the Patriots took NFLDraftScout's 448th rated player.
At 232 overall, the Patriots took NFLDraftScout's 440th rated player.
At 234 overall, the Patriots took NFLDraftScout's 310th rated player.


The Pats drafted around consensus once.
The Pats “reached”, using the above measures, 10 times.
The Pats got “value”, using the above measures, once.


I don't think any of us can crap on the Patriots' draft – though their historical success has typically been driven by excellent free agent picks and not by the draft as a lot of people erroneously think, they're decent drafters on par with the Cowboys. And the pundits, as we know, are often very wrong – their draft might be wonderful.


But if you look at the Pats draft, every pick they took over #100 had reasonable odds of reaching UDFA. They only got real value on Darius Butler, and probably could have traded down and kept a lot of the other players they got, even the big name guys in the 2nd round. Was their draft, on an absolute basis, better than ours? Maybe. Brace, Butler, Chung are names we all saw on mock drafts, but I doubt if any of us really has the ability to assess whether they'll be better pros than Williams, Brewster and McGee.


But on the basis of what each team did with the picks they had? Absolutely NOT. I don't see any way anyone could argue that the Pats deserve a B+ on that basis or that the Cowboys deserve a D.


It's absolute nonsense – these pundits rate players, make their lists, and then grade without giving any consideration to what they considered God's Word only one day before. This Cowboys draft may end up being a disaster, may end up being a miracle, or may end up being average. But in terms of the picks we had, no one anywhere has any justification for arguing that we didn't get good value relative to general consensus of the players' potential.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

I like the way you think.

Nice thread thanks.

 

[CIWhitefish]

Very very nice.

 

[hendog]

Nice thread. That's alot of work.

 

[starfrombirth]

I have to agree. Very valid points.

 

[xtreme_2k]

Gasp...an actual post that has an actual well thought out fact! Now if we can only get 90% of the posers...err posters on this board to post the same way maybe we wouldn't have so much chicken little running around this past weekend.

 

[Mash]

Great Post Shiny

 

[ethiostar]

We don't take kindly to reasonable and well thoughtout posts around these parts.

Now, get i says.


















Very well done.

 

[TheCount]

I think the Pats deserve some credit for getting extra picks for next year, but like you said, they don't draft particularly well and drafting well doesn't neccesarily make you the best team.

The Chargers (and the Colts, to a lesser extent) actually seem to draft very well, among the best in the league, and they still have issues on Sunday.

You're definitely right in that no one has a clue how our draft class will turn out.

 

[YosemiteSam]

It's interesting, but still mediots don't set players true value. They only guess with their limited knowledge. There is a reason they work for the media and not NFL teams.

On that note, talented players are like real estate in NYC. They get over-valued in the market, but not because it is that great of a place, but what is there is limited and if you want it, you have to strike before someone else does and that means spend more value to get your pick.

When you get a pick much cheaper than preceived value, there is a reason for it. Talented players don't drop in the draft for no reason.

Chris Canty dropped to the fourth round for a reason. Scandrick dropped in the draft for a reason.

 

[Shinywalrus]

It's interesting, but still mediots don't set players true value. They only guess with their limited knowledge. There is a reason they work for the media and not NFL teams.

On that note, talented players are like real estate in NYC. They get over-valued in the market, but not because it is that great of a place, but what is there is limited and if you want it, you have to strike before someone else does and that means spend more value to get your pick.

When you get a pick much cheaper than preceived value, there is a reason for it. Talented players don't drop in the draft for no reason.

Chris Canty dropped to the fourth round for a reason. Scandrick dropped in the draft for a reason.

Agreed, which is why we shouldn't think Mickens is the next coming of Champ Bailey.

All the same, it's the best info we have on the "general" view of players, which while not necessarily of any use in estimating how good they are, is at least somewhat useful in assessing how popular they are, since many of the sources do use scout relationships as a basis - especially Gosselin's.

Like I said, I'm not arguing that the Patriots should be blasted for drafting folks above where pundits said they ought to have, just wondering a bit at how people, primarily pundits and angry fans, can broadly criticize the selections made by one team and laud the selections made by another when the basis for the comparison they're making actually makes the exact opposite argument.

 

[DFWJC]

Nice post Shiney.

Hey, with the data available, maybe you could do Philly's? The eye test is great for me but it could be that they had a few more 2s and 3s...not sure. But just looking, I liked all of their picks vs where they were selected.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Great thread.

Well researched and you gave facts.

 

[Hypnotoad]

While you make a great point, if I were to develop some sort of criterion to grade a draft barely on quantitative traits, I would surely weight the rounds.


A value pick at #1 should have a greater bearing on a grade than a value pick in round #7.

But you do shed a light on the bias the media has. Thank you for the post.

 

[Temo]

Thanks for the info.