Ireland talking draft "horizontal board":

[igtmfo]

Blaylock: do you go by best talent available or need?
Ireland: "You'd like to always say you'll draft the BPA, but sometimes that doesn't always work. We don't work on a vertical board -- we work on a horizontal board. You look at players based on where they're in the same area, as in where they'll go in the draft. If you have a guy that is ranked very high and he drops you have to look at him."

... Er, maybe I'm missing something, but whether vertical or horizontal, there must be ...

(Srry my dog pressed enter just before) ...

OK common sense says you NEVER rank just this QB is better than this RB just talking about the best players in this draft that is, but you rank "players versus where this other player will be in 2 years time in the NFL" ... or given THIS pick/VALUE of pick: "this player regardless of position will be a Pro Bowler, or starter, or near-starter, or contributor."

This kind of thinking you could do either "vertical" or "horizontal" ... so what does Jeff Ireland mean? Of course you could say "Picks 1-13 are a plateau of excellent players who will immediately start or will within 2 years" and "Picks 14-21 will contribute greatly" and "Picks 22-44 are hit or miss ...."

So *** does he mean by a "horizontal" board versus a "vertical" one ... it seems BS to me kind of a contrived distinction ... ??

 

[theogt]

It wasn't a question from Blaylock, it was a reference to Justin Blalock the lineman in the draft.

As for what he meant by the horizontal board vs. vertical board, it was a bit confusing. His general gist was that you group players together by where you think they'll go in the draft. You can't have a perfectly vertical board where #18 is better than #23 and so on.

Make sense? By the way, did you get that from the recap here or from somewhere else?

Oh, and what does the "S" stand for?

 

[CrazyCowboy]

We are luck to have Mr. Ireland on our team!

 

[CoachHodnett]

It may be corny guys, but I don't think the "horizontal board" is anything physical.

I'm almost positive he meant that as a way of viewing the prospects. They don't use the "vertical board" by strictly looking up and down the draft for needs and what not. They use the "horizontal board" in order to get a broader view of who's out there.

If it were me, I would use the "huge squared-board" so I could get a great view of everyone available.

 

[burmafrd]

Makes sense. There is usually no way to really tell just where a pick should go- comparing a tackle to a DB to a WR- how do you rank them as who should go first? So instead you have a group of players that are all considered the same VALUE. From that group then you pick according to your greatest need. Now of course if someone that you had in a higher group FALLS, then you have to look hard at him.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Here's what we actually use

 

[superpunk]

If it were me, I would use the "huge squared-board" so I could get a great view of everyone available.

Maybe we could use the enormous 2'x2.5' Post-It notes that Denis Collins (with one "n") used in the deliberation room.

And there's your current event for the day, boys and girls.

 

[Maxmadden]

Makes sense. There is usually no way to really tell just where a pick should go- comparing a tackle to a DB to a WR- how do you rank them as who should go first? So instead you have a group of players that are all considered the same VALUE. From that group then you pick according to your greatest need. Now of course if someone that you had in a higher group FALLS, then you have to look hard at him.

I heard this interview on BSPN radio. I think this quote pretty much explains what Ireland was saying. He said when you have players that grade out horizontally (I assume he meant equal value) then you can take a player based on need.

 

[FLCowboyFan]

For those that are critical of this statement, think about this. Ireland is a professional who thinks about the draft and player acquisition every moment of every day. Could it possible that he has a mental image of the way players lay out that is more advanced than people on this board?

I have worked with people from mathmatics to artists, to business people who build models to understand things around them. Many of the concepts are pretty complex and just because you can't read a paragraph about them and understand them do not make them any less real.

 

[Colo]

Here's the way I see it -

Pick 1 - player 1 wr, player 2 qb, player 3 de
Pick 2 - player 1 dl, player 2 rb, player 3 cb, player 4 fs
Pick 3 - player 1 lt, player 2 rg, player 3 wr, player 4 de

If you have pick one and you need a qb but it's obvious player 1 is the best player available you might still draft player 2 because though me may not be considered as good, he's still on that same level. So, in that case you're not exactly drafting bpa or for need. More like a little of both.

If you have pick 3 and you need a lt, but player 1 wr from pick 1 is still available because he wasn't picked at 1 or 2, then you take a long look at him before taking the left tackle that you need because player 1 wr from pick 1 is far and away the best player available.

 

[percyhoward]

With all due respect to Yeagermeister, Ireland wasn't referring to the vertical board that was hung on the wall and used during the pre-Parcells era.

He was talking about this horizontal board that is used while it lays flat--the one that spelled out "Jerricho Cotchery" so fast that Parcells only caught a few of the letters, and we drafted Jacob Rogers.

 

[Yeagermeister]

With all due respect to Yeagermeister, Ireland wasn't referring to the vertical board that was hung on the wall and used during the pre-Parcells era.

He was talking about this horizontal board that is used while it lays flat--the one that spelled out "Jerricho Cotchery" so fast that Parcells only caught a few of the letters, and we drafted Jacob Rogers.

That works as well as the dart board

 

[JPostSam]

Here's what we actually use

 

[Redball Express]

..of 'horizontal vs. verticle boards' means that the eval process is not just about placing a value on a player and ranking them ridgedly as to where they are to be taken.

Ranking them only vertically would equate to a ridged ranking system.

Allowing and accounting for a 'horizontal board of evaling' permits a means of using a sliding scale so to speak of, knowing where a player may be more valuable if he also happens to fit a position of need as well as where his position on the 'verticle board' might place him.

It allows for educated guesses as to reading between the lines and allowing fine points of distinction be clearer for the team considering the player.

Of course, how each team does this and what a guy like Ireland weights as determining factors is the art and not the science involved with selecting the right player over another one.

That's where the 'horizontal board' plays a huge part in being successful as a franchise.

Frankly, in the past, I've thought we were using a Ouija Board in the War Room where Jones and Campo or Jones and Larry Lacewell would turn down the lights and put their hands on the game piece and try to outpush each other until the time was up for the selection and that was then our 'GUY'.

:bang2:

Made more sense to me than any drafting scientology we were supposed to be using back then.

Because none of our top picks until BP and Ireland arrived EVER made sense.

Sure wish I'd see that Ouija Board up on Ebay some day.

I'd buy it and then do a simulcast on the internet for all Cowboys fans and burn the thing live for everybody.



ReDbaLL ExPreSS

 

[superpunk]

ouija boards creep me out.

~shudders!

It's the debil....

 

[YosemiteSam]

I'm almost positive he meant that as a way of viewing the prospects. They don't use the "vertical board" by strictly looking up and down the draft for needs and what not. They use the "horizontal board" in order to get a broader view of who's out there.

In a since yes. A vertical board would be this.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

and taking players in that order, but.. If you have

1.QB
2.C
3.Safety

In that order and rank, you may take the safety at #3 because you need a safety even though a QB is rated above, because you already have Romo and Gurode. So it would look more like this (horizontal)

1. QB 2. C 3. Safety.

Which places them on the same plain even though one actually has a higher rank talent rank.

(Talent Rank + Need) = Overall draft board rank. That would be how a #3 talent can be drafted before a #1 talent.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Here's what we actually use

I use something more scientifically sound...

 

[AbeBeta]

Here's my take -- horizontal refers to grouping players according to "bands" -- a band would include players who are so close together rating-wise that the differences between them are not clearly distinguishable. For example, we might have a "band" that represents the elite players in the draft, a band representing the next tier, etc. The idea is that there will always be players ranked so close together than it becomes arbitrary to give one a rank of 19 and one a rank of 20. A vertical board would be one where you give a rank to each player and pretend that 19 is a greater value than 20 even if the difference is tiny.

I would assume that within a band, choices are dictated by need.

When Ireland talks about guys dropping he means that players who are ranked in the better bands would be considered regardless of their position because the represent such great value.

 

[Pottsville Maroons]

I've been trying to find the website that has a board set up much like the one I think Ireland is describing. I found it last year about this time and will post the link once I track it down. Basically, t gives you a broader perspective of the draft as a whole.

The way it works is it has all the position groups ranked Rd1, Rd2, Rd3, and so on. I'm sure Jeff's is more precise than that, even (top 10, middle 10, bottom 12). It allows you to see players ranked to go in specific rounds so that when the low middle first round pick comes along, you can see who's still available that your scouts ranked as a top 10 pick at various positions. Obviously, this would be a very small group. It gets better in the later rounds when you can look at your board as your 2nd Round pick comes up and see that there is still late first round talent at positions X and Y and top 10 2nd Round talent at positions A and B. And, like someone else said, you can then determine which of those positions you deem most valuable, based on need, or feel will be the best player down the road. As players are drafted, your whole board thins out and you can see that there is still a talent available at Position X and if you don't draft him here, there isn't any more talent at that position that you have valued in the next 3 rounds. If you feel that position is a need, then you'd better take him.

Contrast that with a scenario that has you picking at # 53 and the players you ranked 38, 43, 49, and 55 are still available. You would have a tendency to be focused on those players and have a difficult time seeing the big picture.

As I type this, I'm trying to figure out how to use a system like this for Fantasy Football.

 

[burmafrd]

Sometimes I think this is a process that is needlessly complicated. to me, you look at each player and decide if they are round 1, 2, 3 etc. Then you do a second evaluation on what part of each round they belong in. Then you make out your board with the players grouped by round. And within that round split up into top, middle, bottom. realistically you should then pretty much be able to make a pick right away- cross off each player as he is picked, and highlight the players at positions of need. Go with need as long as each player is in that part of the round that you think he belongs in. Now if someone at a position of need has dropped, he of course gets first consideration.