Kiper Invitational Analysis Spreadsheet

[xwalker]

I just wanted to look at how people drafted relative to some reference.

I'm not saying that NFLDS is the end-all, be-all, but it gives some kind of reference.

I didn't grade strictly by these results but it gave me something to consider.

I used the current NFLDS rankings and compared them to where players were drafted in the Kiper Invitational.

The column Value/Reach is negative for a reach and positive for a value pick relative to the NFLDS rankings.

A red highlight is a 1st round reach relative to the rankings. I'm sure that character is included in the NFLDS rankings to some extent.

 

[Risen Star]

This is good stuff. Thank you for posting.

 

[reddyuta]

They got Max Valles as ILB?

 

[DFWJC]

All in good fun

FWIW, being off 15 in round 1 is probably about equal to being off 50 in the late rounds.
That's always been an issue with how we grade. Getting a 5th rounder n the 7th gives you 64 points, but taking a early 2nd rounder 1st overall in the draft would only cost you 32.

I mean, you could trade 7-8 4th rounders and still not get the value of a mid 1st rounder.

It'd be hard to come up with a system, but obviously being "off" (at least according to a ranking) in the late rounds really is no big deal vs "missing" (again, hypothetically) on a 1st rounder.
Ideally, there would be a sliding scale of some sort.

 

[Alexander]

Should be interesting to see how the aggregate scores here differ from the grades sent in.

 

[xwalker]

They got Max Valles as ILB?

That was how he was listed in the Kiper results. NFLDS has him as OLB.

 

[xwalker]

All in good fun

FWIW, being off 15 in round 1 is probably about equal to being off 50 in the late rounds.
That's always been an issue with how we grade. Getting a 5th rounder n the 7th gives you 64 points, but taking a early 2nd rounder 1st overall in the draft would only cost you 32.

I mean, you could trade 7-8 4th rounders and still not get the value of a mid 1st rounder.

It'd be hard to come up with a system, but obviously being "off" (at least according to a ranking) in the late rounds really is no big deal vs "missing" (again, hypothetically) on a 1st rounder.
Ideally, there would be a sliding scale of some sort.

Yes, that's why I show value/reach for each pick.

I agree that the aggregate is not as valuable as the individual picks ratings. That's why I highlighted the 1st round reaches in red.

I played around with trying to scale it sucn that 1st round value/reach numbers had a bigger impact on the total number but I decided it's better to just look at each individual pick.

If somebody reached in the first or had several small reaches then that seems more significant than 1 big reach in the 4th.

Also I highlighted the add/lost picks because those are very very significant.

 

[DFWJC]

Btw, I didn't pick him, but I bet the one player on this spreadsheet is most off on will be their DJ Humphries assessment.
When all is said and done, when Alexander picked him at 103 it'll end up being not far off. This hit him for a whopping -146. wow!
he could crush every other pick and still ave a terrible aggregate. And end the end, he has good chance of being right in the first place.

I found it interesting that choices for steal (Hundley) and reaches (Huerrman) were somewhat validated by these guys. Not that it really means anything as it's just an opinion.

 

[Alexander]

Btw, I didn't pick him, but I bet the one player on this spreadsheet is most off on will be their DJ Humphries assessment.

Agreed. Daniel Jeremiah has him in the first round to SD in his mock today. He measured in at 6-5, 307.

Same thing for Perriman, which seems to be following the "stock up" since Kiper had him going in the first a week or so ago. It is just funny how some players bounce up and down. One thing I did do is note where NFLDS had them at the end of the season and where it has changed each week with no games being played in the meantime. Never ceases to fascinate how a player stock can change dramatically with no additional tape.

When all is said and done, when Alexander picked him at 103 it'll end up being not far off. This hit him for a whopping -146. wow!

It was Nation, actually.

I found it interesting that choices for steal (Hundley) and reaches (Huerrman) were somewhat validated by these guys. Not that it really means anything as it's just an opinion.

At the end of the Combine, I bet Hundley drops like a rock in the NFLDS rankings and Humphries shoots way up.

 

[DFWJC]

Should be interesting to see how the aggregate scores here differ from the grades sent in.

Aggregate scores have inherent flaws.

Last year, for example, it would have hit you just as hard if you were Oakland and took Charles Sims in the 1st round with 5th overall pick (instead of Khalil Mack) as it would a team taking a guy at the end of the 5th round that maybe should have gone in the late 7th.
It's way our of whack if you're looking for a pure score.

But if you're looking for a point of reference (a limited one, but at least some reference) for each pick, it's fine.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

I was at +91 value before my last pick dropped me 23 points to +68. I still like my pick though.

 

[Risen Star]

So the guy I felt had the best draft has the lowest value score here.

 

[DFWJC]

I think Benardrick McKinney will do better than say, but only time will tell.

 

[unionjack8]

looks good to me, this should be the final decision, period. Rams win! Yayyyyyyyyyyyyy

 

[unionjack8]

So the guy I felt had the best draft has the lowest value score here.

funnily enough i ranked the bears very high as well

 

[Risen Star]

They got Max Valles as ILB?

I believe that's how the GM listed it when he sent in the pick. So I assume that's how he's looking at him on his roster.

 

[DFWJC]

So the guy I felt had the best draft has the lowest value score here.

ha

same here.

Perfect illustration of just adding it up like this doesn't work. It took his last pick and allowed it go way beyond erasing everything else he had done.
Maybe there should be a cap on just how negative or positive a score for one pick can be...say 50 or so. Even that seems high.
Plus, they have it wrong anyway. Humphries is nowhere near the 249th best player...he may end up being 100-150+ better than that

 

[Alexander]

So the guy I felt had the best draft has the lowest value score here.

That's all Humphries for the most part.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

And it doesn't factor in trades in the scores. You might have gotten a final score of, say, 50 when it's all said and done, but you could have traded two future 1sts and two future 2nds to do so. I'd subtract about a thousand points on that alone.

 

[L-O-Jete]

Take each value and divide it by the round, that should help offset the difference.