cobra
Salty *******
- Messages
- 3,134
- Reaction score
- 0
The manta of "best player available" is heard all-too-often in the weeks and months leading up to the draft. It is often contrasted with "filling a need" as if they are a disparate dichotomy. An either/or scenario. Certainly, there are strong arguments against taking the "filling a need" approach to drafting as it often results in reaching for players based on a perceived need as opposed to real value. This problem manifested itself in 2001 when Jerry Jones reached and drafted Quincy Carter to fill the shoes of Troy Aikman well-before the value of Quincy Carter dictated.
But the tendency is to swing too far in the other direction. Taking "the best player available" will result in better players, on average, compared to "filling a need." But a mechanistic view of "best player available" isn't a wise strategy either. Teams can't draft the best player available if it is at a position they don't need.
Take the 2005-2006 San Diego Chargers. Going into the draft in 2005, the Chargers had a Pro Bowl quarterback in Drew Brees and a player drafted the previous year at the very top of the draft in Phillip Rivers. When the Chargers drafted in 2005, if the top player on the board was a quarterback, it would have been a terrible draft policy for the the Chargers to select a quarterback in that position.
The "best player available" approach has to incorporate a consideration of a team's need. So in reality, teams have to take the "don't reach" idea in the "best player available' mindset and incorporate it with the "fill a need" view.
How does a team approach the draft in light of these two concerns? Both techniques can be harmonized by the technique of weighting. To help understand the idea behind weighting, consider this technique: A team pokes, prods, times, tests and otherwise evaluates players to arrive at a "draft board" that ranks every player in the draft with a grade between 1 and a 100. So, hypothetically, a teams pure ratings might produce the following draft board:
Reggie Bush 95
D'Brickashaw Ferguson 94
Mario Williams 91
Matt Leinart 90
...
A team then goes and performs a serious evaluation of the team and ranks the importance of various positions on the team in terms of need for better players on a +10 to -10 scale. Maybe the team absolutely must draft a quarterback, in which case that position would be a +7. Perhaps a DE would be really helpful and that would be ranked a +5. Perhaps the team has two solid tackles and that would be a -2. Perhaps the team has two franchise caliber running backs competing for the starting job and that would be a -10. Once these two lists are completed, they are then merged into the teams draft board. And the following changes would take place:
Bush 95 (-10) 85
Ferguson 94 (-2) 92
Williams 91 (+5) 96
Leinart 90 (+7) 97
...
The teams draft board would then be reorganized to list in order the "best player available" given the teams needs.
Leinart 97
Williams 96
Ferguson 92
Bush 85
...
A team that performs a weighted system like this in creating a draft board then has to only force itself to follow it exactly in order to ensure that the team maximizes the improvement to the team with a quality draft.
But the tendency is to swing too far in the other direction. Taking "the best player available" will result in better players, on average, compared to "filling a need." But a mechanistic view of "best player available" isn't a wise strategy either. Teams can't draft the best player available if it is at a position they don't need.
Take the 2005-2006 San Diego Chargers. Going into the draft in 2005, the Chargers had a Pro Bowl quarterback in Drew Brees and a player drafted the previous year at the very top of the draft in Phillip Rivers. When the Chargers drafted in 2005, if the top player on the board was a quarterback, it would have been a terrible draft policy for the the Chargers to select a quarterback in that position.
The "best player available" approach has to incorporate a consideration of a team's need. So in reality, teams have to take the "don't reach" idea in the "best player available' mindset and incorporate it with the "fill a need" view.
How does a team approach the draft in light of these two concerns? Both techniques can be harmonized by the technique of weighting. To help understand the idea behind weighting, consider this technique: A team pokes, prods, times, tests and otherwise evaluates players to arrive at a "draft board" that ranks every player in the draft with a grade between 1 and a 100. So, hypothetically, a teams pure ratings might produce the following draft board:
Reggie Bush 95
D'Brickashaw Ferguson 94
Mario Williams 91
Matt Leinart 90
...
A team then goes and performs a serious evaluation of the team and ranks the importance of various positions on the team in terms of need for better players on a +10 to -10 scale. Maybe the team absolutely must draft a quarterback, in which case that position would be a +7. Perhaps a DE would be really helpful and that would be ranked a +5. Perhaps the team has two solid tackles and that would be a -2. Perhaps the team has two franchise caliber running backs competing for the starting job and that would be a -10. Once these two lists are completed, they are then merged into the teams draft board. And the following changes would take place:
Bush 95 (-10) 85
Ferguson 94 (-2) 92
Williams 91 (+5) 96
Leinart 90 (+7) 97
...
The teams draft board would then be reorganized to list in order the "best player available" given the teams needs.
Leinart 97
Williams 96
Ferguson 92
Bush 85
...
A team that performs a weighted system like this in creating a draft board then has to only force itself to follow it exactly in order to ensure that the team maximizes the improvement to the team with a quality draft.
