The problems with drafting for need

[xwalker]

Most people get obsessed with need when evaluating the upcoming draft; however, when looking at past years, drafting for need seems irrelevant.

In 2009 the Cowboys had LeSean McCoy rated as a 1st round pick, but passed on him in the 2nd round because they had Marion Barber and Felix Jones.

In 2012 they traded up to get Morris Claiborne because CB had been a disaster the previous year. It's doubtful that they would have made this trade if not for need.

In 2013 most people hated the Escobar pick; however, if Escobar had turned out to be a Jimmy Graham, it would have been a great pick, despite not being a big need.

If they think that a player like Mike Evans is going to be a superstar, then they should draft him, IMO. Most likely, another team would trade up to get Evans and the Cowboys wouldn't have to take him; however, nobody traded up to get LeSean McCoy in 2009. If Evans is really a superstar, then one option would be to not re-sign Dez and use that money to fill a need like DL. It's not optimal because free agency is before the draft, but in the long run, good teams have superstar players contributing while on their initial low cost contract.

With the CBA, the best way to have the most talent on a team is to get as much as possible out of the low cost players on their initial contracts. A cheap star player is worth much more to a team than a similar player with a giant contract. Seattle was able to add multiple DLinemen in free agency despite already having a significant amount of talent at those positions because they have a cheap but quality QB.

What is the probability of a team picking a Superstar player in the 1st round? Let's say the calculated probability based on history is 40% that a team gets a Superstar at pick #16. If the statisticians were to take that a step further and calculate the probability that at team both gets a Superstar player at that pick that is also the teams top need, then the probability inevitably decreases. It would probably take the 40% down to something like 20%.

When I look back at the 2009 draft, I don't care what positions were drafted if they could have hit on 2 high quality players.

 

[bodi]

To say the draft is an inexact science would be an understatement. Still, we assume quarterback Tony Romo would have benefited from having a versatile threat like McCoy in the backfield.

Wrong selections are made all the time, but the knife is twisted if the original evaluation was correct


This coming from Broaddus

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...owboys-scout-says-team-passed-on-lesean-mccoy

 

[CowboysLaw87]

This is a great topic. I agree whole heartedly on going (almost) pure BPA. You just never know what the landscape is going to look like in about 2 years. If asked in 2012, would anyone have thought that DE/OLB wouldn't be a strength of the team with Ware and Spencer, heading into 2014? Guys get injured and age. Better plan for it and keep re-stocking even supposed positions of strength if the right value is there.

I'd have no issue taking any player... literally maybe except Ebron... at the 16th pick if he's received a high enough grade from the front office.

 

[tm1119]

Thankfully we have so many needs that I dont foresee bpa being a problem.

For me the whole "off of the board"/doesn't fit the scheme thing is the biggest problem. Too many players passed because of what are minor character concerns or the FO is trying to find a certain niche player to fit the scheme. If you draft talented football players things will work themselves out.

 

[burmafrd]

NO ONE does BPA alone unless they are forced to. Its always been BPA for NEED. For everyone.

Now as long as you do your homework and grade the players well you are OK. Its when you screw up an evaluation that messes you up and that will happen with NEED or BPA or anything.

 

[Gaede]

I agree with the OP. Can't build a perfect team and fill every hole


Need to take impact players who will help you win. Whether its a position you're covered at or no

 

[xwalker]

Thankfully we have so many needs that I dont foresee bpa being a problem.

For me the whole "off of the board"/doesn't fit the scheme thing is the biggest problem. Too many players passed because of what are minor character concerns or the FO is trying to find a certain niche player to fit the scheme. If you draft talented football players things will work themselves out.

You are bypassing multiple other talented players if you draft a player in the top 3 rounds that has character issues. In the later rounds I would throw out most character issues and just take the best talent (i.e. Burfict).

IMO, the Cowboys have had more draft picks fail due to poor mental makeup than due to a lack of physical ability. Bobbie Carpenter didn't like hitting people, Jacob Rodgers was a wuss, Brewster was lazy and didn't like football, Jason Williams and AOA were freak athletes but couldn't learn all of the concepts of playing in an NFL defense. Claiborne's issues seems to be more mental than physical. The reason he is better in man than zone is because man is simple from a mental perspective.

The last pick I can remember that just didn't have the required physical ability is Arkin, but he was a 4th round pick.

 

[tm1119]

You are bypassing multiple other talented players if you draft a player in the top 3 rounds that has character issues. In the later rounds I would throw out most character issues and just take the best talent (i.e. Burfict).

IMO, the Cowboys have had more draft picks fail due to poor mental makeup than due to a lack of physical ability. Bobbie Carpenter didn't like hitting people, Jacob Rodgers was a wuss, Brewster was lazy and didn't like football, Jason Williams and AOA were freak athletes but couldn't learn all of the concepts of playing in an NFL defense. Claiborne's issues seems to be more mental than physical. The reason he is better in man than zone is because man is simple from a mental perspective.

The last pick I can remember that just didn't have the required physical ability is Arkin, but he was a 4th round pick.

I was more talking about character issues like a 21 year old kid getting a misdemeanor pot charge or a DUI. Things that have nothing to do with football and are relatively minor for the average citizen.

 

[xwalker]

I was more talking about character issues like a 21 year old kid getting a misdemeanor pot charge or a DUI. Things that have nothing to do with football and are relatively minor for the average citizen.

I'm not really sure where they draw the line in terms of those types of issues. A one time issue with weed is not really an issue to me. A DUI is a little more serious. Josh Brent was available for a 7th because of a DUI in college. That didn't end well.

There is a RB in this draft that got kicked out of Georgia for some very minor issues. He looks terrific in game footage and is projected to be a 7th round pick. I would draft him with a late pick all day every day.

The scuttlebutt is that McClay will be more open to character risks players but more likey to avoid injury risk players.

 

[DFWJC]

Good post.
But the probabilities are way too high.
40% chance of getting a superstar at 16? I bet 40% fits better with pick 3 or so than 16...that is if a superstar is a multi year all-pro (not pro bowl)

 

[xwalker]

Good post.
But the probabilities are way too high.
40% chance of getting a superstar at 16? I bet 40% fits better with pick 3 or so than 16...that is if a superstar is a multi year all-pro (not pro bowl)

The 40% percent was just an example. I have no idea of the actual number, it could be 4% for all I know.

I do know that it would have to be a higher percentage when there is only 1 constrainton the calculation than when there are 2 constraints on the calculation (i.e. chance of getting a star player in general vs getting a star player that is also the teams top need).

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Wait, let me get this straight. Your argument is that every time we've drafted need (which you used Claiborne as an example) we failed at drafting. First of all, when we drafted Claiborne, not only was CB a big need, but Claiborne was also the highest rated player in the entire draft. So we did draft best player available. Also, your example of a BPA we drafted was Escobar and your argument was IF he was Jimmy Graham (the best TE in the game) it would have been a good pick. First of all, Escobar was far from the best player available when we drafted him.

Let me recap: You said we should have drafted BPA but we drafted Claiborne for need, when the reality is Claiborne was by far the best player at the time. Also, your argument was Escobar was a BPA pick and it would have paid off if he was Jimmy Graham caliber, when in reality nobody had him as the best available player when we picked him.

 

[jterrell]

Most people get obsessed with need when evaluating the upcoming draft; however, when looking at past years, drafting for need seems irrelevant.

In 2009 the Cowboys had LeSean McCoy rated as a 1st round pick, but passed on him in the 2nd round because they had Marion Barber and Felix Jones.

In 2012 they traded up to get Morris Claiborne because CB had been a disaster the previous year. It's doubtful that they would have made this trade if not for need.

In 2013 most people hated the Escobar pick; however, if Escobar had turned out to be a Jimmy Graham, it would have been a great pick, despite not being a big need.

If they think that a player like Mike Evans is going to be a superstar, then they should draft him, IMO. Most likely, another team would trade up to get Evans and the Cowboys wouldn't have to take him; however, nobody traded up to get LeSean McCoy in 2009. If Evans is really a superstar, then one option would be to not re-sign Dez and use that money to fill a need like DL. It's not optimal because free agency is before the draft, but in the long run, good teams have superstar players contributing while on their initial low cost contract.

With the CBA, the best way to have the most talent on a team is to get as much as possible out of the low cost players on their initial contracts. A cheap star player is worth much more to a team than a similar player with a giant contract. Seattle was able to add multiple DLinemen in free agency despite already having a significant amount of talent at those positions because they have a cheap but quality QB.

What is the probability of a team picking a Superstar player in the 1st round? Let's say the calculated probability based on history is 40% that a team gets a Superstar at pick #16. If the statisticians were to take that a step further and calculate the probability that at team both gets a Superstar player at that pick that is also the teams top need, then the probability inevitably decreases. It would probably take the 40% down to something like 20%.

When I look back at the 2009 draft, I don't care what positions were drafted if they could have hit on 2 high quality players.

no offense dude but that is basically inaccurate in every way, almost line for line.

dallas passed on mccoy because he was never on the board when they picked.
they did want unger over mccoy and that 'might' have been need but they took 12 players in that class and position had little to do with the selections; they took a QB who never made it above 3rd QB and a Kicker.

dallas traded up for claiborne because they had to give below chart value to go up and get the consensus top overall defensive player in the draft.
had very little to do with need. dallas had scandrick and a newly signed carr. they certainly could have selected dre kirkpatrick where they were(tho we've been told a couple DL were rated higher) or another CB later.

gavin escobar is not likely to be the best overall TE in football, a la jimmy graham, but graham had all of 31 catches as a rookie and that was with starter snaps in 5 games.
way too early to say if escobar is good or bad.

your overall point has some validity, draft studs and prosper.
but the basic arguments you chose to back it are really faulty imho.

 

[jterrell]

The 40% percent was just an example. I have no idea of the actual number, it could be 4% for all I know.

I do know that it would have to be a higher percentage when there is only 1 constrainton the calculation than when there are 2 constraints on the calculation (i.e. chance of getting a star player in general vs getting a star player that is also the teams top need).

again that's not 'necessarily' true.
because the other variable in the equation for player success is how that player fits his situation and that derives from team needs.
martellus bennett has top 10 TE talent but here was never going to grow into that because we had Witten.
same way hatcher had to see us go to a 4-3 to reach his full potential because we were a bad scheme for him.
he went from 3-4 back up to 4-3 pro bowler.

statistically your best chance at success is the highest rated guy you can nurture and develop properly.
for most players that means having game time available for them and a coach that will put them in a position to succeed.

mike jenkins was a decent r1 pick. not good mind you, but decent.
he didn't have a chance really here tho because didn't have much help from speedy LBs or Safeties.
he was on an island a lot and he just wasn't good enough to be on an island but also asked to come up and play the flats.
we certainly needed him but we didn't nurture or develop him.
he competed and beat out scandrck and was asked to play at an enormously high level which he only hit for a brief period.

 

[DFWJC]

The 40% percent was just an example. I have no idea of the actual number, it could be 4% for all I know.

I do know that it would have to be a higher percentage when there is only 1 constrainton the calculation than when there are 2 constraints on the calculation (i.e. chance of getting a star player in general vs getting a star player that is also the teams top need).

No doubt

 

[Roadtrip635]

The real problem is who really is the BPA? Just because someone may be ranked as the BPA going into a draft doesn't mean he really will be better than those picked after him. It's real easy after the fact, but as far as I know there's no GM in the league that can time travel. How do you judge which player is better, especially if they play different positions? It's not always so cut and dried. Which player is better, Tyron or JJ Watt? Both are great players and we really couldn't have gone wrong with either. If we had picked Watt, we probably wouldn't have the same issues at DL today, but our OL would probably be struggling now. Would that make us better or worse, it's hard to tell.

How do you know for sure that Evans will in fact be better than Dez? If Evans and Donald are both available, how would you know now who will truly be better and more impact in the NFL?

 

[rwalters31]

Most people get obsessed with need when evaluating the upcoming draft; however, when looking at past years, drafting for need seems irrelevant.

In 2009 the Cowboys had LeSean McCoy rated as a 1st round pick, but passed on him in the 2nd round because they had Marion Barber and Felix Jones.

In 2012 they traded up to get Morris Claiborne because CB had been a disaster the previous year. It's doubtful that they would have made this trade if not for need.

In 2013 most people hated the Escobar pick; however, if Escobar had turned out to be a Jimmy Graham, it would have been a great pick, despite not being a big need.

If they think that a player like Mike Evans is going to be a superstar, then they should draft him, IMO. Most likely, another team would trade up to get Evans and the Cowboys wouldn't have to take him; however, nobody traded up to get LeSean McCoy in 2009. If Evans is really a superstar, then one option would be to not re-sign Dez and use that money to fill a need like DL. It's not optimal because free agency is before the draft, but in the long run, good teams have superstar players contributing while on their initial low cost contract.

With the CBA, the best way to have the most talent on a team is to get as much as possible out of the low cost players on their initial contracts. A cheap star player is worth much more to a team than a similar player with a giant contract. Seattle was able to add multiple DLinemen in free agency despite already having a significant amount of talent at those positions because they have a cheap but quality QB.

What is the probability of a team picking a Superstar player in the 1st round? Let's say the calculated probability based on history is 40% that a team gets a Superstar at pick #16. If the statisticians were to take that a step further and calculate the probability that at team both gets a Superstar player at that pick that is also the teams top need, then the probability inevitably decreases. It would probably take the 40% down to something like 20%.

When I look back at the 2009 draft, I don't care what positions were drafted if they could have hit on 2 high quality players.

There is need, then there is real need, then there is absolute need, and then there is the Cowboys DL and OL. Going another season not addressing the DL and adding a OG would spell out another 15+ years of no playoffs. So you really like being 8-8 and no possible hope of seeing the Cowboys going far into the playoffs. NO THANKS!!! Address the cowboys real, real, needs, and leave the the BPA who are not a need for other teams to draft. We will see who made the best draft chooses.!!

 

[Teague31]

two words... shante carver

 

[RS12]

two words... shante carver

four more words: Kavicka Pittman Eb Ekuban

 

[xwalker]

The real problem is who really is the BPA? Just because someone may be ranked as the BPA going into a draft doesn't mean he really will be better than those picked after him. It's real easy after the fact, but as far as I know there's no GM in the league that can time travel. How do you judge which player is better, especially if they play different positions? It's not always so cut and dried. Which player is better, Tyron or JJ Watt? Both are great players and we really couldn't have gone wrong with either. If we had picked Watt, we probably wouldn't have the same issues at DL today, but our OL would probably be struggling now. Would that make us better or worse, it's hard to tell.

How do you know for sure that Evans will in fact be better than Dez? If Evans and Donald are both available, how would you know now who will truly be better and more impact in the NFL?

One word, probability. Teams that draft well maximize the probability of success. Nobody is ever correct on all picks, but you can maximize your own probability of success. Being overly influenced by need is a good way to decrease your probability of success in the draft.

Most teams rank players on tiers. I think the Cowboys split the 1st round into 3 parts. A player can be ranked as a 1-1 which is round 1, tier 1, a 1-2 or a 1-3, etc.. Tyron and JJ Watt were probably ranked on the same tier. When players are on the same tier, then you take the player that fills the biggest need.

In my example of the Cowboys passing on LeSean McCoy in the 2nd round, there were clearly no other players on his level according to their rankings. He was the only player at the pick that they had rated as a 1st round pick.

In regards to Evans compared to Dez, it is just and example. If they have Evans ranked as a 1-1 and everybody else available at #16 is a 1-2 or a 1-3, then they maximize their probability of making a successful pick by taking Evans over taking a lower rated player.

There are no guarantees in the draft, but if a teams consistently takes lower rated players because of need, they are going to be less successful just based on the simple principle of probability.