Raiders moving on from GM Mike Mayock

[Nabbs4u]

Just now, iknowcool said:

I was just answering your question. 

I'm not a fan of how the team has been run as of late, so probably negative. 

I guess my point is, there aren't a whole lot of successful examples of a HC having complete control over player personnel,  Having a GM in name only outside of say BB and maybe Kyle?

GM job usually has the last and final say.

[Ghostnote]

21 hours ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

You list your best players available in the draft based on what other people think? Interesting concept.

I just look at who I think the best player is and rank them accordingly. The team has nothing to do w/ it. Figured this is what everyone did b/c that's what makes sense.

The hardest part to a big board evaluation is that you are not comparing players within the same positions. So there is no common denominator. I am positive that every analyst has ties to scouts, assistants, coaches, and maybe a GM or two, who, when asked for information, might provide a favor about what a teams thoughts are going into the draft season. 

It's why there are meetings at he Senior Bowl, the combine, etc...

Lots of these guys are there to see what teams are talking with what players. 

Those that are not invested in the tedious and lamenting torture it is to develop and maintain a big board, certainly aggregate from those that do. 

If you ever want to look at how many are out there, check out thehuddlereport.com - its where they have the analysis of each big board and first round draft scored. 

(mine is The Draft Zone)

[BobbyPhil1781]

36 minutes ago, Ghostnote said:

The hardest part to a big board evaluation is that you are not comparing players within the same positions. So there is no common denominator. I am positive that every analyst has ties to scouts, assistants, coaches, and maybe a GM or two, who, when asked for information, might provide a favor about what a teams thoughts are going into the draft season. 

It's why there are meetings at he Senior Bowl, the combine, etc...

Lots of these guys are there to see what teams are talking with what players. 

Those that are not invested in the tedious and lamenting torture it is to develop and maintain a big board, certainly aggregate from those that do. 

If you ever want to look at how many are out there, check out thehuddlereport.com - its where they have the analysis of each big board and first round draft scored. 

(mine is The Draft Zone)

There is a common denominator to an extent b/c you still have many players playing the same position. I would think a big board would be something like "which player, who is best at their position, is better than another player who is best at their position". For example: Trevor Lawrence was the consensus best QB last year. Kyle Pitts was the consensus top TE so now we compare the two. Is Lawrence that much better of a QB prospect than Pitts is as a TE? If the answer is "yes", he's higher on your big board. 

Are you implying that isn't how it works?

Edited January 19, 2022 by BobbyPhil1781

[Ghostnote]

3 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

There is a common denominator to an extent b/c you still have many players playing the same position. I would think a big board would be something like "which player, who is best at their position, is better than another player who is best at their position". For example: Trevor Lawrence was the consensus best QB last year. Kyle Pitts was the consensus top TE so now we compare the two. Is Lawrence that much better of a QB prospect than Pitts is as a TE. If the answer is "yes", he's higher on your big board. 

Are you implying that isn't how it works?

But these are all subjective. Every year each team has a different set of needs, and each team identifies players at specific positions differently than every other team. You could look at a teams big board and compare it to another and find that one guy who could tween at 3-4 round could be a solid 2nd round guy for another team. 

Example - Clelin Ferrell. Mayock took him 4th overall, yet he was rated in the mid 20's by most analysts. Kolton Miller - easy 2nd round grade, but Raiders took him at like 18 overall. 

So if you flip the perspective to an analyst's point of view, developing a big board in which you describe seems very subjective. An objective stance would be to aggregate from multiple sources to derive an average draft position for each prospect. Thus relying on data points and not subjective analysis. 

Working on a big board for a team as the GM of that team can be subjective because of the needs of the team as well as other various factors. So their big board is open to more subjective analysis due to subjective opinions. 

[BobbyPhil1781]

54 minutes ago, Ghostnote said:

But these are all subjective. Every year each team has a different set of needs, and each team identifies players at specific positions differently than every other team. You could look at a teams big board and compare it to another and find that one guy who could tween at 3-4 round could be a solid 2nd round guy for another team. 

Example - Clelin Ferrell. Mayock took him 4th overall, yet he was rated in the mid 20's by most analysts. Kolton Miller - easy 2nd round grade, but Raiders took him at like 18 overall. 

So if you flip the perspective to an analyst's point of view, developing a big board in which you describe seems very subjective. An objective stance would be to aggregate from multiple sources to derive an average draft position for each prospect. Thus relying on data points and not subjective analysis. 

Working on a big board for a team as the GM of that team can be subjective because of the needs of the team as well as other various factors. So their big board is open to more subjective analysis due to subjective opinions. 

Of course it's subjective. Not everyone is going to think alike. I personally don't know if the Packers had Lawrence on their big board or not so it's easy to say they could've left him off. Still though, everyone's boards will be different b/c there's no universal way to rate players. Everyone thinks differently.

I've personally never heard of someone making their own big board, which doesn't list teams and doesn't change once draft day trades occur, based on other team's needs. I simply thought they just ranked prospects and that was the only criteria. "Is Player A better than Player B?" Obviously the predicted pick will change but the boards never do. This is the first I've ever heard of this notion.

[Ty21]

Maybe now he can go back to being really really bad at evaluating draft prospects. 

[Ghostnote]

33 minutes ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Of course it's subjective. Not everyone is going to think alike. I personally don't know if the Packers had Lawrence on their big board or not so it's easy to say they could've left him off. Still though, everyone's boards will be different b/c there's no universal way to rate players. Everyone thinks differently.

I've personally never heard of someone making their own big board, which doesn't list teams and doesn't change once draft day trades occur, based on other team's needs. I simply thought they just ranked prospects and that was the only criteria. "Is Player A better than Player B?" Obviously the predicted pick will change but the boards never do. This is the first I've ever heard of this notion.

Most war rooms have 3 boards. 

1. Team evaluation big board of all prospects available. As a player gets drafted, the player card moves to the NFL Draft Board. Usually split into rounds and players are ranked per round. 

2. NFL Draft Board - Every pick in the draft. 

3. Other teams rosters or depth charts for potential trade options and available draft picks. 

 

There is not much beyond that the war rooms need. 

[BobbyPhil1781]

1 minute ago, Ghostnote said:

Most war rooms have 3 boards. 

1. Team evaluation big board of all prospects available. As a player gets drafted, the player card moves to the NFL Draft Board. Usually split into rounds and players are ranked per round. 

2. NFL Draft Board - Every pick in the draft. 

3. Other teams rosters or depth charts for potential trade options and available draft picks. 

 

There is not much beyond that the war rooms need. 

Correct but we're talking about big boards and only big boards. People seem to be conflating that w/ the others.

[AllThingsTN]

On 1/17/2022 at 5:05 PM, Jakuvious said:

Shame.

[dll2000]

On 1/17/2022 at 6:48 PM, Xenos said:

You lose access to inside information when you become a rival GM?

That is an interesting point.  The way it works for guys on big cable networks is they can call contacts at teams and get confidential player rankings and opinions on guys (to an extent).   Obviously guys aren’t going to reveal their first round pick intentions even confidentially.  But they will say these are group of guys we are super high on. 

They admit it.  They say this mock draft is based on info I am getting from teams, not what I would do personally.  

They are as much or more information gathering than studying tape and making opinions.  

But Mayock could still look at mocks and know where info was coming from.  He chose to go his own way, or Grudens.

Different world when it’s just you and you have to pull the trigger in the end.  

Just like it’s different making your own mock where you are in control of everything and picking against 31 other guys that are into it.  
 

Edited January 20, 2022 by dll2000
Typo

[Dr LBC]

21 hours ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

Of course it's subjective. Not everyone is going to think alike. I personally don't know if the Packers had Lawrence on their big board or not so it's easy to say they could've left him off. Still though, everyone's boards will be different b/c there's no universal way to rate players. Everyone thinks differently.

I've personally never heard of someone making their own big board, which doesn't list teams and doesn't change once draft day trades occur, based on other team's needs. I simply thought they just ranked prospects and that was the only criteria. "Is Player A better than Player B?" Obviously the predicted pick will change but the boards never do. This is the first I've ever heard of this notion.

I think the misconception on what fans consider a team's "big board" and what the more modern big board is for most teams these days comes from a dated understanding of the operation of draft rooms - probably perpetuated because of the continued vintage practices of certain elderly GM's and/or owners who operate as the Major Domo whether they're GM or not.

In most modern war rooms (from what I understand), the "Big Board" isn't some gigantic posterboard with a Top 100 Available prospects listed on it.  What suffices for a big board is more like one page in an Excel spreadsheet workbook - typically ranking (staff's) consensus broken down by position.  But the paradigm has shifted with technology - unless you're Dave Gettleman.  And because most staff that actually are in war rooms are working off of laptops and Surface Pro's versus the ol' thick 3-ring binder draft prospectus that most teams compiled for decades (this I actually know because I've seen one from the early 90's, it's an incredible amount of data and that's what it looks like after it's become the boiled-down version), filters can be applied to lists, not just to sort according to particular testing inputs like timed speeds or measurements or statistical outputs, but also to show side-by-side comparisons of where the consensus of the staff believes other teams are valuing these players (just about every front offices conducts its own mock drafts to simulate scenarios based upon what they believe the competition is going to do).  And then you've got other factors that can, will, and do affect decision-making and the priority put on respective areas of the team - which I believe is what @Ghostnotewas getting at, length of contracts remaining on existing starters (not just when does it expire, but how soon can we get out of it with manageable cap detractions), age of existing starters relative to the next man up and the quality of the next man up (and their contract status) relative to prospects being considered.  This isn't just a single-digit number of inputs and variables kind of thing, we're talking mid-range double-digit inputs each with their own percentage-priority which, likely, doesn't remain constant across position groups.

To be honest, it's easy to see why someone like Mayock - who had no prior front office experience aside from what glimpses behind the curtain he may have been given as a member of the media - would have been fighting a battle up a 60- or 70-degree incline, so to speak.

[Dr LBC]

21 hours ago, Ty21 said:

Maybe now he can go back to being really really bad at evaluating draft prospects. 

So how many more years are left on you holding a grudge against Mayock for his semi-positive eval on Trubisky, Ty?  Just for... housekeeping purposes.😉

[BobbyPhil1781]

2 hours ago, Dr LBC said:

I think the misconception on what fans consider a team's "big board" and what the more modern big board is for most teams these days comes from a dated understanding of the operation of draft rooms - probably perpetuated because of the continued vintage practices of certain elderly GM's and/or owners who operate as the Major Domo whether they're GM or not.

In most modern war rooms (from what I understand), the "Big Board" isn't some gigantic posterboard with a Top 100 Available prospects listed on it.  What suffices for a big board is more like one page in an Excel spreadsheet workbook - typically ranking (staff's) consensus broken down by position.  But the paradigm has shifted with technology - unless you're Dave Gettleman.  And because most staff that actually are in war rooms are working off of laptops and Surface Pro's versus the ol' thick 3-ring binder draft prospectus that most teams compiled for decades (this I actually know because I've seen one from the early 90's, it's an incredible amount of data and that's what it looks like after it's become the boiled-down version), filters can be applied to lists, not just to sort according to particular testing inputs like timed speeds or measurements or statistical outputs, but also to show side-by-side comparisons of where the consensus of the staff believes other teams are valuing these players (just about every front offices conducts its own mock drafts to simulate scenarios based upon what they believe the competition is going to do).  And then you've got other factors that can, will, and do affect decision-making and the priority put on respective areas of the team - which I believe is what @Ghostnotewas getting at, length of contracts remaining on existing starters (not just when does it expire, but how soon can we get out of it with manageable cap detractions), age of existing starters relative to the next man up and the quality of the next man up (and their contract status) relative to prospects being considered.  This isn't just a single-digit number of inputs and variables kind of thing, we're talking mid-range double-digit inputs each with their own percentage-priority which, likely, doesn't remain constant across position groups.

To be honest, it's easy to see why someone like Mayock - who had no prior front office experience aside from what glimpses behind the curtain he may have been given as a member of the media - would have been fighting a battle up a 60- or 70-degree incline, so to speak.

I think what was really confusing is that people here seem to be mixing up how things are done between team big boards and talking head big boards. One guy even went so far to say that Kiper wasn't going to break down tape from a LB at BYU which he absolutely is going to do. I'm not sure what his line of thinking was but whatever. 

Your scenario makes sense from a war room big board, 100%. I could see teams needs influencing that which is supported by teams jumping ahead of other teams w/ similar position interests to get their guy. A talking head wouldn't give a **** about that unless they were doing a mock draft. Since Mayock is out example, I can see why everyone would be confused since he has had both roles.... or maybe I'm just not understanding which is certainly possible lol

[Ghostnote]

So going down the hole that @Dr LBC was discussing very nicely, analytics are at play in every war room these days. There are metrics which are team specific to determine player rankings as well as multiple software options to provide scenarios to which they can be prepared for. The concept of Bayes Theorom is well in play and likely has mutliple hueristics and variables that are applied to each and every player. Moneyball analytics does not just apply to baseball. Many teams are trying to adapt and apply it to their rosters to determine the best metrics for each position and player. 

Baseball - fairly easy. On base percentage over a specific time data set. 

And yes, most war rooms are up on the digital age now so the days of the 6 inch 3 ring binder for a single player are out. All accessible with filters, search queries, and more. 

To answer the question, I think, is that, Analysts don't include a lot of the metrics that @Dr LBC was referring to like contract details, possible outs, trade options, team draft picks, draft trends, free agency trends, etc...

The analysts I have followed over the years take into account game tape, combine, pro-days, health history, competition level, production - not in that order. These attributes are compared to generate some number or score level in which the player is ranked. They also have to take into account, the needs for every NFL team, potential gaps in the roster due to contracts etc., and then evaluate the best player available that makes sense for each gap. That is to say, if the analyst is going to develop a mock draft. 

--

TBH, I don't believe that after 30 years of doing mock drafts with ESPN Mel Kiper is looking at tape of 300 players for big board purposes. If I were to be one of those analysts, I would have an aggregate of the top 50 players in the draft from different sources in which I watch tape on them to get draft metrics and characteristics, but I would not be worried about a LB from BYU that has an aggregated projection of a 6th round draft value. 

[Jraider91]

1 hour ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

I think what was really confusing is that people here seem to be mixing up how things are done between team big boards and talking head big boards. One guy even went so far to say that Kiper wasn't going to break down tape from a LB at BYU which he absolutely is going to do. I'm not sure what his line of thinking was but whatever. 

Your scenario makes sense from a war room big board, 100%. I could see teams needs influencing that which is supported by teams jumping ahead of other teams w/ similar position interests to get their guy. A talking head wouldn't give a **** about that unless they were doing a mock draft. Since Mayock is out example, I can see why everyone would be confused since he has had both roles.... or maybe I'm just not understanding which is certainly possible lol

So why did you duck my example of Ikem Ekwonu ? A few weeks ago he thought he was #17 prospect who may have to play OG at next level. Now he thinks he is top 5 and could be first LT taken. What can possibly have changed in his analysis so drastically? 
Talking head big boards come from canvassing opinion around the league and aggregating it to give them credence when players come off the board in a rough approximation of that order. It is about entertainment, very strange you can't see that.