2024 NFL Draft Discussion

[incognito_man]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

WRa deserve the 3rd highest value multiplier. It is important that teams then grade the WR class correctly in order to see the correct surplus value a given prospect has relative to a replacement later in the draft. That will vary by class. 

e.g. if JSN graded our as 10% more valuable than Reed, but LVN graded out as 9.4% more valuable than Keion White, after applying the positional multiplier (EDGE at 1.0, WR at 0.93), you end up taking LVN over JSN. But if he grades out as 11% more valuable as the next guy while LVN is 9.5%, you take JSN.

Everything is relative, with multiple multipliers. But the positional multiplier for WRs is 3rd highest and I STRONFLY SUSPECT that results in WRs being worth very premium picks in most draft classes.

[Packerraymond]

39 minutes ago, MacReady said:

If the Lions had drafted Burrow the year before and Sewell after, they’d have won a Super Bowl, too.

Burrow does not need a WR to win a Super Bowl. He does need an OT.

You need a QB to win a SB. All other positions need to be league average or better. In order to build a roster of that caliber, you need cap room. In order to have cap room, you need rookies play premium positions at a league average level so you can pay to fill whatever holes you don't have rookies playing well in. WRs are playing better as rookies than ever before and are being paid like OTs and EDGE players. It's a premium position.

 

[MacReady]

14 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

WRa deserve the 3rd highest value multiplier. It is important that teams then grade the WR class correctly in order to see the correct surplus value a given prospect has relative to a replacement later in the draft. That will vary by class. 

I still think you're wrong using value multipliers based on current trends.

I still think receivers are getting paid because they sell tickets, not because they're hard to find.

When you hold their actual value up to scrutiny, they don't really provide all that much.

You need one legitimate threat on offense other than your QB. That can be tight end or running back. Someone who can score from anywhere on the field and takes attention away from a defense.

Everything after that is gravy.

Every big play I remember from the Chiefs Super Bowl postseason was either a Kelce or Pacheco play.

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, MacReady said:

I still think you're wrong using value multipliers based on current trends.

I still think receivers are getting paid because they sell tickets, not because they're hard to find.

When you hold their actual value up to scrutiny, they don't really provide all that much.

You need one legitimate threat on offense other than your QB. That can be tight end or running back. Someone who can score from anywhere on the field and takes attention away from a defense.

Everything after that is gravy.

Every big play I remember from the Chiefs Super Bowl postseason was either a Kelce or Pacheco play.

If this is true, we should see it show up in a $ vs AV mapping. Or some cross-positional measure of productivity.

I'd be curious to see that. 

[Packerraymond]

You can find worthy OT's later just as you can WR's. The Packers will start a UDFA and a 4th round pick this year and are projected to have one of the better OL's in the NFL. The Chiefs won it with two 3rds. Does that make OT a non-premium? No.

Really any position other than pass rusher and QB have lots of 2-UDFA success stories. That's why EDGE and QB are the two most important positions. OT, WR and CB are in the next tier and it's pretty hard to debate that. 

[Old Guy]

I've noticed a whole lot of otherwise average WR's tend to flourish when they play with an above average quarterback. I'm not sure it is a coincidence. Might also be why GB has had such success over the years with 2nd, 3rd and 7th round WRs. 

[Mazrimiv]

2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

I tuned into PFFs draft coverage and they pointed out when the Bears selected Wright that he was something like 182/188 graded OTs in number of negative plays. I REALLY soured on him after that. Had also read some opinions that Wright has the best highlight reel of the OTs, but the worst consistency - which seems in line with that. 

OT is a position where I very very much want consistency. After learning that, I'm glad we didn't take that risk with our pick (or have the opportunity to).

I honestly feel like that 182/188 stat from PFF says way more about PFF than it does about Wright.  So PFF has Wright graded with more negative plays than virtually any other OL they graded.  Yet somehow he was a top 10 pick, and nobody blinked an eye because the draft gurus more or less universally had him going in that general range.  Something here isn't matching up with reality.

PFF's OL scores are consistently among the most nonsensical scores on their site. 

[R T]

5 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

I honestly feel like that 182/188 stat from PFF says way more about PFF than it does about Wright.  So PFF has Wright graded with more negative plays than virtually any other OL they graded.  Yet somehow he was a top 10 pick, and nobody blinked an eye because the draft gurus more or less universally had him going in that general range.  Something here isn't matching up with reality.

PFF's OL scores are consistently among the most nonsensical scores on their site. 

First round draft choices are typically made based on potential, not college production. See Travon Walker. Teams see Wright's high ceiling and that is why he is a 10 pick. 

[Mazrimiv]

5 minutes ago, R T said:

First round draft choices are typically made based on potential, not college production. See Travon Walker. Teams see Wright's high ceiling and that is why he is a 10 pick. 

I'm not sure how being in the 97th percentile of negative plays points to his exceedingly high potential.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Mazrimiv

[Kampfgeist]

3 hours ago, incognito_man said:

e.g. if JSN graded our as 10% more valuable than Reed, but LVN graded out as 9.4% more valuable than Keion White, after applying the positional multiplier (EDGE at 1.0, WR at 0.93), you end up taking LVN over JSN. But if he grades out as 11% more valuable as the next guy while LVN is 9.5%, you take JSN.

Everything is relative, with multiple multipliers. But the positional multiplier for WRs is 3rd highest and I STRONFLY SUSPECT that results in WRs being worth very premium picks in most draft classes.

Little do you know that while you were working all this out I put the Iocane powder in both cups.....

[incognito_man]

21 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said:

Little do you know that while you were working all this out I put the Iocane powder in both cups.....

Inconceivable!

[incognito_man]

I'm keeping my eye on Bo's brother Max Melton this year. He looks light and could stand to add some mass for 2023. If he can and keep making plays he might end up in the top 10 though. Two really excellent looking CB prospects along eith DeJean.

[PossibleCabbage]

The way to think about "what positions are premium" can really be viewed in light of "how much does it cost the team to have this guy."

Like it's going to cost the Panthers $6.9m against the cap to have Bryce Williams, which makes him about the 24th highest paid quarterback.  If they had instead selected Bijan Robinson one overall, the same $6.9m against the cap would leave him as the 13th highest paid running back in the league.  If they had selected Dalton Kincaid, he would be the 14th highest paid TE in the NFL.  But if they had taken a corner he'd be the 23rd highest paid CB.

Since the salary is basically slotted and not position specific, and whoever you draft hasn't done a thing in the NFL, it's generally a bad idea to draft non-premium positions high in the sense that you do not want to be paying a rookie significantly more than very good NFL players who play the same position.

The sense in which OT is a premium position is that even at the #1 overall salary number, you're looking at the 30th highest paid OT in the NFL.

[incognito_man]

18 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said:

The way to think about "what positions are premium" can really be viewed in light of "how much does it cost the team to have this guy."

Like it's going to cost the Panthers $6.9m against the cap to have Bryce Williams, which makes him about the 24th highest paid quarterback.  If they had instead selected Bijan Robinson one overall, the same $6.9m against the cap would leave him as the 13th highest paid running back in the league.  If they had selected Dalton Kincaid, he would be the 14th highest paid TE in the NFL.  But if they had taken a corner he'd be the 23rd highest paid CB.

Since the salary is basically slotted and not position specific, and whoever you draft hasn't done a thing in the NFL, it's generally a bad idea to draft non-premium positions high in the sense that you do not want to be paying a rookie significantly more than very good NFL players who play the same position.

The sense in which OT is a premium position is that even at the #1 overall salary number, you're looking at the 30th highest paid OT in the NFL.

For sure, this is a big part of it. I definitely factored this in when putting together that valuation exercise I did. 

[vegas492]

3 hours ago, incognito_man said:

For sure, this is a big part of it. I definitely factored this in when putting together that valuation exercise I did. 

Not saying you didn't.  Am saying I've long wanted to bust out this meme.