Jump to content
jleisher

What is your biggest surprise of round #1?

Recommended Posts

On 5/10/2018 at 8:15 PM, cooters22 said:

I'm a John Dorsey guy, but man those two picks shocked me. I can let the Mayfield thing go, but to pass on Chubb, who has the most star potential in this draft for a good, not great corner is beyond me. So you kind of stold my thunder already.

If we were talking about Myles Garrett, I'd probably agree.  But Chubb isn't Garrett.  And I'm not sure he's Joey Bosa either.  I mean, if Ward turns out to be an elite cover corner I won't be surprised.  Quite frankly, I'm not sure if some of Chubb's draft stock was boosted by his high floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

Gotta be the agility drills that scared teams off. Here we are talking about him all process as a FS/SS/slot hybrid and then he goes out at his pro day with favorable timing and puts up agility drills you'd see from a stiff ILB prospect.

Jake Ryan who everyone moans about being a stiff athlete blew him away in agility testing.

That's the only way I see it, because the guy if flat out explosive and the tape is good too.

That and he's essentially a 1 year wonder.  I think it also tells how much the S position is being devalued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2018 at 8:25 AM, VegasDan said:

Greater patience equals greater value.  It's tough to wait a year for help, but if you can change a 3rd into a 1st by waiting a year you improve your team more in the long run.  

Especially if the next year turns out to be a deeper pool of talent.

That's not necessarily the case.  What happens if the Saints repeat their success?  We're talking about a pick in the 24-32 range that we essentially had to wait a year to use.  And I know the changing the 3rd to a 1st is the phrase we're using, but between the move down from our original 1st combined with our 3rd round pick, we essentially trade the 49th pick for that '19 1st via New Orleans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2018 at 11:36 AM, CWood21 said:

That and he's essentially a 1 year wonder.  I think it also tells how much the S position is being devalued.

That's just it, I think if you're a flat out S, you're being devalued. If you're versatile, your value has never been higher IMO. Every DC wants a S that can do what James was said to be able to do during the draft process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2018 at 11:36 AM, CWood21 said:

That and he's essentially a 1 year wonder.  I think it also tells how much the S position is being devalued.

1 year wonder? James? I remember watching him make plays as a frosh and they were talking about him being a pro at a young college age.. He got overshadowed some but I don't see one year wonder at all

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2018 at 11:39 AM, CWood21 said:

That's not necessarily the case.  What happens if the Saints repeat their success?  We're talking about a pick in the 24-32 range that we essentially had to wait a year to use.  And I know the changing the 3rd to a 1st is the phrase we're using, but between the move down from our original 1st combined with our 3rd round pick, we essentially trade the 49th pick for that '19 1st via New Orleans.

By my math, that would still be a value increase even if the the saints' pick is #32.  I'm not sure how you equate that to the 49th pick but I will assume you are doing some kind of trade value chart math.

There are 3 factors in play here:

1. Packers player ratings. What if the Packers rated Edmunds, James, Davenport and Alexander the same? There is no loss of value to go from 14 to 18 if that is the case. Heck, we maybe had Alexander rated higher than the other 3, and would have taken him at 14 if no trade. We will never know.

2. Draft depth. If next year's draft has a deeper talent pool, the 24th pick in 2019 may have the same rating as a player drafted 16 this season.

3. Positional need. Next year looks deep at DL. This year was big for QB, G, and RB. We didnt have a big need for those, IMHO. Next year looks much deeper at DL and Edge. I hope Daniels hangs in there, Mo is a success and resigns, and Adam's busts out. But I'm one for having the DL cupboard stocked up before a need appears. Edge is obviously a need for healthy and talented youth.

Edited by VegasDan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, VegasDan said:

By my math, that would still be a value increase even if the the saints' pick is #32.  I'm not sure how you equate that to the 49th pick but I will assume you are doing some kind of trade value chart math.

There are 3 factors in play here:

1. Packers player ratings. What if the Packers rated Edmunds, James, Davenport and Alexander the same? There is no loss of value to go from 14 to 18 if that is the case. Heck, we maybe had Alexander rated higher than the other 3, and would have taken him at 14 if no trade. We will never know.

2. Draft depth. If next year's draft has a deeper talent pool, the 24th pick in 2019 may have the same rating as a player drafted 16 this season.

3. Positional need. Next year looks deep at DL. This year was big for QB, G, and RB. We didnt have a big need for those, IMHO. Next year looks much deeper at DL and Edge. I hope Daniels hangs in there, Mo is a success and resigns, and Adam's busts out. But I'm one for having the DL cupboard stocked up before a need appears. Edge is obviously a need for healthy and talented youth.

There has to be a devalue on future picks.  Let's go through the math real quick so others can see.  The Packers traded #14 (1100), #76 (210), and #186 (16.6).  That comes up to 1326.6 in terms of points.  The Packers acquired #18 (900), #147 (32.2), #248 (1), and a '19 1st.  Without including the value of the future first, that comes to 393.4 in terms of points.  That's roughly the value of 50th pick.  The problem is that the pick is too much of a variable.  If the Saints pick below 18, than the Saints are actually getting value compared to the perceived value of the trade right now.  If they pick before 18, the Packers gain value.  The Packers/Saints have effectively valued the pick as a mid-2nd round pick this year or a mid-1st round pick next year.

As for your three points, let's dig into them.  It's very possible that the Packers valued Edmunds/James/Davenport/Alexander similarly, but it's also possible that they had a preferred choice but felt the value of the trade was too far to give up.  For all that we know, Alexander could have been 4th on that list so you saying there's no value lost from 14 to 18 is simply an untrue statement.  The gaps between players tend to be bigger the earlier in the draft.  The difference between your 14th and 18th ranked prospect is going to be drastically different than the 94th and 98th best prospect.  Obviously, the Packers did enough research that they knew they could move back up the board even after trading down with the Saints that they felt they could "risk" losing their preferred targets and still walk away with someone they knew was similar valued if not preferred.

I hate discussing about next year's class is better/deeper.  We get caught in this year after year.  It's a never-ending discussion and quite frankly a waste of time.  Maybe next year is stacked with EDGE prospects, and we find our next great pass rusher.  I just think it's a fool's errand to start pegging the future of the franchise on future players.  Some players develop as expected, some flop.  I mean, remember when there was talk about Jevan Snead being a potential #1 overall pick?  Because I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And FWIW, I think what this draft shows was that the Packers felt there wasn't a big enough gap between Edmunds/James/Davenport and Jaire that the '19 1st round pick provided.  All that extra value and ammunition creates a TON of flexibility for the Packers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And FWIW, I think what this draft shows was that the Packers felt there wasn't a big enough gap between Edmunds/James/Davenport and Jaire that the '19 1st round pick provided.  All that extra value and ammunition creates a TON of flexibility for the Packers.

I think fans put way too much into the draft value chart. It incorrectly assumes NFL teams rank draftable players in order on their big boards, rather than individually rating them with a score. Also, it assumes talent is identical each year. Another error is that players can be ranked 1 to xxx. How do you tell if the 125th player a guard is better than 126th WR? Cant players receive the same grade? The final assumption is that both teams value players identically. That of course is silly. Think about it, what if the Saints had given Davenport the 5th highest player rating in the draft? Is his trade value to them suddenly only worth the 14th best player?

The chart's purpose is to determine the relative value to a team of the talent you can draft at the pick. There are a lot of variables involved to determine the quality of a trade. TVC is a very rough guideline that should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Edited by VegasDan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, VegasDan said:

I think fans put way too much into the draft value chart. It incorrectly assumes NFL teams rank draftable players in order on their big boards, rather than individually rating them with a score. Also, it assumes talent is identical each year. The final assumption is that both teams value players identically. That of course is silly. Think about it, what if the Saints had given Davenport the 5th highest player rating in the draft? Is his trade value to them suddenly only worth the 14th best player?

The chart's purpose is to determine the relative value to a team of the talent you can draft at the pick. There are a lot of variables involved to determine the quality of a trade. TVC is a very rough guideline that should be taken with a large grain of salt.

If they're putting way too much into the TVC, than they're not using it for what it is.  It's an attempt to create a static evaluation for picks that are inherently fluctuating.  Some teams value certain picks more than others.  By the TVC, the Patriots had enough ammunition to move into the top 5 using their combination of picks.  But for a team whose picking in the top 5, you're almost certainly going to be hard pressed convincing them to draft a couple of players at significantly lower tiers is better than one player at the highest tier.  It's just not a real logical value jump, unless you're being overwhelmed in terms of value.  It's an attempt to quantify picks, which are subjective in value.  It should be used a a general rule of thumb, not as a black and whit evaluation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VegasDan said:

I think fans put way too much into the draft value chart. It incorrectly assumes NFL teams rank draftable players in order on their big boards, rather than individually rating them with a score. 

i think NFL teams do rank draftable players in order on their big boards. Almost, but not quite a 1,2,3,4 order, because several players can have essentially the same grade, which can further be modified with a small 'weighting'  according to positional needs. This applies more and more as the draft progresses and the differences between players becomes smaller.

They do stack players vertically on their board, which I take to mean they put players at the same positions in a 1/2/3/4 order with grades determining the degree of difference between them). They also stack horizontally, which is how they compare overall talent across all positions. They also track every other teams progress through the draft to help them predict what will happen before their own picks.

I wrote this because your description seemed unclear. The draft value chart is the starting point for assigning a value to each pick. In reality every draft is unique in its own way, so the value of each pick is not exactly the same amount each year, but adjusted by that particular draft. How else (other than a draft chart) do you work out very complicated deals ?

I'll also add that the vertical stacking can have a significant effect on the draft. If you have a real need at a position that, grading-wise, has a big dropoff at a certain point, then you may be persuaded to forgo the highest graded player on your board (who is at another position), to take someone you need before that big dropoff happens. That IS drafting for need, but it need not be the bad thing so many people make it out to be (as long as the reach isn't too far down in value).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

i think NFL teams do rank draftable players in order on their big boards. Almost, but not quite a 1,2,3,4 order, because several players can have essentially the same grade, which can further be modified with a small 'weighting'  according to positional needs. This applies more and more as the draft progresses and the differences between players becomes smaller.

They do stack players vertically on their board, which I take to mean they put players at the same positions in a 1/2/3/4 order with grades determining the degree of difference between them). They also stack horizontally, which is how they compare overall talent across all positions. They also track every other teams progress through the draft to help them predict what will happen before their own picks.

I wrote this because your description seemed unclear. The draft value chart is the starting point for assigning a value to each pick. In reality every draft is unique in its own way, so the value of each pick is not exactly the same amount each year, but adjusted by that particular draft. How else (other than a draft chart) do you work out very complicated deals ?

I'll also add that the vertical stacking can have a significant effect on the draft. If you have a real need at a position that, grading-wise, has a big dropoff at a certain point, then you may be persuaded to forgo the highest graded player on your board (who is at another position), to take someone you need before that big dropoff happens. That IS drafting for need, but it need not be the bad thing so many people make it out to be (as long as the reach isn't too far down in value).

What I believe happens is that teams grade players. They have a formula for each position that scores a player based on both measurable  physical attribites and subjective things such as heart, aptitude, etc. I don't believe they ever sit down and try to rank them in order. It would be difficult, laborious, and inaccurate to do that. 

To determine whether to trade or not, they have to just figure what grade of player will be available at all the picks and figure which situation results in the most value.

Edited by VegasDan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@VegasDan   If they grade guys, they ARE ranking them - how can it be otherwise ? The vertical stack (in a given position group) would be determined by the grade. The size of the grading gap between each player and those above and below him (at the same position) determine where the dropoffs and bunching occurs.

I would agree that when grades are very similar, the players are bunched closely enough to be considered in the same tier, but there must be a vertical stack. GMs and others in the draft room have mentioned the vertical and horizontal stacking in the past. I am unwilling to surf the net to provide examples, but I do remember reading that many times and from different sources.

One wall (in the draft room) would have a big board with the vertical and horizontal stacking as I described. Another wall would have a board showing what positions the other teams had picked, along with their perceived team needs and remaining picks. That board may even have the Packers own needs listed, and the players picked, just to remind GMs which positions they have filled. Equally, that could be listed elsewhere (ie on a computer).

What I am unsure of, is how big a team's big board is (it will vary across teams). The Packers big board may have substantially less than 200 names on it, preferred candidates if you like, that fit well with what the team wants. If that is the case, then there must be ANOTHER board with the names of everyone considered draftable (barring those completely removed for injury/character reasons). This extra board is necessary to track non-preferred candidates that fall in the draft to a point where their value is so high (compared to the team's preferred candidates) that whatever limitations they had to be labelled as non-preferred, are outweighed by the overall quality of the player (eg the Aaron Rodgers pick).

Edited by OneTwoSixFive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CWood21 said:

And FWIW, I think what this draft shows was that the Packers felt there wasn't a big enough gap between Edmunds/James/Davenport and Jaire that the '19 1st round pick provided.  All that extra value and ammunition creates a TON of flexibility for the Packers.

This is the way I see it. Hindsight, I think Ward was our target in a trade up. When Cleveland grabbed him at#4 a trade down was always the plan. Put another way, we were going to get a CB in round 1 and felt we could trade down, then back up and get Alexander. While adding some additional perceived value along the way. I say perceived because a pick in the bottom of the 1st next year isn't what we're hoping for. 

I'm still trying to fall in love with the idea of Gilbert, Biegel, Donnerson and Fackrell as back up OLB. I put Gilbert first as I think he's going to be the first off the bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×