Air Your Grievances: Bob's Scout on the Packer Draft Needs

[pbmax]

So is it good "value" to draft a nose tackle you have rated as a fourth round pick in the fifth round when you already have Raji, Guion, and young Pennel under contract?

Depends on what else is there. Getting a player a round late in the fifth isn't a huge distinction.

[mraynrand]

So is it good "value" to draft a nose tackle you have rated as a fourth round pick in the fifth round when you already have Raji, Guion, and young Pennel under contract?

If he can play and 2/3 of RGP crap out, yes, tremendous value!

[Fritz]

So let me make sure I understand: If you have a guy rated as a fourth rounder and you get him in the fourth that's not a great "value" pick, but if you have a guy rated as a third rounder but you get him in the fourth that's a good pick?

And are guys who have great talent but off-field issues good "value" if you get, say, Becham, the receiver, at the top of the second?

[mraynrand]

So let me make sure I understand: If you have a guy rated as a fourth rounder and you get him in the fourth that's not a great "value" pick, but if you have a guy rated as a third rounder but you get him in the fourth that's a good pick?

And are guys who have great talent but off-field issues good "value" if you get, say, Becham, the receiver, at the top of the second?

Generally, if the x round guy plays better than his draft round, yeah, it's good to great value (because you presumably got a better guy in the upper rounds). Look at the 2000 draft for example.

1 14 Bubba Franks TE Miami
2 44 Chad Clifton T Tennessee
3 74 Steve Warren NT Nebraska
4 98 Na'il Diggs OLB Ohio State
4 114 Anthony Lucas WR Arkansas
4 126 Gary Berry FS Ohio State
5 149 Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila DE San Diego State
5 151 Joey Jamison WR Texas Southern
7 224 Mark Tauscher T Wisconsin
7 229 Ron Moore DT N.W. Oklahoma
7 242 Charles Lee WR Central Florida
7 249 Eugene McCaslin LB Florida
7 252 Rondell Mealey RB Louisiana State

Diggs, KGB and Tauscher all played better than their draft round (expectation for 4th round is maybe place-holder or part time starter material, 5th and beyond - backup).

Perhaps we could have a thread that debates draft round and expectation. Everyone probably differs on that as well...

[pbmax]

So let me make sure I understand: If you have a guy rated as a fourth rounder and you get him in the fourth that's not a great "value" pick, but if you have a guy rated as a third rounder but you get him in the fourth that's a good pick?

And are guys who have great talent but off-field issues good "value" if you get, say, Becham, the receiver, at the top of the second?

First example, yes its not great value. But say for instance he is the last 4th round graded player left on your board and you get him, then that value might be "good enough". And its easy to take this too far. You could keep trading down and make value picks consecutively at the end of whatever round is loaded on your board, but you have reduced the chances of you getting a top tier talent in the early rounds.

Value in terms of just the draft (not the longer term payoff as Rand discusses in answer to you) is more about the pick and what it represents than the player itself. Did you use your 3rd round pick in a panic on the last safety and take a talent you rated for the fourth round? Do that a lot and you literally reduce the talent on your team over time. You could trade down and get a second fourth or fifth round talent.

Second example is good value but also collect additional risk.

[mraynrand]

Value in terms of just the draft (not the longer term payoff as Rand discusses in answer to you) is more about the pick and what it represents than the player itself. Did you use your 3rd round pick in a panic on the last safety and take a talent you rated for the fourth round? Do that a lot and you literally reduce the talent on your team over time. You could trade down and get a second fourth or fifth round talent.

Good explanation, but it all goes out the window if many guys from multiple rounds play well or, more likely, if can't play at all (see 2004 draft). Sometimes you don't have to wait 'over time' to see the talent of your team reduce!

[pbmax]

Good explanation, but it all goes out the window if many guys from multiple rounds play well or, more likely, if can't play at all (see 2004 draft). Sometimes you don't have to wait 'over time' to see the talent of your team reduce!

It never hurts to get it right.

[Fritz]

Generally, if the x round guy plays better than his draft round, yeah, it's good to great value (because you presumably got a better guy in the upper rounds). Look at the 2000 draft for example.

1 14 Bubba Franks TE Miami
2 44 Chad Clifton T Tennessee
3 74 Steve Warren NT Nebraska
4 98 Na'il Diggs OLB Ohio State
4 114 Anthony Lucas WR Arkansas
4 126 Gary Berry FS Ohio State
5 149 Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila DE San Diego State
5 151 Joey Jamison WR Texas Southern
7 224 Mark Tauscher T Wisconsin
7 229 Ron Moore DT N.W. Oklahoma
7 242 Charles Lee WR Central Florida
7 249 Eugene McCaslin LB Florida
7 252 Rondell Mealey RB Louisiana State

Diggs, KGB and Tauscher all played better than their draft round (expectation for 4th round is maybe place-holder or part time starter material, 5th and beyond - backup).

Perhaps we could have a thread that debates draft round and expectation. Everyone probably differs on that as well...

So in this example, Chad Clifton was a good pick but not a good value pick, correct?

This line from PB helps, too: "Value in terms of just the draft (not the longer term payoff as Rand discusses in answer to you) is more about the pick and what it represents than the player itself."

I kept wondering how the fugg you could determine "value" when you have little idea how a guy will end up performing. But now I think I understand better - "value" is not at all, really, about how good the player is - it's more about perceiving that you got a guy who's better than the place at which you drafted him.

I don't know what the term is, but the antithesis of this - I guess "anti-value" - would be Nick Collins. Most teams had him rated way, way down the board, but TT took him in the second round, shocking everyone and causing a lot of head-scratching (mine, too) - but in the end Ted nailed it, absolutely nailed it.

A lesser example might be Richard Rodgers. I think he was pegged as a fifth rounder or so, but TT took him in the third. So far, he seems to be worth that pick.

Kyri Thornton, not so much. But I am hoping that someone has lit a fire under his ass and he wakes up this year. But we'll see.

[mraynrand]

Yes to Clifton. And yes also to what PB is saying. There is a draft day value determination, and an "actual results in the field" evaluation. They are totally different.

"A lesser example might be Richard Rodgers. I think he was pegged as a fifth rounder or so, but TT took him in the third. So far, he seems to be worth that pick."

R. Rodgers was terrible value (draft day), but might end up being a reasonable third rounder by actual results.

[Fritz]

Right. That's what I was thinking. So while he's an "antivalue" pick, he could end up surpassing expectations.

[3irty1]

I'm not really talking about value in the draft so much as value to the team. I'm saying that for 2015 (and probably the duration of a rookie contract), its a lot more likely you can improve the team with help at ILB or CB than you could at NT because of the nature of the position and the composition of the roster at the moment.

Draft value is still draft value but its not nearly as simple as trade charts make it seem. The value of the opportunities to draft players follows normal distribution (chart points) more than the players themselves do. There will be players you'll like better than anyone else. Maybe you trust your specific staff to fix their specific issues, maybe they are an especially great fit in your scheme or locker room. A great GM should be able to find value everywhere in the draft because they get guys who would be drafted much higher if the market consisted of teams exactly like theirs. Furthermore the contract situation complicates value. If the Seahawks had a time machine I think they'd find a way to get Russel Wilson in the first, even with the knowledge that he'd be there in the 3rd. The extra years on his rookie deal are worth the opportunity cost.

[mraynrand]

The value of the opportunities to draft players follows normal distribution (chart points) more than the players themselves do....

uh oh

[pbmax]

uh oh

Down the rabbit hole we go ...

Football Perspective's Draft Pick Value Chart and Calculator: http://www.footballperspective.com/i...ue-calculator/

Football Perspective's Draft Pick Value Calculator: http://www.footballperspective.com/d...ue-calculator/

Jimmy's Johnson's Chart: http://www.footballperspective.com/draft-value-chart/

Jimmy Johnson Draft Pick Trade Value Calculator: http://www.footballperspective.com/j...ue-calculator/

[smuggler]

If you have a guy rated as the 11th best player in the draft, and you are trying to trade up into the 20th slot to select him, what are you paying for? The 20th slot or the 11th best player?

The answer, as it often is, is this: It depends.

[pbmax]

If you have a guy rated as the 11th best player in the draft, and you are trying to trade up into the 20th slot to select him, what are you paying for? The 20th slot or the 11th best player?

The answer, as it often is, is this: It depends.

You want the player and he represents good value at 20. But how much does it cost to go get it?