May 25, 2019, 12:18:19 PM

Author Topic: Positions verses rankings  (Read 339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hands

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1506
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • Uncover
Positions verses rankings
« on: March 13, 2019, 07:44:49 AM »
Had a discussion with a very knowledgeable friend about the draft in particular the Packer's selection since FA. He reminded me of something that every amateur (meaning me not most others on this board) forgets is that if a player is rated the second best pass rusher in the draft by all experts, it doesn't matter. It's his ranking number that matters. He went on to explain how they rank prospects etc. So his example is like this....Green Bay is at 12 and Ferrell is still there and so is Devin White, who do you pick? His rating on Ferrell is 87, but the rating for White 90, then you go with White. Then he popped this on me...what if White is 90 and Metcalf is also there at 92...who do you pick? I said White the difference being White fits a more specific need than Metcalf. Again, he said wrong. The need is figured into the ranking numbers, which is why every team's board will be different. That he said, is what you call taking BPA. We discussed the differences of adding a ILB verses another WR and his best response was you don't know how the remaining WRs from Green Bay will develop. But a high grade for a WR means he will probably start and allow you to trade some that are in reserve.

Now, he wasn't saying Green Bay had Metcalf that high...he was using it as an example. He did say that don't be surprised if a TE is highly ranked by Green Bay or DT that may have to go on IR to begin the season, Simmons.

Just thought I would share the conversation.
In the land of the blind.....the one eye man is king!

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5101
  • Karma: +36/-2
Re: Positions verses rankings
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2019, 08:51:01 AM »
Just me, but if it were between White and Metcalf, I'd still go White because of Metcalf's neck issue. Red flag for me.

But....................I get the line of thinking, and he's right.

By doing what they did in FA, they have now opened up the draft to BPA regardless of position. You stock your team with the best talent, even if it means adding to an already deep position group.

Offline Hands

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1506
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • Uncover
Re: Positions verses rankings
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2019, 09:03:21 AM »
I forgot one more thing he said...he didn't think TT was taking BPA for his last few drafts. he thought that he had missed on several drafts in a row and went a different slant, BPA within their biggest position of need.
Not sure, but wanted to pass it on for what it's worth.
In the land of the blind.....the one eye man is king!

Offline OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
  • Karma: +14/-10
Re: Positions verses rankings
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2019, 04:06:52 PM »
An interesting question, Hands.

Teams are not simply score followers. Positional importance plays a big role in who is drafted. If a guard is rated 92 and an OT is rated 89, most would not be surprised if the Tackle was taken over the guard..........the position trumps the score - how big the difference has to be to overturn BPA, that is an unknown. We all know how often QBs are overdrafted, not surprising as their position is the most critical for most teams.

Additionally, a team might take other things into account - I'll give two examples. Draft a Guard in round one (see the 49ers and Guard Iupati for this) and if they play well, they may never get to play a second contract for that team, who are unwilling to play premium money for a position many think is one of the less important ones - this happened to Iupati. Also teams might consider the potential playing life of a player. Running backs are known to generally have shorter careers than many other positions, which might factor in when comparing them with a player at another position, whose scores are lower by a small degree, but has more longevity.

It is generally accepted that teams operate a tier system where they bunch players into various tiers. I think what really happens when it is getting to your pick, is that you look for players in the top tier remaining (and sometimes maybe a tier lower) and find reasons NOT to draft them. This is the whittling down process by which players are rejected until you get to a last man standing. That process can be logical, emotional, gut feeling, metrics-driven, it almost doesn't matter how you do it, as the players you are choosing between are all similarly rated, so whoever you pick will be roughly equal (on your board) to the other choices. The board, to some degree helps the GM avoid foolish reaches, as long as he stays roughly within it's rankings. If your board is poor, then you will probably draft poorly, but then you wouldn't expect to keep your job for long.

Good call (by Hands friend) on a team's specific needs having an effect on the score. Ted Thomson said years back (one of very few things of substance on how he operates that he let slip) that a position of need is given a small adjustment (upwards) for draftees who play that position.......obviously the weighting can be removed deeper into a draft, when you have already addressed that position. In reality, this is probably not a written down adjustment, more of a mental one the GM keeps in mind when making the decision who to draft.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2019, 04:27:25 PM by OneTwoSixFive »
(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

(Pink Floyd) "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"

Offline claymaker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3014
  • Karma: +14/-1
Re: Positions verses rankings
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2019, 04:33:03 PM »
Yea it's analogous to a fantasy football position matchup. It's the end of the 2nd round and you have a choice between Aaron Rodgers and Travis Kelce. You could draft Rodgers who would give you stable production but likely not enough to flat out win you games. Or you could pick Kelce who would give you stable production and you would win your matchup almost every week.

I forgot one more thing he said...he didn't think TT was taking BPA for his last few drafts. he thought that he had missed on several drafts in a row and went a different slant, BPA within their biggest position of need.
Not sure, but wanted to pass it on for what it's worth.

I would say that's fairly accurate. Passing on T.J Watt is probably the best example.