2018 Draft Questions

[Budman]

I recently read an article by Peter King and it got me thinking about something I was discussing in the shout some time ago but didn't really expand on it at the time. It wasn't until I read this article that I really wanted to get the boards opinion and insight on the subject. I'm not a draftnik by no means. I love the draft. I love it because it's like a new beginning and I love all the mocks on this board because it gives me a direction into which I can look at some of the more decent prospects. I wouldn't know where to begin otherwise.

The point of this post is because people had talked about trading back because the value might not be there at 14 for the players left on the board. That was perplexing to me and I seriously asked the question as to that there "are only 13, first round, worthy, picks before the Packers pick?". I couldn't wrap my brain around that. Then I read the King article, which is linked below, and it shocked me.

According to King, about his draft scout source, said, "His team has 15 players with first-round grades.
• His team has 30 to 35 players with second-round grades.
• His team has about 45 players with third-round grades.
• His team has “starter” or “potential starter” grade on “about 90” players".

I'm not sure how to decipher this and I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on the subject. So, with all the players in college ball, there are only 15 that make the 1st round cut? That seems awful low to me. I'm sure each team has there own take on the evaluations but the numbers of players in college, and only 15 make the cut, that seems skewed.

Also, they have “starter” or “potential starter” grade on “about 90” players. So, in other words, being drafted in the first round doesn't necessarily mean starter or potential starter. Am I missing something because those numbers, the 90, don't seem to jive with the 15. I am asking seriously how 90 could be labeled starters or potential starters yet only 15 are worthy of a 1st round grade. I hope I've explained it logically, although I think it's probably something that my mind is just not comprehending. Someone please help me with this logic!

King Article

 

[GBP4EVER]

I recently read an article by Peter King and it got me thinking about something I was discussing in the shout some time ago but didn't really expand on it at the time. It wasn't until I read this article that I really wanted to get the boards opinion and insight on the subject. I'm not a draftnik by no means. I love the draft. I love it because it's like a new beginning and I love all the mocks on this board because it gives me a direction into which I can look at some of the more decent prospects. I wouldn't know where to begin otherwise.

The point of this post is because people had talked about trading back because the value might not be there at 14 for the players left on the board. That was perplexing to me and I seriously asked the question as to that there "are only 13, first round, worthy, picks before the Packers pick?". I couldn't wrap my brain around that. Then I read the King article, which is linked below, and it shocked me.

According to King, about his draft scout source, said, "His team has 15 players with first-round grades.
• His team has 30 to 35 players with second-round grades.
• His team has about 45 players with third-round grades.
• His team has “starter” or “potential starter” grade on “about 90” players".

I'm not sure how to decipher this and I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on the subject. So, with all the players in college ball, there are only 15 that make the 1st round cut? That seems awful low to me. I'm sure each team has there own take on the evaluations but the numbers of players in college, and only 15 make the cut, that seems skewed.

Also, they have “starter” or “potential starter” grade on “about 90” players. So, in other words, being drafted in the first round doesn't necessarily mean starter or potential starter. Am I missing something because those numbers, the 90, don't seem to jive with the 15. I am asking seriously how 90 could be labeled starters or potential starters yet only 15 are worthy of a 1st round grade. I hope I've explained it logically, although I think it's probably something that my mind is just not comprehending. Someone please help me with this logic!

King Article

Often you will hear after draft from sources who say a team only had 15-20 guy who they gave a first round grade too. If they pick after those guys are gone they are a team that will be likely trying to trade down till they feel the value is there to meet the board.

 

[rpiotr01]

Also, they have “starter” or “potential starter” grade on “about 90” players. So, in other words, being drafted in the first round doesn't necessarily mean starter or potential starter. Am I missing something because those numbers, the 90, don't seem to jive with the 15. I am asking seriously how 90 could be labeled starters or potential starters yet only 15 are worthy of a 1st round grade. I hope I've explained it logically, although I think it's probably something that my mind is just not comprehending. Someone please help me with this logic!

I think the 15 with the first round grade refers to players who will be impact players or difference makers. The 90 "starting grade" players I think refers to guys "who can play." Like, think Dean Lowry and Blake Martinez. Can they start? Yeah. Can the team function with them starting? Yeah. Are they impacting the game? No. Do you want to replace them with a 1st round graded guy? You sure do.

 

[Budman]

I think the 15 with the first round grade refers to players who will be impact players or difference makers. The 90 "starting grade" players I think refers to guys "who can play." Like, think Dean Lowry and Blake Martinez. Can they start? Yeah. Can the team function with them starting? Yeah. Are they impacting the game? No. Do you want to replace them with a 1st round graded guy? You sure do.

Pretty simple and easy to understand. I just still find it crazy that with all the college players out there, only 15 garner first round grades.

 

[Mark87]

I wouldn't put a lot of time nor worry in how who ranks what where. Many different systems in use out there. If your field scouts do their homework and put in the time then each team will have the information necessary to make a pick.

 

[rpiotr01]

Pretty simple and easy to understand. I just still find it crazy that with all the college players out there, only 15 garner first round grades.

I guess you compare the current class with grades given to prior classes. Over time, if you do it enough, you build up a range of 1st round grades and I guess it's easy enough to start slotting guys in and out.

I think what's tricky is knowing when to jump up to grab a player in each grade class, and when to stay put and let the board come to you. IMO we traded up for Spriggs because, however GB breaks down their board, he was the last of the guys in a certain tier available, and TT jumped up to get him. Same thing likely happened with Jeremy Thompson, but also likely happened with CMIII. It an be a gamble when you do that.

 

[TW]

According to King, about his draft scout source, said, "His team has 15 players with first-round grades.
• His team has 30 to 35 players with second-round grades.
• His team has about 45 players with third-round grades.
• His team has “starter” or “potential starter” grade on “about 90” players".

I agree with this approach. I think it's a good way to settle into the draft, with a serious eye on who you take, and when. I'd even make it a point to break down each of those brackets a little further, by relating it to how each player in a group would be perceived as "fitting in" to the system our team runs on offense or defense. The objective is to rank talent on similar objective levels without it being position driven.

If you watch drafts, you see them driven by positional talent. A run on QBs, a run on CBs, a run one OLBs, etc. It all depends on how many decent players there are at each position, and team needs. But, when a team doesn't grasp the talent driven evaluations shown, they can often end up drafting a guy with talent who just can't play in the system your team uses, and he ends up playing somewhere else, or out of the game. We've all seen that, haven't we?

If I'm a GM, I'd be looking for guys to work with me to use the principles shown to generate my "draft board." I want to know exactly what's out there, and when it's wise to talk trading up, down, or standing pat. Being just a tad ahead on that curve than the next team can make all the difference in the world, when it comes to getting the right talent to improve your team.

I just hope Gutey is smart enough to use this type of system, and not be positionally driven. It can lead to a real problem, because you can pass on a guy who's much better. Ask all the teams that passed on Rodgers, so we got him where we did. That's one time that nobody can say that Thompson didn't get it right.

By the way. Grades includes the way the player fits into the team scheme, as much as raw talent.

 

[Crease Creature]

Ask all the teams that passed on Rodgers, so we got him where we did. That's one time that nobody can say that Thompson didn't get it right.

That's gotta be one heck of a pickle to be in, "these are the guys we looked at for #24, but this guy we had as a top 10 overall player."

It was a good time to be thankful they still followed the BPA approach.