Positional Value

[Moosejawcolt]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000503855/article/ranking-each-positions-importance-from-quarterback-to-returner

 

 

Good read.  Do most people agree with his rankings? We all have our own views on how to build a team. I know a lot of people were not high on Nelson at #6.  Article kind of reinforces the guard as a position of lesser value.  Just wondering what people think. 

[braveheartcolt]

Context. G is not of lesser importance when your franchise QB has been through career threatening surgery and has missed a full year. 

[aaron11]

i liked it, the only thing i didnt agree with is i would have receiver over corner back.  partly because of rules favoring the offense, but also because an offense can avoid and elite corner, but defenses cant do the same with a receiver 

 

[Moosejawcolt]

12 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Context. G is not of lesser importance when your franchise QB has been through career threatening surgery and has missed a full year. 

I don't necessarily disagree with drafting Nelson......Just an interesting read.  I do think that the Colts front office  does have receivers and corners as positions of lesser value.  

[IinD]

19 minutes ago, braveheartcolt said:

Context. G is not of lesser importance when your franchise QB has been through career threatening surgery and has missed a full year. 

It's that simple for me as well. You can deviate from a blueprint if it's something that can alter your season or franchises future.

 

100ish sacks the last two years. That's all time NFL history bad. You HAVE to fix that. 

 

Luck actually has a small pocket too step into nowadays. That's a new thing for him sadly. 

[Lawrence Owen]

Yeah, if for 2 straight seasons you've been bottom half running, and flat bottom in QB hit's/sacks/pressures, It's time to fix it.  If we had the #1 pick...i'd have been ok trading down 2 times (small jumps) and grabbing Nelson.  

When your team is in the throws of a rebuild,..and you only have a couple proven pieces...you grab the top of the talent pool, and work your way to position of need.  Nelson filled both needs...Top talent and position of need. 

 

[rock8591]

LOL nose tackle #21.

[ClaytonColt]

Think it's pretty accurate.

 

I'd have had a couple of them switched around by 1 place or 2 but in general it's a pretty solid list.

[Luck 4 president]

Without reading it (I’ll read it after) I’d say it goes QB, DE, T, WR, CB, DT, RB, C, G, LB, S, TE, K, P

[DaveA1102]

It's always a really interesting conversation, especially when it comes to draft philosophy.

 

Consider the Giants taking Barkley, obviously a great player and has already looked the part, but looking at the lack of QB talent, will it prove to be the right call taking the "Best Player Available" over a QB in Darnold who could replace an ailing Eli?

 

Time will tell but being across the city could mean salt into the wounds.

[DougDew]

I agree with the article.  I'd raise RT higher than the author has it, but can't pick the specific slot.

 

What needs to be considered, IMO, is how easy it is to find good talent at a position. 

 

How often do we see an all pro G, or a very good G, have lineage as a late round draft choice or UDFA?  I believe both Norwell and Jensen, the two good G FA last spring, were originally not high draft picks.  And we all know about Jeff Saturday working in a grocery store (I know he was a C).  Matt Slauson at one time was a well paid FA and he was not a high draft choice.

 

OTOH, I can't think of any LT, and maybe only a few RTs, that had any decent success in the NFL NOT being a high draft choice.  No low round or UDFA OTs become good enough to earn a big FA contract.   I know Ryan Diem was our RT for years and he was drafted in the 4th.  But he had difficulties with speed rushers, and I don't think he would survive today's NFL.

 

You have to find OTs high in the draft.  You don't have to find Gs high in the draft....and....Gs also become available via FA.  Good OTs don't.   So to me, its a matter of supply.  You can only get OTs with high draft picks, so devoting a high pick to a G....or a C....kind of sets a team back a bit, IMO.  

 

DBs need to have a certain level of speed.  DBs drafted past the 3rd round typically have speed issues, so finding one that develops into an all pro from later than the third round is rare, IMO.

 

But Safties can be found via FA relatively inexpensively.  CBs too, especially zone CBs can be found too, but they are more expensive than Ss.  So I would also try to avoid drafting a DB, especially a S, high because there is usually a supply of them on the market over the course of two or three offseasons.

[csmopar]

8 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I don't necessarily disagree with drafting Nelson......Just an interesting read.  I do think that the Colts front office  does have receivers and corners as positions of lesser value.  

I disagree. I think they had to look at the position groups that were the largest needs and try to fix those first. After QB, OL was the most important this last offseason with Luck coming back from injury.  Our OL is vastly improved over last year but still needs depth and to get healthy. We've allowed less hits and sacks then last year. 

 

Second, our LB corp was all but nonexistent,    Leonard is a steal there and when healthy is going to keep making waves it looks like. 

 

Bottom line, we just had far too many holes to fill to get us back up. Positional value is great when you have a foundation, we didn't. So we had to fix the biggest missing blocks first. It's really that simple 

[Finball]

I'd put RB a lot, lot lower.

 

Also, how on earth slot CB isn't mentioned at all when teams are in nickle defense almost 70% of the time these days?

[Finball]

52 minutes ago, DougDew said:

OTOH, I can't think of any LT, and maybe only a few RTs, that had any decent success in the NFL NOT being a high draft choice.  No low round or UDFA OTs become good enough to earn a big FA contract.   I know Ryan Diem was our RT for years and he was drafted in the 4th.  But he had difficulties with speed rushers, and I don't think he would survive today's NFL.

 

 

It is rare but it has happened. Jason Peters and Donald Penn were undrafted as was Ryan Schraeder and Austin Howard. David Bakhtiari was a 4th rounder, David Diehl was a 5th rounder.

[Coffeedrinker]

The only problem with that article is it looks at how things are in the NFL now not the direction it's going, for example the writer has 2 designated pass rushers in the top 10 positional value.  That does not account for offenses adjusting to that by doing more short passes and running between the tackles.  So as the transition happens, RBs and interior lineman are going to become more valuable on the offense and DTs , DEs (that are more run stoppers than pass rushers)and ILB/MLBs are going to become more valuable on the defense while the designated pass rusher and tackles will become less so.

[Cynjin]

9 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000503855/article/ranking-each-positions-importance-from-quarterback-to-returner

 

 

Good read.  Do most people agree with his rankings? We all have our own views on how to build a team. I know a lot of people were not high on Nelson at #6.  Article kind of reinforces the guard as a position of lesser value.  Just wondering what people think. 

 

It's basically Brooks' opinion, which is fine, but it does not take into the context of each team.  It is a a general guideline base on his conversations with NFL personnel and his opinion.  What defense and offense that the team runs, the individual player that is being discussed, those determine to a great extent what position is "more" valuable to the specific team.  I believe with the Colts, the WLB is more valuable than the MLB.  IMO, the left guard is more valuable than the right guard, even considering the aspects of slide protection.

[NewEra]

My value would be qb, then the line to protect that qb, then the dline, wr, cb, rb, lber, s

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Finball said:

 

It is rare but it has happened. Jason Peters and Donald Penn were undrafted as was Ryan Schraeder and Austin Howard. David Bakhtiari was a 4th rounder, David Diehl was a 5th rounder.

I'm not sure Howard, Bakhtari, and Diehl is ideally what we want.  I think those guys became starters out of circumstance of what the others teams' needs were, and they were good enough to hold down the fort, but I may be wrong.

 

I think Peters and Penn are definitely longer term guys.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

The only problem with that article is it looks at how things are in the NFL now not the direction it's going, for example the writer has 2 designated pass rushers in the top 10 positional value.  That does not account for offenses adjusting to that by doing more short passes and running between the tackles.  So as the transition happens, RBs and interior lineman are going to become more valuable on the offense and DTs , DEs (that are more run stoppers than pass rushers)and ILB/MLBs are going to become more valuable on the defense while the designated pass rusher and tackles will become less so.

I think that's a good point.  3 tech type DTs are becoming as important and DEs, so interior lineman should get elevated as well.

 

What I think he accurately says is that the interior has more opportunities to scheme and help each other whereas the Ts get left on an island more.  Inherently, the Ts need to be more physically talented relative to the interior guys.

[aaron11]

i agree with running back still being top 10.  the colts are  29th in rushing despite having decent run blockers.  you cant just throw 50 times a game, you will have too many interceptions like that

[Finball]

51 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm not sure Howard, Bakhtari, and Diehl is ideally what we want.  I think those guys became starters out of circumstance of what the others teams' needs were, and they were good enough to hold down the fort, but I may be wrong.

 

I think Peters and Penn are definitely longer term guys.

 

Howard was never ideal starter but Diehl was good player for a long time and at 3 different positions. Bakhtiari is a top 5 LT. 

[Derakynn]

We finally have a couple games where Luck isn’t getting driven into the ground on every snap, and people complain about taking OL. Ok. 

[ClaytonColt]

30 minutes ago, Derakynn said:

We finally have a couple games where Luck isn’t getting driven into the ground on every snap, and people complain about taking OL. Ok. 

We won those games right?

[Jason_]

49 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

We won those games right?

 

Would you have rather won the game but lost Luck to another injury?

[ClaytonColt]

18 minutes ago, J@son said:

 

Would you have rather won the game but lost Luck to another injury?

They're not mutually exclusive 

[Derakynn]

2 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

They're not mutually exclusive 

You are right, we would have lost and Luck would have been injured. Much better. 

[RollerColt]

I think 2015 and 2018 are fairly different seasons, some of the values have changed in the past three years. 

 

 

[TheMarine]

2 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

I think 2015 and 2018 are fairly different seasons, some of the values have changed in the past three years. 

 

 

Exactly what I was thinking. In specific examples: During the last Super Bowl, the Eagles used their "Nascar" package, putting basically 4 DE's in all 4 normal positions along the line. This caused immediate pressure up the middle against the Pats, winning them the game

 

LT's are still valuable, but their value is lessened as teams now put their best rushers over the RT.

 

Left CBs are now somewhat lessened as teams are moving their WRs around more to create offense

 

RB's overall value is lessened unless you're at the very top. Teams are using different backs for different roles in different offenses.

 

Guard value is increased as teams have again realized the shortest distance to the QB is straight at him, and will also blow up most runs if they have pressure

[LJpalmbeacher2]

FS #15th (Hooker)

LG #20th (Nelson)

..... both 1st rd. picks by ballard.

 

It's obvious ballard doesn't go by those position values.

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

Protecting Luck was, still is, and will continue to be #1 priority, which we are doing. Now we need to get him some more help. 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

10 hours ago, DaveA1102 said:

It's always a really interesting conversation, especially when it comes to draft philosophy.

 

Consider the Giants taking Barkley, obviously a great player and has already looked the part, but looking at the lack of QB talent, will it prove to be the right call taking the "Best Player Available" over a QB in Darnold who could replace an ailing Eli?

 

Time will tell but being across the city could mean salt into the wounds.

 

Yeah your right. But it could work out for them anyway. They will have a pretty high draft pick again in 2019. They probably will be able to draft a top qb prospect. If they hit on him, they will have both a great rb(Barkley) and a possible replacement for Eli in back to back drafts.

[ClaytonColt]

1 hour ago, Derakynn said:

You are right, we would have lost and Luck would have been injured. Much better. 

Or we could have won and he wouldn't. Who knows? 

[SteelCityColt]

About a year ago I started a little project looking at the draft. I had an idea that the traditional pick value chart was out of whack with the production you could, on average, find in the lower rounds. That is to say I thought it over valued picks and if my premise held true trading down would over the course of time be a sensible idea. 

 

The issue was deciding which metrics to value players with as traditional metrics might not always be the best way. Went down a bit of a wormhole looking at team W/L %s against average no. of PBs per draft, games started by draftees etc. 

 

The reason I bring this up is I did a bit of positional break down which among other things shows the average draft position by position which gives an idea of how teams rank positional value. It's blurred a bit as some players are drafted at a position and play elsewhere e.g. DE vs OLB but I had to work with the best data set available. In order then of lowest average draft position:

QB

T

DT

DE

CB

WR

LB

S

RB

G

C

TE

P

FB

K

LS

 

If anyone wants to poke around with the sheet for their own fun and games it's here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ly49iy8xbds8k5d/Draft Analysis.xlsx?dl=0

 

I'd recommend downloading it as D/Box doesn't seem to show all sheets and you can't play with the pivots. 

 

 

 

[SteelCityColt]

I'd add that this is for the period 2006-2016, but IMO we will see a very quick shift in how teams rank positions as the game evolves under the new rules being introduced.

[DaveA1102]

10 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Yeah your right. But it could work out for them anyway. They will have a pretty high draft pick again in 2019. They probably will be able to draft a top qb prospect. If they hit on him, they will have both a great rb(Barkley) and a possible replacement for Eli in back to back drafts.

 

...as well as OBJ, now that would be a set of triplets to rival any!

[DougDew]

Having thought about this more, the vertical list doesn't recognize the fact that there is more separation between some of those numbers than others.  Example, QB is way above the other positions, not simply #1.  I would say there are positions that are grouped closer together than others, creating clusters, some even ties, while others are clearly separated from the pack.  Here's my list.

 

QB

 

 

OT  

DE

 

DT

CB

WR, LB

RB, S,G,C,TE

 

 

 

K

P

LS

[SteelCityColt]

@DougDew

 

I think it’s important to recognise we’re putting forth wide generalisations when you rank positions like this. Don’t really disagree with your ranking but I think if you get a transcendent talent all bets can be off. 

 

Take TEs, on the whole ranked quite low, but if another Gronk is there you’re not going to pass it up. These are the players who can change how the game is played and then have the knock on effect of shifting perceptions of positional value. I guess the reverse is RBs where we’ve seen teams avoid investing too much because of the longetivity concerns and cases of “low talent” RBs providing good production.

 

[ColtStrong2013]

23 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

@DougDew

 

I think it’s important to recognise we’re putting forth wide generalisations when you rank positions like this. Don’t really disagree with your ranking but I think if you get a transcendent talent all bets can be off. 

 

Take TEs, on the whole ranked quite low, but if another Gronk is there you’re not going to pass it up. These are the players who can change how the game is played and then have the knock on effect of shifting perceptions of positional value. I guess the reverse is RBs where we’ve seen teams avoid investing too much because of the longetivity concerns and cases of “low talent” RBs providing good production.

 

 

This. 

 

While i think we would have taken Chubb if he fell to 6, Nelson was at the top of the board in terms of positional talent. A once in a generation lineman, right there dangling for us to snag and bolster what has been a nightmare for Andrew Luck and this Colts franchise. I thought it was a nobrainer then, and until something drastic changes, that won't change. 

 

I believe in positional value. But i believe scheme changes things. I believe we looked at Frank Reich's scheme and how he wanted to build an offensive line similar to the Eagles. In this draft, it started with Q and led to Braden Smith. Next draft might lead to a nice right tackle, unless Smith consistently proves it is his... 

 

I think regardless of where we are picking next draft, Ballard is going to be searching to acquire more picks, and he's going to be looking to put talent in the trenches. It just happens to be a very deep defensive front draft. Which is great!

[Valpo2004]

On 10/16/2018 at 11:54 PM, braveheartcolt said:

Context. G is not of lesser importance when your franchise QB has been through career threatening surgery and has missed a full year. 

 

Agree, and context can also apply as to how you match up with another team.  Also weather conditions play a factor.  In cold or bad weather an RB becomes more valuable.  

 

I think he might be underrating the value of interior linemen.  If you look at the salaries that where handed out many top interior linemen are making close to what top tackles are making.  It might be a little easier to find interior linemen then it is to find tackles but at the same time bad interior linemen can actually hurt you more then bad tackles.  It is really hard for a QB to avoid pressure in the middle and deliver an effective pass.  

[Peterk2011]

1 hour ago, SteelCityColt said:

@DougDew

I think it’s important to recognise we’re putting forth wide generalisations when you rank positions like this. Don’t really disagree with your ranking but I think if you get a transcendent talent all bets can be off. 

 

Hands down the best post of the topic.