Positional Value

[Coffeedrinker]

IMO, a good GM is not going to draft based on positional value... it should (and I'd almost guarantee is) one of the criteria they use when developing a grade on a player.  But when you go through everything and that player has the highest grade on your draft board, that is the player you draft. 

 

Additionally, a positional value has to be determined on a team by team and year by year basis.  For example, with a healthy Luck and Brissett as a backup the QB position value for the Colts is very low.  In the 2019 draft with Nelson, Smith and Glowinski (assuming he plays well like he did against the Jets) the guard position value will be very low for the Colts.  In 2018 with only one starting quality guard on the roster, the guard position value was very high.

 

So I agree position value is an important consideration but it is only one of dozens of items to use when developing a draft grade or a free agent grade.  And I think a team value positions differently each year.

[DougDew]

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. 

 

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.

 

Absolutely.  The reason Gronk is so valuable though is because of his blocking.  Like any "receiving" TE, Ebron for example, Gronk easily beats a LB in coverage or even a S.  But when DBs put a CB on him, he gets neutralized.  Then NE emphasizes Edelman.  If the D puts in too many DBs to cover both, Gronk tucks in and blocks and NE pounds the ball against the light defense.

 

So yes, a TE like Gronk is highly valued.  A "TE" like Jimmy Graham, not so much, because he's only really a situational guy that takes advantage of a LB being in the game to stop the run.  Which may be quite a bit of the time depending upon the D.

 

But there aren't too many transcendental players who can flip that value chart, IMO.  Bob Sanders comes to mind as a S.  I don't even think Ed Reed flipped it because his Raven teams had such a dominating front 7 that helped Reed focus mainly on the back end.

[ClaytonColt]

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. 

 

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.

 

I think that's a fair point given the extremely talented players at "lesser" positions however i think there's a ceiling on that to an extent. To take it to the extremes a center is never going to be more important that a quarterback regardless of their ability.

 

Gronk probably pushes the tight end spot to a similar level as where the WRs sit in that table.

 

He's pretty much the only player I can think of that blows the ranking apart (if you can call moving 5/6 places being blow apart but you get the point) Chancellor in his prime maybe? Not sure over and above that.

[SteelCityColt]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Absolutely.  The reason Gronk is so valuable though is because of his blocking.  Like any "receiving" TE, Ebron for example, Gronk easily beats a LB in coverage or even a S.  But when DBs put a CB on him, he gets neutralized.  Then NE emphasizes Edelman.  If the D puts in too many DBs to cover both, Gronk tucks in and blocks and NE pounds the ball against the light defense.

 

So yes, a TE like Gronk is highly valued.  A "TE" like Jimmy Graham, not so much, because he's only really a situational guy that takes advantage of a LB being in the game to stop the run.  Which may be quite a bit of the time depending upon the D.

 

But there aren't too many transcendental players who can flip that value chart, IMO.  Bob Sanders comes to mind as a S.  I don't even think Ed Reed flipped it because his Raven teams had such a dominating front 7 that helped Reed focus mainly on the back end.

 

I don’t disagree with any of what you say here really. Especially the bit where the real reason Gronk is special is he can not only block but relishes the physical contest as well stretching a team vertically and destroying most match ups. 

 

Its a bit a of twee analogy but sometimes I think the draft is a bit like playing poker. 

 

You have your known data (your own hand) to which you can apply general averages. I.e against any unknown hand your hand has X% chance of winning. In football terms this will could be looking at the rate of success for college players drafted after suffering X type of injury, or on average how often a player with X measurables succeeds at certain positions. Not quite a numerical as poker but still there will be quantifiable data there, especially in these post Moneyball days. An example is teams are very unlikely to draft a short QB high regardless of college production. 

 

You then have your unknown, the other player’s hand. Until the final outcome you can never be a 100% sure. This is analogous to player talent. Just like poker we can try to inform our position, e.g betting patterns, by our scouting to build up a beat guess of how a player will pan out.

 

Positional value is almost like pot size, you’re not going to take a huge risk on a small pot (like a K) but you might there is a potentially big pay off (franchise QB).

 

You have to try and weigh all these factors to make the best informed decision you can. Even the best drafters/poker players won’t win every time but they will win more than they lose.

 

Very twee analogy like I said!

[SteelCityColt]

10 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

I think that's a fair point given the extremely talented players at "lesser" positions however i think there's a ceiling on that to an extent. To take it to the extremes a center is never going to be more important that a quarterback regardless of their ability.

 

Gronk probably pushes the tight end spot to a similar level as where the WRs sit in that table.

 

He's pretty much the only player I can think of that blows the ranking apart (if you can call moving 5/6 places being blow apart but you get the point) Chancellor in his prime maybe? Not sure over and above that.

 

We have seen kickers taken in the 1st....

 

QBs are always going to be exceptions as it’s so different to any other position in terms of influence on the outcome of the game.

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

IMO, a good GM is not going to draft based on positional value... it should (and I'd almost guarantee is) one of the criteria they use when developing a grade on a player.  But when you go through everything and that player has the highest grade on your draft board, that is the player you draft. 

 

Additionally, a positional value has to be determined on a team by team and year by year basis.  For example, with a healthy Luck and Brissett as a backup the QB position value for the Colts is very low.  In the 2019 draft with Nelson, Smith and Glowinski (assuming he plays well like he did against the Jets) the guard position value will be very low for the Colts.  In 2018 with only one starting quality guard on the roster, the guard position value was very high.

 

So I agree position value is an important consideration but it is only one of dozens of items to use when developing a draft grade or a free agent grade.  And I think a team value positions differently each year.

Agreed, but as another has mentioned, I think their is a ceiling as to how high one of the lowered valued positions can go.  I'm talking about talking about top half round 1 picks.  Guys along the bottom of the chart have a tough time reaching as high as a normally talented top half round 1 OT.  If the OT is there, you pick him, IMO.

 

Also agreed, roster has to be considered.  If you don't consider roster, picking pure BPA might lead you into drafting an OT 5 years in a row. 

 

Trading back to capture the right talent at the right position is also very important.  Or trading up for that matter.

 

And although C is a low valued position, I understand and supported the Ryan Kelly pick at 18.  First off, he was a sure thing after wasting ist rounders on TRich, Werner, and Dorsett, and considering the bumbling struggles we had at the position for years, it made sense to ignore pure positional value and take the plunge on a C.

 

But ignoring positional value that year factored into my dislike for the Hooker pick, then the Nelson pick.  Not really about the players themselves at all. Just like your roster factors into current drafting, if we ignored positional value one year, it has to detract from ignoring it the next year, and the next.  This year, I hope Ballard doesn't ignore it.

[Coffeedrinker]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Agreed, but as another has mentioned, I think their is a ceiling as to how high one of the lowered valued positions can go.  I'm talking about talking about top half round 1 picks.  Guys along the bottom of the chart have a tough time reaching as high as a normally talented top half round 1 OT.  If the OT is there, you pick him, IMO.

 

Also agreed, roster has to be considered.  If you don't consider roster, picking pure BPA might lead you into drafting an OT 5 years in a row. 

 

Trading back to capture the right talent at the right position is also very important.  Or trading up for that matter.

I disagree with the ceiling as to how high a position can be valued on a year to year basis.  But I'm sure each GM has a different way of doing it.  For example, looking at BP's drafts through the years it would appear he thought more like you... some positions were not valued high no matter what.

[DougDew]

48 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I disagree with the ceiling as to how high a position can be valued on a year to year basis.  But I'm sure each GM has a different way of doing it.  For example, looking at BP's drafts through the years it would appear he thought more like you... some positions were not valued high no matter what.

BP valued skilled positions extremely highly. 

 

WRs in round 1.  Wayne and Gonzalez, and also TE (receiver) Clark. 

 

RBs Edge,  Addai, and Brown. 

 

But AC, Tony Ugoh (via trade), Marlin Jackson, Dwight Freeney are consistent with the list.

 

I don't think he ever spent a first on a DT, and only once on a LB, Morris.

 

 

[coltsnation]

Safeties > Corners.  Also RT just as important or more than LT (all the good dudes line up on that side).

[Luck 4 president]

40 minutes ago, coltsnation said:

Safeties > Corners.  Also RT just as important or more than LT (all the good dudes line up on that side).

I disagree. Corners can make much more impact in the passing game. How often do QBs throw into the safeties zones compared to the CB zones? Not very often. And LTs typically block the blindside of a QB which is why they’re more important and paid more. A QB can see the DE on his right side but can’t see the DE on his left.

[Superman]

On 10/16/2018 at 8:54 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. 

 

Value is subjective, but the most important factor in value is supply vs demand. What does it take to acquire a good player at this position? It's not just about the needs of your team. It's about what you must do to fill those needs. 

 

[chad72]

Nowadays, guards are being paid more and the shortest distance to a QB is from the middle with stunts and blitzes. More teams are doing that since you cannot play coverage like you used to with more contact. Hence guards have grown in importance than just tackles. 

 

Besides, pass rushers like Von Miller and Khalil Mack do not grow on trees, hence average pass rushers are being over drafted thus taking more years to contribute. Then, with spread offenses on the rise, tackle play at the college level is not what it used to be, so spending a high draft pick on a tackle is getting more and more risky, IMO. 

 

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, chad72 said:

Nowadays, guards are being paid more and the shortest distance to a QB is from the middle with stunts and blitzes. More teams are doing that since you cannot play coverage like you used to with more contact. Hence guards have grown in importance than just tackles. 

 

Besides, pass rushers like Von Miller and Khalil Mack do not grow on trees, hence average pass rushers are being over drafted thus taking more years to contribute. Then, with spread offenses on the rise, tackle play at the college level is not what it used to be, so spending a high draft pick on a tackle is getting more and more risky, IMO. 

 

I agree that Gs are becoming more valuable in the passing game.  With quick release offenses, oftentimes the EDGE rusher simply takes too long to run around the T before the ball is released, so defenses are putting quicker lineman in the middle.

 

But still, the interior O linemen tend to get left on an island less, and the RB usually is in better position to block a rusher from the middle than one coming from the edge without lunging sideways.

[shasta519]

5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Value is subjective, but the most important factor in value is supply vs demand. What does it take to acquire a good player at this position? It's not just about the needs of your team. It's about what you must do to fill those needs. 

 

 

 

Surplus value is also a major consideration. There is a cap to be considered...and when you have a great player on a rookie contract...you save a lot of money that can be used elsewhere. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

Surplus value is also a major consideration. There is a cap to be considered...and when you have a great player on a rookie contract...you save a lot of money that can be used elsewhere. 

 

That money can't be used on a position that's almost never available in free agency. That's another reason this is subjective. Views on positional value are different for the draft than they are for free agency. 

[shasta519]

21 hours ago, Superman said:

 

That money can't be used on a position that's almost never available in free agency. That's another reason this is subjective. Views on positional value are different for the draft than they are for free agency. 

 

I don’t disagree.