BPA Advocates

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

And that's why I shrug off most comments about need, BPA, and especially grading draft picks from pundits who get paid to post grades the day after the draft. Those grades and comments are overwhelmingly based on perceived need, which again is a fundamental departure from the way GMs explain their draft process.

 

The execution of their draft process is a different story, but there's no way to accurately discuss that because we don't see their draft boards. We only know what they tell us.

Agreed. My over arching point to BPA vs needs discussion is that the terms themselves can have different meanings, so the various good points made can get lost in the wash.

 

But I do think the preponderance of thinking lists BPA agnostic of attributes for a given scheme, which is how the national websites tend to do it.  So when GMs pick the 45th ranked player with pick 33, many criticize the pick as "reaching" for a need because they they don't stop to think that 5 or 6 players ranked in between weren't even considered a good fit for the team to begin with.   

[Superman]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

If we know that Hock is the next Gronk, he won't last to 26 anyway.  If he's there at 26, then nobody expects him to be Gronk, and I question whether he is truly BPA.

 

You see how that's a conflation of two separate issues? (With a sprinkling of a third issue, tbh.)

 

1) Team A picking at #15 might have a problem with Hockenson, maybe their evaluation of his talent or character or whatever. Maybe they have a second round grade on him. Team B picking at #26 might have Hockenson as a top ten player on their board. And maybe a handful of other teams between those two have higher grades on different players that align with their needs, or maybe they aren't disciplined in their approach or have different draft philosophies. Maybe some of those teams don't see positional value in TEs, so they pass on Hockenson, leaving him available at #26. Again, the point is that not every team has the same board, and there are many reasons why that might be the case.

 

2) You're adding in the quality of the evaluation. Team B might think more highly of the player than anyone else, and maybe they're right and he turns out to be a stud. Maybe they're wrong, and he's a dud. But that's a question of player evaluation, not draft strategy.

 

3) Gronk was a second rounder himself. And he's turning out to be one of the best TEs in NFL history. Anyone saying 'Hockenson is the next Gronk' isn't being an honest evaluator, and I don't want my GM drafting players because he's convinced they'll be the next HOF player at any position. The odds stacked heavily against that. (I said the same last year to everyone claiming Barkley was a guaranteed HOFer who would singlehandedly elevate any offense to the top of the league.) That's a way to rationalize drafting a player you're in love with. It's not a disciplined draft strategy.

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Agreed. My over arching point to BPA vs needs discussion is that the terms themselves can have different meanings, so the various good points made can get lost in the wash.

 

But I do think the preponderance of thinking lists BPA agnostic of attributes for a given scheme, which is how the national websites tend to do it.  So when GMs pick the 45th ranked player with pick 33, many criticize the pick as "reaching" for a need because they they don't stop to think that 5 or 6 players ranked in between weren't even considered a good fit for the team to begin with.   

 

I agree 100%.

 

I was critical of the Darius Leonard pick because I felt it was a reach, based on what I saw as consensus. But in my posted "grades," I allowed for the possibility that the Colts had him graded higher than anyone else, which basically rendered my evaluation of the pick useless. 

 

In the absence of that information, there's no real way to make an evaluation right after the draft. That's why the best way to evaluate how a team drafts is to just wait and see how it works out. And usually, that yields a better understanding of the team's draft strategy/philosophies, and their ability to evaluate players. In the case of Leonard, it's pretty obvious that the Colts had a rock solid evaluation of him. It's still possible that they could have drafted him later and gotten more value out of their draft capital, but there's no way to ever determine that. And getting an All Pro as a rookie makes it mostly irrelevant.

[DougDew]

24 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You see how that's a conflation of two separate issues? (With a sprinkling of a third issue, tbh.)

 

1) Team A picking at #15 might have a problem with Hockenson, maybe their evaluation of his talent or character or whatever. Maybe they have a second round grade on him. Team B picking at #26 might have Hockenson as a top ten player on their board. And maybe a handful of other teams between those two have higher grades on different players that align with their needs, or maybe they aren't disciplined in their approach or have different draft philosophies. Maybe some of those teams don't see positional value in TEs, so they pass on Hockenson, leaving him available at #26. Again, the point is that not every team has the same board, and there are many reasons why that might be the case.

 

2) You're adding in the quality of the evaluation. Team B might think more highly of the player than anyone else, and maybe they're right and he turns out to be a stud. Maybe they're wrong, and he's a dud. But that's a question of player evaluation, not draft strategy.

 

3) Gronk was a second rounder himself. And he's turning out to be one of the best TEs in NFL history. Anyone saying 'Hockenson is the next Gronk' isn't being an honest evaluator, and I don't want my GM drafting players because he's convinced they'll be the next HOF player at any position. The odds stacked heavily against that. (I said the same last year to everyone claiming Barkley was a guaranteed HOFer who would singlehandedly elevate any offense to the top of the league.) That's a way to rationalize drafting a player you're in love with. It's not a disciplined draft strategy.

I see your points.  I'm speaking in terms of a fan looking into the draft process from what little insight I have.  The quality of the evaluation plays into that look for me.  I think many teams would forego their draft philosophy of attributes or positional value if they thought a player was truly transformational.  In fact, that's partly why the Nelson pick has appeal because he is just that good, regardless of the fact he's a G.  If a team values TEs less than others, I still don't see them passing on a Gronk. 

 

So part of the question is, how good is Hockenson?  TE isn't a highly valued position for me, so he would need to be a transformational player to be taken over another very good player who fills a need and has higher positional value, like 3 tech.  

 

Take the Hooker pick.  Many thought he was a steal because he was ranked higher than 15.  Did he fall to 15 because other GMs didn't look for those qualities he had, or did they simply not think he possessed those qualities to the degree he was hyped?  It turns out, he probably won't be a transformational player.  How about Nelson?  Well, he's performed in a way that suggests he is everything he was hyped to be.  

 

We're talking about FS, G, and TE, all three positions that tend not to be ranked high in terms of positional value.  I would take Hockenson if he was transformational.  But my question is, is he more like Hooker or Nelson?  I suspect the reason Hooker dropped to 15 is because other GMs did not think he was all that transformational, whereas Nelson would not have dropped, IMO.  So my point is that if Hock....the 18th ranked BPA....drops to 26, I suspect its because the other GMs do not see him as transformational, so the quality of Ballard's evaluation would impact my ability to get behind the pick in lieu of a DT who was very good.

 

I hope that makes sense.

[throwing BBZ]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You see how that's a conflation of two separate issues? (With a sprinkling of a third issue, tbh.)

 

1) Team A picking at #15 might have a problem with Hockenson, maybe their evaluation of his talent or character or whatever. Maybe they have a second round grade on him. Team B picking at #26 might have Hockenson as a top ten player on their board. And maybe a handful of other teams between those two have higher grades on different players that align with their needs, or maybe they aren't disciplined in their approach or have different draft philosophies. Maybe some of those teams don't see positional value in TEs, so they pass on Hockenson, leaving him available at #26. Again, the point is that not every team has the same board, and there are many reasons why that might be the case.

 

2) You're adding in the quality of the evaluation. Team B might think more highly of the player than anyone else, and maybe they're right and he turns out to be a stud. Maybe they're wrong, and he's a dud. But that's a question of player evaluation, not draft strategy.

 

3) Gronk was a second rounder himself. And he's turning out to be one of the best TEs in NFL history. Anyone saying 'Hockenson is the next Gronk' isn't being an honest evaluator, and I don't want my GM drafting players because he's convinced they'll be the next HOF player at any position. The odds stacked heavily against that. (I said the same last year to everyone claiming Barkley was a guaranteed HOFer who would singlehandedly elevate any offense to the top of the league.) That's a way to rationalize drafting a player you're in love with. It's not a disciplined draft strategy.

 

 Thanks for this. It fully exposes how limited his explained analysis is.
Considering how lenghty his post are, it suggests it goes beyond, explained.
 Not that i don't LIKE and agree with a number of Doug's posts. Many here have solid insights and ways to consider things.
And i enjoy being motivated to look at prospects, often rethinking about their value to us. 

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I see your points.  I'm speaking in terms of a fan looking into the draft process from what little insight I have.  The quality of the evaluation plays into that look for me.  I think many teams would forego their draft philosophy of attributes or positional value if they thought a player was truly transformational.  In fact, that's partly why the Nelson pick has appeal because he is just that good, regardless of the fact he's a G.  If a team values TEs less than others, I still don't see them passing on a Gronk. 

 

So part of the question is, how good is Hockenson?  TE isn't a highly valued position for me, so he would need to be a transformational player to be taken over another very good player who fills a need and has higher positional value, like 3 tech.  

 

Take the Hooker pick.  Many thought he was a steal because he was ranked higher than 15.  Did he fall to 15 because other GMs didn't look for those qualities he had, or did they simply not think he possessed those qualities to the degree he was hyped?  It turns out, he probably won't be a transformational player.  How about Nelson?  Well, he's performed in a way that suggests he is everything he was hyped to be.  

 

We're talking about FS, G, and TE, all three positions that tend not to be ranked high in terms of positional value.  I would take Hockenson if he was transformational.  But my question is, is he more like Hooker or Nelson?  I suspect the reason Hooker dropped to 15 is because other GMs did not think he was all that transformational, whereas Nelson would not have dropped, IMO.  So my point is that if Hock....the 18th ranked BPA....drops to 26, I suspect its because the other GMs do not see him as transformational, so the quality of Ballard's evaluation would impact my ability to get behind the pick in lieu of a DT who was very good.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

I get what you're saying. The bolded portion is taken into consideration when a team finalizes their draft board. My 7.5 grade for Player X and 7.2 grade for Player Y takes their positional value, scheme fit, health, character, etc., into consideration, so I don't have to make those decisions on draft day.

 

And that's how we can be sure that the Colts were extremely high on Nelson. To take a guard at #6, he has to be the real deal, IMO.

 

As for Hooker, a) you have a problem with Hooker, and have already determined that he won't be as good as people hoped, and we are far apart on that matter; and b) I believe Hooker dropped due to health concerns, as he played his last year at Ohio State with two injuries (double sports hernia, and hip labrum), had surgeries after the season, and couldn't work out during the pre-draft process. So I don't share your conclusion on Hooker's consensus ranking before the draft, or why he dropped to #15, or whether he'll be as good as we hoped.

 

There's also positional value, and we differ there. I think safety is more important than you do, especially in the new defense (which Ballard may or may not have had in mind back in 2017). But Pagano valued safeties also. Them having a high grade on Hooker isn't surprising to me.

 

It's also possible that some teams downgraded Hooker because of his spotty tackling. There are multiple variables to consider there.

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I agree 100%.

 

I was critical of the Darius Leonard pick because I felt it was a reach, based on what I saw as consensus. But in my posted "grades," I allowed for the possibility that the Colts had him graded higher than anyone else, which basically rendered my evaluation of the pick useless. 

 

In the absence of that information, there's no real way to make an evaluation right after the draft. That's why the best way to evaluate how a team drafts is to just wait and see how it works out. And usually, that yields a better understanding of the team's draft strategy/philosophies, and their ability to evaluate players. In the case of Leonard, it's pretty obvious that the Colts had a rock solid evaluation of him. It's still possible that they could have drafted him later and gotten more value out of their draft capital, but there's no way to ever determine that. And getting an All Pro as a rookie makes it mostly irrelevant.

Good point about Leonard and I'll explain why I loved the pick at the time.  And need has a lot to do with it.

 

Rangy ILB was a need.  Had been for years.  (as was C before that) Roquan Smith was the guy, but pick 6 was an awkward spot to be able to take him.  So I researched rangy ILBs and Leonard stood out to me as the next best ILB for our needs.  Small school, a bit skinny, had some weaknesses to keep him out of the first round. 

 

The question is, could he play?  Could he contribute by midseason, could he start by week 11?  If the answer is yes, I have no problems taking the 60th ranked player in the mid 30's, because he may not be there at pick 59.   So it was either reach down and get him, or have a hole at the position for another year.  

 

I think that's what Ballard did with Smith, who was probably not 37 overall BPA, but was elevated to the degree he wanted/needed another starting caliber G, and Smith would have also been gone by 59.  Reach to get nationally ranked player #50 at 37 because of need.

 

And its okay if you reach that far, because in the end, if the player can actually make plays, its all good.

 

OTOH, the reach for Dorsett was not good because it turned out he could not play.  He had weaknesses in his college game that probably had him ranked around player 60, and Grigson reached for a "need" (I thought WR was a need, so I agree).  Unlike Leonard and Smith, Dorsett never developed enough to contribute by midseason or start by week 11.  If he had been good enough to do that, nobody would have cared that the GM picked the 60th best player at pick 30. 

 

So I've evolved my opinion over the years.  The most important aspect of drafting is to be sure the guy can actually play.  Where exactly he's drafted relative to the board is secondary, within reason.  And if he can play, and he fills a need, he's might be selected over the guy who is BPA on my board because that guy is at another position I don't need.  I may never be able to fill that need if I don't ignore BPA.  Leonard and Kelly are two good examples of that, IMO.  We had holes there for years and neither may have been BPA.  But they can play, so its all good.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The question is, could he play?  Could he contribute by midseason, could he start by week 11?  If the answer is yes, I have no problems taking the 60th ranked player in the mid 30's, because he may not be there at pick 59.   So it was either reach down and get him, or have a hole at the position for another year.  

 

I think that's what Ballard did with Smith, who was probably not 37 overall BPA, but was elevated to the degree he wanted/needed another starting caliber G, and Smith would have also been gone by 59.  Reach to get nationally ranked player #50 at 37 because of need.

 

There are assumptions here that I'm not ready to accept as fact. You're assuming they reached (and maybe they did, but we don't know that), and it's possible that they just had higher evaluations on those players than anyone expected. I get why Ballard's comments about Smith make you think that, but without seeing his board, we don't know.

 

Quote

OTOH, the reach for Dorsett was not good because it turned out he could not play.  He had weaknesses in his college game that probably had him ranked around player 60, and Grigson reached for a "need" (I thought WR was a need, so I agree). 

 

You said this earlier in the thread, and I don't agree at all. The Colts said after the draft that Dorsett was very high on their board, and someone said they had him 16th. Someone else said the Texans tried to trade up for him. Perhaps their evaluation of Dorsett differed from that of most others, but I think it's pretty well determined that they didn't reach for him, based on how they had him graded.

 

I also don't see that pick as one influenced by need. To whatever extent the team needed a receiver -- and I agree that it was more of a need than most people felt at the time; people were acting like Duron Carter was the next Terrell Owens -- there were absolutely more pressing needs, and definitely players on the board that would have aligned with those needs. (I personally wasn't very high on those players, and was a big advocate for trading down.) That pick screamed BPA at the time, and still does.

 

We do agree that the primary problem with the pick is the evaluation of the player (and to an extent, the coaching staff's ability to use the player), not the draft strategy. 

[DougDew]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I get what you're saying. The bolded portion is taken into consideration when a team finalizes their draft board. My 7.5 grade for Player X and 7.2 grade for Player Y takes their positional value, scheme fit, health, character, etc., into consideration, so I don't have to make those decisions on draft day.

 

And that's how we can be sure that the Colts were extremely high on Nelson. To take a guard at #6, he has to be the real deal, IMO.

 

As for Hooker, a) you have a problem with Hooker, and have already determined that he won't be as good as people hoped, and we are far apart on that matter; and b) I believe Hooker dropped due to health concerns, as he played his last year at Ohio State with two injuries (double sports hernia, and hip labrum), had surgeries after the season, and couldn't work out during the pre-draft process. So I don't share your conclusion on Hooker's consensus ranking before the draft, or why he dropped to #15, or whether he'll be as good as we hoped.

 

There's also positional value, and we differ there. I think safety is more important than you do, especially in the new defense (which Ballard may or may not have had in mind back in 2017). But Pagano valued safeties also. Them having a high grade on Hooker isn't surprising to me.

 

It's also possible that some teams downgraded Hooker because of his spotty tackling. There are multiple variables to consider there.

So what would it take to grade a TE an 8.5?  If a TE is that good, wouldn't a HC tend to alter the offense around that player?  That's my definition of transformational.  And I understand nobody really goes how good a player will be before the draft (except maybe Nelson).

 

If positional value factors into the numeric grade, then how does a TE ever get ranked as a transformational player?

 

As far as Hooker, I don't really have a comment, other than he's not Nelson despite similar draft day hype.  AFAIK, we are going to adjust the defense from what we've been doing to more of a 3 safety set, allowing Hooker to roam free.  That's fine, but it seems we are adjusting the D to fit his skills, or, that any future success he has will be in part due to being a product of the system that's now bent towards his skills. 

 

Is Hockenson that type of player, where we would bend the O to fit his elite skill?  Or is he Ebron who is simply a good player who fits nicely into our system, but might be BPA at the time?  

[Superman]

21 minutes ago, DougDew said:

If positional value factors into the numeric grade, then how does a TE ever get ranked as a transformational player?

 

 

Because people have different opinions and philosophies related to positional value. For instance, you hate receiving TEs, and I don't. (  ) 

 

Quote

As far as Hooker, I don't really have a comment, other than he's not Nelson despite similar draft day hype.  AFAIK, we are going to adjust the defense from what we've been doing to more of a 3 safety set, allowing Hooker to roam free.  That's fine, but it seems we are adjusting the D to fit his skills, or, that any future success he has will be in part due to being a product of the system that's now bent towards his skills. 

 

More assumptions that I don't agree with. If anything, I think they want to play more single high, which will call on Hooker to cover more area, which is his single greatest trait and the one that probably led to him being a top 15 prospect in the first place. That's not him being a product of the system, that's the system taking advantage of his unique skill set on the back end.

 

Quote

His Hockenson that type of player, where we would bend the O to fit his elite skill?  Or is he Ebron who is simply a good player who fits nicely into our system?  

 

I'm not sure what you think the role of TEs is in Reich's offense. I think his offense was severely hampered by Doyle's injuries last year. Having a multi-dimensional TE like Hockenson is projected to be (and I agree with that projection, Hockenson looks like the real deal, but more Witten than Gronk) would allow Reich to do a lot of different things from 11 and 12 personnel packages, much of it with no substitutions.

 

I'm not sure I would call that bending the offense to fit Hockenson; I think that's what Reich intended to do even with Doyle. (Edit: And Hockenson looks like an upgraded version of Doyle.)

 

And in the same way, having a more dynamic receiving weapon like Ebron who creates mismatches and changes the way defenses line up and cover allows Reich to do a lot of different things from 11 and especially 12 personnel. I think those options are fundamental to Reich's offense.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Superman

[ColtsBlueFL]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

The bolded portion is taken into consideration when a team finalizes their draft board. My 7.5 grade for Player X and 7.2 grade for Player Y takes their positional value, scheme fit, health, character, etc., into consideration, so I don't have to make those decisions on draft day.

 

Lot of good stuff (mostly snipped), again.  This above resonates because:

 

"Grade the players and grade them correctly, regardless of need, or the integrity of the board is in disarray."

 

This is a necessity for any board/draft to work.

[DougDew]

23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Because people have different opinions and philosophies related to positional value. For instance, you hate receiving TEs, and I don't. (  ) 

 

 

More assumptions that I don't agree with. If anything, I think they want to play more single high, which will call on Hooker to cover more area, which is his single greatest trait and the one that probably led to him being a top 15 prospect in the first place. That's not him being a product of the system, that's the system taking advantage of his unique skill set on the back end.

 

 

I'm not sure what you think the role of TEs is in Reich's offense. I think his offense was severely hampered by Doyle's injuries last year. Having a multi-dimensional TE like Hockenson is projected to be (and I agree with that projection, Hockenson looks like the real deal, but more Witten than Gronk) would allow Reich to do a lot of different things from 11 and 12 personnel packages, much of it with no substitutions.

 

I'm not sure I would call that bending the offense to fit Hockenson; I think that's what Reich intended to do even with Doyle. (Edit: And Hockenson looks like an upgraded version of Doyle.)

 

And in the same way, having a more dynamic receiving weapon like Ebron who creates mismatches and changes the way defenses line up and cover allows Reich to do a lot of different things from 11 and especially 12 personnel. I think those options are fundamental to Reich's offense.

I'm assuming Doyle is returning.

 

But that's fine.  If we're saying that Hockenson is going to replace Doyle because of injuries, then it kind of fills a need, so I'd be more on board then. 

[NewColtsFan]

16 hours ago, DougDew said:

 I think all 32 teams are able to see attributes of players who are suited to either , say, a 5 tech or a 3 tech, YAC or little YAC. etc.  They don't disagree about the degree to which the player possesses the attributes.

 

They disagree upon the degree they need players with those attributes.  So that's why their draft boards are different.

 

However you want to phrase it is fine with me...

 

Ultimately, my point is the concept of "It's a copycat league" isn't used for player evaluations...   it's used for larger issues that I layed out...    It's even used in whether you want a players coach or a disciplinarian,    or an offensive minded HC or a defensive minded HC.

 

But not really as much with players.... 

 

 

[Superman]

17 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm assuming Doyle is returning.

 

But that's fine.  If we're saying that Hockenson is going to replace Doyle because of injuries, then it kind of fills a need, so I'd be more on board then. 

 

Or age, or impending free agency, or because he can wind up being better, or a combination of all of them. But that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a logjam in 2019, just that 2019 isn't the only consideration for this year's draft.

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Or age, or impending free agency, or because he can wind up being better, or a combination of all of them. But that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a logjam in 2019, just that 2019 isn't the only consideration for this year's draft.

Yes I get that.  Its also why I'd consider LT too.  Whomever is drafted at 26 has to be able to play quite soon, or else its a wasted pick.  You can develop a 4th rounder to play 3 years from now.  So the holes/needs of the roster, this year's or next, have to be considered to validate selecting whomever is picked at 26.

[DougDew]

52 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

However you want to phrase it is fine with me...

 

Ultimately, my point is the concept of "It's a copycat league" isn't used for player evaluations...   it's used for larger issues that I layed out...    It's even used in whether you want a players coach or a disciplinarian,    or an offensive minded HC or a defensive minded HC.

 

But not really as much with players.... 

 

 

The term I was referring to, mainly attributable to rotating coaches, is that they all can determine the various attributes of players equally well.  Example, every team knew what Baker Mayfield brings to the table and what he doesn't.  Copycat comes later where teams see what he can do in a certain offense then go get guys who have those attributes to build their team the same way.  But the evaluation of the attributes are pretty much the same as coaching/scouting and player personnel types gets rotated and disbursed throughout the league. 

 

That's why I don't think draft boards are much different team to team when ranking the best skills and talent, the difference comes in when they are looking at the particular attributes to fit their style.  Farther than that, in the first few rounds, holes in the roster must be considered because those expensive draft picks have to play very soon.  Can't really do that if you already have a probowler occupying that position.  So need becomes even more important when you're drafting in the first and second round. 

 

Reaching for need becomes a problem when your desire to fill a need overcomes your evaluation integrity and the guy you reached for can't even play the game at nearly the level you anticipated.

 

All of this JMO of course.

[NewColtsFan]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The term I was referring to, mainly attributable to rotating coaches, is that they all can determine the various attributes of players equally well.  Example, every team knew what Baker Mayfield brings to the table and what he doesn't.  Copycat comes later where teams see what he can do in a certain offense then go get guys who have those attributes to build their team the same way.  But the evaluation of the attributes are pretty much the same as coaching/scouting and player personnel types gets rotated and disbursed throughout the league. 

 

That's why I don't think draft boards are much different team to team when ranking the best skills and talent, the difference comes in when they are looking at the particular attributes to fit their style.  Farther than that, in the first few rounds, holes in the roster must be considered because those expensive draft picks have to play very soon.  Can't really do that if you already have a probowler occupying that position.  So need becomes even more important when you're drafting in the first and second round. 

 

Reaching for need becomes a problem when your desire to fill a need overcomes your evaluation integrity and the guy you reached for can't even play the game at nearly the level you anticipated.

 

All of this JMO of course.

 

Sorry....    I'm not trying to be difficult....   but no.     All teams do not see the same thing and value them equally.    That's why draft boards are so different.   And they are all far different than you're willing to concede.

 

And,  no,  all teams did not see what Mayfield brought to the field.   If they had,  then all 32 teams would've ranked him as the top QB in the class.    But that wasn't the case.    I think Darnold had more votes from GM's...    and a few liked Rosen,  and a couple liked Allen for his long term potential.      When Dorsey selected Mayfield it was not greeted as an obvious choice.   Not everyone agreed with the pick.     It only looks correct now because the season is over and Mayfield played well.

 

[DougDew]

33 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Sorry....    I'm not trying to be difficult....   but no.     All teams do not see the same thing and value them equally.    That's why draft boards are so different.   And they are all far different than you're willing to concede.

 

And,  no,  all teams did not see what Mayfield brought to the field.   If they had,  then all 32 teams would've ranked him as the top QB in the class.    But that wasn't the case.    I think Darnold had more votes from GM's...    and a few liked Rosen,  and a couple liked Allen for his long term potential.      When Dorsey selected Mayfield it was not greeted as an obvious choice.   Not everyone agreed with the pick.     It only looks correct now because the season is over and Mayfield played well.

 

But you're splitting hairs amongst a few picks.  We don't know where teams had Mayfiled ranked, but I doubt many had him rated 20th.  They all pretty much had him in the top 3, based on consensus reports.  In the context of reaching for need, picking the 20th guy 1st would be reaching.  Picking the 3rd ranked guy 1st would not.  That could simply be specific team values, like maybe some team desires a more telegenic personality for goodness sake.

 

If Hockenson is rated as having the 18th best skill set among draftees regardless of position, not many teams are going to have him ranked 35th.  JMO.  The need for TEs to have superior attributes in other areas might be the reason for the disparity, but not disagreement about what the level of Hock's skills actually are. 

 

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

But you're splitting hairs amongst a few picks.  We don't know where teams had Mayfiled ranked, but I doubt many had him rated 20th.  They all pretty much had him in the top 3, based on consensus reports.  In the context of reaching for need, picking the 20th guy 1st would be reaching.  Picking the 3rd ranked guy 1st would not.  That could simply be specific team values, like maybe some team desires a more telegenic personality for goodness sake.

 

If Hockenson is rated as having the 18th best skill set among draftees regardless of position, not many teams are going to have him ranked 35th.  JMO.  The need for TEs to have superior attributes in other areas might be the reason for the disparity, but not disagreement about what the level of Hock's skills actually are. 

 

 

I'm sorry,   but no.....    most teams did NOT have Mayfield ranked in the top-3 players.   Not in a draft with Barkley and Nelson and Chubb and Darnold...

 

The rankings I tossed out was the top 4 QB's in the draft only.    I think the rankings were Darnold,  Mayfield,  Rosen and Allen.    All got votes.   Mayfield was not #1.    Everyone values different qualities differently.      They see things differently.  

 

As to Hockenson...   yes,  I doubt anyone would have him ranked 35th...    but some might have him in the 20's...   and some might have him higher than 18th...    I'm only saying 32 teams are working off of 32 completely different looking draft boards.    And posters here would be surprised at just how different they all are.

 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'm sorry,   but no.....    most teams did NOT have Mayfield ranked in the top-3 players.   Not in a draft with Barkley and Nelson and Chubb and Darnold...

 

The rankings I tossed out was the top 4 QB's in the draft only.    I think the rankings were Darnold,  Mayfield,  Rosen and Allen.    All got votes.   Mayfield was not #1.    Everyone values different qualities differently.      They see things differently.  

 

As to Hockenson...   yes,  I doubt anyone would have him ranked 35th...    but some might have him in the 20's...   and some might have him higher than 18th...    I'm only saying 32 teams are working off of 32 completely different looking draft boards.    And posters here would be surprised at just how different they all are.

 

As you know, drafting QBs take on a special need and comparing them to positional players isn't really a good comparison anyway.

 

But if what you say is true, then I've learned something.  I've always thought that player personnel decision makers would have had to have been in the profession a long time.  And they would have learned evaluation techniques that are pretty standard around the league.  But what you're saying is that there could be huge disagreements on whether or not, say, and EDGE for example, has a good spin move or not, good hand usage, good bend, good motor, good play recognition, lateral agility, bull rush, whatever coverage ability is needed, etc.

 

One team says he has these attributes in spades and ranks him as the 26th player regardless of position, the other team says he lacks those attributes and ranks him as the 42nd best player regardless of position.  I would have thought the long time scouts who influence the board would have tended to have had the same experiences over time, been trained the same way, so when it came to seeing skills and attributes in players they would all tend to see things the same way, and their boards that rank players based on pure skills regardless of position would tend to be very similar.

 

Interesting.