Best Value Picks & Biggest Reaches

[California]

Let me start off by pointing out that the bolded part here is simply inaccurate, WV. The dropoff in talent is most drastic after the first 8-10 elite prospects are taken. The talent pool from from the 11th player or so on my board, all the way to the 50th best player on my board is typically very similar. The same applies to the next 40-50 players, and so on. There's a lot of hair splitting that goes on when distinguishing these prospects from one another.

By the same token, the talent level from round 4 to round 6 is also very similar. The first steep dropoff in talent in any draft is after the best 8-10 players come off the board, not necessarily the first 8-10 picks. The next steepest dropoff in talent is found after the first 150 or so players are taken. The talent pool for the final 100+ players selected extends all the way to the UDFA pool after the top 150, is just as closely together as the talent from 11-50, just less of it (talent). The talent begins to become extremely watered down in this range. You're hoping to find players that can simply make your roster and provide depth in this range.... which is a longshot.

This is why getting a player of 3rd round ability in the 7th round range is MORE valuable than getting a 1st round player in the 3rd round if the expected linear value is the same. A team got a potential starter here in the range where selecting a guy who can even make your roster is a longshot. That's value.

If you go back to Awsi Dooger's comment regarding how according to my board, Sharrif Floyd should be the best value pick simply because he was the #1 player on my board, the explanation I just gave you should answer his question as to why Floyd wasn't the best value pick of the entire draft. It's because the talent pool where Floyd came off was still populated with elite talent. However, Floyd was the best value pick of the 1st round in my opinion. Which is why there's only one player selected in the 1st round that made my top 64 value picks.... it was Sharrif Floyd.

The biggest reach using my rankings was not Travis Frederick. I had a 3rd round grade on Frederick (99th overall) on my board. Fact is, there were probably bigger reaches in the draft that didn't even make my top 26. The reason they didn't make my list is because I had not scouted those players, therefore I can't comment on how big of a reach that selection was. There were players taken that I had never even heard of.... and if you're taking players that I haven't scouted or heard of before, that's saying something. Trust me.


Selection value simply based how they were ranked according to my board is best explained using the absolute difference in a linear fashion that I provided. Asking me who I think are going to be the best pros regardless of where they were selected is an entirely different subject. Corey Lemonier is a fine example.

This can't be right. The talent pool almost certainly follows a normal distribution (bell curve) as WV suggests and not the linear distribution you described. That means that the difference between the 22nd ranked player and the 42nd ranked player is always going to be greater than the difference between the 42nd ranked player and the 62nd ranked player.

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

This can't be right. The talent pool almost certainly follows a normal distribution (bell curve) as WV suggests and not the linear distribution you described. That means that the difference between the 22nd ranked player and the 42nd ranked player is always going to be greater than the difference between the 42nd ranked player and the 62nd ranked player.

Assuming your theory here is accurate, it only proves my point that Menelik Watson was the biggest reach in the draft if in fact, the difference in talent is greater from #22 (Desmond Trufant) to #42 (Menelik Watson) than it is from #42 (Watson) to #62 (Christine Michael).

The difference in talent between the 22nd player and the 42nd player depends entirely on who the two players were that were drafted with these two picks. Same applies to the 42nd player and the 62nd player. If Atlanta had selected Anthony Amos with the 22nd pick, are you going to tell me that the talent gap between him and the team that picked Tank Carradine at #42 is greater than the talent gap between Carradine and Eddie Lacy at #62? Of course not. The talent gap between two picks is always entirely dependent on who the two picks were.

I don't subscribe at all to the theory that the talent gap between Brandon Weeden (#22 in last year's draft) and Jonathan Martin (#42 in last year's draft) is greater than the talent gap between Jonathan Martin and Casey Hayward (#62 in last year's draft).

Players with 1st round talent fall into the 2nd round for a variety of reasons, most of them deemed to be correctable. I've had 9 players that I graded as 1st rounders all with the same grade. I've had 9 players that I graded as 4th rounders all with the same grade. Fact is, there's no such thing as the 22nd best player in the draft or the 42nd best player in the draft. 100 evaluators are going to have 100 different draft boards.

If you're a team that runs C2 and prefers huge CB's, you're going to have a completely different looking draft board in terms of CB's than a team that likes to play man coverage, because you're prioritizing a completely different set of skills.

The purpose of this thread was nothing more than showing where some players were actually selected in comparison to how I had them graded. On somebody else's board they may see all my value picks as reaches, and all my reaches as value picks. 3 years down the road we're going to find out about every single one of 'em either way.

The majority of elite players are typically off the board in the first 15 picks. After that, the talent pool from that point all the way through the next 25-30 players is fairly similar. The talent pool from that point to 150 is fairly similar. Then there's another steep dropoff similar to the magnitude of the one that happened after the first 15 picks. The talent pool from 150 through the UDFA pool is fairly similar. These are players that are considered to have flaws that aren't correctable.

The point is, your odds of finding elite talent drops all throughout the draft. It just drops at different rates. If you study the draft closely and the history of it. you'll understand where the steepest dropoffs occur.

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

When you look at the statistics involved with the draft since it went to 7 rounds in 1994, the percentages tell you the value of draft picks. If you look at every draft from 1994-2007, because the 2007 class is the most recent one that has had time for all of the players to fully develope, and essentially become what they are... the percentages tell you where the talent is found.




1994 Draft:: 222 players drafted / 26 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 10 of those were 1st round picks / 6 were 2nd round picks / 10 were selected in rounds 3-7.

1995 Draft:: 249 players drafted / 29 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 13 of those were 1st round picks / 5 were 2nd round picks / 11 were selected in rounds 3-7.

1996 Draft:: 254 players drafted / 34 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 15 of those were 1st round picks / 6 were 2nd round picks / 13 were selected in rounds 3-7.

1997 Draft:: 240 players drafted / 24 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 10 of those were 1st round picks / 6 were 2nd round picks / 8 were selected in rounds 3-7.

1998 Draft:: 241 players drafted / 31 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 10 of those were 1st round picks / 9 were 2nd round picks / 12 were selected in rounds 3-7.

1999 Draft:: 253 players drafted / 28 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 13 of those were 1st round picks / 4 were 2nd round picks / 11 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2000 Draft:: 254 players drafted / 28 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 14 of those were 1st round picks / 5 were 2nd round picks / 9 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2001 Draft:: 246 players drafted / 34 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 17 of those were 1st round picks / 11 were 2nd round picks / 6 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2002 Draft:: 261 players drafted / 20 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 10 of those were 1st round picks / 4 were 2nd round picks / 6 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2003 Draft:: 262 players drafted / 35 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 13 of those were 1st round picks / 7 were 2nd round picks / 15 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2004 Draft:: 255 players drafted / 31 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 15 of those were 1st round picks / 3 were 2nd round picks / .13 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2005 Draft:: 255 players drafted / 28 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 12 of those were 1st round picks / 5 were 2nd round picks / 11 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2006 Draft:: 255 players drafted / 35 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 17 of those were 1st round picks / 8 were 2nd round picks / 10 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2007 Draft:: 255 players drafted / 29 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 14 of those were 1st round picks / 6 were 2nd round picks / 9 were selected in rounds 3-7.




Basically what you have here over these 14 drafts are 3,502 players drafted / 412 made at least 1 pro-bowl..... or about 11%.

Of those 412 who made at least 1 pro-bowl / 183 were 1st round picks.... or about 44%.

85 were 2nd round picks.... or about 20%. Your chances of getting a pro-bowl player is more than cut in half from Round 1 to Round 2.

144 were selected in rounds 3-7.... or about 35%. You have about a 7% chance of getting a pro-bowl player in the 3rd round, and it drops to below 5% in every subsequent round.



If you look a little closer, 79 of the 183 pro-bowlers that were selected in the 1st round were all top 10 picks.... or about 43%. This is why it's so important to draft for TALENT instead of need, especially in the top 15.

Only 1 out of 10 draft picks will ever make 1 pro-bowl. Almost half of those are found in the 1st round.... and almost half of those are found in the top 10. The majority of pro-bowl talent found in the 2nd round comes in the top 15 picks or so of the round.

After that, you're simply trying to get rosterable players to acquire depth. This is where competent GM's begin drafting for need, while still taking talent into consideration. You never cease to keep TALENT at the top of your priority list... you simply increase how much impact need has on your selection.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




As the statistics clearly show, your chances of getting an elite player decrease dramatically after the first 15 picks. Your chances of getting an elite player is virtually the same from 15-32 as it is from 32-47. That's why people like Belichek value 2nd round picks so much, and is constantly trading down from late round 1 into the early part of round 2. He knows that his chances of getting an elite player is the same in the first half of the 2nd round as it is in the 2nd half of the 1st round.... he just doesn't have to deal with a 1st round contract.

The talent pool from #22 to #42 is much closer than it is from #42 to #62. Which is why your odds of getting a pro bowl caliber player is around 35% in the second half of the 1st round, and remains essentially the same for the 1st half of the 2nd round (pick #22 to pick #42). As opposed to a dropoff to around 7% by the time pick #62 rolls around. The talent gap between #42 to #62 is significantly greater than it is from #22 to #42.

 

[WVDolphan]

When you look at the statistics involved with the draft since it went to 7 rounds in 1994, the percentages tell you the value of draft picks. If you look at every draft from 1994-2007, because the 2007 class is the most recent one that has had time for all of the players to fully develope, and essentially become what they are... the percentages tell you where the talent is found.




1994 Draft:: 222 players drafted / 26 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 10 of those were 1st round picks / 6 were 2nd round picks / 10 were selected in rounds 3-7.

1995 Draft:: 249 players drafted / 29 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 13 of those were 1st round picks / 5 were 2nd round picks / 11 were selected in rounds 3-7.

1996 Draft:: 254 players drafted / 34 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 15 of those were 1st round picks / 6 were 2nd round picks / 13 were selected in rounds 3-7.

1997 Draft:: 240 players drafted / 24 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 10 of those were 1st round picks / 6 were 2nd round picks / 8 were selected in rounds 3-7.

1998 Draft:: 241 players drafted / 31 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 10 of those were 1st round picks / 9 were 2nd round picks / 12 were selected in rounds 3-7.

1999 Draft:: 253 players drafted / 28 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 13 of those were 1st round picks / 4 were 2nd round picks / 11 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2000 Draft:: 254 players drafted / 28 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 14 of those were 1st round picks / 5 were 2nd round picks / 9 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2001 Draft:: 246 players drafted / 34 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 17 of those were 1st round picks / 11 were 2nd round picks / 6 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2002 Draft:: 261 players drafted / 20 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 10 of those were 1st round picks / 4 were 2nd round picks / 6 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2003 Draft:: 262 players drafted / 35 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 13 of those were 1st round picks / 7 were 2nd round picks / 15 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2004 Draft:: 255 players drafted / 31 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 15 of those were 1st round picks / 3 were 2nd round picks / .13 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2005 Draft:: 255 players drafted / 28 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 12 of those were 1st round picks / 5 were 2nd round picks / 11 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2006 Draft:: 255 players drafted / 35 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 17 of those were 1st round picks / 8 were 2nd round picks / 10 were selected in rounds 3-7.

2007 Draft:: 255 players drafted / 29 made at least 1 pro-bowl / 14 of those were 1st round picks / 6 were 2nd round picks / 9 were selected in rounds 3-7.




Basically what you have here over these 14 drafts are 3,502 players drafted / 412 made at least 1 pro-bowl..... or about 11%.

Of those 412 who made at least 1 pro-bowl / 183 were 1st round picks.... or about 44%.

85 were 2nd round picks.... or about 20%. Your chances of getting a pro-bowl player is more than cut in half from Round 1 to Round 2.

144 were selected in rounds 3-7.... or about 35%. You have about a 7% chance of getting a pro-bowl player in the 3rd round, and it drops to below 5% in every subsequent round.



If you look a little closer, 79 of the 183 pro-bowlers that were selected in the 1st round were all top 10 picks.... or about 43%. This is why it's so important to draft for TALENT instead of need, especially in the top 15.

Only 1 out of 10 draft picks will ever make 1 pro-bowl. Almost half of those are found in the 1st round.... and almost half of those are found in the top 10. The majority of pro-bowl talent found in the 2nd round comes in the top 15 picks or so of the round.After that, you're simply trying to get rosterable players to acquire depth. This is where competent GM's begin drafting for need, while still taking talent into consideration. You never cease to keep TALENT at the top of your priority list... you simply increase how much impact need has on your selection.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




As the statistics clearly show, your chances of getting an elite player decrease dramatically after the first 15 picks. Your chances of getting an elite player is virtually the same from 15-32 as it is from 32-47. That's why people like Belichek value 2nd round picks so much, and is constantly trading down from late round 1 into the early part of round 2. He knows that his chances of getting an elite player is the same in the first half of the 2nd round as it is in the 2nd half of the 1st round.... he just doesn't have to deal with a 1st round contract.

The talent pool from #22 to #42 is much closer than it is from #42 to #62. Which is why your odds of getting a pro bowl caliber player is around 35% in the second half of the 1st round, and remains essentially the same for the 1st half of the 2nd round (pick #22 to pick #42). As opposed to a dropoff to around 7% by the time pick #62 rolls around. The talent gap between #42 to #62 is significantly greater than it is from #22 to #42.

This was exactly my point. If you draft a player who you had listed as first round talent(Lemonier for example) in round 3, its a much greater value than drafting someone ranked even as high as round 4 in round 7. Even though its 3 rounds difference instead of just two, its less value than getting the 1st round caliber player in round 3.

FWIW btw, the Herbal Badger was the best value of the entire draft IMHO. I had the kid ranked as one of the best 5 players in the entire draft and the Cards got him in round 3. Thats a steal. Straight up.

Come to think of it, Stedman Bailey was probably an even better value considering he went even later than the Herbal Badger. Best WR in a draft loaded with WR talent taken in the late 3rd. Thats value.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

Only 1 out of 10 draft picks will ever make 1 pro-bowl. Almost half of those are found in the 1st round.... and almost half of those are found in the top 10. The majority of pro-bowl talent found in the 2nd round comes in the top 15 picks or so of the round.

<snip>

The talent pool from #22 to #42 is much closer than it is from #42 to #62. Which is why your odds of getting a pro bowl caliber player is around 35% in the second half of the 1st round, and remains essentially the same for the 1st half of the 2nd round (pick #22 to pick #42). As opposed to a dropoff to around 7% by the time pick #62 rolls around. The talent gap between #42 to #62 is significantly greater than it is from #22 to #42.

Those were the points I was trying to make prior to the draft, that I'd prioritize first round to early second round every year, even if it meant I'd have to skip the 3rd and perhaps the 4th round completely. Take your best shot at premier talent early, like the Vikings did, and then fill the roster with 5th through 7th rounders, along with both types of free agents.

We had 12 and 42. Both were borderline. You'd prefer to be a couple of notches higher, in each case. I would have been tempted to stay put, and use 54, 77 and 82 to move within the top 40. The trade to 3 was sensible, given the cost and potential payoff of a supreme athlete, but damn it stung when you consider it only allowed one pick in the premium top 40 or 42, instead of a guaranteed 2, and possibly 3 if we'd packaged our second tier resources, the ones that are invariably overvalued.

Anyway, regarding the numbers in this thread I can see Slimm's point, that it's more convenient and straightforward to use the linear numbers. Everything else requires too much explanation and interpretation. It's similar to when I share a betting angle with a friend. I'll hand them the system that's easiest to follow and with the greatest sample size, even if a more complicated version with several twists produces a somewhat higher percentage.

 

[Digital]

A few points worth noting:

1. Each draft is unique.
While in aggregate we can see patterns, that doesn't translate into accurate projections for an individual draft.

2. Selections are in serial but grades aren't.
If a team has 10 guys rated all with the same grade, they would select them at 10 different spots, but that doesn't change the fact that the team graded them all similarly. Also, while the selection spot between 50 and 51 may be 1 spot difference, which isn't much, the team may have them graded as the last player with a high grade and the first player with a significantly lower grade. Many GM's will trade back if they think some of the similarly graded guys will make it to a later pick, and trade up when they think their pick is after a significant dropoff.

3. All teams pick for need to some extent.
Yes, every GM likes to talk about drafting the best player available, and to a certain degree they do, but the majority of a team's picks fill specific needs. Ireland calls it lateral drafting, but essentially, when the grades are similar he fills needs. Even the vaunted Ravens draft for need to a certain extent, and we saw it again this year.

4. Rarely is there uniform depth at a position in a draft.
So, looking at where players were picked often is skewed by the demand for the position (a function of need and utility) vs. the supply at various points in the talent pool. We saw a lack of supply for elite WR's this year, but an oversupply of promising prospects teams had graded as round 2 or 3 prospects. That lead to many WR's being pushed down. Guys like Kenny Stills, Keenan Allen and Ryan Swope all had reasons they weren't chosen higher, but in other drafts guys like that would have been chosen higher by teams willing to take the chance on them because of less-deep talent pools.

5. Value is dependent on the roster.
A team like San Francisco has a talented roster from top to bottom. While they could make a pick that ranks as a good value pick, the guy could still fail to make the roster. Some would argue that it is still a value pick, and I can see that reasoning. But personally, I see value as the chance to make the roster and how much they can improve the team. So, a guy like Lattimore may be a risky injury pick, but still a value pick for San Fran because the chance of any player making their roster at that pick is not good. Lattimore has as good of a shot as any, and their situation allows for them to stash him on the IR and enjoy the benefits of a good RB taken in a mid round selection down the road. I wouldn't see the same value from a team like Cincinnati or Green Bay who really want someone to step in now.

Anyway, great analysis Slim, and a very good discussion throughout this thread.

 

[jim1]

I wouldn't necessarily say he should've been a 7th round pick, but that's where I had him graded in terms of my interest. In other words, that's where I would've taken him to play right tackle. I don't buy the hype with him. Furthermore, I don't grade offensive lineman high that lack experience. The majority of Watson's pre-draft hype was built upon what was supposed to be outstanding athletic ability before he went to the combine and tested at the bottom of virtually every category. I don't subscribe to the upside, and as I mentioned a long time ago, I didn't like his age.

The real talent to me is found in Cameron Erving and Josue Matias when I study FSU's offensive line.

I was disappointed with Watson's running at the combine as well, claims of him being a 4.7-4.8 guy were clearly rubbish.

Nonetheless- the size, the power, the hand punch, the quick reflexes, the solid base, the run blocking, lateral movement on the kickslide, the pass blocking- all of it was there on film imo, in spades. In games and in clips I rarely saw Watson get beaten, if he gave up a sack I missed it. he won/dominated nearly all of the time. The one thing that bothered me were his feet- they're good feet, but I was expecting Lane Johnson & D'Brickashaw Ferguson feet quickness (and Lane Johnson type speed) and it just wasn't there.

But good Lord can this guy play- the quick hands and reflexes- and solid footwork- show themselves and speak well of his training in boxing and basketball. Watson is a devastating run blocker and he just neutralizes power and speed rushers, a neatly ideal RT imo who might very well be able to play LT. As per your last comment, another FSU OL cetainly caught my eye, it might have been Cameron Erving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5v4n6MuSOQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag5wLMJ65xU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGnMil--PcY

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

Erving is the kid that interested me out of those two. They converted him from defensive tackle in spring practice 2 years ago. He's been the best player on FSU's offensive line at left tackle in my opinion since he made the conversion.

Him and Matias are really good prospects.

 

[ckparrothead]

Those were the points I was trying to make prior to the draft, that I'd prioritize first round to early second round every year, even if it meant I'd have to skip the 3rd and perhaps the 4th round completely. Take your best shot at premier talent early, like the Vikings did, and then fill the roster with 5th through 7th rounders, along with both types of free agents.

Boy you must REALLY love the Vikings' draft then, lol. Pretty much the epitome of what you're talking about.

 

[jim1]

Erving is the kid that interested me out of those two. They converted him from defensive tackle in spring practice 2 years ago. He's been the best player on FSU's offensive line at left tackle in my opinion since he made the conversion.

Him and Matias are really good prospects.

I liked what I saw of Tre' Jackson as well next to Watson at RG, interesting combo of size, power and mobility.

 

[Fintastic2124]

My buddies are all bears fans and they were very upset about that. EJ Manuel was a huge reach!