The New NFL - Positional Value - NFL Draft Round 1 value | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

The New NFL - Positional Value - NFL Draft Round 1 value

Great thread/topic with some great responses.

Outside of QB, WR, TE, and CB has the impact-gap between good and great. Both OL and DL have a bigger impact-gap between bad and good, though. With DL the obvious answer is devalue it somewhat. That doesn't mean never draft it in the 1st, but it's not a particularly scarce position, and if good enough is good enough, you probably don't need to use too many premium assets, and you should be wary of overspending overall. OL is more scarce, so it's a little more complicated. It also directly impacts your QB. So, if you're having trouble filling your OL, you may have to spend premium resources - even if good enough is good enough. It's not ideal, but it is what it is.

Awsi's points about WR and CB are great. Because the NFL is so bad at drafting WR, you often get high-end talents falling to the 2nd or even 3rd RD, and the hit rate in the 2nd is just as good as the 1st. So, to draft a WR in the 1st, I'd have to be absolutely sold on the player. With CB, fast players who are also great athletes and have a base level of skill and instincts are pretty safe. I wouldn't draft a 4.50 CB in the 1st unless he was near-perfect everywhere else. With TE, you can probably wait until at least the 2nd. Many of the best players at the position were drafted outside the 1st (Kittle, Kelce, Gronk, Ertz, Graham, etc.), so it's probably best to wait, especially since they typically take time to develop.

You also have to account for the strengths of a given class. 2020 is particularly good at WR and CB, and OT looks really good, as well. RB too, but 2019 was a rare weak class, and most years have plenty of very good options.

As Slimm first brought up a while ago, the order also matters. For a team essentially starting from scratch, WR/TE (receiving options), OL, and DB (especially CB) are the positions I'd want to be good first. Of course, all these after QB, which is so much more important than any other position. After these, you can fill in DL and LB. It obviously depends on the talent available, but that's how I'd prioritize the positions assuming the options were equal.
 
Be firm in your convictions. As Fatcells more or less once said, "soon you have a whole teamful of exceptions".

In any case, be flexible as the situation dictates, but QBs and those that get after the QBs generally - whether that be from DE, OLB, IDL, DB...

Also, I want Santa to deliver 5 Pro Bowl OL. That is all.
 
I bookmark so many links over the years that are devoted to this type of topic. I'm always frustrated that they are so sporadic and end game, instead of progressive research. But understandable since stuff like this generally doesn't receive many comments or mentions, as opposed to subjective hoopla regarding the topic of the day. For example, I think we could have filled 100 additional Chase Young threads over the past few months and nobody would have noticed the overflow. But two of this type of thread stands out as unusual.

Here are a couple of links I saved. Both are several years old. Both also have the same finding, that offensive line is safest best in the first round in terms of games played and value per player. You can't afford to be bad at offensive line, as j-off-her-doll described...the linemen gap between good and bad as opposed to good and great at other positions. Overall I'm not thrilled at devoting high capital to offensive line but it's been under the assumption the Dolphins can't continue to be so inept in the later rounds. So far ineptitude has prevailed.

Previously I posted this casino.org link on betting sites. I'm not sure I ever posted it here. Interesting but strange content since it jumps all over the place and doesn't care to detail methodology, at least not up front.


The findings are greatest value at offensive line and quarterback, followed by a tiered drop off to defensive line and linebacker, then another tier downward to defensive back and wide receiver. Every recent research agrees that wide receiver and cornerback don't return full value. But that doesn't prevent the stubbornness. I saw a 2020 mock on a respected Seahawks blog yesterday with 11 of the first 27 picks projected to come from wide receiver and cornerback. I pointed out that it might happen that way but if so the teams were really bucking recent returns, whether they realize it or not.

Here's one link (below) from a Cleveland Browns site. It is based on starts per position. Again, offensive line at the top and wide receiver near bottom, ahead of only running backs. This link is excellent because it demonstrates the value of first round picks as opposed to later rounds. If the Dolphins trade one of the second tier picks I hope it is toward a 2021 first rounder, and not screwing around with bonus second and third rounders this season. That is mush. The link demonstrates that if you want an All-Pro quarterback your best bet is in the first round. Quarterback owns a higher percentage of All-Pros (60%) who were first round picks than any other position. That's why many of us to take a chance on Tua and not some bozo choice in the third round. The only positions with less than 50% of All-Pros sourcing from the first round are running back (35%) and defensive back (44%). Wide receivers were surprisingly high at 56%, second only to quarterback. This study is 2000-2016.

If you scout correctly at first round wide receiver you'll have an All Pro type year after year. But too many receivers are forced into the first round these days and don't pan out at all. I remember when I was a kid not many receivers were picked high. But when it did happen you could fully understand and anticipate it all season, like Bobby Moore (Ahmad Rashad), and especially the 1978 draft with Wes Chandler, James Lofton and John Jefferson. That was a famous crop. For a while they were all expected within the top 5 picks. Then Jefferson slipped for some reason. Before Kirk Gibson officially chose baseball he was expected to make that group a four bagger.

Then somewhere along the line the NFL started randomly shooting wide receivers up the first round board for seemingly little reason. That 2017 crop was thought lacking until somehow Davis, Williams and Ross are shoved within the top 9 picks. Top ten picks at wide receiver used to be guys like Lance Alworth:

www.cleveland.com

NFL Draft: Which positions are surest bets for 1st round?

NFL Draft Analytics 101: Which positions are the best bets, worst bets in early rounds of the NFL Draft.
www.cleveland.com www.cleveland.com
 
Love all that info, Awsi.

I'm a firm believer that a coherent OL gives you the best chance to win games, probably followed by the DL.

Build from the inside out - it's why I wanted McCoy last year at center. Perhaps we get someone new there soon.

Build it and they will come! The wins, that is!
 
Awsi Dooger said:
I bookmark so many links over the years that are devoted to this type of topic. I'm always frustrated that they are so sporadic and end game, instead of progressive research. But understandable since stuff like this generally doesn't receive many comments or mentions, as opposed to subjective hoopla regarding the topic of the day. For example, I think we could have filled 100 additional Chase Young threads over the past few months and nobody would have noticed the overflow. But two of this type of thread stands out as unusual.

Here are a couple of links I saved. Both are several years old. Both also have the same finding, that offensive line is safest best in the first round in terms of games played and value per player. You can't afford to be bad at offensive line, as j-off-her-doll described...the linemen gap between good and bad as opposed to good and great at other positions. Overall I'm not thrilled at devoting high capital to offensive line but it's been under the assumption the Dolphins can't continue to be so inept in the later rounds. So far ineptitude has prevailed.

Previously I posted this casino.org link on betting sites. I'm not sure I ever posted it here. Interesting but strange content since it jumps all over the place and doesn't care to detail methodology, at least not up front.


The findings are greatest value at offensive line and quarterback, followed by a tiered drop off to defensive line and linebacker, then another tier downward to defensive back and wide receiver. Every recent research agrees that wide receiver and cornerback don't return full value. But that doesn't prevent the stubbornness. I saw a 2020 mock on a respected Seahawks blog yesterday with 11 of the first 27 picks projected to come from wide receiver and cornerback. I pointed out that it might happen that way but if so the teams were really bucking recent returns, whether they realize it or not.

Here's one link (below) from a Cleveland Browns site. It is based on starts per position. Again, offensive line at the top and wide receiver near bottom, ahead of only running backs. This link is excellent because it demonstrates the value of first round picks as opposed to later rounds. If the Dolphins trade one of the second tier picks I hope it is toward a 2021 first rounder, and not screwing around with bonus second and third rounders this season. That is mush. The link demonstrates that if you want an All-Pro quarterback your best bet is in the first round. Quarterback owns a higher percentage of All-Pros (60%) who were first round picks than any other position. That's why many of us to take a chance on Tua and not some bozo choice in the third round. The only positions with less than 50% of All-Pros sourcing from the first round are running back (35%) and defensive back (44%). Wide receivers were surprisingly high at 56%, second only to quarterback. This study is 2000-2016.

If you scout correctly at first round wide receiver you'll have an All Pro type year after year. But too many receivers are forced into the first round these days and don't pan out at all. I remember when I was a kid not many receivers were picked high. But when it did happen you could fully understand and anticipate it all season, like Bobby Moore (Ahmad Rashad), and especially the 1978 draft with Wes Chandler, James Lofton and John Jefferson. That was a famous crop. For a while they were all expected within the top 5 picks. Then Jefferson slipped for some reason. Before Kirk Gibson officially chose baseball he was expected to make that group a four bagger.

Then somewhere along the line the NFL started randomly shooting wide receivers up the first round board for seemingly little reason. That 2017 crop was thought lacking until somehow Davis, Williams and Ross are shoved within the top 9 picks. Top ten picks at wide receiver used to be guys like Lance Alworth:

www.cleveland.com

NFL Draft: Which positions are surest bets for 1st round?

NFL Draft Analytics 101: Which positions are the best bets, worst bets in early rounds of the NFL Draft.
www.cleveland.com www.cleveland.com
Click to expand...

Nice articles. ever find any info on individual OL posisiotns (OT vs OG)? Seems to me OG are hardest to find
 
Thank you @Awsi Dooger those articles are compelling especially the combine study.

After the Tunsil trade I started to wonder (more to see the ultimate value of the trade) if it is needed to have an elite tackle today in the NFL or is it more beneficial to find guys who are consistent week to week while never "wowing" you. Is it more important to find 5 good lineman instead of paying some exorbitant amount for a couple of lineman. Tunsil looks to make close to 100 million in his next contract and I personally don't think that is a good use of resources. I also have no issue taking o-line in round 1, but you have to get to the point where your scouting department doesn't need a round 1 pick to find good offensive lineman.

I look at what the Dolphins have done on offense since the bye week. The team has perhaps the least amount of natural talent on the o-line in the NFL, they have almost no run game and are still averaging over 20 points a game topping 30 on two occasions. Granted, Fitz seems to have a super natural awareness for the rush, but it seems the NFL is trending away from the "elite" o-line and teams are finding a ton of success with good o-lines. I wonder what the difference between the best o-line and the worst o-line really is at the NFL level. It is as vast as the difference between the best d-line and worst d-line, best QB and worst QB...

I have never been an advocate of trading a ton of picks for the right player, but I think it could be needed if the right QB is there.
 
FSU Truth said:
Thank you @Awsi Dooger those articles are compelling especially the combine study.

After the Tunsil trade I started to wonder (more to see the ultimate value of the trade) if it is needed to have an elite tackle today in the NFL or is it more beneficial to find guys who are consistent week to week while never "wowing" you. Is it more important to find 5 good lineman instead of paying some exorbitant amount for a couple of lineman. Tunsil looks to make close to 100 million in his next contract and I personally don't think that is a good use of resources. I also have no issue taking o-line in round 1, but you have to get to the point where your scouting department doesn't need a round 1 pick to find good offensive lineman.

I look at what the Dolphins have done on offense since the bye week. The team has perhaps the least amount of natural talent on the o-line in the NFL, they have almost no run game and are still averaging over 20 points a game topping 30 on two occasions. Granted, Fitz seems to have a super natural awareness for the rush, but it seems the NFL is trending away from the "elite" o-line and teams are finding a ton of success with good o-lines. I wonder what the difference between the best o-line and the worst o-line really is at the NFL level. It is as vast as the difference between the best d-line and worst d-line, best QB and worst QB...

I have never been an advocate of trading a ton of picks for the right player, but I think it could be needed if the right QB is there.
Click to expand...

I think fans generally agree with that. The problem is 'who is the 'right' QB and who decides?
Agree completely with the bolded
 
Awsi Dooger said:
I bookmark so many links over the years that are devoted to this type of topic. I'm always frustrated that they are so sporadic and end game, instead of progressive research. But understandable since stuff like this generally doesn't receive many comments or mentions, as opposed to subjective hoopla regarding the topic of the day. For example, I think we could have filled 100 additional Chase Young threads over the past few months and nobody would have noticed the overflow. But two of this type of thread stands out as unusual.

Here are a couple of links I saved. Both are several years old. Both also have the same finding, that offensive line is safest best in the first round in terms of games played and value per player. You can't afford to be bad at offensive line, as j-off-her-doll described...the linemen gap between good and bad as opposed to good and great at other positions. Overall I'm not thrilled at devoting high capital to offensive line but it's been under the assumption the Dolphins can't continue to be so inept in the later rounds. So far ineptitude has prevailed.

Previously I posted this casino.org link on betting sites. I'm not sure I ever posted it here. Interesting but strange content since it jumps all over the place and doesn't care to detail methodology, at least not up front.


The findings are greatest value at offensive line and quarterback, followed by a tiered drop off to defensive line and linebacker, then another tier downward to defensive back and wide receiver. Every recent research agrees that wide receiver and cornerback don't return full value. But that doesn't prevent the stubbornness. I saw a 2020 mock on a respected Seahawks blog yesterday with 11 of the first 27 picks projected to come from wide receiver and cornerback. I pointed out that it might happen that way but if so the teams were really bucking recent returns, whether they realize it or not.

Here's one link (below) from a Cleveland Browns site. It is based on starts per position. Again, offensive line at the top and wide receiver near bottom, ahead of only running backs. This link is excellent because it demonstrates the value of first round picks as opposed to later rounds. If the Dolphins trade one of the second tier picks I hope it is toward a 2021 first rounder, and not screwing around with bonus second and third rounders this season. That is mush. The link demonstrates that if you want an All-Pro quarterback your best bet is in the first round. Quarterback owns a higher percentage of All-Pros (60%) who were first round picks than any other position. That's why many of us to take a chance on Tua and not some bozo choice in the third round. The only positions with less than 50% of All-Pros sourcing from the first round are running back (35%) and defensive back (44%). Wide receivers were surprisingly high at 56%, second only to quarterback. This study is 2000-2016.

If you scout correctly at first round wide receiver you'll have an All Pro type year after year. But too many receivers are forced into the first round these days and don't pan out at all. I remember when I was a kid not many receivers were picked high. But when it did happen you could fully understand and anticipate it all season, like Bobby Moore (Ahmad Rashad), and especially the 1978 draft with Wes Chandler, James Lofton and John Jefferson. That was a famous crop. For a while they were all expected within the top 5 picks. Then Jefferson slipped for some reason. Before Kirk Gibson officially chose baseball he was expected to make that group a four bagger.

Then somewhere along the line the NFL started randomly shooting wide receivers up the first round board for seemingly little reason. That 2017 crop was thought lacking until somehow Davis, Williams and Ross are shoved within the top 9 picks. Top ten picks at wide receiver used to be guys like Lance Alworth:

www.cleveland.com

NFL Draft: Which positions are surest bets for 1st round?

NFL Draft Analytics 101: Which positions are the best bets, worst bets in early rounds of the NFL Draft.
www.cleveland.com www.cleveland.com
Click to expand...

Im currently doing research on that exact subject. I intend to calculate the expected value of drafting different position groups for every draft position. I will use cap figures of those groups relative to the rookie contract associated with every draft pick from 2019 to calculate the expected value.

While Im still currently working on this, Im done with the getting the odds right part. I ran a multinomial logistic regression to get those rates for every pick and every position groups.

I read this thread this morning and just looked for a way to share those early result, its my first time working with that site for sharing graphs and Im having a difficult time having it display correctly online... Here's the link.

***You can filter different positions by clicking on them, you can filter by more than one by [ctrl]+click on additionnal ones. Please let me know if charts arent side by side, this is how they are meant to be displayed and if they are on top of one another, something still isnt right.***

https://public.tableau.com/views/NF...board?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link
 
The problems with all of the QB analysis are twofold.

1. Many people read these articles and conflate take an early QB with take the QB that I WANT early. They gravitate to pieces like this to defend their own desire for a particular player. We all know which player most of these people want.

And 2. We've all noticed that QBs are over drafted every single year. Heck, half the board is convinced that we HAVE to take a QB with 1a.
So I ask you... given this mentality, take another look at the idea that taking a QB in the first round leads to more success. I put it to you that this nominal difference has more to do with the rush to draft questionable players than it does to % of success, because the associated hit rate is also lower because of so many reach picks.
 
Feverdream said:
I put it to you that this nominal difference has more to do with the rush to draft questionable players than it does to % of success, because the associated hit rate is also lower because of so many reach picks.
Click to expand...
What it has to do with doesnt make a difference. It just is what it is, teams overdrafting QBs isnt in your control and the net effect is that the more other teams reach for QBs, the more difficult it gets for you to get good ones later on...
 
Drafting counter to the rush is how you find value, just as Belichick does...

Becoming a lemming rarely pays dividends.
 
The way I see it...

The value of draft picks is directly associated to your team composition.

If somehow, we were able to establish an absolute value for each specific position on a football team, we'd actually be able to assign a perfect value for each specific draft pick in the draft, for every team participating in that draft.

Of course, we're no where near that but we can still make some assumptions.

For one thing, we can assume pretty confidently that QB is the most important position in football and that the #1 overall pick is the most valuable pick in the NFL draft.

From that, we can then form the theory that the #1 overall pick is more valuable to a team that doesnt have the QB position solved than it is to a team that isnt still looking for a QB. In other words, the team that already has the QB cannot benefit from the value of the best QB in the draft while the team without absolutely can.

But the team that already has the QB doesnt get exposed to the variance implied with making that pick, it already has the position solved. So it is perfectly fine with that particular pick having less value to him, compared to his opponent. The value of the player he is picking doesnt change, while the value of the pick is lesser. This is how you add value.

My takeaway is, solve critical positions first... The more critical positions you have solved, the more likely you are to get a player with more value than the actual pick you used to get him on your team.
 
Last edited:
Many people feel that way... but three things are also true.

1) The track record of early drafted QBs to bad teams is dismal. Careers wrecked, Coaches fired.

2) The track record of good teams finally addressing their QB needs by trading up is filled with success stories.

3) As you've admitted, there is no certainty that the QBs you lust for will succeed, and since we have 3 picks in the first round and since no one REALLY knows which QBs Flores likes... value dictates that we extract as many solid players as we can with our resources.
 
The risk of not having a QB is far lower than the reward of hitting on one.

I wouldn't be opposed if Miami kept taking shots in the first 2 rounds each year over the next 3-5 years until they hit. This team has a coaching staff. They just need a great QB to match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom