Draft Theory - New England Patriots Forums

***Box_O_Rocks*** · 04-11-2009, 12:14 PM

This caught my eye the other day, a Belichick/Pioli protege' with a reported "needs based" draft philosophy.

Scout.com: Falcons Begin Final Draft Preparations

Quote:

--The Falcons believe in drafting for need as opposed to selecting the best player available. "The philosophy of (general manager) Thomas Dimitroff is to always be needs based," Falcons coach Mike Smith said. "You're not going to see us taking the best available athlete. We've identified needs to be addressed. We've done some in free agency, and there will probably be some free agency moves in future. But right now, our focus is on the draft."

I've certainly had some questions concerning the BPA arguments held annually on this board. Below is an article discussing the issue.

Draft Principles: Need or Value?

Quote:

Draft Principles: Need or Value?
Written by Darren Schilling
Sunday, 15 March 2009 11:06

With every NFL Draft comes the same old debates. One of those debates is weather teams should draft for value or do they draft for need. Obviously each team has their own philosophies and their own opinion in this debate.

What is value? Value is the perceived value of an individual prospect based on how that prospect ranks in comparison to the others. For example, the Pittsburgh Steelers were considered to have received a good value in Drafting Illinois running back Rashard Mendenhall 23rd overall in last years draft when most considered him a top 15 talent. Typically teams who follow this principle are interested in drafting the best overall players regardless of their position. There are some exceptions to the rule for teams using this principle. Generally every team will have certain areas/positions where drafting a player there early wouldn't make much sense. Example, the Indianapolis Colts currently won't have any reason to draft a quarterback early who may fall through the cracks. This principle often becomes more so, drafting for value that fit's a need.

What is need? Need or more specifically "needs" are the perceived areas/positions that a particular team needs to improve their personnel. Generally teams who use this principle will enter the draft with a list of certain positions they "need" to draft. Example, the Atlanta Falcons entered last year draft "needing" a quarterback. There were arguments both way as to what the Falcons should do. Many said they had to draft Matt Ryan (last years consensus #1 quarterback prospect) if he were there at #3. Others said he simply wasn't a good value for the 3rd overall pick. On draft day despite what seemed to be an overwhelming fan base against the pick of Matt Ryan, the Falcons selected the quarterback they so badly "needed." So far that pick has seemed to work out quite well for the Falcons. This is a draft principle in which countless example of both good and bad picks could be cited.

A common misconception in my opinion is to what teams should be drafting for need and what teams should draft for value. Many believe the teams with the higher draft picks (teams with losing records the previous year(s)) are the teams that should be drafting for need to improve specific areas/positions to improve the team overall. I am one who feels this isn't the case. In my opinion bad teams simply "need" better players and should be drafting on a value standpoint and at the end of the day have the best collection of talent possible. It seems to me the teams who are perennially drafting in the top 10 are the teams who feel they have to draft for need.

So who should draft for need? In my opinion, the good teams are the team who can afford to draft for need. Good teams generally have solid players at all or most positions. Some teams have very few positions where a rookie could step in and compete for playing time and in turn have an impact on the teams overall success. Generally these teams still have a few minor area/position where they could get better overall and therefore drafting by need could make good sense. Now that's not to say all good teams should draft for need. It seems that the teams who are good year after year are the teams that don't lose sight of what the draft is all about, getting better, usable players. These teams keep in mind each years draft will impact a team good or bad for years to come. These teams keep the future in mind and may draft a player whose impact or potential won't immediately be seen.

What are the dangers of drafting strictly for need? In today's NFL, the salary cap and a teams ability to manage the salary cap is what separates teams in the long run or over an extended period of time. Often teams that draft for need end up overpaying a players who ultimate potential is lower than his lofty salary. Many teams who do this year after year find themselves having salary cap problems. They find themselves still not a good team yet they have to unload some of their top talent/salaries to adhere to the rules of the NFL salary cap. When they begin to look back and see where there mistakes are, more often they find the problem traces back to previous drafts. Salary cap problems related to the draft are not always simply because a team drafted for need and "over-drafted" a player. Because the system isn't perfect by any means regardless of the diligence of each team, many times scouts simply get it wrong in evaluating a prospects potential talent.

So what's the right way to go? It's my belief teams should keep an open mind in approaching the draft. They shouldn't let themselves fall into either classification (need/value drafting team). They should look at the big picture. I do however feel it's always important to get a comparable value for each individual pick based on what each team scouts deem as a players value or draft stock. At the same time they should be choosing positions (at least in the early rounds) that can contribute early and at the same time earn their salary. I feel no team should overlook the future and should not underestimate the importance of having depth. They should think outside the box and look for players who can make their current players better. The Indianapolis Colts drafted Reggie Wayne in the first round of the 2001 draft despite having all world receiver Marvin Harrison already on the roster. This pick eventually forced defenses to pay a little less attention to Harrison and had to now worry about two receivers. Not only did this help Harrison be more productive because teams could no longer simple double cover him, it helped quarterback Peyton Manning. That first round selection by the Colts enhanced two former first round picks in Manning and Harrison and actually increased their values. In turn this enhanced their entire offensive unit, which in turn enhanced their entire team. That pick eventually played a huge role in the Colts winning Super Bowl XLI.

***patchick*** · 04-11-2009, 01:59 PM

Good find on Dimitroff. I've never seen a "BPA" pattern in the Pats' approach. Maybe a better term would be "BPU" (Biggest Potential Upgrade to the current roster).

***Box_O_Rocks*** · 04-11-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

Good find on Dimitroff. I've never seen a "BPA" pattern in the Pats' approach. Maybe a better term would be "BPU" (Biggest Potential Upgrade to the current roster).

It certainly seems to be 'needs' based: Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Mankins, Maroney, Meriweather, and Mayo all argue for that conclusion. Jackson, Gostkowski, Wheatley, Crable, Andrews, and Slater reflect 'needs' too.

Kaczur, Wilhite, O'Connell, Hobbs, Branch and Givens, Wilson and Samuel also reflect 'need' - Kaczur was insurance for Mankins as Wilhite was for Wheatley, O'Connell was a depth & 'future need,' Hobbs was meant to fill the Nickelback role, Branch & Givens and Wilson & Samuel were 'future needs' moves.

'Value' seems to be the prime mover on the other BB draft picks: Graham, Watson, Hill had 'big body' value. The DBs are always in demand as value/depth, the same with OL like Koppen and DL like Green & LeKevin.

Finding this comment on Dimitroff's draft philosophy just suggested we should reassess the arguments for BPA/BPV.

***Spiral*** · 04-11-2009, 02:36 PM

Agree with the best roster upgrade approach. The Patriots don't just look at the draft board--they look at a matrix of draft-eligible players, free agents available before the draft, players likely to be available after the draft, and their own roster. They compare players in the draft, free agents, and potential free agents against their existing roster. Value is determined by greatest potential to beat out an existing player on the roster, with some consideration given to the salary cap. Some potential upgrades are based mainly on talent: ILB, CB, safety, punter. Other potential upgrades are more cap-related. I think BB already made one draft-related decision: Vrabel's spot could be upgraded, either performance-wise or cap-wise. Look for other roster spots that are occupied by players with relatively high 2009 cap numbers: Kazcur, Faulk, Jarvis Green. Then look for players whose potential 2010 cap numbers are high: Hobbs, Wilfork, Mankins, Seymour. With the Patriots, it's always about value.

***mgteich*** · 04-11-2009, 02:39 PM

I think a team has to have a best value chart otherwise they wouldn't know whehter to trade or for how much.

There are many ways to adjust for value. The easiest (perhaps) is simply to have two charts, one for the overall draft and an independent one for the patriot board. Another is to adjust rankings/value depending on need and fit. A third is to take players off our baord that we are definitely interest in, bacuse of postion or fit or character issues. I think that we should be using a combination.

For example, I don't like heat's approach which ends with with a very short board at 23. He has five top 15 players in his top 1-24 group and no one else. Even exanding to 1-40 gives a total of 11 players, six of which are very likely to be in the top 15.
================================================== =

Gosselin has published his top 32 values in the draft. Is it unreasonable to try to get two of those players in areas of need, without reaching more than five slots? I think it is. We may need to use the next part of his list if no one is available at 34. There are likely to be players in his 33-39 range that we would be interested in, continuing one strategy that I have indicated. I havn't seen his top 100.

BPF · 04-11-2009, 02:49 PM

There is a big difference between best available athlete and best available football player that fits your system. The Pats alway draft for value, a value a player they project will have in their system. Doesn't every team draft for "need," what team doesn't need and want good football players.

***mgteich*** · 04-11-2009, 03:02 PM

You are simply ignoring the point of the discussion, making words mean what you want them to mean. Of course, every team needs good football players.

A strict BPA approach would very possibly have us drafting a RB, TE or WR at 23. Many, if not most, mocks have the BPA at 23 being one of those positions, although most do not have the patirots making such a pick. Most here would be willing to go down 2-4 spots (or more) on the BPA list to draft players at positions of higher "need" like LB and DE. Some here would take RB, TE and WR off our first round board completely because of position, as well as taking others off our board because of issues of "fit" to our system.

I think that we could quite possibly draft someone at almost any position at 23. Personally, I would rate a player higher if he fit better in our system. I would also adjust a couple of positions higher and a couple lower because of need.

I think we can get likely get a player who meets our needs rated in the top 25 or so at 23 and another in the 25-40 range at 34.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPF

There is a big difference between best available athlete and best available football player that fits your system. The Pats alway draft for value, a value a player they project will have in their system. Doesn't every team draft for "need," what team doesn't need and want good football players.

***patchick*** · 04-11-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BPF

There is a big difference between best available athlete and best available football player that fits your system. The Pats alway draft for value, a value a player they project will have in their system. Doesn't every team draft for "need," what team doesn't need and want good football players.

It looks to me like you're defining your terms in a non-standard way. People routinely say "player X just isn't good value there," meaning that the player or a comparable talent should be available later in the draft. And need is understood to be a weighting based on position or role, determined by your existing roster.

Within that there are a thousand arguments to be had -- e.g., Matthew Stafford would be a great theoretical "value" pick at 23 but not for the Pats; DE is only a "need" if you look ahead to 2010; etc. But I think we have to keep to those broad definitions or our discussions will get confusing in a hurry!

***cstjohn17*** · 04-11-2009, 03:18 PM

Good article, good debate.

This team is a lot like the 2007 team, not quite as deep but still there are very few 'open' spots of the roster. This is the type of year I would favor a BPA in round 1, conceivably this could take a good unit and turn it into a great unit. Needs could be filled in rounds 2 & 3 with some being traded for 2010 picks.

Another item not mentioned in the article is the idea of training camp competition. In 2007 the Pats selected a bunch of offensive lineman, none of which stayed with the team but they did raise the overall competition for rosters spots. The result was an offensive line that played terrific all year, well except for the superbowl and we won't talk about that game.

KDPPatsfan85 · 04-11-2009, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cstjohn17

Good article, good debate.

This team is a lot like the 2007 team, not quite as deep but still there are very few 'open' spots of the roster. This is the type of year I would favor a BPA in round 1, conceivably this could take a good unit and turn it into a great unit. Needs could be filled in rounds 2 & 3 with some being traded for 2010 picks.

Another item not mentioned in the article is the idea of training camp competition. In 2007 the Pats selected a bunch of offensive lineman, none of which stayed with the team but they did raise the overall competition for rosters spots. The result was an offensive line that played terrific all year, well except for the superbowl and we won't talk about that game.

No we will not talk about that game,

i finally blocked that game out of my head except for that *****ing helmet catch!