Fundamental draft logic analysis flaw

[signbabybrady]

Assumption 1 getting a player whose preceived valued in a round higher is a steal.
Assumption 2 getting a player whose preceived valued in a round lower is a reach.

First question would be who is the one speculating the value which is usually the media while the actual drafters are the pros.

Ok so now to my problem with the assumption. In the case of the player who fell let's assume he was supposed to go in the first but did not. All the sudden he becomes a steal I mean he was supposed to go in the first round has to be a steal then right? Wrong all it says is 32 pro evaluators think he was not worth a one.
In the case of the player who is the reach you never truly know what 31 pro evaluators think but you know one thought he was worth the respective pick and that he thought at least one other would take him before their next pick vs all the mediots calling it a reach.

I would throw out two examples that fit the above assumptions to add food for thought Deion Butler and Tavon Wilson ones a steal ones a reach both 2nd round picks in the secondary.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Re: Fundamental draft logic flaw

Assumption 1 getting a player whose preceived valued in a round higher is a steal.
Assumption 2 getting a player whose preceived valued in a round lower is a reach.

First question would be who is the one speculating the value which is usually the media while the actual drafters are the pros.

Ok so now to my problem with the assumption. In the case of the player who fell let's assume he was supposed to go in the first but did not. All the sudden he becomes a steal I mean he was supposed to go in the first round has to be a steal then right? Wrong all it says is 32 pro evaluators think he was not worth a one.
In the case of the player who is the reach you never truly know what 31 pro evaluators think but you know one thought he was worth the respective pick and that he thought at least one other would take him before their next pick vs all the mediots calling it a reach.

I would throughout two examples that fit the above assumptions to add food for thought Deion Butler and Tavon Wilson ones a steal ones a reach both 2nd round picks in the secondary.

Ian Rapoport had a line earlier about how it's like buying a house: its worth is whatever someone is willing to pay.

 

[randomk1]

Some players are considered a reach for a reason.

I wonder what's the success rate of a steal vs a reach. I'm leaning towards the guy that fell for one reason or another.

 

[Deus Irae]

We have this same discussion every year, and it's already going on in at least one other thread this year. Steal/reach. It is what it is, and they are what they are. In the end, it's just an exercise in analysis.

 

[signbabybrady]

Thanks to a comment from BSR in another thread I am going to rephrase what is really happening.

Rather then a player being a reach or a steal being an indication on the particular GM being right or wrong it is actually an indication of the media getting it wrong.

 

[Deus Irae]

Thanks to a comment from BSR in another thread I am going to rephrase what is really happening.

Rather then a player being a reach or a steal being an indication on the particular GM being right or wrong it is actually an indication of the media getting it wrong.

Really? So the media was wrong on Heyward Bay and Mitchell, just to point to to obvious Raider reaches?

 

[Rob0729]

Back in the day before people here soured on Belichick's draft strategy, the party line was "the Pats do not subscribe to the two pool scouting syndicators and their draft board is very different from most teams". Now it is Belichick doesn't know what he is doing.

Wilson had seven team visits. Now that doesn't mean that someone else was going to draft him in the second round. But teams only get so many allotments of players who can visit their team every year and they are not going to waste it on a guy they are going to draft in the sixth or seventh round or pick up as an UDFA. Wilson was likely to go much higher than people expected. Maybe not in the second, but possibly in the third.

The fact of the matter is all these mock drafts, draft publications, and big boards are more for entertainment than the reality of what teams are thinking. Teams will purposely talk down players they want and talk up players they don't to drop the draft position players they want so they can draft them. If a lot of teams thought they had secret treasure with Wilson, they weren't going to run to Mel Kiper or Mike Mayock and tell them.

 

[Rob0729]

BTW, I pointed out in the draft day thread that Cincy gets huge praise by the fans and media for their draft every year. This is because they don't have much of a scouting department and they draft the players who the fans and media are high on even though teams who do their homework know to stay away like Odell Thurman, Chris Henry, Jerome Simpson (although he finally had an ok year with the Vikes), etc. The Bengals don't reach because they tend to not know much more about players than the mediots.

 

[signbabybrady]

Really? So the media was wrong on Heyward Bay and Mitchell, just to point to to obvious Raider reaches?

Your using hindsight and I am talking about next day analysis. Given a body of work we can grade both parties but the next day we use one side to assume the other is wrong but not vice versa and one group is media the other is pro evaluators yet we go with the media and in some cases people make some strong conclusions based off this.

 

[randomk1]

BTW, I pointed out in the draft day thread that Cincy gets huge praise by the fans and media for their draft every year. This is because they don't have much of a scouting department and they draft the players who the fans and media are high on even though teams who do their homework know to stay away like Odell Thurman, Chris Henry, Jerome Simpson (although he finally had an ok year with the Vikes), etc. The Bengals don't reach because they tend to not know much more about players than the mediots.

Umm...they have been drafting quite well in recent years. And they definitely look like winners this year

 

[Dingleberry]

Umm...they have been drafting quite well in recent years. And they definitely look like winners this year

And they have looked like winners just about every year in recent years. Yet, they have not looked like winners on the football field for a long time.

How can a team always be applauded for its A-grade drafts and never amount to anything?

It's because no other team has ever seemed to draft based on a draft magazine's draft board more so than the Bengals. So it always looks good to us--the amateurs. And it looks good to the media draft graders--professional amateurs. (love the oxymoron)

 

[BSR]

Really? So the media was wrong on Heyward Bay and Mitchell, just to point to to obvious Raider reaches?

Kiper had Decastro mocked to go 11th. He didn't go until pick 24. A draft value difference of about 510 points (= the 39th pick in the draft). Was Kiper reaching or were 13 teams wrong?

 

[Rob0729]

Umm...they have been drafting quite well in recent years. And they definitely look like winners this year

And they had a winner in 2005 when they stole Odell Thurman and Chris Henry too. You going to tell me that their draft this year is already a lock to be a good draft draft? They had a PERCEIVED good draft this year because they had a lot of high draft picks because of Oakland foolishly trading a first and second this year and a second next year for a washed up Carson Palmer and they drafted the players that the media and fans are high on. Doesn't mean any of those picks will pan out though.

They had a good draft last year with Green and Dalton. The previous few were ok. They reached for Andre Smith who is a 6th overall pick disapointment from 2009. Gresham ended up being arguably the fourth best TE drafted in 2010 (Gronk, Graham, and Hernandez are better) even though he was the first one drafted. Dunlap had a good rookie season, but struggled last year.

 

[randomk1]

And they have looked like winners just about every year in recent years. Yet, they have not looked like winners on the football field for a long time.

How can a team always be applauded for its A-grade drafts and never amount to anything?

It's because no other team has ever seemed to draft based on a draft magazine's draft board more so than the Bengals. So it always looks good to us--the amateurs. And it looks good to the media draft graders--professional amateurs. (love the oxymoron)

Hard to be competitive when you have no QB with teams like the Steelers,Ravens in your division.

The Bengals definately look like a team on the rise to me and their D has been good under Zimmer.

 

[upstater1]

I would never say I know mor than the worst scout about football. I don't know anymore than my 38 years of watching and 6 years of playing tell me.

But I did know that Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre and Tom Brady would be studs. I knew Favre and Rodgers would be just as good as they are now. I didn't know Brady would be this good but I did think he would be a top 10 QB in the NFL.

I couldn't figure out how teams could pass on these three guys like they did. IMO, you can tell a lot about a QB by watching him command the pocket, particularly his footwork. Rodgers, Favre and Brady were naturals out there, you could see them just pop when they played. I feel the same way about Sam Bradford (of course he was a #1). This doesn't mean I am knowledgeable about QB play because I would have avoided a guy like Stafford and several others, but it always sort of stuns me when scouts overlook the Rodgers's, Favre's and Brady's. What are they thinking. I remember a ton of fans in the northeast being stunned that Dan Marino fell so far. We got to watch the kid play for 3 years in college. How in the world did the scouts miss on Marino?

 

[randomk1]

And they had a winner in 2005 when they stole Odell Thurman and Chris Henry too. You going to tell me that their draft this year is already a lock to be a good draft draft? They had a PERCEIVED good draft this year because they had a lot of high draft picks because of Oakland foolishly trading a first and second this year and a second next year for a washed up Carson Palmer and they drafted the players that the media and fans are high on. Doesn't mean any of those picks will pan out though.

They had a good draft last year with Green and Dalton. The previous few were ok. They reached for Andre Smith who is a 6th overall pick disapointment from 2009. Gresham ended up being arguably the fourth best TE drafted in 2010 (Gronk, Graham, and Hernandez are better) even though he was the first one drafted. Dunlap had a good rookie season, but struggled last year.

No i'm not saying that their draft is a lock but i like what they did.

And as far as their recent drafts go i think they have gotten quite a few good young players. Dalton,Green,Shipley,Gresham,Maualuga,Atkins,Dunlap,Smith had a better year in 2011. Don't understand why they let JJ go

 

[Dingleberry]

Hard to be competitive when you have no QB with teams like the Steelers,Ravens in your division.

The Bengals definately look like a team on the rise to me and their D has been good under Zimmer.

I hear ya, but the point is that the Bengals have been YEARLY applauded for having one of the best drafts...because they seemed to pretty much go by magazine/Kiper draft boards. Years later, how many of their A+ drafts were really A+ drafts once the players actually played?

Put it this way...we all remember David Terrell/Richard Seymour draft day controversy. Who do the Bengals take? And who do the draft "experts" give the better draft grade to?

 

[Rob0729]

Hard to be competitive when you have no QB with teams like the Steelers,Ravens in your division.

The Bengals definately look like a team on the rise to me and their D has been good under Zimmer.

They were 9-7 last year and lost to every team with a winning record they faced except Tennessee. They lost to San Fran, Houston, Steelers twice, Baltimore twice, and Denver. And they had a cake schedule outside their division facing the AFC South and NFC West.

 

[randomk1]

They were 9-7 last year and lost to every team with a winning record they faced except Tennessee. They lost to San Fran, Houston, Steelers twice, Baltimore twice, and Denver. And they had a cake schedule outside their division facing the AFC South and NFC West.

So? They were 4-12 the year before.

 

[Ring 6]

Assumption 1 getting a player whose preceived valued in a round higher is a steal.
Assumption 2 getting a player whose preceived valued in a round lower is a reach.

First question would be who is the one speculating the value which is usually the media while the actual drafters are the pros.

Ok so now to my problem with the assumption. In the case of the player who fell let's assume he was supposed to go in the first but did not. All the sudden he becomes a steal I mean he was supposed to go in the first round has to be a steal then right? Wrong all it says is 32 pro evaluators think he was not worth a one.
In the case of the player who is the reach you never truly know what 31 pro evaluators think but you know one thought he was worth the respective pick and that he thought at least one other would take him before their next pick vs all the mediots calling it a reach.

I would throw out two examples that fit the above assumptions to add food for thought Deion Butler and Tavon Wilson ones a steal ones a reach both 2nd round picks in the secondary.

In general you are right, but there are exceptoins. A player can fall and be a bargain because a run of teams have different needs. On the other hand a team can reach for a player who is a lesser player than his draft slot to fill a need.