Draft insight from Bill Polian

I get all the draftnik talk I can stand from Pat Kirwin, Jim Miller, and Phil Savage. Compared to ESPN draft gurus or fan forums, they have the advantage of actually having evaluated NFL talent professionally. In fact, all three have worked for Bill Belichick. Plus, they have met all of the prospects during the Senior Bowl workouts so it's not just height/weight/speed numbers. They actually have the ability to match up specific player attributes with what they know Belichick (or other GMs) value. They actually know first hand if a player is a dumb ass. That's the major weakness of the draftnik's working from draft guides.

Even so, I pay as little attention to it as I possibly can. We are, after all, talking about kids that are barely out of Pop Warner football. Nobody knows if they will do jack squat in the NFL. I mean, wasn't Jadeveon Clowney the most "NFL-ready can't-miss prospect in 100 years "or some such nonsense? The guy barely got on the field.

If I recall, Andy Hart slashed his wrists on-air last year because the Pats were so stupid they didn't draft Eric Ebron or Jace Amaro. I mean, with tight ends like that, the Pats might even get to the SuperBowl. Funny, I don't remember hearing their names much in the NFL except in conjunction with El Busto.

We don't even know how Belichick grades the performance of players on his own team (unless he cuts them). How could anyone on a fan forum (or ESPN) possibly know what the Pats' draft board looks like.

hwc said:

I mean, wasn't Jadeveon Clowney the most "NFL-ready can't-miss prospect in 100 years "or some such nonsense? The guy barely got on the field.

Click to expand...

Clowney was sick to start the season, then came back and got injured. He ended up having to get microfracture surgery. He's not really a good example to use, unless you're trying to argue that injuries can happen to anyone.

Ochmed Jones said:

While everything polian said makes sense, I still can not figure out why bb took Easley last year?

Click to expand...

Because Easley is a very explosive player that showed in college that he can create disruption from the inside. He also showed that he could play all positions on the line(has showed this in NFL too). He also fills a huge need that we have had for years. He fits into what Polian is saying as he's a player with a first round grade(according to some) that dropped because of the injury. That's on of the risks you can take if you draft at the end of the round. Draft someone who would have gone earlier if it wheren't for an injury.

Some great articles that talk about the concept of the efficient-market hypothesis and how similar principles might come into play when drafting in the NFL.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-team-can-beat-the-draft/

The efficient-market hypothesis states that — with certain caveats — markets are informationally efficient. Since any one investor theoretically operates with the same set of information as any other, the EMH claims that no individual can consistently achieve risk-adjusted returns in excess of the market-wide average.

Click to expand...

http://www.footballperspective.com/are-certain-teams-better-at-drafting-than-others/

It’s not that all GMs are stupid or blindly lucky, it’s that scouting is so good that there are no “steals” left to find. If you threw 31 random fans and a GM into a draft, I’m sure that one GM would do very well most years. But graded against 31 other GMs who are focused on the exact same goal, consistently beating the pack is an unrealistic expectation.

Click to expand...

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2013/04/cade-massey-on-flipping-coins-and-nfl.html

1. The draft requires skill, as demonstrated by virtue of the superior performance of earlier picks to later picks.
2. Teams are not significantly better than others at the draft, largely due to the fact that:
3. Randomness dominates the process. It is an exceptionally uncertain task to predict human performance years into the future.
4. Therefore, teams are (statistically) roughly equal in ability to draft talent.

Click to expand...

This makes sense in a lot of ways. All teams have equal access to information. Personnel talent is diversified and highly mobile across the league. Draft techniques and strategies can be observed and copied readily. Yes, it's true that if a clown were made GM of a team the draft would not appear random. But because team personnel staffs are not clowns (perhaps except a couple), the draft is effectively randomized in terms of successfully selecting quality players.

Click to expand...

Massey goes on to point out specific strategies that are good bets in any highly uncertain environment, including the draft.

1. In a random environment, the best thing you can do is increase your opportunities, i.e. number of picks. (Stop trying to milk a 1 in 100 chance into a 1 in 90 chance. Go get yourself two 1 in 100 chances instead.)
2. Minimize the costs of choosing. (Don't pay for the right to think you know more than everyone else.)
3. Don't trust any one opinion. Trust the consensus.
4. Success is largely luck. Failure is largely luck. Success and failure should be evaluated in terms of the soundness of the process rather than outcome. Don't allow outcomes to be attributed to individuals.

Click to expand...

patchick said:

I've highlighted a bit that we fans as a group very clearly do NOT know! If we did, we wouldn't have the annual fury over "reaching" for a player like, say, Duron Harmon at the end of the 3rd when we KNOW from reading web mocks that he would still have been available exactly 47 picks later.

Click to expand...

I always said, by the fact that we drafted player X, the player wasn't going to be available 47 spots later .

Each coach and system has their own view on what player fits and the draft experts can only target an average expectation. someone like BB is an outlier to their thoughts because he has an approach that is mostly foreign to them (doesn't know exactly what the team looks for in candidates or how heavily they emphasize a certain trait over another).

Look how many times some of our lower picks have ended up being high first round picks on redo's 3-4 years later. (sure we have failures too, but all teams do... the biggest difference for our failures is BB recognizes it faster and/or has a backup plan to keep the talent level consistent)

captain stone said:

I hate Bill naPolian. He is a despicable POS.

I also don't care for the OP's disrespect of our Draft Forum.
Come on over some time, you might learn something (not from me, but from many of the knowledgeable
posters there). I'd rather read what they think than read a syllable from that drunk old scumbag.

(And BTW, Duhwrong Harmon at 91 & Tavon Feckin Wilson at 48 were indeed terrible, terrible picks.)

Click to expand...

Oh the irony.

The efficient-market hypothesis states that — with certain caveats — markets are informationally efficient. Since any one investor theoretically operates with the same set of information as any other, the EMH claims that no individual can consistently achieve risk-adjusted returns in excess of the market-wide average.

Click to expand...

Which is why Bill never tries to outsmart anyone on a prospect level. He knows the men he coaches against are informed, even if the results don't always present themselves on the field.

Instead, the opportunity lies in time value and job security. If you're a lame duck GM in a small market, it is career suicide to trade away the next big thing. If anything, getting two next big things might earn you a new contract!

The other area is understanding league trends. The most obvious - and oddly, somewhat ignored - is when the NFL created more stringent behavior policies back in 2007. What does Bill do? Goes out and snags problem child Moss for a bag of balls and scoops up a falling Meriweather. He's a classic value investor.

ctpatsfan77 said:

Jimmie Johnson's advice—which seems relevant here—is not that you should only have 25 players on your board, but that you should focus on about 25 or so players, across all rounds of the draft, and then manipulate your draft picks to land as many of them as feasible.

For example, back in 2009, Edelman was almost certainly one of their 7th round targets, just as Cassel was in 2005.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Good post.
DW Toys

One chink in the armor of the efficient market hypothesis is the the word theoretically: "Since any one investor theoretically operates with the same set of information as any other..." In the world of finance, we know that's simply not true. Average small investors may have equal information, but insider trading is rampant on Wall Street. Whenver there's a blockbuster acquisition announcement that boost a stock, you'll find that the run-up began well before the announcement.

In the NFL, the Patriots have different info because they're one of the few teams to invest in their own complete scouting operation rather than subscribing to a pooled service. That presumably means that they miss some info other teams have, but they also know things other teams don't. (Remember how Malcolm Butler said that the Patriots were the only team that even talked to him in the whole pre-draft process?)

Another factor is the proverbial ice water in the veins when it comes to decision making. Take risk aversion, which Oswlek touched on with the job security angle. BB, unlike most people, isn't dominated by the fear of bucking common wisdom and looking stupid. The guy who goes for it so often on 4th down is also the guy who suspends Terry Glenn...and the guy who drafts a rugby player. Plus he has an uncommon ability to delay gratification. BB trades current trade value away for greater future trade value more than the rest of the league put together. In fact, the more efficient the market is, the more a team that stockpiles draft value will benefit.

Ochmed Jones said:

While everything polian said makes sense, I still can not figure out why bb took Easley last year?

Click to expand...

I have to go along with that. His tape was limited because of all the injuries. Even after that, he showed up as a smallish DT with some burst. The only thing you could say was the DL availability in last years draft was maybe a "C". So his stock moved up in a marginal D-Line Draft. I get a pick on a player that has some dings. Dowling never worked out and Gronk did. Maybe Easley shows up. I see more in 6th Rounder Moore.

We get all hyped about the Draft and the positive is the future. "Build from the Draft" requires much luck and the odds are against it. You still need FA to add talent. I actually think BB's best players have been trades and acquisitions like the Vrabels', the Moss', Welkers' etc. You really need a mix.

The Draft evaluation takes place in three years. Only 17% of your Draft picks are 1) Make All Pro accolades (think Brady), 2) Become very valuable multi-year starters that last up to a decade of service (think Matt Light) 3) Serviceable starters (think Dan Koppen), 3) Much needed back-ups or Special Team Aces (Slater), 4) Journeymen roster fillers (Connolly)or 5) out of the league by injury or talent failure. Number #5 happens 83% of the time.

Approx. 240 players get Drafted every year pending compensatory picks. So 43 players make it to year three. More some years, less others. If we have 9 picks this year, on the average we get two players remaining after three years . Some Teams keep more some less. Some Teams do not have a single Draft pick from a Draft three year prior. We had 9 picks in 2011 AND ONLY Solder and Cannon remain. 2012 was different with almost the whole class but one making it. But that will dwindle the first day of this season to as little as two after roster cut down , releases and trades (that dreaded year three) as in who's status might be shaky this year:
2nd Round (Pick 48) Tavon Wilson (S, Illinois)
3rd Round (Pick 90) Jake Bequette (DE, Arkansas)
6th Round (Pick 197) Nate Ebner (DB, Ohio State)
7th Round (Pick 224) Alfonzo Dennard (CB, Nebraska).

My point is the "take the best player available" when you are on the clock is the mantra for those in the know. What if it is a QB or a TE? Best Player is a cliche.

You take a player like Easley, and even healthy was not rated as high where he was Drafted by many Teams or knowledgeable evaluators, and it is a risk. I think the best theory out there is "If you have a player you like very much and he has a third round grade and you do not think he will last until your pick at the third round, take him in the second". That might explain Easley. You have to definitely say that about Tavon Wilson in Round Two. That was like Vontae Mack in the film "Draft Day". Even Mack was shocked as was Wilson. I hope Easley works out.

17% winners from professional talent evaluators is not very good when you think about it. A dart board might work better. But you have the "human element" to contend with those kids. It's not just skill. The "human element" fails more.
DW Toys

patchick said:

In the NFL, the Patriots have different info because they're one of the few teams to invest in their own complete scouting operation rather than subscribing to a pooled service.

Click to expand...

Operational code name: Scarlett Knight

I am a investment professional and I would describe markets / drafting as semi-efficient. To me it is like dieting, for all the crazy diets out there it really is as simple as calories in need to be below calories out. Yet 90% of the population can't lose weight. It is the same in investing / drafting. I think most people know that value investing works, yet like a cupcake, most professionals can't resist fighting their emotion (I KNOW this player will be great, so I will fight my common sense and give up 3 picks to move up etc). The best investors / drafters have a personality that must be masochistic in ability to fight their own human flaws. BB seems to have that personality (I believe he once said if he hadn't become a coach he would have been a portfolio manager). Every draft day I sit their stupefied and whining about the draft (I wanted David Terrell and Lamont Jordan in rd 1/2 in 2001 yikes) despite always looking back in hindsight an realizing how smart his moves have been. Deferred gratification is a luxury for must football professionals so, as someone pointed out, having the job security BB has allows him to do the right thing long term while everyone else panics.

patchick said:

One chink in the armor of the efficient market hypothesis is the the word theoretically: "Since any one investor theoretically operates with the same set of information as any other..."

Click to expand...

Let's be blunt. The "efficient markets hypothesis" is an unsubstantiated piece of wish-fulfilment.

Ironically, Polian saying that he had no idea who other teams would take is a piece of empirical evidence that blows it out of the water.

If you had the same information AND the same epistemic capacities as every other team, you would be able to predict what they were going to do.

patchick said:

To each his own. I love the roster-building side of the game, and trying to figure out the ingredients of NFL success. Studying draft prospects also adds an extra layer of interest to watching player development leaguewide. And the offseason must be excruciatingly long to folks who don't care about the draft!

Click to expand...

The draft threads are also perfect for a guy like me who doesn't watch much college ball. The first I hear of the players will be there.

Polian implied that you can predict the first round reasonably well (because you know there are only, on average, 19 guys with first first round grades. So at least the top half of the first round is fairly predictable. But after the first round, it's impossible. Kirwin has said the same thing on air. Pundits who claim to know who should or will get drafted in the third round (let alone to which team) are just making it up.

A key point Polian was making: if you trade down in a draft, you must have four or five guys you will be happy with at the lower pick because the two guys you really want will be gone.

I stopped paying attention to predraft nonsense for one reason: After watching Belichick draft for 15 years, nobody has ever even come close to predicting a Pats draft. There's imply no predictive value in paying attention to guys saying "I like Joe Blow in the third for the Pats because of his 10 yard split in the 40".

1960Pats said:

The draft threads are also perfect for a guy like me who doesn't watch much college ball. The first I hear of the players will be there.

Click to expand...

I watch no college football. Watched three games last year (the final 4) and was shocked to see that it looked like Pop Warner football compared to the NFL. I think if you watch a lot of it, you get tricked into thinking it's real football.

I figure, why waste my time on the 100s of college players who will be touted in the draft only to disappear in the NFL? The reality is that the vast majority of the players being touted by draft pundits right now will suck in the NFL.

I start paying attention to the ones that actually make it to a Pats training camp or who make it onto a game day roster for another NFL team.

PatsWickedPissah said:

I for one enjoy watching the Grand Mal seizures of the draftniks as binkies go unclaimed round after round.
Does this make me a bad person?

Click to expand...

Yes. Yes it does.

Mike the Brit said:

Let's be blunt. The "efficient markets hypothesis" is an unsubstantiated piece of wish-fulfilment.

Click to expand...

In the investment world, yes. In the NFL world it is largely true. The gap between the most informed and the least informed GM is infinitesimal compared to an insider and the average investor.

Oswlek said:

In the investment world, yes. In the NFL world it is largely true. The gap between the most informed and the least informed GM is infinitesimal compared to an insider and the average investor.

Click to expand...

The Bengals are too cheap and make their coaches do all the scouting. Some teams collectively hire scouting services and have all the same information. The Patriots and others do all their own scouting. I'm pretty Bill is more informed than Mike Brown and others.

Oswlek said:

In the investment world, yes. In the NFL world it is largely true. The gap between the most informed and the least informed GM is infinitesimal compared to an insider and the average investor.

Click to expand...

So you assert. But the evidence (such as it is) is strongly at variance. (The fact that it is even less true of the investment world is neither here nor there.)