2006 Value Groupings

[rookBoston]

As I understand it, value groupings contain players of roughly equal value to the patriots. The key will be to draft the last guy left in this group, not the first. That will give maximum value per pick/$$$spent.

As far as your comment about no other team knowing the secret (assuming you were serious and not just being sarcastic), no two teams should have the same value placed on the player. According to Jimmy Johnson, one of the keys to a successful draft is to put a value on the players, your value, and don't worry where anyone else has set the value for the player. So should all 32 teams use a value grouping system, the various groups for different teams would comprise different players.

How'd I do, Rook? Do I understand your first post? Or am I missing something?

Yeah, you've got it, spacecrime.

The perfect draft position is at the very end of a Value Group.

So, for my Group 3, which is Lawson, Whitner, Kiwanuka, Wimbley and Marshall-- I claim that all five of those players represent identical value to the team, if they were drafted. Of course, they each have their own strengths and weaknesses, but we like them all and equally.

Let's say that at #21, Lawson and Wimbley are already off the board. Kiwanuka, Whitner and Marshall are all available to us.

Choices:
(1) Take one of them at #21
(2) Trade down exactly two spots to #23, where you're absolutely positive that at least one of them will still be there, since there are three of them.
(3) Trade down even further than that and watch the draft board. As soon as two of them come off the board, immediately trade back up and take the last guy left. You should be able to wait until the late 20s, or early 30s and still get a player you liked at #21... plus we earn a mid round pick in the exchange.

Really, it doesn't matter what other teams know or think about your draft board. We expect other teams to like and take these players. If the process is executed correctly, and we can find teams willing to trade with us (we can make it worthwhile for them, and still come out ahead), then as soon as a Value Group is down to it's last player, we have to move up immediately to lock that player down. We get a guy we wanted all along, for the best possible price, with very little risk.

 

[mgteich]

As stated, your only risk is that you can't find a partner to trade back up a couple of spots.

Yeah, you've got it, spacecrime.

The perfect draft position is at the very end of a Value Group.

So, for my Group 3, which is Lawson, Whitner, Kiwanuka, Wimbley and Marshall-- I claim that all five of those players represent identical value to the team, if they were drafted. Of course, they each have their own strengths and weaknesses, but we like them all and equally.

Let's say that at #21, Lawson and Wimbley are already off the board. Kiwanuka, Whitner and Marshall are all available to us.

Choices:
(1) Take one of them at #21
(2) Trade down exactly two spots to #23, where you're absolutely positive that at least one of them will still be there, since there are three of them.
(3) Trade down even further than that and watch the draft board. As soon as two of them come off the board, immediately trade back up and take the last guy left. You should be able to wait until the late 20s, or early 30s and still get a player you liked at #21... plus we earn a mid round pick in the exchange.

Really, it doesn't matter what other teams know or think about your draft board. We expect other teams to like and take these players. If the process is executed correctly, and we can find teams willing to trade with us (we can make it worthwhile for them, and still come out ahead), then as soon as a Value Group is down to it's last player, we have to move up immediately to lock that player down. We get a guy we wanted all along, for the best possible price, with very little risk.

 

[rookBoston]

As stated, your only risk is that you can't find a partner to trade back up a couple of spots.

True, so as a practical matter, if there are only two players left from a value group when your pick comes along at #21, it may be better to just take the pick.

But when the best Value Group on your board has three or four options remaining, trading back for extra picks is low risk. The real trick is deciding how far back you want to go (it's a guess based on other teams' needs), and once you're back there, whether you want to trade back up as players start coming off the board, or sit still and hope the Value Group lasts to the place you traded back to.

 

[Pats726]

It's all very interesting...and tricky...especially trading down and wondering IF it is far enough or not. I wonder how off we are in these from what BB/Sp have?? But just looking at the draft like this is so interesting....and one wonders IF how much other teams do this value grouping..

 

[mgteich]

Only the competent ones

It's all very interesting...and tricky...especially trading down and wondering IF it is far enough or not. I wonder how off we are in these from what BB/Sp have?? But just looking at the draft like this is so interesting....and one wonders IF how much other teams do this value grouping..

 

[shakadave]

Only the competent ones

Right, while the rest of the teams take the remaining player with the fastest 40 and the most bench presses at the combine.

 

[mgteich]

And some draft primarily based on need. I make fun, but it is not that unreasonable. Given the pats position, one could simply decide that the need is at LB, WR, shutdown corner, and backup center. I could focus on those picks no matter what, trading up if you scared of not succeeding or to increase value. Or, you could be focusing on a very few players, trading up as necessary. With seven picks, any reasonable evaluator of talent should be able to come up with four picks, of which three would be reasonable contributers over time.

How unreasonable is this? After all, this is a strong draft. We have several picks. We have the clout to get four players. Shouldn't that be the focus, using the rest of the picks to trade up. Hey, I could talk myself into this strategy, saving a 5th for an OL (with a later pick to use to trade up) and take a flyer on a returner and kicker with the comp picks.

THE ALTERNATE (LESS SOPHISTICASTED) DRAFT STRATEGY
(HOW BAD IS THIS?)
=================================
DAY ONE - CB,OLB/DE,WR,ILB
Resources - first six picks to get three players
(could need to choose one in 4th, if two picks used to move up early)
use two fourths to move up.

FIFTH ROUND - OFFENSIVE LINEMAN
Resources: Pick 136 plus tradeable 6th and 7th

SIXTH ROUND COMP PICKS
kicker, returner, and WR or RB if returner already picked.

Right, while the rest of the teams take the remaining player with the fastest 40 and the most bench presses at the combine.

===============================

EXAMPLE DRAFT
Use 1st, 3rd and 6th to move up to 13 for CB or LB/DE
Use 2nd, both fourths to move up to 36 for CB or LB/DE
Use 3rd for WR
Use 5th for OL
Use 6th for K
Use 6th for RB or PR

===============================

Who would be happy with this draft? OK? Outraged?

1/2) How about Hill(or your best CB) at 13 and Kiwanuka or Jackson at 36
or Carpenter or Greenway at 13 and Jennings or Marshall at 36

3) At 86, we might get one of Stovall, Avant or Jennings.

Personally, I hope that at least one of these needs is met before the draft. This draft needs-based strategy seems reasonable to me precisely because we go into this draft with glaring needs, unuasual in the bb age.

 

[shirtsleeve]

Mg,
We've seen Belioli do things like this the last couple of years. It is not unreasonable at all. Typically, though, they trade a bunch of picks in these years into the future so they can stockpile in a talent rich draft. They did so last year. In fact, last year they announced as much, or at least ESPN was reporting that they were trading out of last years draft, looking foreward to the talent in this one.

So, why dump all their choices in a draft like this into a few picks, when they went through all that trouble last year and even the year before to have all these picks this year? Perhaps your theory will hold true, considering that the team does have some holes. But it seems they are slowly plugging these holes with servicable, albeit not outstanding replacements. My thought is that this draft will be the Big Kahuna. The team is going to load up on picks this year. Probably they will even try to trade out of the first round for an early second and add another third in the process. At which point the fun could really start in this value grouping technique.

 

[Pats726]

They did so last year. In fact, last year they announced as much, or at least ESPN was reporting that they were trading out of last years draft, looking foreward to the talent in this one. So, why dump all their choices in a draft like this into a few picks, when they went through all that trouble last year and even the year before to have all these picks this year?

Might it be a few things?? Having picks to move up and get the player a team wants?? With extra picks they have a bit more flexibility...and then, there is the fact that this draft MAY have more talent. so two reasons...I do think they will have at least a half dozen standouts freom this draft.

 

[The Gr8est]

Might it be a few things?? Having picks to move up and get the player a team wants?? With extra picks they have a bit more flexibility...and then, there is the fact that this draft MAY have more talent. so two reasons...I do think they will have at least a half dozen standouts freom this draft.

I'm with Shirtsleeve on this one. The Pats weren't stockpiling picks a year or two earlier to get the specific player they wanted when it wasn't known how these players would develop. Last year Kiwanuka was a top 5 lock, this year he rates as a 2nd rounder. The Pats knew that there was going to be an abundance of overall quality talent in this draft, and may trade down a bit to add more quality picks in the 2-3 round range, but they're bringing players home THIS year.

 

[mgteich]

Actions this week will make a big difference. Signing a corner and trading for a receiver will take the pressure off all positions except linebacker, and allow us much more flexibility than if we don't make the transactions.

 

[Mark Morse]

Mg,
We've seen Belioli do things like this the last couple of years. It is not unreasonable at all. Typically, though, they trade a bunch of picks in these years into the future so they can stockpile in a talent rich draft. They did so last year. In fact, last year they announced as much, or at least ESPN was reporting that they were trading out of last years draft, looking foreward to the talent in this one.

So, why dump all their choices in a draft like this into a few picks, when they went through all that trouble last year and even the year before to have all these picks this year? Perhaps your theory will hold true, considering that the team does have some holes. But it seems they are slowly plugging these holes with servicable, albeit not outstanding replacements. My thought is that this draft will be the Big Kahuna. The team is going to load up on picks this year. Probably they will even try to trade out of the first round for an early second and add another third in the process. At which point the fun could really start in this value grouping technique.

Your point of trading into this deep draft is valid. I believe they will make at least 10 picks. They are re-loading and perhaps they will be a bigger player in the Undrafted Free Agent market immediately after the draft ends. They have traditionally been very cheap in bringing players in as UDFA, offering very low signing bonuses. This year they have alot of money under the cap. They can afford to offer more to players that would have been drafted in previous years, but due to the depth of this draft won't be selected. The Patriots have a terrific record of keeping UDFA's and developing them (Blue Gay, Stephen Neal, Shawn Mayer finished Super Bowl 38 as the safety)