Draft insight from Bill Polian

[Oswlek]

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.

I know.

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.)

I assert it because it is true.

I think the difference is absolutely germane. It's a big reason why Bill behaves the way he does. If he could have the same advantage insiders have over common investors, he wouldn't need to do anything but just pick 7 of the best 15 players every year. Instead, he moves back, accumulates extra bullets and trades into next year.... all strategies based on a lack of certainty.

It really is an odd paradox: to be completely confident in your scouting and your selection while building your draft strategy on a cornerstone of ignorance. Even beyond ice water and job security, most NFL GMs don't have the humility to put that kind of plan into action.

 

[hwc]

.... all strategies based on a lack of certainty.

People like to rag on Belichick for not saying anything in his press conferences, but he puts it all out there. How many times have you heard him say about a draft pick:

"I don't know. We'll bring him into camp and see how he does...."

He knows better than most, that any kid taken in the draft, regardless of round, could:

a) get cut before the season (OK, probably a 1st or 2nd rounder will survive cut down day)
b) make it to the practice squad
c) be a game day inactive all season
d) contribute on special teams
e) maybe see a little back-up or rotational package duty
f) contribute in a significant way

If he doesn't know, how the heck does Mel Kiper know? What, from watching a YouTube of highlights from the game against the Weak Sisters of the Poor Pop Warner team?

 

[Danger Zone]

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.

These articles touch on the similarities of the Draft to the efficient market hypothesis. But they aren't stating that the Draft is simply an efficient market and nothing more, they are stating that the NFL scouting side of things has created a kind of efficient market. And sure, the further you get from 1st round prospects, the less efficient and less pervasive the scouting becomes.

What I take away from those articles is that no team over time wins at the draft based on their superior scouting and talent evaluation. The teams that do better at the draft are the ones that systematically approach the draft as a highly uncertain/random environment.

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

That sounds like pure Belichick to me.

And on a side note, lets not forget that whatever kind of "market" the Draft is most like, Belichick is forced to compete with the absolute least amount of capital. As I love to point out, the average Draft position of the Patriots over the past 14 years is the 26th round. The next most successful team has an average Draft position of around 22 (over the same 14 years of course).

Yes, Belichick makes mistakes, but I like to think he'd have made less of them if he got the luxury of picking at the #22 spot in the draft every year.

And gosh, that would still only be the 22nd spot. Imagine if he got to Draft with an even playing field and got to make his picks at around the 16 spot? Yikes.

 

[patfanken]

Over and over again we debate how good or bad BB is when he is picking new players from the bottom of every round each year. Yet year after year, just about EVERY manner of draft analysis tell us we are winding up with the best over all players, or at least among the top 5. That's not an opinion folks. They done it by wins, starts, by pro bowls, and all pro selections. By any manner possible and compared to his peers, BB always wind up in the top 5 of every draft retrospective. Of course some are better than others, but you can't contend the end result.

So what is it that makes the difference? What's the "secret sauce" BB adds that gets him that extra player or 2 that separates him from everyone else. We can only guess. Likely its a combination of things. It could the kind of athleticism and size. It could be his intelligence, and adaptability. Like I said, a bunch of different things.

However the ONE vision that BB sees in his players just a BIT better than his peers, is how they are going to look as players 2-3 years from when they first come to camp. BB doesn't care as much as some HC's about "where they are now" as players, but rather where they are GOING to be in 3 years.

It is a huge advantage for BB to be in a position where he doesn't have to win at all costs right away. He can take risks. He can take more time. He can be more patient. Most HC's don't have that luxury. So if there is an injury at S, early in the year and Tavon Wilson steps in and we don't miss a beat, the only person who won't be surprised will be BB. And he honest, if what I stated came to pass, would you REALLY be surprised?

So while it might seem trite and cliché, "coachability" could be one the most important markers that BB looks for in drafting a player. No for who is is, but rather, who he can become. The Pats have been rife with players who become quite different from the players they came into the league as. From Steve Neal and Mike Vrabe, to Rob Ninkovsch and Ryan Wendell

BTW- The dearth of intelligent draft talk has made it such that when guys like Polian speak basic common sense to us, we sop it up like starving refugees. Me too. Polian said nothing that knowledgeable draft fans here keep telling us for years (except of course the WR crazies ) And by the end of the week the Pats will have added 8 or 9 new players, most of whom none of us have ever heard of. Amazingly some of the them will become solid players for us. Well maybe its not so amazing.

 

[hwc]

I think that BB's secret sauce is really better coaching/better teaching. He simply finds ways to get typical NFL players to produce something, somewhere, sometime on some sub-package on an NFL roster.

He could do that with the guys he drafted. He could do that with the guys you drafted. Hell, he could probably even do with the guys Cleveland drafted.

I think (and Kirwin has confirmed this from sitting in scouting combine interviews with Belichick) that BB puts unusual emphasis on trying to find guys who are coachable and who will buy into what a coach is teaching.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This makes sense based on the Patriots history, albeit limited, of trading up.

They traded up for Wilfork at 19, and a couple of years ago they traded up for Jones at 21 and Hightower at 25. Most likely, those were situations where they were able to snag the last remaining "first round" or "elite" draft board prospects and would likely end up picking a "dime a dozen" second-tier prospects had they sat still. Meanwhile, when they trade down in the first round, as alluded to by the OP, it's because there are no elite prospects left and they can have a similarly graded player at #45 than at #28.

This isn't a trade secret or anything; I'm sure almost every team uses the same philosophy. What separates the Patriots, as usual, is their disciplined approach to value. Other teams try to talk themselves into grabbing players because they can't deal with the regret of missing out, whereas the Patriots think long-term and play the odds.

 

[Oswlek]

They traded up for Wilfork at 19

NE stayed put in 2004, getting Vince at #21. You might be thinking of the year prior when they traded up a spot to snag Ty Warren at #13.

 

[Captain Cliche]

I' m guessing the 14 year average draft position is skewed upward due to the fact they have traded into future years and ended with another team's position??

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

NE stayed put in 2004, getting Vince at #21. You might be thinking of the year prior when they traded up a spot to snag Ty Warren at #13.

Yes...my bad.

 

[Captain Cliche]

I don't follow college football, but I used to read some of the draft threads here and adopt a few binkies, etc. In the end, it seemed like a huge waste of time. Most everyone has no clue what BB is going to do and they are hugely dissapointed when he passes up their "no miss" favorite time and time again. Now I just bide my time until draft day and read up on the players they select...I also derive perverse pleasure at the meltdowns from the draftnicks when they select a head scratcher like Logan Mankins, Sebastian Volmer, etc.
I also derive extreme pleasure when the Pats scoop a team like the Jets ,Ravens, or Eagles...when you see them trade down after the Pats moved in front of them and obviously picked the player they wanted.
I seem to recall the Jets fans said they never wanted McCourty in the first place.
The Eagles traded out of the first round when the Pats picked Meriweather in front of them.
Didn't they scoop Dallas last year??
They may appear to take some players way too soon sometimes, but they get the player they want by not getting too cute and often times it seems other teams were also looking at that player. BB has the luxury of not having to worry if ownership or the media will criticize him for taking someone "prematurely".

 

[Captain Cliche]

Just to add, when was the last time New England missed on a first rounder??
Other teams do that on a regular basis. When you think about that, not getting a starter from a first round pick is akin to losing that pick.

 

[NormZauchin]

I think that BB's secret sauce is really better coaching/better teaching. He simply finds ways to get typical NFL players to produce something, somewhere, sometime on some sub-package on an NFL roster.

He could do that with the guys he drafted. He could do that with the guys you drafted. Hell, he could probably even do with the guys Cleveland drafted.

I think (and Kirwin has confirmed this from sitting in scouting combine interviews with Belichick) that BB puts unusual emphasis on trying to find guys who are coachable and who will buy into what a coach is teaching.

It may be that openness to coaching is a characteristic easier to spot in the pre-draft process than comparative athleticism.

 

[RayClay]

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/


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


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

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.

Depends where you look.

Absolutely agree with the above and think Pollian's 25 1st round grades might be generous, most years.

Gronk and Collins grabbed with 2nd rounders.

 

[50-yard-line]

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.
DW Toys

My understanding is that, absent the ACLs, Easley would have been a top-15. I don't know where you get that statement above, honestly.

 

[Patriot Missile]

My understanding is that, absent the ACLs, Easley would have been a top-15. I don't know where you get that statement above, honestly.

There are still fans that disliked the Jamie Collins pick. Weren't happy with what he brought as a rookie and called him a waste of a pick after 1 season.

Hope they get to eat crow again with Easley as well.

 

[Danger Zone]

My understanding is that, absent the ACLs, Easley would have been a top-15. I don't know where you get that statement above, honestly.

That's my understanding as well. Many pundits had Easley as a top 10 or 15 pick.. IF he was healthy. His draft stock fell simply out of concerns about his health.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...he-most-overlooked-prospect-in-2014-nfl-draft

DW Toys-DW Toys is correct in that noone knew when Easley would be drafted. I believe it went anywhere from late first to early third. Where he is mistaken is that its been exhaustively proven and reported that the Seahawks were taking Easley with #32. It doesn't matter what the pundits thought or projected. Easley was off the board at #32 if the Patriots hadn't taken him at #29.

 

[JoeSixPat]

With that amount of uncertainty, I find it interesting that - supposedly - BB's draft board is quite small in comparison with other teams'... BB the GM gets all kinds of grief here sometimes, but I for one am more than glad he's pulling the trigger for the team I follow.

I think we all understand that Belichick has "his type of guys" that he wants for different positions, playing different roles. So I think despite all the uncertainty he's still honed down his list of prospects to the guys he expects to be available that fill the right roles and attitudes.

Often he'll grab "his player" before others think he should, accusing him of "reaching" but I think his standard response to that is, if you want a guy you need to take him BEFORE someone else does

But I think this is also another reason why you see BB have such good success with undrafted rookies, as he can pitch the Patriots to the right players rather than randomly compete for them with 32 other teams in the draft

 

[JoeSixPat]

That's my understanding as well. Many pundits had Easley as a top 10 or 15 pick.. IF he was healthy. His draft stock fell simply out of concerns about his health.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...he-most-overlooked-prospect-in-2014-nfl-draft

DW Toys-DW Toys is correct in that noone knew when Easley would be drafted. I believe it went anywhere from late first to early third. Where he is mistaken is that its been exhaustively proven and reported that the Seahawks were taking Easley with #32. It doesn't matter what the pundits thought or projected. Easley was off the board at #32 if the Patriots hadn't taken him at #29.

These types of players are typical at the end of the first round

When drafting you have a choice of trading back and getting 2 guys with about the same grade instead of just 1 - OR - you can take a project/rehab case like Easley and gamble that #29 might turn out to be the equivalent of a Top Ten pick

Either move comes with risks - a good team will do a little of each and hopefully things break their way every now and again

 

[RayClay]

Like him or not, Pollian managed to keep competitive teams on the field with lopsided expenditures for QB, WRs and pass rushers. Unlike losing franchises, he stuck with the model that worked with manning and was relatively successful, although less so in the playoffs like many pass happy teams.

Losing franchises generally keep changing their emphasis, swingig back and forth for the latest quick fix.

 

[hwc]

Polian said an average of 19 first round grades per draft over the last 20 years that he analyzed.

Like him or not, Pollian managed to keep competitive teams on the field with lopsided expenditures for QB, WRs and pass rushers. Unlike losing franchises, he stuck with the model that worked with manning and was relatively successful, although less so in the playoffs like many pass happy teams.

Losing franchises generally keep changing their emphasis, swingig back and forth for the latest quick fix.

Yes. And although he's a wind-bag, Polian occasionally goes into some really interesting discussions of the trade-offs in the Indianapolis approach. One of the tradeoffs was going with smaller defensive players because they could be had cheaper in the draft and/or free agency. It wasn't so much that he loved midget safeties and linebackers, but that they fell in the draft. Their cap constraints meant that they had no choice but to stock the team with mid and low round draft pick starters. You have to give him his due. He built good solid teams under different circumstances in Buffalo, Charlotte, and Indy.

One of the more interesting admissions I've heard him make is that he was so caught up in the heat of the rivalry that he really couldn't appreciate Belichick's approach. Now that he's out of the game and has a little more perspective, he thinks that the Belichick approach (GM/roster building and coach/teaching/game planning) is not only the best in the NFL, but so far ahead of everyone else in the league that there isn't even a second place award.