Drafting for “value”…What does it mean ?

[PaulThePat]

Anytime people talk about the Patriots drafting philosophy the word “value” is always mentioned. To be honest I’m a bit confused as to what this exactly means. Does it mean that the Pats will draft the best player available even if it’s not in a need position? A few mocks have us taking Sedrick Ellis who as far as I can see plays in the same position as Vince Wilfork who is a pro-bowler and a true defensive line stud. In explaining the pick of Ellis some mock commentators have clearly said we don’t need Ellis but we’d take him anyway has he represents best value.

The 7th pick is a big opportunity to upgrade key positions in the team and I’m not sure I get the picking up a player we don’t need simply because he’s the best player on the board. Surely you draft for need or am I wrong

 

[borg]

The "Best Value" tag is my favorite useless label....possibly tied with "Reach". The Mel Kiper's of the draft world throw these terms out when teams ignore the pundits' draft order. Wilfork was a "Best Value" because he slipped on draft day...and the pundits were correct in labeling as such. Mankins was a "Reach" because he was drafted a round to early, according to the many experts. Two years and 1 probowl later, the only reach this Cowboy will be doing is reaching for that large money bag that awaits him in the future.

 

[Metaphors]

Anytime people talk about the Patriots drafting philosophy the word “value” is always mentioned. To be honest I’m a bit confused as to what this exactly means. Does it mean that the Pats will draft the best player available even if it’s not in a need position? A few mocks have us taking Sedrick Ellis who as far as I can see plays in the same position as Vince Wilfork who is a pro-bowler and a true defensive line stud. In explaining the pick of Ellis some mock commentators have clearly said we don’t need Ellis but we’d take him anyway has he represents best value.

The 7th pick is a big opportunity to upgrade key positions in the team and I’m not sure I get the picking up a player we don’t need simply because he’s the best player on the board. Surely you draft for need or am I wrong

I think people tend to use "value" to mean "best player but may not be a big need". Value has the same definition that it does when you are buying a car. There is a cost associated and a benefit that is derived. Value is maximizing the benefit against the cost paid.

The cost for a player is measured by the draft position (higher pick = higher cost) and the contract required to sign. Take your example...drafting Ellis at #7. The #7 pick is significant draft capital (worth more than the entire draft allotment of the Pats in a normal year) and it will likely cost a little under $20M in guarantees to sign Ellis. For this to be a value pick, Ellis would have to provide a benefit to the Patriots that is significantly more than that cost. I think that is unlikely barring injury or trade, so I wouldn't consider Ellis a "value" pick even though he would be the best player on the board.

So need is part of the "value" dynamic, but it certainly isn't the only component. I think the "value zone" for the Patriots in this draft will be between picks 15 and 50. That is where I see need/cost/benefit balance out best for the Patriots. You can always find "value" later in the draft because the cost is so low...but I wouldn't want to count on late round picks to make or break my draft.

 

[patchick]

OK, I'll take a stab, then I promise I'll finally shut up on the topic! Well, probably.

Real "value" takes it all into account:

- the player's skills and physical/mental attributes
- the rareness of those skills and attributes
- the player's readiness to perform in your system ("length to impact")
- the projected impact of the player on your team, given current and future roster makeup (this includes but is not limited to "need")
- the point in the draft, including comparable players still available and salary considerations for the position
- other potential uses of your draft-pick currency, including trades for picks or players

I've bolded the 2 considerations I consider paramount, but really drafting for "value" means everything...and thus nothing. It just means you're not taking a knee-jerk approach in either direction. You won't lock in on a "need" position regardless of the talent available, AND you won't take a pure "best player available" approach that ignores the makeup of your existing team. Some folks like to claim the Pats do the latter, I don't see a shred of evidence for that. (Was Gostkowksi simply the "best player available" in the 4th round? Please.)

Here's the underappreciated key, IMO. Your draft philosophy is restricted by the way you've assembled your existing roster. If you allow yourself to enter the draft with gaping roster holes at specific positions, you have to tilt heavily toward immediate needs. The Patriots allow themselves a balanced, patient value approach by aggressively plugging holes with solid, mid-range pros before the draft. Guys like Jabar Gaffney and Fernando Bryant are critical pieces in a successful draft strategy, which is, in the end, a team-building strategy.

 

[PaulThePat]

You won't lock in on a "need" position regardless of the talent available, AND you won't take a pure "best player available" approach that ignores the makeup of your existing team. Some folks like to claim the Pats do the latter, I don't see a shred of evidence for that

Yep, that's the vibe I was getting that the Pats will take the best player regardless of need which seems strange. As you say there needs to be a whole list of variables which make up "value" and hopefully the Pats will indeed get value for their 1st round pick on Saturday