Review of the 2003 Draft

[PonyExpress]

Review of the 2003 Draft

What team really had the best draft in 2003? One way to figure that out is to use the Trade Value Chart. The Chart assigns a number, like a price, to every draft slot. When a team uses its pick it is an “expenseâ€. In theory each team goes into the draft with a “budget†of points, an unequal budget due to the inverse order of selection used by the NFL to promote parity.
Three years after the 2003 draft, how would the same players be redrafted? If we could rank them by real value, then we could assign a new “point value†to each player per the Trade Value Chart. By adding up the new “real values†of each team’s old picks, we could then figure out which teams got the most total value out of the draft, and which had the best net value. That should tell us which teams were helped most by the 2003 draft, and which teams draft best.

Assumptions.

1. The Trade Value Chart, which NFL teams use as a guide for transactions during the NFL Draft, assigns a reasonable relative value to draft picks.

2. It usually takes about three years after a draft to judge the real value of an NFL player. There are notable exceptions, but by and large the “three year rule†holds true.

3. The 2006 Sporting News Scouting Guide is a respectable publication and its player rankings and grading system are more carefully considered than the opinions of average fans.

Terms

Trade Value Chart: The chart designed by Jimmy Johnson and adopted as a guide by most NFL teams. Used to facilitate transactions involving draft picks. Values are assigned to each draft position on a diminishing scale. http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/6330687

Draft Day Value: draft day values assigned to a team’s draft picks, according to the Trade Value Chart.

Total Draft Day Value: The sum of a team’s individual draft day values.

Real Value: The actual value of a player 3 years after being drafted. This real value is achieved by ranking players of a given draft 3 years later, using the Sporting News Scouting Guide grading system, and then assigning a point value to those players according to the Trade Value Chart. Note: When players are tied in TSN’s grading system, the tie is broken in the following order of priority (1) QB (2) DE (3) CB (4) OT (5) WR (6) DT (7) RB (8) LB (9) TE (10) OG/C (11) S (12) K (13) FB

Total Real Value: The sum of a team’s individual real values

Net Real Value: Total Real Value minus Total Draft Day Value

I. The 2003 Draft
Here are all 262 selections of the 2003 draft, in order: http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/years/2003

II. Total Draft Day Value by team
Here were the 2003 draft picks per team, with individual draft day values and total draft value:
1. Cincinnati: 1 (3000), 33(580), 65(265), 98(108), 118(58), 136(38), 174(21.8), 215(5.4)= 4076.2
2. Detroit: 2(2600), 34(560), 66(260), 99(104), 137(37.5), 144(34), 175(21.4), 216(5), 220(3.4), 236(1), 260(1)=3627.3
3. Houston: 3(2200), 41(490), 67(255), 75(215), 88(150), 101(96), 192(14.6), 214(5.8), 217(4.6), 233(1)=3432
4. Chicago: 14(1100), 22(780), 35(550), 68(250), 100(100), 116(62), 139(36.5), 143(34.5), 171(23), 191(15), 206(9), 261(1)=2961
5. Dallas: 5(1700), 38(520), 69(245), 103(88), 178(20.2), 186(17), 219(3.8)=2594
6. Balt: 10(1300), 19(875), 77(205), 109(76), 134(39), 146(33), 182(18.6), 223(2.3), 250(1), 258(1)=2550.9
7. Ariz: 17(950), 18(900), 54(360), 70(240), 141(35.5), 177(20.6), 210(7.4)=2513.5
8. Jacksonville: 7(1500), 39(510), 72(230), 104(86), 132(40), 176(21), 179(19.8), 193(14.2), 218(4.2)=2425.2
9. NO: 6(1600), 37(530), 86(160), 102(92), 155(29.4), 203(10.2), 231(1)=2422.6
10. NYJ: 4(1800), 53(370), 85(165), 140(36), 150(31.4), 200(11.4), 237(1)=2414.8
11. Carolina: 8(1400), 50(400), 76(210), 82(180), 119(56), 145(33.5), 247(1)=2280.5
12. NE: 13(1150), 36(540), 45(450), 120(54), 164(25.8), 201(11), 234(1), 239(1), 243(1)=2233.8
13. Minn: 9(1350), 40(500), 71(235), 105(84), 180(19.4), 190(15.4), 221(3)=2206.8
14. StL: 12(1200), 43(470), 74(220), 106(82), 107(80), 148(32.2), 170(23.4), 172(22.6), 184(17.8), 251(1), 254(1)=2150
15. Seattle: 11(1250), 42(480), 73(225), 110(74), 165(25.4), 183(18.2), 224(2)=2074.6
16. Oakland: 31(600), 32(590), 63(276), 83(175), 96(116), 129(43), 167(24.6), 204(9.8), 246(1), 262(1)=1836.4
17. SD: 30(620), 46(440), 62(284), 80(190), 112(70), 149(31.8), 188(16.2), 229(1)=1653
18. Phil: 15(1050), 61(292), 95(120), 131(41), 185(17.4), 244(1)=1521.4
19. Denver: 20(850), 51(390), 108(78), 114(66), 128(44), 157(28.6), 158(28.2), 194(13.8), 227(1), 235(1)=1500.6
20. Cleve: 21(800), 52(380), 84(170), 115(64), 142(35), 152(30.6), 195(13.4)=1493
21. Buff: 23(760), 48(420), 94(124), 111(72), 127(45), 151(31), 187(16.6), 228(1)=1469.6
22. Pitt: 16(1000), 59(310), 125(47), 163(26.2), 242(1)=1384.2
23. Indy: 24(740), 58(320), 90(140), 122(50), 138(37), 162(26.6), 198(12.2), 208(8.2)=1334
24. SF: 26(760), 57(330), 89(145), 124(48), 161(27), 197(12.6), 241(1)=1323.6
25. NYG: 25(720), 56(340), 91(136), 123(49), 160(27.4), 199(11.8), 207(8.6), 211(7), 240(1), 249(1), 255(1)=1302.8
26. KC: 27(680), 47(430), 113(68), 153(30.2), 189(15.8), 230(1), 252(1)=1226
27. Ten: 28(660), 60(300), 93(128), 126(46), 154(29.8), 225(1)=1164.8
28. GB: 29(640), 79(195), 147(32.6), 166(25), 212(6.6), 245(1), 253(1), 256(1), 257(1)=903.2
29. Miami: 49(410), 78(200), 87(155), 156(29), 169(23.8), 181(19), 209(7.8), 213(6.2), 248(1)=851.8
30. Wash: 44(460), 81(185), 232(1)=646
31. TB: 64(270), 97(112), 133(39.5), 168(24.2), 205(9.4)=455.1
32. Atl: 55(350), 121(52), 196(13), 202(10.6), 238(1)=426.6

 

[PonyExpress]

III. The 2006 preseason Redraft of players from the 2003 draft, with The Sporting News player grades.

Grade key:
10.0-9.0: rare player
8.9-8.0: outstanding player
7.9-7.5: solid starter
7.4-7.0: good starter
6.9-6.5: adequate starter
6.4-6.0: marginal starter/good backup
5.9-5.5: adequate backup
5.4-5.0: marginal backup

below 5.0 a player has no real value

Real rank. Team. Name. Grade. Real value points.
1. KC L. Johnson 9.6 (3000)
2. Cin Carson Palmer 9.5 (2600)
3. Pitt Polamalu 9.5 (2200)
4. Min Williams 9.2 (1800)
5. Ar Boldin 8.9 (1700)
6. NYG Umenyiora 8.7 (1600)
7. Chi Briggs 8.6 (1500)
8. Dal Witten 8.5 (1400)
9. Pitt Taylor 8.4 (1350)
10. Hou A Johnson 8.4 (1300)
11. Cin Steinbach 8.3 (1250)
12. JK Mathis 8.0 (1200)
13. NE Samuel 8.0 (1150)
14. STL Tinoisamoa 8.0 (1100)
15. NE Warren 7.9 (1050)
16. Dal Newman 7.9 (1000)
17. Sea Trufant 7.9 (950)
18. STL Curtis 7.9 (900)
19. STL Kennedy 7.9 (875)
20. GB Barnett 7.9 (850)
21. NE Wilson 7.9 (800)
22. JK Leftwich 7.8 (780)
23. SD Florence 7.7 (760)
24. Buff McGee 7.7 (740)
25. Den Foster 7.7 (720)
26. KC Mitchell 7.7 (700)
27. Ind Doss 7.7 (680)
28. Chi Tillman 7.6 (660)
29. Phi Smith 7.6 (640)
30. TB Simms 7.5 (620)
31. Buff McGahee 7.5 (600)
32. Ind Clark 7.5 (590)
33. Det Bailey 7.5 (580)
34. Ind Mathis 7.4 (560)
35. Car Gross 7.4 (550)
36. Hou Davis 7.4 (540)
37. Dal James 7.4 (530)
38. NYJ Robertson 7.3 (520)
39. Chi Scott 7.3 (510)
40. Dal Johnson 7.3 (500)
41. Car Manning 7.2 (490)
42. Cin Johnson 7.2 (480)
43. Oak Asomugha 7.2 (470)
44. SD Kiel 7.2 (460)
45. Wash Dockery 7.2 (450)
46. Sea Brown 7.2 (440)
47. SF Adams 7.1 (430)
48. Cle Faine 7.1 (420)
49. Sea Hamlin 7.1 (410)
50. Balt Suggs 7.0 (400)
51. Min Burleson 7.0 (390)
52. SF Lloyd 7.0 (380)
53. Ind June 7.0 (370)
54. NE Koppen 7.0 (360)
55. NYG Diehl 7.0 (350)
56. Ari Wells 7.0 (340)
57. Cle Crocker 7.0 (330)
58. Buf Kelsay 6.9 (320)
59. Det Redding 6.9 (310)
60. Sea Hunter 6.9 (300)
61. NYG Joseph 6.9 (292)
62. Cle Thompson 6.9 (284)
63. Hou Peek 6.9 (276)
64. JK Wrightster 6.9 (270)
65. JK Green 6.8 (265)
66. Oak Brayton 6.8 (260)
67. Min Henderson 6.8 (255)
68. NYJ Hobson 6.8 (250)
69. Buf Crowell 6.8 (245)
70. Car Seidman 6.8 (240)
71. SD Scifres 6.8 (235)
72. Atl Griffith 6.8 (230)

 

[PonyExpress]

73. Bal Boller 6.7 (225)
74. Chi Gage 6.7 (220)
75. Ten Long 6.7 (215)
76. TB Mahan 6.7 (210)
77. Mia Bell 6.7 (205)
78. Ten Woolfolk 6.6 (200)
79. NO Sullivan 6.6 (195)
80. JK Toefield 6.6 (190)
81. Chi Grossman 6.5 (185)
82. SD Davis 6.5 (180)
83. SF Harris 6.5 (175)
84. NO Stinchcomb 6.5 (170)
85. NYG Walter 6.5 (165)
86. Ten Brown 6.5 (160)
87. STL Shanle 6.5 (155)
88. Mia Lee 6.5 (150)
89. JK Manuwai 6.4 (145)
90. Atl Scott 6.4 (140)
91. Cle Suggs 6.3 (136)
92. Bal Pashos t 6.2 (132)
93. Det Davis lb 6.2 (128)
94. Oak Johnson te 6.2 (124)
95. NO Holland g 6.2 (120)
96. TB White de 6.1 (116)
97. KC Wilkerson de 6.1 (112)
98. GB Johnson cb 6.1 (108)
99. Ari Johnson wr 6.1 (104)
100. NYJ Bollinger qb 6.0 (100)
101. STL Cox cb 6.0 (96)
102. Hou Wand t 6.0 (92)
103. Det Rogers wr 6.0 (88)
104. Ten Calico wr 6.0 (86)
105. Cin Washington wr 6.0 (84)
106. STL McDonald wr 6.0 (82)
107. Oak Gabriel wr 6.0 (80)
108. SF Battle wr 6.0 (78)
109. NYG Tyree wr 6.0 (76)
110. Car Moorehead dt 6.0 (74)
111. NE Kelley dt 6.0 (72)
112. GB Hillenmeyer lb 6.0 (70)
113. NE Banta-Cain lb 6.0 (68)
114. SD Wilhelm lb 6.0 (66)
115. Cle Pontbriand c 6.0 (64)
116. Bal Sapp c 6.0 (62)
117. Cin Kooistra g 6.0 (60)
118. Car Branch s 6.0 (58)
119. SD Milligan s 6.0 (56)
120. KC Battle cb 5.9 (54)
121. KC Black t 5.9 (52)
122. Oak Fargas rb 5.9 (50)
123. NYG Shiancoe te 5.9 (49)
124. NYJ Askew fb 5.9 (48)
125. NO Williams de 5.7 (47)
126. GB Peterson de 5.6 (46)
127. NE Johnson wr 5.7 (45)
128. NE Klecko dt 5.7 (44)
129. Sea Moore dt 5.7 (43)
130. Bal Smith rb 5.7 (42)
131. Det Pinner rb 5.7 (41)
132. Den Griffin rb 5.7 (40)
133. Hou Ragone qb 5.5 (39.5)
134. Phi McDougle de 5.5 (39)
135. Phi Green de 5.3 (38.5)
136. Sf Williams de 5.3 (38)
137. SD Van Buren t 5.5 (37.5)
138. Was Jacobs wr 5.5 (37)
139. Ari Hayes lb 5.5 (36.5)
140. Sea Wallace wr 5.4 (36)
141. Mia Whitley g 5.4 (35.5)
142. Den Claxton g 5.3 (35)
143. Det Adams cb 5.2 (34.5)
144. Buf Sape dt 5.2 (34)
145. NYJ Yovanavits g 5.2 (33.5)
146. Det Holt s 5.2 (33)
147. SF Dorsey qb 5.1 (32.6)
148. Ari Pace de 5.1 (32.2)
149. Dal Tucker cb 5.1 (31.8)
150. NYG Ponder wr 5.1 (31.4)
151. Atl Veal dt 5.1 (31)
152. Pit St. Pierre qb 5.0 (30.6)
153. Den Eason de 5.0 (30.2)
154. Den McNeal de 5.0 (29.8)
155. Oak Pierson de 5.0 (29.4)
156. NYJ Walters de 5.0 (29)
157. Cin Patterson de 5.0 (28.6)
158. Den Mitchell de 5.0 (28.2)
159. Ind Strickland cb 5.0 (27.8)
160. Det Kircus wr 5.0 (27.4)
161. Hou Wright dt 5.0 (27)
162. Det Johnson dt 5.0 (26.6)
163. Ind Whiteside lb 5.0 (26.2)
164. Pitt Jackson lb 5.0 (25.8)
165. Bal Smith te 5.0 (25.4)
166. Bal Mabry g 5.0 (25)
167. Ind Sciullo g 5.0 (24.6)
168. StL Tercero g 5.0 (24.2)
169. Min Johnson k 5.0 (23.8)

 

[PonyExpress]

IV. Total Real Value from the 2003 Draft by team
1. Cin 4502.6
2. KC 3918
3. Pitt 3606.4
4. NE 3589
5. Dal 3461.8
6. STL 3232.2
7. Chi 3075
8. JK 2705
9. Min 2618.8
10. NYG 2563.4
11. Ind 2278.6
12. Hou 2274.5
13. Ari 2212.7
14. Sea 2179
15. Buf 1939
16. SD 1794.5
17. Car 1412
18. Det 1268.5
19. Cle 1234
20. SF 1133.6
21. GB 1074
22. Oak 1013.4
23. NYJ 980.5
24. TB 946
25. Bal 911.4
26. Den 883.2
27 Phi 717.5
28. Ten 661
29. NO 532
30. Was 487
31. Atl 401
32. Mia 390.5


V. Net Value (Real Value – Draft Day Value)
1. KC 2692
2. Pitt 2222.2
3. NE 1355.2
4. NYG 1260.6
5. STL 1082.2
6. Ind 944.6
7. Dal 867.8
8. Cin 426.4
9. TB 490.9
10. Min 412
11. JK 279.8
12. GB 170.8
13. SD 141.5
14. Chi 114
15. Sea 104.4
16. Atl -25.6
17. Buf -135.6
18 Was -159
19. SF -190
20. Cle -259
21. Ari -300.8
22. Mia -461.3
23. Ten -503.8
24. Den -617.4
25. Phi -803.9
26. Oak -823
27. Car -868.5
28. Hou -1157.5
29. NYJ -1434.3
30. Bal -1639.5
31. NO -1890.6
32. Det -2358.8

VI. A Final Note
The Sporting News rankings were from a 2006 preseason publication. At the time, Ike Taylor of the Steelers was considered better than Asante Samuel; Eric Steinbach better than Ty Warren; Jeff Faine better than Dan Koppen. After 6 games in the 2006 season, all those assumptions seem dubious. There are good arguments that perhaps the 4 year rule is better, as Wrs and QBs take longer to mature. However, after 4 years, early contributions, like those of Bethel Johnson, have already been diminished and later rd draft picks frequently have already moved on from their original teams.

 

[cstjohn17]

Great stuff, just fantastic. Thank you for putting all this together.

IV. Total Real Value from the 2003 Draft by team
1. Cin 4502.6
2. KC 3918
3. Pitt 3606.4
4. NE 3589
5. Dal 3461.8
6. STL 3232.2
7. Chi 3075
8. JK 2705
9. Min 2618.8
10. NYG 2563.4
11. Ind 2278.6
12. Hou 2274.5
13. Ari 2212.7
14. Sea 2179
15. Buf 1939
16. SD 1794.5
17. Car 1412
18. Det 1268.5
19. Cle 1234
20. SF 1133.6
21. GB 1074
22. Oak 1013.4
23. NYJ 980.5
24. TB 946
25. Bal 911.4
26. Den 883.2
27 Phi 717.5
28. Ten 661
29. NO 532
30. Was 487
31. Atl 401
32. Mia 390.5


V. Net Value (Real Value – Draft Day Value)
1. KC 2692
2. Pitt 2222.2
3. NE 1355.2
4. NYG 1260.6
5. STL 1082.2
6. Ind 944.6
7. Dal 867.8
8. Cin 426.4
9. TB 490.9
10. Min 412
11. JK 279.8
12. GB 170.8
13. SD 141.5
14. Ari -300.8
15. Chi 114
16. Sea 104.4
17. Atl -25.6
18. Buf -135.6
19 Was -159
20. SF -190
21. Cle -259
22. Mia -461.3
23. Ten -503.8
24. Den -617.4
25. Phi -803.9
26. Oak -823
27. Car -868.5
28. Hou -1157.5
29. NYJ -1434.3
30. Bal -1639.5
31. NO -1890.6
32. Det -2358.8

VI. A Final Note
The Sporting News rankings were from a 2006 preseason publication. At the time, Ike Taylor of the Steelers was considered better than Asante Samuel; Eric Steinbach better than Ty Warren; Jeff Faine better than Dan Koppen. After 6 games in the 2006 season, all those assumptions seem dubious. There are good arguments that perhaps the 4 year rule is better, as Wrs and QBs take longer to mature. However, after 4 years, early contributions, like those of Bethel Johnson, have already been diminished and later rd draft picks frequently have already moved on from their original teams.

 

[cstjohn17]

Pony, is there a way to tell who were the best picks of the draft? ie. the lowest draft chart value compared to the actual points? just curious

 

[PonyExpress]

Absolutely. currently in the works.

 

[HAMMERMILL]

Absolutely. currently in the works.

Great Job thanks.
Love this stuff.

 

[GoWesleyan]

Cool Analysis but unfortunately I can't buy the assumptions. Specifically, "1. The Trade Value Chart, which NFL teams use as a guide for transactions during the NFL Draft, assigns a reasonable relative value to draft picks. "

The trade value chart is the relative worth of draft slots on draft day. I think that that is different than what the relative worth of players is when ranked.
The value of a top draft choice is based on probabilities and also - I think - on the PR benefit of signing a top guy (Top ten picks generate excitement and fill seats. The top pick, especially, gets pub for the team.)

If you look at the relative worth of the #1 (3000 -Larry Johnson), for example, is he really worth more to his team than 5 players that are worth 600 points (Willis MacGahee)? I know I'd much much rather have 5 players of MacGahee's caliber. But that's just one example: What about 3 worth a thousand? Another way to look at how this valuation is problematic: Is every top player of every draft worth the exact same? Is the difference in value after three years always on this same valuation curve? I think not.

It's a worthy goal to figure this stuff out 3 years out... I wish there were a website that covered draft follow up analysis like this stuff... but I think this methodology is lacking.

Thanks for the effort in any case. It's an interesting read.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Wow great analysis. Im sure there are figures every year that show the Pats do a top ten job at drafting every season.

 

[Pawn512]

Very interesting stuff - great, objective analysis. One thought: different positions probably don't hold the same value for teams. That is, a 9.5 rated quarterback would probably get picked ahead of a 10 rated guard. Or for a more real world example, I don't think Cincy would have picked Larry Johnson over Carson Palmer in 2003 even with the benefit of perfect hindsight. Any way to work this in? Or is it too subjective

 

[PonyExpress]

Cool Analysis but unfortunately I can't buy the assumptions. Specifically, "1. The Trade Value Chart, which NFL teams use as a guide for transactions during the NFL Draft, assigns a reasonable relative value to draft picks. "

The trade value chart is the relative worth of draft slots on draft day. I think that that is different than what the relative worth of players is when ranked.
The value of a top draft choice is based on probabilities and also - I think - on the PR benefit of signing a top guy (Top ten picks generate excitement and fill seats. The top pick, especially, gets pub for the team.)

If you look at the relative worth of the #1 (3000 -Larry Johnson), for example, is he really worth more to his team than 5 players that are worth 600 points (Willis MacGahee)? I know I'd much much rather have 5 players of MacGahee's caliber. But that's just one example: What about 3 worth a thousand? Another way to look at how this valuation is problematic: Is every top player of every draft worth the exact same? Is the difference in value after three years always on this same valuation curve? I think not.

It's a worthy goal to figure this stuff out 3 years out... I wish there were a website that covered draft follow up analysis like this stuff... but I think this methodology is lacking.

Thanks for the effort in any case. It's an interesting read.

The fact that you personally disagree with the premise of the Trade Value Chart is interesting and worthy of discussion. However, whether or not you agree with the existing system, the system still exists and is accepted by the league for the time being. There is ample evidence of that (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4222540?source=rss , http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/6330687). Many NFL GMs would likely agree with you that multiple late 1st rd selections are more valuable than the #1 overall pick, because there is strength in numbers and the talent differential may not merit the extra cost. However they still abide by the existing rules when seeking a trade. Maybe in the future rookie salary slots and the Trade Value Chart will change to reflect a new reality. Until then it is the only objective measure available. Do you really want me to go through your other "criticisms" one by one? Thanks for taking the time to read and respond.

 

[italia44]

brilliant work by PonyExpress,he's to be congratulated.We need a way archive this for future drafts.

This is the only comparative I've ever seen.....when you start dialing in things like PR value,etc.it becomes like American Idol,so you have to stick to this relative value chart.

This got me thinking...

Does anyone know the average age of a NFL draftee?

The reason I'm asking is that I think a

subtle and overlooked value to Patriots draftees in the BB/SP era is the AGE of their players.

They seem to draft a lot of players at about 21yrs old(defense line etc.)

If you extend this chart into future years doesn't a players age with the same team,increase his value even more?

Just some thoughts....what do you think?

 

[GoWesleyan]

"The fact that you personally disagree with the premise of the Trade Value Chart is interesting and worthy of discussion. However, whether or not you agree with the existing system, the system still exists and is accepted by the league for the time being."

I'm not speaking to whether or not it is used on draft day or whether I agree with it. Let's presume for the sake of argument that it IS used by all teams and I DO agree with it. My point is the same. My point is that the chart is NOT relevant to the value of the players 3 years after the fact. It IS relevant in the evaluation of how much drafting "firepower" a team had and, in turn, what the expectations of value should be.

What I'm pointing out is that the chart is a "Draft Value Chart". It is not a "Relative Value of Players From a Draft Class when Ranked in Order" chart, but you are using it for both. I do not think that it should be used for quantifying the value received. What should be used? I don't know, but I think the scale would probably end up looking quite a bit less top heavy...

On draft day, the #1 pick is worth twice as much as the #7 pick, but it does not necessarily follow that if you were to ask 32 coaches the relative value of the top player from a class and the 7th ranked player from a draft class that they would think that the difference in value would be 2 to 1. I highly doubt that they would say that the "Relative Values" of draft picks map in any way to the actual relative values of players from a class when ranked.

"Do you really want me to go through your other "criticisms" one by one?"

Yes, if you have an interest.

 

[PonyExpress]

Earlier I tried to sacrifice theoretical gobbledygook for the sake of simplicity, but instead confused someone looking deeper into the method. Let me clarify:

What we are really comparing is What Actually Happened on Draft Day 2003, to What Should Have Happened on Draft Day 2003. The difference between the real and the ideal provides the basis of the "surplus/deficit" scale provided at the end of the exercise.
To rehash in greater detail...

1) The purpose of the exercise was to determine which organization drafted best on Draft Day 2003.

2)The Trade Value Chart assigned a point value to every player drafted on that day. Think of the point value as a PRICE. Even if you feel the PRICES are "unfair" or "top-heavy", you have conceeded that this "price-list" is accepted by NFL teams on draft day.

3) With three years hindsite, TSN, a respected sports publication, more objective than the average fan (such as either of us, for instance) has ranked the players of the 2003 draft regardless of position.

4) Based on that ranking, we know in what order the players SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRAFTED. Based on that ranking, and using the Trade Value Chart, we know what the "price" for each player SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

5) The difference in point value, or "cost" for each player between his real value (WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DRAFTED) and the price each team actually paid (WHERE HE WAS ACTUALLY DRAFTED) produces a savings or an overrun, in monetary terms, a surplus or a deficit. The size of the surplus determines which teams were the most astute purchasers; the size of the deficit which teams acted like coked-up whores on a shopping spree. It's the same as buying an old leather book in a pawn shop, and finding out three years later it's a first edition classic. Or buying a supposed antique and three years later discovering its a fake.

If you disagree with TSN's rankings of players from the 2003 draft, I may agree with you. However, both our opinions are less credible in the world at large than a respected national publication written by professional scouts. If you feel that the "price list" is unjust, I may agree with you also; but the people who matter still go by it. If you feel that some drafts are better than others, that may be true. However, once again equating the trade value chart in monetary terms, each year is its own auction, and every year, no matter the quality of the art... THE PRICE LIST IS ALWAYS THE SAME.

 

[PonyExpress]

Very interesting stuff - great, objective analysis. One thought: different positions probably don't hold the same value for teams. That is, a 9.5 rated quarterback would probably get picked ahead of a 10 rated guard. Or for a more real world example, I don't think Cincy would have picked Larry Johnson over Carson Palmer in 2003 even with the benefit of perfect hindsight. Any way to work this in? Or is it too subjective

The rankings listed were "regardless of position". That being said, I agree with you. No way I would take Larry Johnson over Carson Palmer. But who are we compared with TSN? They have the credentials and the paychecks, and we are just onlookers, however good our instincts and wise our judgment.

 

[PonyExpress]

brilliant work by PonyExpress,he's to be congratulated.We need a way archive this for future drafts.

This is the only comparative I've ever seen.....when you start dialing in things like PR value,etc.it becomes like American Idol,so you have to stick to this relative value chart.

This got me thinking...

Does anyone know the average age of a NFL draftee?

The reason I'm asking is that I think a

subtle and overlooked value to Patriots draftees in the BB/SP era is the AGE of their players.

They seem to draft a lot of players at about 21yrs old(defense line etc.)

If you extend this chart into future years doesn't a players age with the same team,increase his value even more?

Just some thoughts....what do you think?

Kind words Italia, much appreciated; and that goes for everyone else who took the time to read the ramblings of a half-insane football fan. As far as age... You are on to something, but only at certain positions. The Pats took Maroney and Jackson, two of the youngest players in the draft. They took PK Sam, the youngest player in the draft. Obviously, they like their RBs young and undamaged with a long life expectancy. OTOH, they drafted Kaczur when he was 26 years old... projecting physical maturity is essential for offensive linemen, and it is sometimes safer to grab an older OT than a young one. Obviously, Gallery is an example of a player who never physically matured as expected. So, it seems like the earlier the better at RB and WR, the older the better at OT...

 

[GoWesleyan]

Thanks for the continued effort, Pony.

I don't disagree with the order of the rankings. Again, for the sake of argument, let's say that I agree with them perfectly.

I still feel that there is a problem.

I think the problem is that you are using the "Draft Pick Trade Value Chart" to assign relative values to ranked players. I think that, by doing so, you skew the conclusions in an unintended way.

I think the analysis is sound in all respects except for the use of the Draft Chart values for the calculation of the relative values of the current players.

Again, I am not talking about the order in which the players are ranked - So don't set this up as the value of my opinion vs that of respected publications.

And I am not disagreeing with the values of the chart - FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRAFT DAY TRADES - So don't set it up as if I'm questioning that. F

Finally, I can understand why you used the chart (there is no other chart to simply apply and you were looking for something simple to use) and I think that it is probably the best proxy we have.

Still, I think it is a severe limitation and skews the conclusions in a way that makes the final rankings of team perfomance a pretty rough.

 

[GoWesleyan]

I looked at it a little deeper (read a little more closely). There IS a better value chart to use - they are in the original post and come from the "respected publication" (2006 Sporting News Scouting Guide). Sporting News has given relative value rankings in addition to ordinal rankings already, i.e. they've done the work. The player ratings are on a 1-100 scale (1-10 with a decimal place actually). I think THIS is a better relative valuation of players.

Here's what I would propose-
1) Instead of using the Trade Value Chart to assign "Real Value", use the actual numbers from the respected publication.

2) You can map these to the trade value scale if you want. SN Scouting Guide Value x 300


Some examples of real values:

Player,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Draft Trade Chart,,,, Calculated Real Value
Larry Johnson,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 3000 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2880
Willis McGahee ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 600 ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 2250

Witten (Dal) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1400 ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 2550
Clark (Ind) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , 590 ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, 2250

(How do you make a chart?)

 

[GoWesleyan]

Does SN do this sort of 3 years out rating every year?