Risk, ceilings, floors & draft strategy

[patchick]

The topic of risk seems to be dominating the OLB discussion right now, and I thought it deserved its own topic apart from the merits of any particular player. The typical debate is "high ceiling vs. low floor": is it better to swing for the fences and pick a player with extraordinary potential but significant bust risk, or to take a proven quantity who's more certain to be a contributor, but less likely to be a star?

My thought of the moment is that it depends on the specific strategic circumstances of an individual draft, and that the Patriots are set up to aim for high ceilings this year more than last year.

First off, there's a big difference in the risk inherent in picking #7 vs. #23. Last year's #7 signed a contract worth 3 1/2 times the #23. Next, there's the fact that the Pats pick again just 11 slots later, then 13 slots after that, then 11 again. IOW their basket of picks is structured to mitigate risk, allowing room for a couple of Hail Marys along the way. The draft is dense in talent along the way, further de-emphasizing any one pick. Finally, there's the fact that the Pats have constructed their roster to minimize reliance on rookies in 2009. Again, that suggests patience for greener players with high potential.

For most teams and in most years, there's more pressure on hitting that #1 pick. But this year, I think it's a mistake to think of the #23 as an island apart from the picks that follow, or to assume that minimizing risk is a round-1 essential.

If you made your way through all that, any thoughts?

 

[midwestpatsfan]

If I read that correctly I agree with you.

I have been struggling with players I like at #23 because the players that grade out there do not have the potential as some of the guys that grade out lower but have higher potential down the road. That is why a guy like Barwin has to be considered at 23.

 

[dryheat44]

Round one is still essential. Whiffing on a first round pick is tragic. Yes, one can make up for it by nailing 2nd and 3rd rounders, but a first round pick needs to be able to take over for the outgoing free agents that become too expensive. You get 1 first round pick a year (in theory). It is crucial to use it on a guy who will contribute for 5/6 years.

Now, to your greater point, there's nothing wrong with swinging for the fences if the worst-case scenario is a ground-rule double. If the worst case scenario is a strike out, or even worse, Chad Jackson, then I'd pass. There's too many good players available to use a high draft pick on a boom-or-bust type.

 

[maverick4]

My thought of the moment is that it depends on the specific strategic circumstances of an individual draft, and that the Patriots are set up to aim for high ceilings this year more than last year.

One of the rare moments I disagree with pc. I think with our loaded team, we want to plug in a finished product.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Excellent observation, especially if they make most of their picks. I think it a virtual certainty that some form of trade will take place involving those 6 picks in the top 97, but the way they have set up their roster means they can take more risks. Certainly having picks so close together would allow the team to take a few more risks. I still see the most likely draft day result being the Patriots targeting a few specific players, doing what it takes to get them, and trading a pick for a pick next year.

 

[patchick]

One of the rare moments I disagree with pc. I think with our loaded team, we want to plug in a finished product.

Oh good, disagreement!

On the face of it, this doesn't make sense to me: "the less we need immediate help, the more we want players who can help immediately." But is the idea that once you're close to championship level, every extra step closer to the promised land is key?

 

[dryheat44]

Oh good, disagreement!

But is the idea that once you're close to championship level, every extra step closer to the promised land is key?

That's the way I see it. If you're in your championship window, I'd prefer to plug in the surer (safer) players to get the belt, as opposed to using a pick that could be used on such a player and taking a player that might put you over the top, but might leave that spot unfilled and play "wait until next year".

The above is obviously a generality. If the Patriots weakness heading in to the draft is a OLB for first and second down, I'd want Sintim over Barwin. If it were Defensive End, I'd want T-Jax over Gilbert. etc.

If the Patriots had absolutely no weaknesses, sure, try to hit the homer with every pick.

 

[KY Pats Fan]

I agree on the premise that a 1st rounder has to be a hit. My concern goes back to how many draft picks in 09 will actually make the team. Looking at the roster, I can't find too many holes. I would rather package up a few picks, move up, and grab at least as close to a sure fire pick that they can get. Now the question is "Who in the bottom half of round 1 could be classified as a "sure pick". I'm not sure.

 

[mayoclinic]

The topic of risk seems to be dominating the OLB discussion right now, and I thought it deserved its own topic apart from the merits of any particular player. The typical debate is "high ceiling vs. low floor": is it better to swing for the fences and pick a player with extraordinary potential but significant bust risk, or to take a proven quantity who's more certain to be a contributor, but less likely to be a star?

My thought of the moment is that it depends on the specific strategic circumstances of an individual draft, and that the Patriots are set up to aim for high ceilings this year more than last year.

First off, there's a big difference in the risk inherent in picking #7 vs. #23. Last year's #7 signed a contract worth 3 1/2 times the #23. Next, there's the fact that the Pats pick again just 11 slots later, then 13 slots after that, then 11 again. IOW their basket of picks is structured to mitigate risk, allowing room for a couple of Hail Marys along the way. The draft is dense in talent along the way, further de-emphasizing any one pick. Finally, there's the fact that the Pats have constructed their roster to minimize reliance on rookies in 2009. Again, that suggests patience for greener players with high potential.

For most teams and in most years, there's more pressure on hitting that #1 pick. But this year, I think it's a mistake to think of the #23 as an island apart from the picks that follow, or to assume that minimizing risk is a round-1 essential.

If you made your way through all that, any thoughts?

That's a long post for you, Patchick - almost in my territory.

I would generally agree. I personally find the idea that 1st round picks are "risk free" is ludicrous. Consider the top 10 picks in the supposedly loaded 2006 draft:

1. Mario Williams - seems to be developing well overall. Probably a good pick.
2. Reggie Bush - not so "risk free", was he?
3. Vince Young - another "risk free" pick?
4. D'Brickashaw Ferguson - worth every penny of the #4 pick? Not.
5. A.J. Hawk - a top 10 player at his position? I don't think so.
6. Vernon Davis - hasn't exactly played up to his potential.
7. Michael Huff - see Vernon Davis.
8. Donte Whitner - a big "reach" at #8, has turned out to be one of the better picks from that draft.
9. Ernie Sims - another "reach" for an undersized guy, another good player.
10. Matt Leinhart - a "sure thing" QB from a "big time" program, right?

So by my count 3 out of 10 picks have lived up to their draft status, though I don't consider either Whitner or Sims to be pro bowl level players. Not very good.

I'll be willing to take risks in the 20's every day compared with that group. In fact, you can argue that Lawrence Maroney has played about as well as the average top 10 pick from that draft, even though we consider him something of a disappointment at #21.

 

[bucky]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with Dryheat! You can't afford to have a first round pick eat up space on your roster and salary cap, and then give you nothing in return.

If you look at a pick like Ty Warren, you know you're getting a "double" - a guy who'll be a very solid starter for you for many years. And given the work ethic, they might pan out into a triple of HR. So I'd say Graham was an example of a solid double who didn't pan out any higher.

Then, as you get closer to the top of the draft, you're able to see some guys like Seymour or Mayo - solid doubles who have a good chance to pan out into big time players. Aaron Curry would be an example of this, this year I think.

As you get deeper in the draft, there are less "doubles" to be had, so you can afford a couple of swings and misses int he 3rd/4th round area. To me, Marquis Hill was a good example of a boom or bust prospect. Crable, I think, is another one.

The other thing to consider here is the salary cap implication. Late first and early second round picks are cheap compared to UFAs. So theoretically, if you can use your draft to constantly stock guys like Mankins, Merriweather, Maroney, Branch, Hobbs, etc. and replace them with similar players when their rookie contracts are up, it frees up money to pay your star players (Brday, Moss, Seymour) and plug immediate holes with the likes of AD and Chris Baker.

One final item regarding this year's draft. It's been a while since the Pats have had a good draft class. The jury's still out on everyone from last year except Mayo. Merriweather is the only one left from 2007. And 2006 produced a kicker, 1 injury-prone starter, and a couple of backups. So it's imperative to get several players out of this year's draft who'll be starters in a year or 2.

 

[bucky]

That's a long post for you, Patchick - almost in my territory.

I would generally agree. I personally find the idea that 1st round picks are "risk free" is ludicrous. Consider the top 10 picks in the supposedly loaded 2006 draft:

1. Mario Williams - seems to be developing well overall. Probably a good pick.
2. Reggie Bush - not so "risk free", was he?
3. Vince Young - another "risk free" pick?
4. D'Brickashaw Ferguson - worth every penny of the #4 pick? Not.
5. A.J. Hawk - a top 10 player at his position? I don't think so.
6. Vernon Davis - hasn't exactly played up to his potential.
7. Michael Huff - see Vernon Davis.
8. Donte Whitner - a big "reach" at #8, has turned out to be one of the better picks from that draft.
9. Ernie Sims - another "reach" for an undersized guy, another good player.
10. Matt Leinhart - a "sure thing" QB from a "big time" program, right?

So by my count 3 out of 10 picks have lived up to their draft status, though I don't consider either Whitner or Sims to be pro bowl level players. Not very good.

I'll be willing to take risks in the 20's every day compared with that group. In fact, you can argue that Lawrence Maroney has played about as well as the average top 10 pick from that draft, even though we consider him something of a disappointment at #21.

This is a great post. I'll say this though - 1st round QBs are almost always boom or bust picks. So you can't really count them. And Reggie Bush, I would argue, has done about as well as could be expected of an undersized RB. It's not his fault he got hyped through the roof by the media and drafted way higher that he should have been.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

4. D'Brickashaw Ferguson - worth every penny of the #4 pick? Not.
8. Donte Whitner - a big "reach" at #8, has turned out to be one of the better picks from that draft.
9. Ernie Sims - another "reach" for an undersized guy, another good player.

4. Go back and take another look, this kid was one dimensional coming in, but he's been getting stronger and improving his run blocking - he's worked to turn himself into a very good #4.

8. Buffalo, the organization, is disappointed with his playmaking, he's their version of James Sanders, a solid, no frills kid. I like the purchase price NE spent a little more tha I like this purchase price.

9. How is he a reach on a speed-based defense? For NE he's a reach, for Detroit, he's one of the few who panned out.

 

[mayoclinic]

Round one is still essential. Whiffing on a first round pick is tragic. Yes, one can make up for it by nailing 2nd and 3rd rounders, but a first round pick needs to be able to take over for the outgoing free agents that become too expensive. You get 1 first round pick a year (in theory). It is crucial to use it on a guy who will contribute for 5/6 years.

Now, to your greater point, there's nothing wrong with swinging for the fences if the worst-case scenario is a ground-rule double. If the worst case scenario is a strike out, or even worse, Chad Jackson, then I'd pass. There's too many good players available to use a high draft pick on a boom-or-bust type.

Obviously it's nice to hit on your 1st round picks, a number of teams have been successful despite a spotty record. Consider Tennessee (lead by our own Floyd Reese for many years), who had spectacular misses in 2005 at #6 (Pacman Jones) and 2006 at #3 (Vince Young) but still had many other successes - Michael Roos in the 2nd round and Michael Stewart in the 4th round in 2005, Cortland Finnegan in the 7th round in 2006 (I think), plus a number of solid 1st round picks like Michael Griffen and Chris Johnson. I don't think there's a team in the NFL that hasn't had a first round pick not pan out.

The worst case scenario is always a strike out. Matt Leinhart hasn't produced much of anything in 3 years for Arizona. Cedric Benson was a total washout for Chicago. Charles Rogers was a bomb in Detroit. And they were all "risk free" top-5 or 10 picks, with great records of collegiate productivity for competitive programs in top leagues. In comparison, Ben Watson and Lawrence Maroney have been spectacularly successful. Chad Jackson (and arguably Marquis Hill, though he tragically passed away too early to tell) were really the only first day picks who totally did nothing to justify their early selection. Even Bethel Johnson showed flashes of why the Pats reached for him.

I trust in our FO to identify players suited to our system and to assess risk. If they want to swing for the fences, I'm willing to allow them a few near-misses.

 

[mayoclinic]

4. Go back and take another look, this kid was one dimensional coming in, but he's been getting stronger and improving his run blocking - he's worked to turn himself into a very good #4.

8. Buffalo, the organization, is disappointed with his playmaking, he's their version of James Sanders, a solid, no frills kid. I like the purchase price NE spent a little more tha I like this purchase price.

9. How is he a reach on a speed-based defense? For NE he's a reach, for Detroit, he's one of the few who panned out.

I listed Whitner and Sims as 2 of the 3 "successful" top 10 picks, so I would agree with you about Sims.

As for D'Brick, a also agree with you, but I think it's fair to say that he has been a bit of disappointment as the #4 pick and a potential franchise OT so far. Nick Mangold (taken at the end of the 1st round) has clearly outperformed him on the Jets' OL.

All I'm saying is that the top 10 is generally a gamble as much as the latter part of the 1st round, and at much greater cost. Consider some of the other years:

2005 - relative busts: Alex Smith (1), Cedric Benson (4), Adam Jones (6), Troy Williamson (7), Antrel Rolle (8), and Mike Williams (10). And none of Ronnie Brown (2), bBaylon Edwards (3), Cadillac Williams (5) or Carlos Rodgers (9) has been a consistent pro-bowl level player. I'd take Logan Mankins over any of the top 10.

2006 - already discussed.

2007 - relative busts so far: JaMarcus Russell (1), Jamal Anderson (8). Gaines Adams (4), Ted Ginn (9) and Amobi Okoye (10) have been inconsistent but show promise. Levi Jones (5) and Laron Landry have been excellent. Calvin Johnson (2), Joe Thomas (3) and Adrian Peterson have been outstanding. One of the better top 10s. But Meriweather hasn't been far off of the average performance from that group.

2008 - didn't show much their first year: Glenn Dorsey (5, considered one of the "safest" picks), Vernon Gholston (6), Derrick Harvey (8). Showed flashes: Chris Long, Darren McFadden (4), Sedrick Ellis (7), Keith Rivers (9). Excellent or better: Jake Long (1), Matt Ryan (3), Jerod Mayo (10).

Even generally being selected by the weakest teams, most of those top 10 picks didn't make much of an impact their first year out, much less make an impact on a team as loaded as the Pats. So I think it's unrealistic to assume that there is a "risk free" player at 23 who can clearly be counted on to make an immediate impact. It's just not realistic.

 

[dryheat44]

Obviously it's nice to hit on your 1st round picks, a number of teams have been successful despite a spotty record. Consider Tennessee (lead by our own Floyd Reese for many years), who had spectacular misses in 2005 at #6 (Pacman Jones) and 2006 at #3 (Vince Young) but still had many other successes - Michael Roos in the 2nd round and Michael Stewart in the 4th round in 2005, Cortland Finnegan in the 7th round in 2006 (I think), plus a number of solid 1st round picks like Michael Griffen and Chris Johnson. I don't think there's a team in the NFL that hasn't had a first round pick not pan out.

Well, just to keep with your example, As a result of Tennessee's top 6 misses, they don't have a long term solution at QB, despite burning an elite pick and huge chunk of cap room to a QB, and they were forced to use multiple high picks at CB. These are the things that set a franchise back. As a result, they've had to rely on run defense and run offense to win, and they got exposed as one-dimensional late last year. I agree with your ultimate statement above.

The worst case scenario is always a strike out. Matt Leinhart hasn't produced much of anything in 3 years for Arizona. Cedric Benson was a total washout for Chicago. Charles Rogers was a bomb in Detroit. And they were all "risk free" top-5 or 10 picks, with great records of collegiate productivity for competitive programs in top leagues.

NONE of those picks were risk free. Benson had major motivational and judgement question marks, Rogers had major intelligence question marks, and Leinart had major motivational/desire question marks.

In comparison, Ben Watson and Lawrence Maroney have been spectacularly successful.

Really? I don't think either one has produced like a first rounder should.

 

[PATSNUTme]

This is and excellent thread. I'm at the stage now that I'm pretty confident that I know who the good player are. Now comes the hard part.

You want to find out about players personality and work ethic. You want to find out if they are smart,do they respond well to coaching, and if football and being great is important to them. You want to find out if a player still has an upside, are they team players, and are they leaders.

If a really good player in college does not get any better as a pro they are going to be busts. Others work hard their last year in college because they want the big payday and are not interested in getting better.

So all of those thing named in the thread title are very important. You want to read as many scouting opinions on the players as you can.

 

[bakes781]

The topic of risk seems to be dominating the OLB discussion right now, and I thought it deserved its own topic apart from the merits of any particular player. The typical debate is "high ceiling vs. low floor": is it better to swing for the fences and pick a player with extraordinary potential but significant bust risk, or to take a proven quantity who's more certain to be a contributor, but less likely to be a star?

My thought of the moment is that it depends on the specific strategic circumstances of an individual draft, and that the Patriots are set up to aim for high ceilings this year more than last year.

First off, there's a big difference in the risk inherent in picking #7 vs. #23. Last year's #7 signed a contract worth 3 1/2 times the #23. Next, there's the fact that the Pats pick again just 11 slots later, then 13 slots after that, then 11 again. IOW their basket of picks is structured to mitigate risk, allowing room for a couple of Hail Marys along the way. The draft is dense in talent along the way, further de-emphasizing any one pick. Finally, there's the fact that the Pats have constructed their roster to minimize reliance on rookies in 2009. Again, that suggests patience for greener players with high potential.

For most teams and in most years, there's more pressure on hitting that #1 pick. But this year, I think it's a mistake to think of the #23 as an island apart from the picks that follow, or to assume that minimizing risk is a round-1 essential.

If you made your way through all that, any thoughts?

I'd like to take credit for inspiring this if you don't mind?

Obviously I agree with dryheat in that I think you need to minimize risk with your higher selections because of the $ invested. Yes every prosect is "risky" to some extent, but some more so than others. It does help to have a monopoly on the 2nd round, but if you swing and miss with your 1st round pick that "value" in the 2nd can be all cancelled out IMO.

 

[patchick]

Great comments from everybody, it's giving me a lot to think about. There's certainly a compelling argument that 2010 is a gigantic unknown while 2009 looks fantastic, so go for it all this year. But doesn't that suggest that ILB & S are really the places to focus first, and to heck with squabbling over OLB candidates?

Also, one little contradiction to ponder:

You can't afford to have a first round pick eat up space on your roster and salary cap
...
The other thing to consider here is the salary cap implication. Late first and early second round picks are cheap compared to UFAs.

So are picks like #23 & #34 important to get right because they're expensive, or because they're cheap?

 

[PATSNUTme]

Great comments from everybody, it's giving me a lot to think about. There's certainly a compelling argument that 2010 is a gigantic unknown while 2009 looks fantastic, so go for it all this year. But doesn't that suggest that ILB & S are really the places to focus first, and to heck with squabbling over OLB candidates?

Also, one little contradiction to ponder:



So are picks like #23 & #34 important to get right because they're expensive, or because they're cheap?

In my mind it doesn't matter if you really hit on #89 and miss on #23. We missed on Klemm and hit on #199 Brady. Did it really matter?

 

[Metaphors]

I think you also have to consider how high the "boom" is vs. how low the "bust" is (there has to be a joke in there somewhere). If the player has a hall of fame skill set, then you can more easily accept some bonehead behavior or limited experience or production against weak competition.

For this draft, the prime example is Michael Johnson. If his college production consistently matched his physical skills, he would never make it out of the top 10. His ceiling is virtually unlimited as a Pats OLB. The trick is figuring out his floor. If he was inconsistent in college because of coaching, scheme or an inferior cast around him...then you take him because he won't have those issues with the Pats. If he was inconsistent because of focus, desire or intensity...then you pass because those traits not only keep him off the field but can kill a locker room.