Value Grouping - by rookBoston

[Box_O_Rocks]

Value Grouping



Value Grouping - by rookBoston
Submitted By: Mark Morse
April 20, 2004
Resubmitted By: Box_O_Rocks
February 9, 2006

Value Grouping Theory

This was a message by rookBoston who posts on the PatsFans Draft Forum Messageboard. I was so impressed with this post that I thought I would put it out here in the Draft section. I cannot take credit for this since it is someone else’s work, but I like the thinking behind it and I think you will find it interesting as well.
-------------------------------
I wanted to post something about "Value Grouping", which is the term I use to rationalize BB's draft day strategy. I posted something about this immediately after the 2003 draft.
That draft was incredible, but it left me totally confused. I couldn't see any logic in the trading up and down. The strategy seemed haphazard, and yet it produced very reliable results. It could not have been blind luck that they filled all their positions of need at ideal value spots in the draft. How did they do it?
I don’t know if this is something that is widely discussed in the Nation, or if it's just a pet theory of my own. I haven't read anything about it, or if I have, I've forgotten that I did. I think BB has probably explained the concept behind his draft strategy to the media, although Tom Curran's recent article makes no mention of this type of targeting. I’m not sure how explicit BB’s been in describing how it works.
I thought, I’d post my understanding of how the Pats approach the draft, because so far as I know it is clearly not an intuitive or typical strategy.
-------------------------------
Here’s how it works:
BB, SP and the scouting team identify a group of players who would provide roughly the same value for the team. It is absolutely critical that the staff “believes†in all the players in the value group, without exception. All of them have to be guys that the staff would feel good about drafting and would want to have on the team.

Once a player makes it into a value group, that means he is being targeted for the draft. Before the draft, the staff identify what their key needs are, and decide how they plan on filling those needs, using the value groupings they’ve defined. Generally speaking, it is possible to say, “this group of players should go in the early 1st round, this group of players should go in the late 2nd, early 3rd.â€

On draft day, as the players in a targeted value group start coming off the board, the Pats lie in wait, patiently. The first players coming off the board for a given value group set the baseline value for that group. Once a value group is down to one or two players remaining, they trade into position to take the last guy in that group.

The downside is that by definition, you are taking the guy in each Value Group which the other teams think is the worst of the bunch. But if you’ve setup the board correctly, it shouldn’t matter. It is your own evaluation that counts, not the rest of the teams.
The upside is, you get good players for rock bottom prices. Most important, you eliminate (or at least dramatically reduce) the risk that you come away with absolutely nothing. Examples will help explain how this is possible, in practice.
----------------------------------
Examples #1 - Wilson
The clearest example of this strategy in action was the drafting of Eugene Wilson in 2003. Belichick had said that one of his offseason goals was to get younger and faster in the secondary. Clearly, that meant an early round selection at CB. No surprises.
At #19, there were a bunch of very good CBs available: Andre Woolfolk, Charles Tillman, Eugene Wilson, Sammy Davis, Nnamdi Asomugha. It’s hard for me to say which of these players were in the Pats draft board, but I would bet that Woolfolk, Tillman, Wilson and Davis were all in the same value grouping.

At 19, Belichick had his choice of any of them. It would not have been a reach to take Woolfolk at that point, according to the scouts. Since the draft, so far as I hear, Woolfolk has established himself as a solid young player in Tennessee. But, instead, Belichick traded down to #41 and watched as Woolfolk, Davis, Asomugha all came off the board in the first round. Then, at the top of the 2nd, as soon as Tillman comes off the board at #35, Belichick promptly trades back up to take Wilson at #36 (from #41).

Note: Give Mel Kiper his credit, he was the only one who had Wilson rated as a 1st round pick.

After Wilson, only one CB was taken in the draft over the next 46 selections. That proves there was a significant dropoff in talent after Wilson. The question is whether the dropoff in talent from Woolfolk to Wilson is at all significant. The experience of the 2003 season suggests that all four CBs in that value group would have been solid contributors for the Patriots.

You have to have a lot of faith in your scouts, if you’re going to apply this kind of draft philosophy. But, when it’s working, it can create a serious advantage, by delivering players who can help the team immediately, at spots in the draft where their value is maximized.
---------------------------------
Example #2 - Warren
One of my biggest question marks after the 2003 draft was, “Why bother trading up *one draft spot* to take Warren� After all, Warren was probably going to drop to #14 anyway. Most mock drafts had him going at the top of the 2nd round. BB could have (in all likelihood) saved himself an additional Day Two selection. For a staff which hoards draft picks like water in the desert, it seemed completely out of character. But, if you consider the situation from the perspective of “value grouping†the trade-up makes much more sense. In fact, the example is illuminating.

In this case, I think the value group included a bunch of interior defensive linemen: Dewayne Robertson, Ty Warren, Jonathan Sullivan, Jimmy Kennedy... and possibly Kevin Williams (although he wouldn’t have been a great fit in the 3-4). The Pats interest in defensive lineman was obvious, and their specific interest in Robertson and Sullivan was also well publicized. (Possibly, the value group contained other players, like Terrell Suggs. But Suggs fits a very different draft profile, so I think it’s unlikely.)
Of course, the Jets and Saints had read the reports that the Pats were interested in those guys, and traded up to make sure to get the ones they wanted. Belichick played it cool.
Jimmy Kennedy dropped all the way to #12 overall. On draft day, I was shocked that Belichick didn’t trade up for Kennedy after he dropped past #10, because the scouting reports described him as an ideal NT for a 3-4. In retrospect, I believe the reason he didn’t need to trade up for Kennedy was because Ty Warren was still on the board. So, that draft group still had two players available. Until one of them came off the board, there was no need to panic. BB still expected to get a guy he wanted just by sitting still.
Of course, Kennedy went off the board at #12 with the Pats waiting at #14. According to the draft philosophy, in this situation you ABSOLUTELY MUST trade up to take Warren at #13. If someone steals Warren away from you at #13, not only have you missed out on Warren, but you’ve missed out on the entire value group. The risk is way, way too high. If Kennedy had not been selected at #12, BB would gladly have stayed at #14, because he would have been certain to get one of the two. But with Kennedy gone, trading up became a priority.

It’s interesting to note that William Joseph was clearly not included in this value group, even though popular scouting reports had him in the competition for a top-20 selection. The Pats passed on him (ignored him, really) and he lasted until #25.

It’s also interesting that Warren made it into the value group at all. Robertson, Sullivan and Kennedy were all highly touted candidates, but Warren was widely considered a 2nd rounder until just prior to the draft. If the Pats scouting on Warren had been less positive, if (say) he had been grouped with Tyler Brayton and William Joseph instead of the elite group, then according to the theory, the Pats would have been obligated to trade up for Kennedy at #7 (easily within striking distance) immediately after Sullivan was selected at #6.

After Warren, only two additional DTs were selected on Day One: Joseph at #25 and Anthony Adams at #57. Again, it seems clear that the drop-off in talent after this value group was pretty considerable.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

------------------------------------
What it means for this year’s (2004) draft:

Personally, I think this year’s "value group" at RB includes Jackson, Jones AND Perry. If that’s true, according to the draft philosophy, we should expect BB to wait until two of the three are off the board before he drafts his “franchise RBâ€. I’m not sure whether Greg Jones should be rated in that grouping or not. I’m leaning to “Noâ€, because of his limited history of producing in the passing game.

So, if Jackson goes to Denver at #17 and both Jones and Perry are still on the board at #21, BB may trade back a bit. The hook is that Dallas will probably pick a RB at #22, so if we trade back, it would only be one or two spots back. That may not be worth it.

Alternatively, if Dallas trades into the early teens for Jackson and then Denver takes Dansby, Jones and Perry may both fall, together, all the way to the end of the 1st. Maybe as far as the Eagles at #28. If so, the Pats would grab the other RB at #29 in an easy trade up from #32.

At WR, the elite value grouping is Fitzgerald, Roy Williams and Mike Williams. This group is probably out of range. After that, there is a drop-off from that threesome to the value group with Woods, Clayton, Jenkins, Evans and Reggie Williams. For simplicity, it may be easiest to group all eight of them into one single huge group. Maybe drop Evans out of the group, because he doesn’t have the size we want, and maybe drop Reggie because of the ego. But I like the rest of the group. I think this group will start being drafted in the early 1st, but should still have one of two guys in the 30s.

At DB, Sean Taylor stands on his own. I don’t think you can wrap a value group around him, because he doesn’t have anyone like him in the entire draft class. After him, I think we can group Strait, Gamble, Carroll into a group. Depending on if you like them, the group may also include Shawntae Spencer, Dunta Robinson and Will Poole. Adding Deangelo Hall is pointless, because he will almost certainly be the first off the board. The group could also include S prospects, like Sean Jones, Sanders and Ware, depending on how you want to setup your board. I think this value group will start losing players in the mid-1st, but some of them should last into the early 2nd.
--------------------------------
My Value Groups in the 1st round for this draft are:
Group 1: ( Fitzgerald, S. Taylor, Roy Williams )
Group 2: ( Jackson, K. Jones, Perry )
Group 3: ( Fitzgerald, Williams, Williams, Clayton, Woods, Jenkins )
Group 4: ( Strait, Gamble, Carroll, Sanders, Jones )
Group 5: ( Grove, Snee, Smiley, Carey )

If the Group 1 still has players available into the #10-15 range, I think BB will move up to cash in. This group is top-5 talent and includes players who would be productive for us immediately. That trade would cost us players from two of the remaining value groups, but I think it would be worth it.

Otherwise, I think the Pats have enough draft value to get one from each of the four remaining groups. The only way we could get a player from all five groupings would involve trading Law.

Based on the groupings above, a fair draft prediction would be-

Group 2: RB Perry at #29 (675),
Group 3: WR Jenkins at #37 (540),
Group 4: OG Snee at #45 (460),
Group 5: S Sanders at #50 (410).

Draft value: 2085
By the book, our current picks are worth?
#21 (875) #32 (600) #56 (350) #63 (275)
Draft value: 2100
- so in concept this is not completely unrealistic. It’s really a matter of whether we can find trading partners. Almost certainly, it will cost us later round selections, to attract trading partners.
---------------------------------
This is just a theory based on observation and speculation. It helps explain a number of strange things, like trading up for Warren, and trading down then up for Wilson.

The Klecko pick followed the same pattern. Dan was taken at #117. The implication is that NT Ian Scott (taken #116) and NT Nick Eason (taken #114) triggered the Klecko pick.

Bethel Johnson was picked at #45, in a trade up from #50. Not coincidentally, Taylor Jacobs was selected at #44. Jacobs was a college sprinter and a high character guy. Fits the Pats profile to a T, and sounds very similar in skills to BJ. Of course, the implication is that the Pats wanted one of the two of them, and waited till Jacobs was selected before moving up for Johnson.

Tom Curran’s recent article on how BB stacks his draft board makes little mention of this type of strategy. That discussion focused on vertical (by position) and horizontal (across position) stacking. The closest BB comes to describing this process in the interview is when he says: “Or sometimes you look and say, 'This is the last tackle on the board for a long time. We have linebackers rated higher, but there are more of them.' So you need to take the tackle. That's just draft strategy.â€

Curran's article makes me thing that Pats FO may not think about the draft in the same formal terms that I’m using. But in the end, the value groupings that I’m describing are simply the product of the vertical and horizontal stacking that Belichick described. When you have a bunch of CBs prioritized vertically and they bunch up closely together after you do the horizontal stacking, you come away with what I’m describing as a value group. Even if you don’t use the term, or even think of it in that way. The key, then, is to hit the vertical need at a point where the horizontal value is optimized
Plausible?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Reposted to give some perspective on draft theory.

 

[dryheat44]

Reposted to give some perspective on draft theory.

I've been eagerly awaiting this years' list.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I've been eagerly awaiting this years' list.

Yeh, rook is slacking off again!

 

[nickw308810]

This is pretty interesting stuff and calls for a lot of trading. Our trades generally work out in our favor, so I hope it happens on draft day. Picking up extra picks in either this draft or next and still getting players from our value grouping. Sounds good.

 

[marty]

Great read Box, thanks for reposting that!

 

[rookBoston]

It's funny re-reading that, after all this time.

The thing that sparked that line of thinking was the incredible draft year in 2003, when the Pats moved up and down the board and landed players they liked at value spots. It seemed inexplicable and I was looking for rationale.

What made that possible:
1) plenty of draft picks as trade fodder
2) a moderate-poor draft class, where you need to be selective

---------------

Unfortunately, although the theory seems to hold for 2003, it didn't apply in 2004, where basically the draft "came to us" at every point, and they just selected players they liked.

Vince Wilfork had no business falling to #21, and Ben Watson was a bargain at #32. Marquise Hill was a possible first rounder, and fell all the way to #64.

With great prospects (who fit our scheme and needs) falling like that (1) there is no reason to trade up, because the players you like aren't coming off the board, and (2) there is no reason to trade down, because you are getting great value at every point in the draft, according to your board.

Of course, Value Grouping says, you should trade down and try for even better value. BB chose not to do that. He took the players he liked when the pick came up.


-------------------

The 2005 draft class was a different story. Talent was not so strong or deep. There was barely a consensus first overall player. Alex Smith would have been a top-20 pick if he'd come out this year, and maybe the fourth QB taken.

I suspect that BB might have been interested in some of the top defensive players (Demarcus Ware, David Pollack, Shawne Merriman), but they all went in the teens. There were reports from Baltimore that the Pats tried to move up for Mark Clayton. But when they couldn't get the deal done, they "settled" for Mankins who was immediately slotted into the starting lineup for Andruzzi.

After that, the braintrust did it's best to trade out of the draft. Trade down for Hobbs, passing on players like DE Justin Tuck, LB Kirk Morrison, RB Frank Gore and WR Chris Henry-- any of whom could have contributed. The Nick Kaczur pick was compensatory and untradable.

Lots of trading down and out, into 2006.

-----------------------

I like to think BB spent 2005 stockpiling picks for 2006, to position the team for another draft class like 2003. One thing that makes "Value Grouping" workable is the ability to trade up and down. You have to be well positioned, and have a good inventory of extra draft picks to use as trade bait, to make the deals come through.

What's encouraging is the fact that the Pats have 6 picks in the first four rounds, all very well spaced: mid-1st, mid-2nd, early-3rd, mid 3rd, early 4th, mid 4th. That means they are well positioned to move up or down for value and specific players that they like, with surgical precision. It also helps that the talent this year is clearly stronger and deeper than it was last year.


----------------------

I haven't quite settled on what I think are good value groups this year. I still need to do some homework.

For now, my early first round group for the Pats are

{LB AJ Hawk,
LB Chad Greenway,
RB DeAngelo Williams,
RB Lendale White,
S Mike Huff,
DE Manny Lawson}

I'm trying to decide whether I want Bobby Carpenter in that group or not. the insidious rumors he's "stupid" have started to poison me against him, although he looks great on tape. He's probably the best fit for us at OLB to come along in years. I dont know what to think.

There is a very real chance that none of those players make it to #21, but the last player in that group could last into the late teens... so a trade up is possible for (say) Lawson, White or Huff.

My next value group would be
{LB Thomas Howard,
LB Bobby Carpenter,
CB Richard Marshall,
CB Ashton Youboty,
S Darnell Bing,
OL Eric Winston,
OL Darryn Colledge},

but this group probably runs from the 20s into the late 30s... so it would mean a trade back from #21, or simply reach of a guy like Marshall or Winston.

Interesting note: I cant find any WRs that I really like. Not for the lack of trying. There are some good TE options, but I cant see the value in another 1st round TE with two already on the roster and looking good.

-----------------

The only Pats pick that I've called in my years tracking the Pats and posting on this board was Ben Watson (even though I would have drafted Chris Snee myself). And I would never have guessed they'd draft Mankins over Corey Webster, who I thought was a lock at #32 last year.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Foxboro on draft day...

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

id add simpson and kiwanuka to your second group... i'd love to be a fly on the wall too...

of course, i think the value groupings depend on FA signings before the draft... eg. if we dont sign a WR, then some WR's have to move to groups 1 & 2. As of now, we are short a starting WR and maybe 1 OL... Every other position COULD be filled by backups (assuming hawkins is re-signed as a temp for rodney)

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

It's funny re-reading that, after all this time.

The thing that sparked that line of thinking was the incredible draft year in 2003, when the Pats moved up and down the board and landed players they liked at value spots. It seemed inexplicable and I was looking for rationale.

Considering this again, it would appear your theory is in practice a 'game plan', developed specifically for 'a' draft, then submitted to the Hall of Fame for framing. Understanding the BB game plan doesn't prepare you for the next game, he's changed everything because he is addressing a new problem with new variables. What I find compelling about your thinking is the economic basis for evaluating talent/potential within the Patriots' system. I believe value grouping is a viable 'tactic' for getting one of the players BB wants, but it unfortunately wasn't the strategic overview that gave us the key to BB's thinking.

Working from my standard level of ignorance...if value grouping is a tactic, what other tactics or values might be involved in BB's draft strategy (we know the strategy is to build a team that wins championships)? One of the interesting theories batted around in discussion could be called the Position Value theory where grades are assigned to each position's relative value to the team. College position DT, TE, and LT have all been documented to be first round value for the Patriots' system. This doesn't deny the consideration of special talent, e.g. Jonathan Vilma as documented in Patriot Reign. We can speculate that Vilma would have been a Strong Safety/Coverage Linebacker and Special Teams player in New England, positions of relatively lower value in PV theory but always valuable in the same sense that gold is valuable, you never really lose with a strong Special Teams player, even if you don't get the same return as you do with a penny stock that takes off (Brady, Givens).

If we consider Position Value a viable theory, in practical application how do we rank the positions and what sub-categories should be included in the ranking? An example of sub-category individuals are Jarvis Green and Don Davis.
- Jarvis is primarily used as a Third Down/Pass Rush Specialist on the defensive line; he can play DE and DT neither of which are dependent on 4-3 or 3-4 base sets, he can do all four - DE 4-3 and 3-4, DT 4-3 and NT 3-4. If we wanted a role player from this draft to fill Jarvis' role, we would be looking at DTs like Kevin Williams (LSU) or Manase Hopoi (Washington) who are quick penetrators with good strength at the point of attack.
- Don Davis is a too small MLB for the 3-4 ILB role, but he is a good third down/passing situation coverage LB, he is a serviceable SS, and he is both a good blocker and coverage man on Special Teams. The Pats' scouts are reported to have been talking with Keith Ellison (Oregon State) who could play a similar role.

Position Value gets really interesting because you have to try to analyze it from BB's value grid, position value intersecting with team needs - QB is arguably the number one value position, but is a lower priority team need (for clarification, draft value is based on the players college position and how the player will be used by the Patriots, e.g. a college DE is actually a NEP LB - except that NFL.com lists Seymour as a DE when he's a college DT, so they've polluted the data somewhat ):

- QB is the consensus pick for number one value in general, but on BB's draft value board it is a second day value - Brady 6th round, Davey 4th, Kingsbury 6th, Cassell 7th. This is affected by whomever is currently on the roster, but would also appear to be a reflection on BB's confidence in his staff's ability to develop QBs given suitable raw material. Secondly, is BB drafting a starting QB or back-ups? If you grade Brady as both back-up and starter you get an A+ in both areas. Davey would be a C as a back-up and F at starter. Kingsbury was a back-up F here, but has held on elsewhere so might rate a D in NFL value, but an F as a Pat. Cassell has a tentative grade of B+ as a back-up. BB hasn't been in the position of needing to draft a starter per se, but would seem to be trying for one who will/can eventually start with each draft. If we look at it as a role player, BB is drafting for a 'game manager' who can play QB, like buying a savings bond, unexciting but dependable - he then hopes his staff alchemists can convert the bond into a blue chip stock.

- OT, BB used 20% of his draft picks (two 2nds and two 4ths) to draft 4 OTs in his first two drafts when he was building 'his' team. I know Light was a LT, but were Klemm, Randall, and Jones all LTs in college? I presume they were based on the more recent example of Mankins and Kaczur. Which would make LT the most important in Position Value theory, leaving RT near the bottom. But is LT number one or was that affected by the roster with Bledsoe at QB and whomever was left at T from the Carrol/Grier years?

Domestic duties now take precedence, so I toss this scrap of thought out to the forum's piranas.

 

[shirtsleeve]

id add simpson and kiwanuka to your second group... i'd love to be a fly on the wall too...

of course, i think the value groupings depend on FA signings before the draft... eg. if we dont sign a WR, then some WR's have to move to groups 1 & 2. As of now, we are short a starting WR and maybe 1 OL... Every other position COULD be filled by backups (assuming hawkins is re-signed as a temp for rodney)

One thing keeps striking me, perhaps I fail to grasp something here? The offseason FA/draft are interlinked, no? When it comes to looking to immediately fill a roster spot, Doesn't BB again look to value? To me it seems that BB/SP will evaluate both the WR and OL slots, see what it takes to resign vs what talent is avail at that or better cost vs what they project in the draft. To sign a mid first rounder vs value for who we have vs value in FA tells me they may make efforts to sign both roster spots, secure the offensive roster as is, then draft youth and speed for the future. This is why I feel the draft on day 1 goes to LB, DB, and RB. With possible catches of sliders in those other positions.....again, not my area. Just my guess.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

One thing keeps striking me, perhaps I fail to grasp something here? The offseason FA/draft are interlinked, no? When it comes to looking to immediately fill a roster spot, Doesn't BB again look to value?

BB always looks to value, but if it isn't there for the position he'll settle for best player available and develop a work around.

To me it seems that BB/SP will evaluate both the WR and OL slots, see what it takes to resign vs what talent is avail at that or better cost vs what they project in the draft. To sign a mid first rounder vs value for who we have vs value in FA tells me they may make efforts to sign both roster spots, secure the offensive roster as is, then draft youth and speed for the future.

The draft is the best value, look at Givens, a 7th rounder putting up numbers close to #1 WR level on a distribute the ball team. Seymour has been the best DL in the NFL getting paid chump change for that particular status.

This is why I feel the draft on day 1 goes to LB, DB, and RB. With possible catches of sliders in those other positions.....again, not my area. Just my guess.

LB has been primarily addressed through FA, e.g. Vrabel, Colvin. However, this is supposed to be the year of the linebacker so anything is possible. The question arises, will he draft a DE and convert them, or take someone who has been a LB in college.

I rank CB and S as the 4th and 5th highest draft values based on BB's drafts in New England, it seems reasonable that he will select one or both. However, BB takes his DBs primarily in the 3rd and 4th rounds.

 

[flutie2phelan]

Almost 2 years ago now, Box, shortly after Rook posted his treatise on Value Groupings, i extolled it in this forum ... and cross-referenced it from the general forum ... as a worthy contribution to the (hypothetical) scholarly quarterly of football. A masterpiece.

Then came the draft ... and it was hard to fit the new data points to the theory. To be candid, they didn't fit.

The theory retained its charm. It sounded great. It merely didn't explain the '04 draft.

Considering this again, it would appear your theory is in practice a 'game plan', developed specifically for 'a' draft, then submitted to the Hall of Fame for framing. Understanding the BB game plan doesn't prepare you for the next game, he's changed everything because he is addressing a new problem with new variables. What I find compelling about your thinking is the economic basis for evaluating talent/potential within the Patriots' system. I believe value grouping is a viable 'tactic' for getting one of the players BB wants, but it unfortunately wasn't the strategic overview that gave us the key to BB's thinking.
....

With your comparison to BB's SunTzu strategic approach to football, and all his one-off gameplans ... i think you have explained why Rook's appealing theoretical structure ... didn't blow the hinges off the door next time. A very neat achievement in itself! A modest breakthru in trying to understand all that we see that guy doing.

It doesn't diminish your accomplishment ... to judge that the effort you go on to make about Position Value ... falls short of being compelling. Analogies to financial investment that you make, though, not only are cute ... they do shine light on those points.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Almost 2 years ago now, Box, shortly after Rook posted his treatise on Value Groupings, i extolled it in this forum ... and cross-referenced it from the general forum ... as a worthy contribution to the (hypothetical) scholarly quarterly of football. A masterpiece.

Then came the draft ... and it was hard to fit the new data points to the theory. To be candid, they didn't fit.

The theory retained its charm. It sounded great. It merely didn't explain the '04 draft.



With your comparison to BB's SunTzu strategic approach to football, and all his one-off gameplans ... i think you have explained why Rook's appealing theoretical structure ... didn't blow the hinges off the door next time. A very neat achievement in itself! A modest breakthru in trying to understand all that we see that guy doing.

It doesn't diminish your accomplishment ... to judge that the effort you go on to make about Position Value ... falls short of being compelling. Analogies to financial investment that you make, though, not only are cute ... they do shine light on those points.

What! You mean to say, someone whose plan for windfall profits centers around cleaning out the couch cushions becomes merely cute when applying his financial accumen to draft strategy? Egad sir, you are brutal in your critique!

Of course compelling involves clarity in an analysis that is fully thought out...the tragic story of a ravaged mind. Still, looking at past drafts there is little doubt BB has some form of position value. My attempts to dissect it today came up with this order:
- OT, presumably LT since 4 of 6 Ts drafted were LTs in college. Simply put, this creates the most diversity on the O-line, Klemm played both sides and was a G in Green Bay - even if he was broken a lot. Mankins took LT reps in games when BB wanted to use Ashworth at FB and Kaczur was laid up. Kaczur has played both sides and would be an excellent G. There should be no doubt about Light being able to play elsewhere on the line.
- DT, what is interesting is 6 of the 7 drafted have all been capable of playing DT/DE/NT regardless of 3-4 or 4-3.
- TE, Graham and Watson block, play FB/H-back/STs, and WR when they get a spare moment. The top three slots in the value hierarchy I've worked out are all versatile and on the line - who'd of figured on that?
- CB, BB has been trying to build some youth at CB which may skew the value. Then again, Geno can play two positions when push comes to shove and is on STs; Ellis is a nifty KR and gunner; I haven't noticed Asante on STs, but UDFA Gay is, as is my man Hank and Chad Scott before he went on IR.
- S, no question about this positions STs value.
- WR, I didn't count Bethel in this since it seemed he was drafted primarily as a KR. I don't know if BB would consider that approach to be a good risk again, if he did it would potentially increase the value of folks like Blackmon of BC. If you counted Bethel in at WR, the position would tie with TE in draft value.
- G, C, and MLB all fall here, mostly because BB only drafted 1 of each over the years.
- RB, I included FBs here due to the way BB prefers FB/TB tweeners.
- QB, BB didn't draft Tommy to be a starter, nor Cassell, or Davey,or Kingsbury. If not the 'game manager' hypothesis, then please feel free to join the insanity of BB-analyzing.
- OLB, a reminder, all of the positions are based on the players college position, TBC doesn't count here.
- DE, this is where TBC is scored.
- K, who knew?
- P, LS, PR close things out.

For those wondering how I came up with this preliminary draft position value hierarchy, here goes - and remember, I not only hate statistics, but my instructors greatly lamented my ever being allowed near them.

In an effort to control for round as well as quantity, I added up the number of each round and divided it into the number of players: for the 7 DTs drafted, 1+4+1+4+7+1+2=20, 7/20=0.35, the second highest value. If you dropped Ethan Kelly out and did it again, DT would be the highest numerical value. Those clutching their heads at my abuse of numbers to get this tortured result, I apologize for the pain. That said, it does compare well to the draft history's appearance. The line positions he drafts for are the big three, then the DBs and WRs duke it out in the middle. Everything after that more or less falls into a best player available approach with the exception of QB, BB likes to draft one late on the second day for camp fodder if nothing else.

These initial rankings focus strictly on the draft and don't pretend to be the final answer on BB's thinking.

 

[borisman]

Box O Rocks, you are too much!!

With your formula you should be able to tell us not what players BB will draft but what position and where.

We can take it from there.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Box O Rocks, you are too much!!

With your formula you should be able to tell us not what players BB will draft but what position and where.

We can take it from there.

It's more like baby formula - it winds up in unexpected places!

It's the off-season, I'm having fun and enjoying the Pats, the simple pleasures which make life pleasant! :singing:

 

[rookBoston]

LB Keith Ellison

Box, thanks for dropping Keith's name. I looked him up and I have to agree that he has Patriots written all over him. A guy that accepts coaching and constantly improves like that is Belichick's dream player. That's what's made Brady so good, because he sure wasn't ready when he was drafted.

Here's a nice article on him, which gets right to the heart of what Pats scouts look for in a player.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=32667

I think Ellison would be a great Day Two pick for us, to play ST and play in the dime. And if he continues to improve, he could be our very own Michael Boulware.

 

[flutie2phelan]

.... Still, looking at past drafts there is little doubt BB has some form of position value. My attempts to dissect it today came up with this order:
- OT, presumably LT since 4 of 6 Ts drafted were LTs in college. Simply put, this creates the most diversity on the O-line, Klemm played both sides and was a G in Green Bay - even if he was broken a lot. Mankins took LT reps in games when BB wanted to use Ashworth at FB and Kaczur was laid up. Kaczur has played both sides and would be an excellent G. There should be no doubt about Light being able to play elsewhere on the line.
- DT, what is interesting is 6 of the 7 drafted have all been capable of playing DT/DE/NT regardless of 3-4 or 4-3.
- TE, Graham and Watson block, play FB/H-back/STs, and WR when they get a spare moment. The top three slots in the value hierarchy I've worked out are all versatile and on the line - who'd of figured on that?
- CB, BB has been trying to build some youth at CB which may skew the value. Then again, Geno can play two positions when push comes to shove and is on STs; Ellis is a nifty KR and gunner; I haven't noticed Asante on STs, but UDFA Gay is, as is my man Hank and Chad Scott before he went on IR.
- S, no question about this positions STs value.
- WR, I didn't count Bethel in this since it seemed he was drafted primarily as a KR. I don't know if BB would consider that approach to be a good risk again, if he did it would potentially increase the value of folks like Blackmon of BC. If you counted Bethel in at WR, the position would tie with TE in draft value.
- G, C, and MLB all fall here, mostly because BB only drafted 1 of each over the years.
- RB, I included FBs here due to the way BB prefers FB/TB tweeners.
- QB, BB didn't draft Tommy to be a starter, nor Cassell, or Davey,or Kingsbury. If not the 'game manager' hypothesis, then please feel free to join the insanity of BB-analyzing.
- OLB, a reminder, all of the positions are based on the players college position, TBC doesn't count here.
- DE, this is where TBC is scored.
- K, who knew?
- P, LS, PR close things out.

.... That said, it does compare well to the draft history's appearance. The line positions he drafts for are the big three, then the DBs and WRs duke it out in the middle. ....

Now THIS i find more persuasive. Completely consistent, also, with BB's expressed belief that you should use the first round to get those unique physical specimens (Seymour, Wilfork, Watson, et al).

You are gradually raising my understanding of how our head coach approaches these matters.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Now THIS i find more persuasive. Completely consistent, also, with BB's expressed belief that you should use the first round to get those unique physical specimens (Seymour, Wilfork, Watson, et al).

You are gradually raising my understanding of how our head coach approaches these matters.

It is beginning to look like a two part value structure, one is draft based and the second veteran based.

BB likes veterans for specific positions:
- ILB - He has one draftee, Claridge (who could also turn out to be an OLB), and UDFA Alexander. Otherwise, he brought in Beisel (I count Chad Brown an emergency shift to ILB) and tested Vrabel and Chatham inside. Vrabel demonstrates why a veteran is preferable there even if they played outside. I also have to say that Chad Brown did a better job then he is given credit for - try him and Beisel again with Wilfork at his best (instead of being the door mat he was in the early games) and you get a better result if nowhere near the standard we desire.
- DB - BB wanted Rodney for the leadership he could bring, Poole was brought in, Starks, Chad Scott...BB is looking for veterans to help groom his mid-round youngsters. I'd still like to see Starks and Poole back with renegotiated contracts with several insentive clauses. We all know how Willie Mac's injury streak ended....
- Back-up QB - one of the positions is reserved for a veteran.
- RB - BB took Redmond in the 3rd round off the Grier draft board and Cobbs 4th, the other three were 7th rounders. Smith and Dillon were high mileage, low turnover veterans. A BB RB has to be a blocker and receiver, and someone who makes their yards with minimal assistance.
- STs - BB is always looking for outstanding STs veterans like Izzo, Davis, and Miller. He drafts with STs in mind, but his core group is veteran - Vrabel, Bruschi, Harrison....