A three round draft experiment

[DW Toys]

This was an experiment. I am going to try this methodical and without much of “binkie” add-ons. I will try to use percentages and calculations. They may not be right but they are interesting. I will use CBS NFL Draft Scout for reference. It is based on that players draft prospect rating combined with the Patriots round and selection of only available targeted players surrounding that slot. The named percentages are mine but from input from you all and the media. Of course BB and the Pats F.O. have their own board and thoughts so this is done strictly as a fun calculation. This may not meet to your expectations or your own ideas. It will not include the kicking game.

The Pats have ten picks so it works out. The Pats start at #23 so we will use the calculations by assuming anyone rated above #13 in round one, as in 10 slots below #23, or up to #33 and 10 slots above, are eligible for a Pats choice. Above or below players outside that 20 player block are eliminated from that pick. The 20 slots are chosen because of players falling, rising, or a probability of being picked by another team and will not be available. This 10 on each side low or high is the same for each pick. The selected choice varies with the amount of position players in that 20 slot choice.

This is calculated considering FA signings. This will show the percentage of need rated by percentage on whom the Pats could pick and if they should be available in that that specific round. We will only do the first three rounds with the comp pick #97. The later picks might not be done by need as much as best choice on the board. Let it be said that I do not like some of the picks at all but they are the highest rated pick at those positions at that time.

If the first pick of that position is taken by another team, we go to the next following pick has availability and probability of selection by percentage. If no player falls into that slot, the next grouping position is chosen. The number prior to each name is their rating at position.

NEEDS BY PERCENTAGE FOR THE 2009 DRAFT TO BE TARGETED by NE:

ILB=20%-Starting potential 2009 PICK #23

1Rey Maualuga USC 68% he will be available and chosen @ #23
2James Laurinaitis Ohio State 21% he will be available and chosen @#23
3Clay Matthews USC(ILB choice in this case) 52% he will be available and chose @#23

SS=19%-Starting potential 2009 PICK #34

1Louis Delmas Western Michigan 68% he will be available and chosen @34
3Patrick Chung Oregon 63% he will be available and chosen @#34
4William Moore Missouri 48% he will be available and chose @#34

OLB=15%-Rotation player PICK#47

4Conner Barwin Cinn.78% he will be available and chosen @#47 6Michael Johnson Georgia Tech 40% he will be available and chosen @#47

TE=13%-Staring Potential 2010 PICK#58

4James Casey Rice 40% he will be available and chosen @#58 5Chase Coffman Missouri 15% he will be available and chosen @#58

OT=9%-Back up/developmental PICK #89

9Troy Kropog Tulane 25% he will be available and chosen @#89 10Gerald Cadogan Penn State 12% he will be available and chosen @#89

CB=8%-Back up PICK#97

14Christopher Owens San Jose State 13% he will be available and chosen @#97 15Captain Munnerlyn South Carolina 9% he will be available and chosen @#97

RB=6%-Backup-TBD

WR=5%-Back up/2010 Starter-TBD

OG/C=3%-Back up/developmental-TBD

QB=2%-3rd string competition and Camp QB-TBD

END
DW Toys

 

[billdog3484]

where do you come up with these percentages? how can they possibly be correct?

 

[maverick4]

What if you considered need to be OLB, OT, and OG in that order, instead of what you had? How does that change the projections?

 

[jmt57]

I won't debate percentages of need, but it seems to me that BB is more likely to use the draft to select the best player available - especially after an off-season such as this, when many other holes have been filled - and therefore 'needs by percentage' becomes irrelevant. In my opinion, the draft will just as likely be used for players that will shine three years from now, rather than fill a need this year.

 

[DW Toys]

What if you considered need to be OLB, OT, and OG in that order, instead of what you had? How does that change the projections?

The ILB was a projection of player need. It could be changed. It will also change who is the choice. Remember it is based on the "block" of ten above and below picks to compensate for the "drifting value" of each prospect. Then you have to take into consideration the percentage of chance that the player will not be chosen by another team, or perhaps not taken by the Pats as a variable that they had someone else targeted other than who "We" wanted them to take i.e. English versus Barwin would be in that OLB projection. "We" might feel Barwin is better but the percentages could still dictate English as a valid choice if Barwin is grabbed by another team. Then is goes down to the next player who could be Johnson etc. etc.

As far as OLB goes, only Cushing #14, Matthews#20 and English#33 would be eligible under the #23 pick variable.The numbers would be 56% that Cushing would 1) be available 2) be a desired Patriots choice in combination of their desire to target that specific roster position at NFL first round pick #23. 37% it would be Matthews and .3% it would be English at #23 using 20% as the "need" factor for the position of 20%.

OT at #34 would only include Britten#30 and Beatty#43. Use a 19% variable as need. Britten would be a 35% factor at #34 and Beatty 9% that they would be available, a targeted Pats player and a value in that #34 slot versus another positional player (to help, take into consideration that Britten is a higher value on the CBS Sports Draft Scout "750" board).

OG at #47 and a 15% factor would inlude Eric Cook (C/G) #46 and Duke Robinson #53. Cook would be 50% if the Pats choice was a G at pick #47. Robinson would be 8%.
Thanks,
DW Toys

 

[DNR]

Maualuga, Delmas and Barwin with the first 3 picks?

I'd be more than happy with that

 

[DW Toys]

Maualuga, Delmas and Barwin with the first 3 picks?

I'd be more than happy with that

Not necessarily my choices but that is just an equation that was deduced by variables and percentages.
DW Toys.

 

[patchick]

Not necessarily my choices but that is just an equation that was deduced by variables and percentages.
DW Toys.

I'm all for "deducing by variables and percentages" but I don't know what any of these numbers are. E.g. your percentages all say they're the chance player X "will be available and chosen" at a given spot. But it can't possibly mean that or the percentages for each spot would have to add up to 100, and they add up to much more. So then I thought maybe you just meant "chance he'll be available," but it can't be that either because the % for Maualuga is 3X the % for Laurinatis.

So I'm stumped. What are all those numbers?

 

[maverick4]

As far as OLB goes,

Thanks for doing the work to project if OLB, OT, and OG were the needs.

I'm a bit skeptical of the methodology still, because it appears you are using I assume a public list of ranked players that I think is very different from actual draft boards. Mel Kiper's draft board, or any other, is probably not even close to half right with its picks, even with a +/- range of 10 picks above and below.

 

[DW Toys]

I'm all for "deducing by variables and percentages" but I don't know what any of these numbers are. E.g. your percentages all say they're the chance player X "will be available and chosen" at a given spot. But it can't possibly mean that or the percentages for each spot would have to add up to 100, and they add up to much more. So then I thought maybe you just meant "chance he'll be available," but it can't be that either because the % for Maualuga is 3X the % for Laurinatis.

So I'm stumped. What are all those numbers?

It is based upon the perception of need for each position. I made up what I thought, through this forum and media, what those positions of need would be. It is not a perfect science.

You then choose ten draft slots higher and lower because of the slotting "drift" of a certain player pre-draft. In a block of those twenty slots and at the draft pick number of the Pats, you search for the players to fall into that grouping i.e like ILB. They have ranking number (again I used the CBS Draft Scout 750 list because it has the largest numbers and is updated frequently. They are just a preference and not a rule). You have a one to twenty variable.

If the player sits at say the third best option in that twenty slotting, I used the percentages of the other players in that slotting as far as the reality of if the pick will be available and of course, if he fits a Pats need. So at the #23 pick there were three available ILBs in that block if that is our biggest need. That players rating of third in that slot, is divided by the number in the slotting which is always twenty. The later the player shows up in the slotting block, the less libel he is going to be available to be picked or that he would be wanted at that pick by the Pats. I did not exceed ten picks but that happen too. Maualuga getting a larger percentage than Laurinatis was just based on the fact that in that slotting Rey, is rated higher so the percentage of him being taken by the Pats is a higher value pick according to slotting. That and the later the pick in the slotting, the more chances that said player is grabbed by another team and not by us. Our percentage decreases.
It's just a experiment but it does seem to make sense in some of the picks. Where we pick and their positional value all figure in. If we owned the first pick and we needed a OLB and Curry is the rated number one choice in the draft and on the board, his variable would be 100% that we would draft him at that pick.
DW Toys

 

[patchick]

If the first pick of that position is taken by another team, we go to the next following pick has availability and probability of selection by percentage. If no player falls into that slot, the next grouping position is chosen. The number prior to each name is their rating at position.

OK...if I'm following you right, then your analysis assumes that each pick the Patriots hold is allotted to a particular position based on position need and irrespective of relative player values? IOW since the "need" at SS is greater than at OLB, you can't pick the #1 OLB until the #3 SS is off the board, even though the talent in this draft is greater at OLB and other teams are likely to pick up the top pass rushers first?

I guess I still don't get it.

 

[CoachK]

Maualuga, Delmas and Barwin with the first 3 picks?

I'd be more than happy with that

Be still my hard !!

I would have to change my pants if we came up with those three.

 

[DW Toys]

OK...if I'm following you right, then your analysis assumes that each pick the Patriots hold is allotted to a particular position based on position need and irrespective of relative player values? IOW since the "need" at SS is greater than at OLB, you can't pick the #1 OLB until the #3 SS is off the board, even though the talent in this draft is greater at OLB and other teams are likely to pick up the top pass rushers first?

I guess I still don't get it.

I agree with you. SS is a greater need than OLB. The player value is considered by the CBS Draftscout.com. There are 750 players. Each player is rated within his position. These positions are the variable, along with the selected Patriots draft pick number. Your statement is correct saying that if an SS is available at out pick even though say an ILB is of greater importance, we should go for the SS. What you say is viable.

I am making these pick percentages of probability dependent upon two major considerations 1) The Pats draft pick and its number in that specific round and 2) What ranking within position does that player have (Is Delmas the #1 rated safety, is Moore the #2 rated safety etc.).

Then I use a factor of twenty because of ten up and ten down from that players' current publicized rating. The closer that player is to the top part of that "block", the more value he shows because of the probability we would want to draft him as he is a better value. That also indicates that there is less chance to lose him to other teams rather than later in the block.
I was a little sneaky in round one I went 32 instead of just twenty because the ratings in the first round are closer and set the balance of the draft. Plus is we had the 3rd pick from the Chiefs you can't go down ten. Ranking in round one is different as well as it has less value difference.
Example:Lets say the Pats were looking for a CB. Darius Butler is rated the #3 CB. He is the 25th ranked player in the first round. Our #23 pick should address our biggest need and we are using an example today of a CB. Butler would be a 78% chance that he would be available (from the 23rd pick) and that the Pats would want him. We can take any CB from #13 to #33. So the first round I threw you a curve because you can't go down but the #34 pick would be the 20 pick block.
DW Toys