The myth of "consensus rankings"

[patchick]

This morning I wanted to get a feeling for the draft position of a dozen players I was curious about. I found 5 recent 7-round mocks/big boards from well-known sites and marked down their projection for each player. The result was that I'm ready to retire the term "consensus ranking."

Chad Reuter of NFL.com projects the Patriots to select Samson Ebukam in the 4th; Drafttek expects him to go undrafted. Meanwhile Walter Football has the Pats spending that same pick on Howard Wilson, while Reuter expects him to go undrafted. Julie'n Davenport is a 2nd-round pick, or a 4th, or a 5th, or a UDFA. Take a look:



The upshot is that past the first 50 or so picks, evaluations are all over the place. The Patriots, of course, don't hold any picks in the top 50. That means that for every single player they select, you should be able to find a source that calls him a reach, and another that calls him a steal.

Any grousing that a guy "would have been available X picks later" is a pure flight of fancy. Nobody has a clue. All that matters is whether he's a good prospect who could add value to the team, and whether another player might have added even more.

 

[manxman2601]

This morning I wanted to get a feeling for the draft position of a dozen players I was curious about. I found 5 recent 7-round mocks/big boards from well-known sites and marked down their projection for each player. The result was that I'm ready to retire the term "consensus ranking."

Chad Reuter of NFL.com projects the Patriots to select Samson Ebukam in the 4th; Drafttek expects him to go undrafted. Meanwhile Walter Football has the Pats spending that same pick on Howard Wilson, while Reuter expects him to go undrafted. Julie'n Davenport is a 2nd-round pick, or a 4th, or a 5th, or a UDFA. Take a look:



The upshot is that past the first 50 or so picks, evaluations are all over the place. The Patriots, of course, don't hold any picks in the top 50. That means that for every single player they select, you should be able to find a source that calls him a reach, and another that calls him a steal.

Any grousing that a guy "would have been available X picks later" is a pure flight of fancy. Nobody has a clue. All that matters is whether he's a good prospect who could add value to the team, and whether another player might have added even more.

While this is fairly true in normal years, I'd suggest in terms of the depth of talent in this draft makes this year a bit of a special case. I agree with your overall theory, it's just that I'm not convinced this is the best year to prove that theory.

 

[patchick]

While this is fairly true in normal years, I'd suggest in terms of the depth of talent in this draft makes this year a bit of a special case. I agree with your overall theory, it's just that I'm not convinced this is the best year to prove that theory.

That's certainly possible, this is a tricky valuation year. But in general, I think the focus on rounds tends to lead draftniks astray.

The Jimmy Johnson chart has an exponential curve. If a player is projected to #19 overall and is taken at #16, that's considered on par for "value." Whereas a player who is projected as a 6th-rounder but is drafted at the end of round 3 is considered a massive reach -- even though you'd have to trade more to move up from #19 to #16. Distances between day-3 picks are smaller than they appear.

 

[manxman2601]

That's certainly possible, this is a tricky valuation year. But in general, I think the focus on rounds tends to lead draftniks astray.

The Jimmy Johnson chart has an exponential curve. If a player is projected to #19 overall and is taken at #16, that's considered on par for "value." Whereas a player who is projected as a 6th-rounder but is drafted at the end of round 3 is considered a massive reach -- even though you'd have to trade more to move up from #19 to #16. Distances between day-3 picks are smaller than they appear.

well Lombardi certainly agrees about the focus on rounds, and I suspect a lot of teams feel the same way. Our problem as draftniks is that we're trying to predict something teams already know which is why we have to rely on where prospects are expected to go. Where I do agree is that judging a pick because they've been "a reach" purely based upon how they're graded by the media is nonsensical. Where the media grades someone is irrelevant. All that matters is how a team grades them.

 

[patchick]

Our problem as draftniks is that we're trying to predict something teams already know which is why we have to rely on where prospects are expected to go.

I always think about Quentin Groves, too. He was a prospect who looked really promising from a fan perspective, but multiple media analysts predicted (correctly) that he would be a bust -- all of them hinting that they knew something damning about him that they couldn't say. There is so much we can't see.

But I love the draft anyway.

 

[manxman2601]

I always think about Quentin Groves, too. He was a prospect who looked really promising from a fan perspective, but multiple media analysts predicted (correctly) that he would be a bust -- all of them hinting that they knew something damning about him that they couldn't say. There is so much we can't see.

But I love the draft anyway.

Predicting the draft, particularly a Patriots draft is the ultimate exercise in futility and humility. It should keep us humble.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

Very nice work, and I love the players you profiled, too. I'd take them as our draft + UDFA haul in a heartbeat!