A Guy from Taunton Named DeCosta with the Winning Approach to the Draft

[State]

 

[DarrylS]

That makes sense... consider how many later draft picks are impact players.
The more players you pick the greater the chance of finding the right guys.
Of course the last couple of years were an anomaly for the New England Patriots..

 

[KCSVEN]

The Ravens from 2016-2024 had 17 picks in the first 2 rounds, the average team had 18. The 2 most important rounds they did not get more picks at all.
The Ravens in rounds 4-7 hit at 4% success rate vs the average of 8.4%
They have had a ridiculous 24 4th round picks and only had long term success with 1 of those picks. The next highest team had 15 picks!

His strategy has not worked for them.

He also makes no sense with the 1st pick is no more guaranteed to be a hit vs the 25th pick?
The percentage of future pro bowlers in the top 10 is way more than the bottom 10. Who's looking for guarantees when you are playing percentages.

It's this type of prevalent thinking that allow teams like the Eagles that don't take that approach continually to draft well in the first 2 rounds.

He does make some good points about how everybody is picking the same guys. The scouts and online rankings are pretty good. Which is why you draft guys that have fallen from consensus and avoid guys that are above consensus on draft day,

Overall, his approach is the same as BB, would rather get more picks and trade down than get the higher rated talent. That can work at some spots in the draft but overall, your odds of getting a better player are by drafting higher up.

 

[BobDigital]

This kind of advice works well when it comes to talent tiers... within the same tier of talent you shouldn't really look to trade up. The guy near the top of that tier vs the guy near the bottom of that tier probably are closer than their 'draft value' would suggest. The issue is everyone else knows this.

There is a reason no one wanted to trade up to #4. Cause there was a consensus drop in tier value at that spot. Now no one knows for sure if those guys in the tier above will work out, but no one in their right mind is going to typically trade down from a higher tier to get more picks at lower tiers unless they truly don't value anyone there (IE we don't need that QB).

 

[Ring 6]

The Ravens from 2016-2024 had 17 picks in the first 2 rounds, the average team had 18. The 2 most important rounds they did not get more picks at all.
The Ravens in rounds 4-7 hit at 4% success rate vs the average of 8.4%
They have had a ridiculous 24 4th round picks and only had long term success with 1 of those picks. The next highest team had 15 picks!

His strategy has not worked for them.

He also makes no sense with the 1st pick is no more guaranteed to be a hit vs the 25th pick?
The percentage of future pro bowlers in the top 10 is way more than the bottom 10. Who's looking for guarantees when you are playing percentages.

It's this type of prevalent thinking that allow teams like the Eagles that don't take that approach continually to draft well in the first 2 rounds.

He does make some good points about how everybody is picking the same guys. The scouts and online rankings are pretty good. Which is why you draft guys that have fallen from consensus and avoid guys that are above consensus on draft day,

Overall, his approach is the same as BB, would rather get more picks and trade down than get the higher rated talent. That can work at some spots in the draft but overall, your odds of getting a better player are by drafting higher up.

I think that he stated it as if it was in the extreme, like you say no reason 1 is better than 25, but he meant it on a less extreme basis. Trading from 52 to 58 and picking up 145 will always make sense.

 

[KCSVEN]

I think that he stated it as if it was in the extreme, like you say no reason 1 is better than 25, but he meant it on a less extreme basis. Trading from 52 to 58 and picking up 145 will always make sense.

• Chargers: WR Ladd McConkey (34th) and CB Tarheeb Still (137th)
• Patriots: WR Ja'Lynn Polk (37th) and WR Javon Baker (110th)

Ladd was so much higher rated on most consensus boards than Polk. Trading down at all and picking another wr did not makes sense.
It's not ALWAYS going to make sense to trade down in your scenario but I would agree past the first 2 rounds it makes more sense as the odds of hitting are so low the more shots might be slightly better over the long run (though 1 for 24 Ravens in 4th round, maybe not?) unless someone is there that was rated by the consensus as higher.

 

[Triumph]

Sometimes there are players who are better and worth going after.

 

[Triumph]

It also depends on the quality of the draft.

The Wilfork draft was a great one and VW fell to NE.

No, the Patriots did not move up in the draft to select Vince Wilfork. They drafted him with the 21st overall pick in the 2004 NFL Draft. This was a surprise to even Bill Belichick, who believed Wilfork wouldn't be available at that point

 

[WinstonSmith]

Nick Baumgardner from the Athletic has Baltimore ranked 3rd (behind Detroit and KC) in his recent analysis of the best drafting teams over the last 5 years.

NFL Draft power rankings: Which teams made best picks over past 5 years?

The Lions, Chiefs and Ravens have had the most drafting success since 2020, but not every team has fared so well.

www.nytimes.com

Below is a look at how each NFL team has performed over the past five drafts. I’ve charted the number of top 50 picks each team has had in that stretch, along with the number of Pro Bowl selections and starting seasons those picks have produced. Additionally, I’ve used the Approximate Value metric (created by Pro Football Reference’s Doug Drinen) as a basic guide to rank teams based on which ones have gotten the most out of their recent picks. The number next to each team is that franchise’s average Approximate Value per selection from 2020-24.


3. Baltimore Ravens (8.95)
Top 50 picks: 8
Pro Bowls: 11
Starting seasons: 37
Best pick: S Kyle Hamilton (No. 14, 2022); Worst pick: edge David Ojabo (No. 45, 2022); Best value: DT Nnamdi Madubuike (No. 71, 2020)
Getting Hamilton and Tyler Linderbaum in 2022 made for one of the best Day 1 hauls a team could want. Some front-office executives are still afraid of taking safeties early, but Baltimore held strong on Hamilton. The Ravens always take the best player on their board and have had almost zero premium whiffs in this stretch.

Edited to add: Patriots were ranked 30th.

 

[Ring 6]

• Chargers: WR Ladd McConkey (34th) and CB Tarheeb Still (137th)
• Patriots: WR Ja'Lynn Polk (37th) and WR Javon Baker (110th)

Ladd was so much higher rated on most consensus boards than Polk. Trading down at all and picking another wr did not makes sense.
It's not ALWAYS going to make sense to trade down in your scenario but I would agree past the first 2 rounds it makes more sense as the odds of hitting are so low the more shots might be slightly better over the long run (though 1 for 24 Ravens in 4th round, maybe not?) unless someone is there that was rated by the consensus as higher.

You can’t taint the value of trade down by basing it on the quality of the pick. The Patriots by all accounts had Polk rated higher.
Also this was a trade down and trade up, there was no additional puck acquired which was decostas argument, more at bats = more success.

 

[KCSVEN]

You can’t taint the value of trade down by basing it on the quality of the pick. The Patriots by all accounts had Polk rated higher.
Also this was a trade down and trade up, there was no additional puck acquired which was decostas argument, more at bats = more success.

One of my main drafts do's and don't is to not draft ahead of consensus big board.

Polk was 57, Ladd was 37. You don't trade down to take a prospect rated 20 picks worse
.
I don't care what your board is, history has shown you are more likely to be wrong than right. Decosta pointed out correctly teams are all ranking most of these people the same, don't draft an outlier to the consensus.

Absolutely don't do that in round 1 and 2.
Cole Strange at 29, was 79th ranked.
Tyquan Thornton at was 118th at 50.

Yes, there is a small correlation related to total picks and starters from draft.
However, Vikings had more picks than anyone since 2016, and rank 30th in that stat.

It's really nuanced; my main point is having that as a regular strategy is not smart. You need to analyze each draft and each trade on its own basis.
Personally, in the first 2 rounds I'd rather trade up unless I can get a future 1 or 2 by trading down. After that it is case by case.

 

[State]

Quantity is its own quality. And half of first-rounders don’t pan out.

 

[Ring 6]

One of my main drafts do's and don't is to not draft ahead of consensus big board.

Polk was 57, Ladd was 37. You don't trade down to take a prospect rated 20 picks worse
.
I don't care what your board is, history has shown you are more likely to be wrong than right. Decosta pointed out correctly teams are all ranking most of these people the same, don't draft an outlier to the consensus.

Absolutely don't do that in round 1 and 2.
Cole Strange at 29, was 79th ranked.
Tyquan Thornton at was 118th at 50.

Yes, there is a small correlation related to total picks and starters from draft.
However, Vikings had more picks than anyone since 2016, and rank 30th in that stat.

It's really nuanced; my main point is having that as a regular strategy is not smart. You need to analyze each draft and each trade on its own basis.
Personally, in the first 2 rounds I'd rather trade up unless I can get a future 1 or 2 by trading down. After that it is case by case.

It’s unrealistic to think that a team that has a scouting staff, has evaluated all players, have professional cus he’s and personnel executives and have access to move info than you, I or the consensus of draft hobbyists would ignore their own board because those hobbyists disagree.

You are putting way too much faith in consensus. The patriots didn’t trade down to take a guy rated 20 spots lower, they traded down and got the guy THEY had rates higher.
There is no evidence the consensus is a better gauge than a teams board and no executive is going to say, let’s draft this guy because Mel kiler and his buddies like him better then we do.


The consensus is also more likely to be wrong than right. It’s a security blanket and has not proven at all to be better.
He did not say they are all ranking them the same he said they are all looking for he same type of player. Thats different.

 

[silentone]

KCSVEN – I know you are a highly viewed contributor and I’m not trying to be a jerk, but I disagree with so much you write here as well as other posts on the draft.

“The Ravens from 2016-2024 had 17 picks in the first 2 rounds, the average team had 18. The 2 most important rounds they did not get more picks at all.”

DeCosta makes no mention of which rounds to get the extra picks.
DeCosta doesn’t say the first two rounds are the most important.


“The Ravens in rounds 4-7 hit at 4% success rate vs the average of 8.4%
They have had a ridiculous 24 4th round picks and only had long term success with 1 of those picks. The next highest team had 15 picks!”

What are you basing hit rate or success on. The Ravens had 6 4th rounders picks in just 2022 draft.

Faalele: Starting guard in 2024, played over 1,200 snaps
Armour-Davis: played over 229 snaps at various positions in 2024
Kolar: Played over 600 snaps in 2024
Stout: Starting punter 2022, 2023, 2024
Likely: Played 521 snaps in 2024
Damarion Williams: cut, (playing in NFL on different roster)

It looks to me like they are contributing to the success of the Ravens. Roster construction doesn’t just consist of first and second round picks or draft picks that become all pros.


“His strategy has not worked for them.”

Ravens have a top five winning percentage for the past 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, & 25 years. (DeCosta has been with the team for over 30 years). What he and Ozzie Newsom did is amazing. How you write that his strategy has not worked for them is surprising. Is it possible your beliefs about drafting and roster construction are flawed.

Also see WinstonSmith’s earlier post.

"Overall, his approach is the same as BB, would rather get more picks and trade down than get the higher rated talent. That can work at some spots in the draft but overall, your odds of getting a better player are by drafting higher up."

BB & DeCosta/Newsome have incredible long-term records and you comment “that can work in some spots but overall, your odds of getting a better player are by drafting higher up”???

I believe part of BB’s & DeCosta’s success is because of trading down, not up. You comment about getting the better player, but you never discuss that the higher draft picks cost more money which is also important.

 

[silentone]

It’s unrealistic to think that a team that has a scouting staff, has evaluated all players, have professional cus he’s and personnel executives and have access to move info than you, I or the consensus of draft hobbyists would ignore their own board because those hobbyists disagree.

You are putting way too much faith in consensus. The patriots didn’t trade down to take a guy rated 20 spots lower, they traded down and got the guy THEY had rates higher.
There is no evidence the consensus is a better gauge than a teams board and no executive is going to say, let’s draft this guy because Mel kiler and his buddies like him better then we do.


The consensus is also more likely to be wrong than right. It’s a security blanket and has not proven at all to be better.
He did not say they are all ranking them the same he said they are all looking for he same type of player. Thats different.

I'm not aware of any research looking at NFL consensus draft boards, but there is a decent amount of research suggesting combining forcasts from mulitple sources typically improves predictive accuracy in politics as well as other fields.

"How Accurate Are the Polls" - Panagopoulos
"The Predictive Power of Election Polls" - Snowberg, Wolfers, Zitzewitz
"Combining Forecasts" - Armstrong
"FiveThirtyEight and the Science of Aggregation" - Nate Silver

I agree with you that NFL teams have better intel and would think that matters but I also think you may be undervaluing the predicitve value of the consensus. It would make and interesting study.

 

[XLIX]

I don't buy it. Some teams draft far better than others. There is also the inherent advantage to being higher in the draft in any given year.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not aware of any research looking at NFL consensus draft boards, but there is a decent amount of research suggesting combining forcasts from mulitple sources typically improves predictive accuracy in politics as well as other fields.

"How Accurate Are the Polls" - Panagopoulos
"The Predictive Power of Election Polls" - Snowberg, Wolfers, Zitzewitz
"Combining Forecasts" - Armstrong
"FiveThirtyEight and the Science of Aggregation" - Nate Silver

I agree with you that NFL teams have better intel and would think that matters but I also think you may be undervaluing the predicitve value of the consensus. It would make and interesting study.

Election polls and football player evaluation are not anywhere near the same thing

If you are trying to guess where a player will be picked a consensus would be most accurate. Because it averages many samples. But if you are grind to determine who the best player will be skill in evaluating is more important then going with the crowd, who as we agreed, don’t have all the data.

 

[PP2]

I'm not aware of any research looking at NFL consensus draft boards, but there is a decent amount of research suggesting combining forcasts from mulitple sources typically improves predictive accuracy in politics as well as other fields.

"How Accurate Are the Polls" - Panagopoulos
"The Predictive Power of Election Polls" - Snowberg, Wolfers, Zitzewitz
"Combining Forecasts" - Armstrong
"FiveThirtyEight and the Science of Aggregation" - Nate Silver

I agree with you that NFL teams have better intel and would think that matters but I also think you may be undervaluing the predicitve value of the consensus. It would make and interesting study.

You really are the silent one. 50 posts in 20 years.

 

[Triumph]

One of my main drafts do's and don't is to not draft ahead of consensus big board.

Polk was 57, Ladd was 37. You don't trade down to take a prospect rated 20 picks worse

It seemed like Wolf thought that he could outsmart the NFL and get 2 good WRs in Polk and Baker instead of McConkey.

That one blew up on the launch pad, but there is still a chance that at least one 2024 WR might stick.

.
I don't care what your board is, history has shown you are more likely to be wrong than right. Decosta pointed out correctly teams are all ranking most of these people the same, don't draft an outlier to the consensus.

Absolutely don't do that in round 1 and 2.
Cole Strange at 29, was 79th ranked.
Tyquan Thornton at was 118th at 50.

Yes, there is a small correlation related to total picks and starters from draft.
However, Vikings had more picks than anyone since 2016, and rank 30th in that stat.

It's really nuanced; my main point is having that as a regular strategy is not smart. You need to analyze each draft and each trade on its own basis.
Personally, in the first 2 rounds I'd rather trade up unless I can get a future 1 or 2 by trading down. After that it is case by case.

The absolute failure to draft NE WRs has been discussed ad nauseum on this board.

IIRC, in hindsight more quality WRs were taken in round # 1. I always use Pittsburgh as the gold standard drafting WRs. AB was a 5th round pick. We understand why today.

 

[KCSVEN]

What are you basing hit rate or success on. The Ravens had 6 4th rounders picks in just 2022 draft.


It looks to me like they are contributing to the success of the Ravens. Roster construction doesn’t just consist of first and second round picks or draft picks that become all pros.

It's based on starting players on the depth chart, removing special teams as you can get them UDFA. I also add the nickel back and the next highest contributor to the "starters".

In other words, the guys that make the real difference in wins and losses.

Yeah, most draft picks after the 2nd round that make it are contributors to the team but they could easily be replaced by veteran free agents. Of course, the picks come with a lower cost so you are better off hitting on a pick or 2 but teams that fail completely at that like the Commanders and Vikings have proven you can just replace those guys with free agency.

I find those guys pretty over-rated in terms of team success but, yeah, they have some value.

Again, I only analyzed first round trades and agree later int he draft would have more value, but the value is so minimal I don't see why anyone would make that a core principle.

I'm not arguing to always trade up, though historically in round 1, outside of getting a future 1 or 2, that is percentage wise the better play. Which also means it sometimes doesn't work.

Some teams can trade down, get more picks, and be successful, other teams can do the opposite and be equally successful.