Clayton praises GMing

[n1997y]

Why? What good is it that a player you wasted a pick on is playing somewhere else?

Depends on how they left the team. If they got cut it's a very slight good thing that your team drafted a player good enough to play in the NFL although not on your team. Circumstances, competition, injury meant they did not stick, but at least your talent evaluation was not totally mistaken. If they played out their rookie contract and left in free agency you may have gotten a comp pick, so have something tangible to show in addition to their low price high value rookie contract years.

 

[Fencer]

Not sure I'd put Neal less than McCourty, position for position. For what he did I would say he was equally above average as D Mac.

But when we're talking about excess value over cap hit and stuff like that, positions aren't equivalent.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Causation vs. correlation. Good teams aren't good because they sign their draft picks to second contracts, but good teams often:

1. Draft players worth keeping, and
2. Manage their resources to keep those players.

Lots of teams draft good players, but many struggle to keep them due to the cap. Good teams have to manage all of their resources.

If it was as easy as just signing guys to a second contract, we'd have re-signed Chad Jackson and Brandon Tate. If the Raiders re-signed JaMarcus Russell, it wouldn't make them a better team. So this is all about correlation.

As for the success rate of draft picks, I always go by old friend Herm Edwards. You play to win the game.

HELLO???

YOU PLAY. TO WIN. THE GAME.

Maximizing draft pick potential is not the point of the game. Draft picks are valuable resources, but they are just one form of resource. If we wanted to get the most out of our 2nd round pick last year, we would start Jimmy G. But if we are playing to win, we start Brady.

James White plays when he's the best option to play, not because we spent a draft pick on him. Aaron Dobson gets no advantage by being a 2nd-rounder, nor should he. The guys who can help us win today are the guys that play, draft position or potential be damned.

There is also the matter of what you are aiming for. I think BB realizes there's not a huge gap between the 4th and 7th rounds in terms of talent, but you often see him take some moon shots in the day 2 range. I think he's looking for 1st rounders who dropped for whatever reason instead of safer guys. In other words, I think he's going for a homerun instead of a single. And why not? If he thinks he can coach up some of the day 3 guys to a safe 2nd round level, why not aim big? People point out the misses, but the hits tend to be huge homerun like Gronk, who would be a top-5 pick in a re-draft.

The Dolphins and Bills and Jets usually get more out of their rookies, partly because they draft higher, partly because they get to play for the future, partly because hey are desperate and lack depth at a lot of spots. Kyle Wilson sucked, but got to play lots because they had no other options. E.J. Manuel and Geno Smith have way more starts than Jimmy G, but not because they are better players.

So draft picks are a valuable asset, but let's not overlook the true point. You play to win the game. And we've done that better than anyone else since BB started.

 

[RayClay]

If they got cut it's a very slight good thing that your team drafted a player good enough to play in the NFL although not on your team.

No, it isn't. What good does it do wasting your pick and time with players who fit other teams, not yours?

It really isn't hard to identify talented players, most teams use scouting services. Curiously, the best teams often don't. I wonder why?

 

[RayClay]

You get no points, IMO, when you draft a great deep threat when you've got a quarterback who can't throw deep or a line that can't block. Sorry, no brownie points for identifying somebody else's starter.

 

[n1997y]

But when we're talking about excess value over cap hit and stuff like that, positions aren't equivalent.

They are if you express it properly. Percentage or ratio instead of absolute value raw numbers.

If a guy is twice the value of the average at his position he's that much better value regardless of whether he plays a so-called skill position or is thought to be just a piece of beef.

 

[n1997y]

No, it isn't. What good does it do wasting your pick and time with players who fit other teams, not yours?

It really isn't hard to identify talented players, most teams use scouting services. Curiously, the best teams often don't. I wonder why?

Maybe because scouting services define the average?

 

[1960Pats]

They gamble a lot because of low picks and all that matters is stocking your own team. What in the world good does it do Miami to draft players for other teams? Think about it.

What isn't in those numbers is what the teams got (if anything) for players that they drafted that went to other teams.

 

[Fencer]

They are if you express it properly. Percentage or ratio instead of absolute value raw numbers.

If a guy is twice the value of the average at his position he's that much better value regardless of whether he plays a so-called skill position or is thought to be just a piece of beef.

"Properly" is a term that assumes your conclusion.

Cap dollars aren't the only scarce resource to be optimized against. There also are roster slots and draft picks.

What I mean by the latter is that, oversimplifying, you only get 1 chance per year to get excess value from your 1st-round pick, 1 chance per year to get excess value from your 2nd-round pick, and so on.