Some thoughts on the need/value issue

[ctpatsfan77]

I just wanted to put this out there before the draft starts:

Belichick has actually been quite consistent about his goal in the draft: "Improve the team."

His statement about "I don't get drafting for need" is simply that you shouldn't over-draft a player to fill a need. There's nothing wrong with drafting a player you rate highly that also fills a need.

That said, Belichick the economist also understands the fact that roster spots are a finite commodity. That means every player drafted has three "fates" as a rookie:

• He fails to make the team . . . meaning he contributes nothing.
• He's on a reserve list . . . meaning he contributes nothing this year.
• He makes the team . . . meaning that another player already on the 53 doesn't.

In other words, it's never merely a question of what does a player add to the team, but what that player's net contribution is.

Finally, the reason why we rarely see trades up from Belichick in the first round is a simple fact: trading up increases the cost of a player. It doesn't make the player any more valuable, though. So, for example, if the Pats used 73 to trade up from 32 to 21 to trade with Seattle, they might be able to get a player who wouldn't be available at 32. But it would also mean giving up the chance to take a player at 73, or make some other move (e.g., trading 73 for a second-rounder in 2020). So if the Patriots make a move like that, it suggests they truly value that player.

So, looking at this year's draft at 32:

• QB: Backup QB is critical, but I'm not sure they'll see anyone where value fits.
• WR: It could happen, except that BB doesn't seem to put a high value on them in the draft.
• TE: I could see trading up for Hockenson if he's available, but that's it. I can't see a trade-up for a "big WR"-type TE. Depending on the value, a TE could go at 32, but I'm not sure. [BB tends to trade for blocking TEs, and to trade away "big WR" TEs.]
• OL: I can't see the value in adding an interior player in the first round who has little chance of playing this year, and may or may not start next year. I can see the value in taking a swing tackle this year who starts at LT or RT next year: after all, that's what the Pats did with Nate Solder.
• DL: If I had to bet, this is where I would expect Belichick to go; it's his favorite position to draft. If a "planetary" player ["There aren't many guys on the planet who do X"] like Dexter Lawrence starts dropping, I could even see a trade up. [The big wild card is what happens if Montez Sweat and/or Jeffery Simmons start falling.]
• LB: Possible, especially if a great player falls: Elandon Roberts is scheduled to earn $2M this year, and Van Noy is also a FA after the season.
• DB: I just have a hard time seeing it, because who are you going to take off the field to get the rookie on? So the net value of a DB isn't as high as, say, a DL.
• ST: No.

In other words, in decreasing order of probability, I would guess: (1) DL, (2) OL, (3) TE/WR, (4) LB, (5) DB, (6) QB.

 

[oldrover]

There are two Rutgers safeties in the draft.

https://imgflip.com/gif-maker

 

[RobertWeathers]

I just wanted to put this out there before the draft starts:

Belichick has actually been quite consistent about his goal in the draft: "Improve the team."

His statement about "I don't get drafting for need" is simply that you shouldn't over-draft a player to fill a need. There's nothing wrong with drafting a player you rate highly that also fills a need.

That said, Belichick the economist also understands the fact that roster spots are a finite commodity. That means every player drafted has three "fates" as a rookie:

• He fails to make the team . . . meaning he contributes nothing.
• He's on a reserve list . . . meaning he contributes nothing this year.
• He makes the team . . . meaning that another player already on the 53 doesn't.

In other words, it's never merely a question of what does a player add to the team, but what that player's net contribution is.

Finally, the reason why we rarely see trades up from Belichick in the first round is a simple fact: trading up increases the cost of a player. It doesn't make the player any more valuable, though. So, for example, if the Pats used 73 to trade up from 32 to 21 to trade with Seattle, they might be able to get a player who wouldn't be available at 32. But it would also mean giving up the chance to take a player at 73, or make some other move (e.g., trading 73 for a second-rounder in 2020). So if the Patriots make a move like that, it suggests they truly value that player.

So, looking at this year's draft at 32:

• QB: Backup QB is critical, but I'm not sure they'll see anyone where value fits.
• WR: It could happen, except that BB doesn't seem to put a high value on them in the draft.
• TE: I could see trading up for Hockenson if he's available, but that's it. I can't see a trade-up for a "big WR"-type TE. Depending on the value, a TE could go at 32, but I'm not sure. [BB tends to trade for blocking TEs, and to trade away "big WR" TEs.]
• OL: I can't see the value in adding an interior player in the first round who has little chance of playing this year, and may or may not start next year. I can see the value in taking a swing tackle this year who starts at LT or RT next year: after all, that's what the Pats did with Nate Solder.
• DL: If I had to bet, this is where I would expect Belichick to go; it's his favorite position to draft. If a "planetary" player ["There aren't many guys on the planet who do X"] like Dexter Lawrence starts dropping, I could even see a trade up. [The big wild card is what happens if Montez Sweat and/or Jeffery Simmons start falling.]
• LB: Possible, especially if a great player falls: Elandon Roberts is scheduled to earn $2M this year, and Van Noy is also a FA after the season.
• DB: I just have a hard time seeing it, because who are you going to take off the field to get the rookie on? So the net value of a DB isn't as high as, say, a DL.
• ST: No.

In other words, in decreasing order of probability, I would guess: (1) DL, (2) OL, (3) TE/WR, (4) LB, (5) DB, (6) QB.

Good post.

I think OT is a higher need than DL but you can argue easily its the same or slightly less.

They need a respectable pass rush and strong run D on the edge.

The also need a OT as Cannon is getting up there, Wynn is TBD.

 

[Kontradiction]

The thing is, Belichick has openly said before that need factors in to a draft selection.

 

[SBLIII]

for us considering current roster and positional value?
1) DL
2) WR
3) OT
4) DB
5) TE

 

[maust]

There are two Rutgers safeties in the draft.

 

[maust]

The thing is, Belichick has openly said before that need factors in to a draft selection.

Of course need matters but not to the point of making it the overriding consideration. I'd say the OP addressed that thought quite well:

His statement about "I don't get drafting for need" is simply that you shouldn't over-draft a player to fill a need. There's nothing wrong with drafting a player you rate highly that also fills a need.

 

[Kontradiction]

Of course need matters but not to the point of making it the overriding consideration. I'd say the OP addressed that thought quite well:

I'm not sure how you would explain Tavon Wilson, then.

 

[IllegalContact]

spend the entire draft on OL and DL, and they will make the other players look better

 

[maust]

I'm not sure how you would explain Tavon Wilson, then.

Obviously the Pats evaluation of him was a bit off the mark
Insofar as this draft goes I think value and need will come together at the TE position but my 2¢ is probably not even worth that

 

[Deus Irae]

The thing is, Belichick has openly said before that need factors in to a draft selection.

Yes

"It starts with value," Belichick said. "You value the players, however you put a grade on them. You value them, and then within that, there’s a draft strategy, maybe where you think that player is going to go in the draft, what the league thinks of him relative to what your individual team thinks of him, and need can sometimes factor into that, too, or maybe the compilation of your roster. I shouldn’t necessarily say need — a player that you see having a bigger impact on your team because of whatever the circumstances are on your team versus another one that may — for the same value for lack of a better word — duplicate something that you already have and maybe make it less valuable for your particular team at that particular point in time.

Bill Belichick Compares Value to Positional Need Heading Into Draft


Need obviously plays an important role in BB's drafting. The team's first round drafting makes that clear.

 

[Triumph]

Move up and grab a stud WR that can play on the cheap for the next few years.

I just can't see how you do not draft for need with the WR corp in the shape it's in.

 

[Triumph]

BB drafter NT twice because of need. Wilfork and then Malc Brown.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

Maybe this is why Arians hasn't kept a long term job.

Bruce Arians: If you draft for need, you get fired

 

[BlueThunder]

Agree about TE ...if top 3 TE are off the board BB probabl;y looks for DL.....if no value there, does he look at WR (Brown) or trade down ?? Just a best guess at BB's mindset....but we all know there's always that WTF pick in every draft.

 

[maust]

Maybe this is why Arians hasn't kept a long term job.

Bruce Arians: If you draft for need, you get fired

Why does it come as no surprise that Bruce 'How Many Players Can I Get Under One Bus' Arians can't recognize there's a balance between valuation and need?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Move up and grab a stud WR that can play on the cheap for the next few years.

I just can't see how you do not draft for need with the WR corp in the shape it's in.

The way many people look at need is effectively the "beer goggles" approach: they take a 4 and see a 7.

The way BB looks at need:

Net improvement = [What you get from the rookie] – [What you get from the player he replaced].

"Need" means that the second number is relatively small. It doesn't change the first number. So to use a 1 to 10 talent scale, you could have a scenario where you could have a 6 WR replace a 2 WR or a 9 DL replace a 4 DL. The latter improves the team more, even if the former is a "bigger need."

 

[PatsFan2]

for us considering current roster and positional value?
1) DL
2) WR
3) OT
4) DB
5) TE

How is TE 5th on your list of needs??

 

[PatsFan2]

I'm not sure how you would explain Tavon Wilson, then.

Maybe BB viewed Wilson and Richards as luxuries.

 

[PatsFan2]

Maybe this is why Arians hasn't kept a long term job.

Bruce Arians: If you draft for need, you get fired

reamer I think that's a matter of opinion not every Team hit on every position some are middle of the road. That said NEED have to be a huge part of Teams Draft process: case and point you wouldn't have a Gronk and Brady and Draft TE and QB every other year. Moving on the fact remain we are paltry when it comes on to Drafting WR's and its not for a lack of trying. We just have some bad luck ie...instead of Chad Jackson we could have had Greg Jennings: instead of Dropson and Boyce we could have had Keenan Allen and another. Those years we missed at WR other Teams had success at that same position I hope our bad luck at WR changes in 2019.