Draft: Value vs Reach

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobomul. Show bobomul's posts

    Draft: Value vs Reach

    Is Tavon Wilson in the 2nd round a reach? In regards to the media scouting consensous, he obviously is a reach.  BB and the Pats have had several unsuccessful draft picks over the last 5+ years.  The question I had is whether these busted draft picks are more likely to be after BB "reached" for a pick outside of the consensous sloting expected for the player, whether the Pats got the pick at a "value" slot or whether it doesn't matter at all.  Here are the previous 4 years of Pats Picks and how there actual selection spot (PK) compaares to the ESPN Player Ratings list (OVR Rank) - a consensous pick of their NCAA scouts:
    NAME GRADE PK(OVR) OVR RANK
    2011        
    Nate Solder OT 91 17(17) 21 
    Ras-I Dowling CB 86 1(33) 39 Reach
    Ryan Mallett QB 82 10(74) 54 Value
    Shane Vereen RB 73 24(56) 97  Reach
    Marcus Cannon OT 64 7(138) 131
    Stevan Ridley RB 59 9(73) 154 Reach
    Lee Smith TE 59 28(159) 155
    2010        
    Devin McCourty CB 90 27(27) 29
    Rob Gronkowski TE 85 10(42) 49 Reach
    Taylor Price WR 78 26(90) 63 Value
    Brandon Spikes ILB 83 30(62) 53
    Aaron Hernandez TE 73 15(113) 85 Value
    2009        
    Darius Butler CB 88 9(41) 35 Value
    Ron Brace DT 81 8(40) 56 Reach
    Patrick Chung S 79 2(34) 62 Reach
    Tyrone McKenzie OLB 76 33(97) 76 Value
    Sebastian Vollmer OT 74 26(58) 80 Reach
    Brandon Tate WR 73 19(83) 84
    2008        
    Jerod Mayo OLB 94 10(10) 16 Reach
    Terrence Wheatley CB 71 31(62) 95 Reach
    Shawn Crable OLB 63 15(78) 126 Reach
    Kevin O'Connell QB 59 31(94) 147 Reach

    Biggest Reaches: Vereen, Ridley, Chung, Vollmer, Wheatley, Crable

    Biggest Values: Mallett, Price, Hernendez, McKenzie, Butler

    Result:  There seems to me to be no real ryme or reason why some picks are busts and some are not - at least in accordance with how these picks compare to what the pre-draft opinions of the player values.  There's just as many "reaches" that turned out good as "value" picks that turned out busts. 

    Chad Jackson was ranked #15 in the 2006 draft and I remember being very excited that the Pats got him at #36. Chad, of course, turned out to be one of the biggest busts in BB's drafting history at New England. 

    So who know if Tavon Wilson will be a wasted pick for New Enland this year. The history of the draft really gives us no real clues.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pats-fan-2007. Show pats-fan-2007's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    Great post, bobomul.

    So basically, it's a crapshoot. On this thought, I'll call it a night.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    The point is he'd have been a reach even in rd 4 or 5

    So at the very LEAST they could have traded 48 for a 3rd and 4th, then had another top 90 player we'll never see in a Pats uniform and still seriously 'reached' for Wilson in the 110-120 range

    This was a reach of like 120-160 picks

    The worst we ever did before was in the 50-70 range for guys like Crable, O'Connell, Wheatley, and last years RB's. Jury is still out on those 2, but the 1st three were obviously huge busts.

    You blame guys like Butler, Jackson and Tate for wasting incredible talent

    You blame Belichick when he reaches this high and can't transform the pick into proper value... even if its just to get a guy 'he likes' 1-2 rounds later but add another pick... its mind-boggling
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    make you own freaking 'value chart' all day long if you want...

    but ALWAYS compare it to ESPN and SCOUTS inc. and other such lists... if you are 50-60-70 spots ahead of them on a guy...then you are a fool not to trade down 1 round and get an extra pick
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobomul. Show bobomul's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    Every single NFL team of course makes their own "value chart".  And I don't think they compare them to ESPN's chart because they don't give a $hit about ESPN's chart.  They probably talk with all the other GMs and scouts in the league to get a gage of the consensous of NFL people on where other players stack up and whether they can trade down and still get the players they want.  That's why BB has traded down so often in the past. 

    Maybe NE thought someone else did like Wilson.  Maybe they felt that they needed a saftey badly and Wilson was the ONLY one left on the board they liked (it's supposed to be a poor year for safties this draft).  So if they missed on Wilson, NE might not have taken any S.  If Wilson turns out to be a decent player, then he's worth a 2nd round selection.  If he's not, he's a bust. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from agill1970. Show agill1970's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    The talking heads would have you believe that you can line up a hundred players and actually rank them according to how good they are from best to worst.  It doesn't work like that.  Yes there will be a small handful of stand out players that are studs.  After that you have a larger body of solid players.  After that, they all pretty much fall into the same category, and that is the overwhelming majority of players. 

    A General during the First World War said something along these lines, and you can bet BB read it and believes it lends itself to football as well.  For every 100 men sent to him at the front line, 20 never arrived, being counted among the sick or lame.  60 were little more than animated targets.  15 were solid fighters.  And the remaing 5, were true warriors that could single handedly turn the tide of battle.

    BB measures differently than most.  Sometimes it works wonders.  Other times it blows up in his face.  I can't complain too much though, as he's done pretty damn well by me all things considered.   

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    In Response to Re: Draft: Value vs Reach:
    [QUOTE]The talking heads would have you believe that you can line up a hundred players and actually rank them according to how good they are from best to worst.  It doesn't work like that.  Yes there will be a small handful of stand out players that are studs.  After that you have a larger body of solid players.  After that, they all pretty much fall into the same category, and that is the overwhelming majority of players.  ...
    Posted by agill1970[/QUOTE]

    you are on to something. from a statistical point of view, you're simply saying that if you could rank kids perfectly from left to right, according to their eventual effectiveness in the nfl, the distribution of the kids would look like a bell curve. 

    here's where this argument falls:

    1) the operative phrase here is "if you could rank kids perfectly". nobody can.

    2) if the rest of the market values a commodity low, why buy it for a high price? 

    the asset they held was pick 48, which the rest of the market valued much higher than wilson. opportunity to "monetize". bb did not. they could have traded back and gotten a pick in addition to getting wilson.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from agill1970. Show agill1970's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    In Response to Re: Draft: Value vs Reach:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Draft: Value vs Reach : you are on to something. from a statistical point of view, you're simply saying that if you could rank kids perfectly from left to right, according to their eventual effectiveness in the nfl, the distribution of the kids would look like a bell curve.  here's where this argument falls: 1) the operative phrase here is "if you could rank kids perfectly". nobody can. 2) if the rest of the market values a commodity low, why buy it for a high price?  the asset they held was pick 48, which the rest of the market valued much higher than wilson. opportunity to "monetize". bb did not. they could have traded back and gotten a pick in addition to getting wilson.
    Posted by seattlepat70[/QUOTE]

    Oh I agree with your line of thinking.  BB on the other hand thinks differently.  Call it ego, call it outside the box thinking, call it divine inspiration.  Whatever the case, sometimes BB reaches far for a guy.  From what I've been able to dig up, BB visited this guy for a private workout and was very impressed.  He loved his ability, his charater, his versatility (safety and corner), and no doubt thought he could turn this guy into a stud and believed (firmly apparently) that he offered greater potential than what was currently available for secondary options. 

    Rather than risk that someone else might be thinking along the same lines as him, he pulled the trigger early.  We'll see if it pans out, but I'm not ready to get BB fitted for a jacket that ties in the back just yet. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from agill1970. Show agill1970's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    Bump because the original post was a great and informative one that somehow got lost amongst all the crying in the other posts. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    BB does his own thing. In that he has some big hits and big misses - like most everybody else. That's a big reason why he's an average GM.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from oh-my-beard. Show oh-my-beard's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    I just can't stand people who over react to this kind of stuff. At the end of the day, we picked him up in the second round. No changing that. He will either have success, or he won't. End of story. Now move on.

    It is the same thing with every other pick in this draft. Regardless of where you get them... They will either be successful or they won't. Look no further than Ryan Leaf to see that.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    In Response to Re: Draft: Value vs Reach:
    [QUOTE]The point is he'd have been a reach even in rd 4 or 5 So at the very LEAST they could have traded 48 for a 3rd and 4th, then had another top 90 player we'll never see in a Pats uniform and still seriously 'reached' for Wilson in the 110-120 range This was a reach of like 120-160 picks The worst we ever did before was in the 50-70 range for guys like Crable, O'Connell, Wheatley, and last years RB's. Jury is still out on those 2, but the 1st three were obviously huge busts. You blame guys like Butler, Jackson and Tate for wasting incredible talent You blame Belichick when he reaches this high and can't transform the pick into proper value... even if its just to get a guy 'he likes' 1-2 rounds later but add another pick... its mind-boggling
    Posted by rameakap[/QUOTE]

    The problem is we as fans don't have all the info. We have a micro view of the situation. We don't know if any trading partners were available and if there were what they offered? To be fair, we also don't know what BB saw in Wilson versus some of the more highly rated players on the media's boards? 

    I am curious though if we did a more exhaustive survey of BB's 12 years with the Pats and subjected that to a rigorous statistical analysis what we would find? 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pancakespwn. Show Pancakespwn's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    In Response to Re: Draft: Value vs Reach:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Draft: Value vs Reach : The problem is we as fans don't have all the info. We have a micro view of the situation. We don't know if any trading partners were available and if there were what they offered? To be fair, we also don't know what BB saw in Wilson versus some of the more highly rated players on the media's boards?  I am curious though if we did a more exhaustive survey of BB's 12 years with the Pats and subjected that to a rigorous statistical analysis what we would find? 
    Posted by NYC[/QUOTE]

    Probably get some very interesting things from it. One thing just taking away from his tenure here is that it doesn't matter if its a reach or considered a good pick.

    Bill and these guys know where guys are going to range and go. Gronk was no reach and neither was Mayo. Mayo went a couple spots higher tahn he should have but thats taking the guy you want thats going to value your team more than anyone else.

    So when the Patriots take this dude out of Illinois and its like "who is he?" for everyone and everyone is writing trying to find out who this kid is just gotta trust Bill and the front offices opinion and know they scouted these guys intensly.

    I think this draft was rich with talent in the first 40 picks and then you started to get a lot of more questionable prospects.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobomul. Show bobomul's posts

    Re: Draft: Value vs Reach

    My point of the post is that we all (I'm just as guilty) sit around watching the draft and looking to see who's remaining on the board based on the ESPN/Scouts/FOX Sports/ect "ratings" of the players and hope New England picks someone high on that media board.  If they grab someone in the 2nd round that has a "1st round value" we hail the picks as having "great value".  If NE selects someone way down on the media "ratings" we bemone BB for "reaching" on a pick. 

    Historically, NE has made just as many bad picks going for "value" as they have with "reaches".  Same is true in revearse for their good picks.  Maybe they could have traded down but you only have to have 1 other team like Wilson for him to go in round 2, 3 or 4.  If NE thought he was the only remaining safety they wanted this year (possible) then getting him was a reasonable decision.

    The bottom line on how we all evaluate drafts years after the fact is how many of the players selected pan out.  Whether they could have taken a player lower really has no relevance to a draft evaluation.  3 years from today we'll look at the 2012 draft and decide if BB did a good job or not based on whether the player taken are performing well on the field.  If they can get 3 starters from this group, than it was a good draft REGARDLESS OF WHERE IN THE DRAFT THEY WERE TAKEN!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share