Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Draft strategy
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Zero
Lots of talk about BPA vs BPA at PON. There's a good article on that by Murphy, but there's more that is omitted from almost every conversation I hear and read.

QUOTE
So what takes precedence if a player starts to fall and it’s a tight end or a safety or a running back whom Douglas’ staff grades higher than the best cornerback or defensive end on the Eagles board?

Will they really enter a season with Patrick Robinson and Jalen Mills and Rob Brooks at corner? If their goal is to maximize the value they get out of this year’s draft, they might have to.


I clearly remember reading something a couple of months ago about the key to drafting for success. It was an article about Douglas I think, but the comment was from someone else. Whether they're picking BPA with or without consideration of PON, the most important thing is evaluating by team identity. Pittsburg, New England and Green Bay were all cited as examples. Year to year those teams have a mostly consistent scheme on both sides of the ball. Players are evaluated and selected based on how they fit the schemes, and when there's a coaching change (rarely) he is also chosen based on the team identity.

I believe the point to have been that Douglas emphasized that the Eagles needed to decide who they are and then remain loyal to that identity. I think this is the "patience" that Lurie referred to and his reference to "doing it the right way."

BPA then becomes the guy who is rated the highest for what the team does ... and will continue to do. If they fire Doug Pederson they won't hire another Chip Kelly, they'll hire a coach who embraces the same systems. If Schwartz is hired away as a HC they'll replace him with a like-minded coordinator. So, when they rate players, they may be different than what Walter, CBS, etc. rate them because maybe a guy who is very talented doesn't fit too well in what they want to do (Nnamdi or Maxwell anyone) and the scouts are more instinctive in their evaluations.
Zero
Here's a good addition to that:
QUOTE
That's where Douglas comes in. He said his grading criteria are not based on rounds but rather on "exactly where the player fits for the Eagles."
GroundedBird
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 21 2017, 06:30 AM) *
Here's a good addition to that:


I kind of like this mock draft -> link
D Rock
Also, with "need" removed from the equation, I would think "value" is related to perceived value of the position played in conjunction with talent level.

For example, would a "future-all-pro" guard have more value than an "average-starting-QB" simply because of his all-pro talent?

BPA can be skewed from multiple points of perception.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 21 2017, 05:30 AM) *
Here's a good addition to that:



This infuriates me!

Berman expanded on this on PST by saying that Douglas puts them in tiers based on Pro Bowl level, solid starter, backup contributor etc, and does not simply rank them "by rounds".

Now Z, you have known me for years and have heard me opine many times about just this. My compilation for the last 15 years, many that I shared with you, has had ratings which rate each prospect by expected contribution as an NFL player. I've said how this was the major thing and how the round rankings were much less significant.

Now this is supposedly Howie finding god? I knew this the first day that I looked into the draft a few years before the infamous Jon Harris selection. And anyone else who knows how to look at the draft knows this is the way. Sadly, many sources used to rank them this way, but today only one remains, NFL.com. Used to be Pro Football Weekly and the National Post also. Now only one. Even ESPN does the grading by rounds!

If Howie Roseman and our top brass did not know this and were not using this type of system before now, then were were truly fucked because that would mean they are the most incompetent front office around. That would explain a Danny Watkins, a Marcus Smith.

You rank them in tiers based upon expected contributions in the NFL.

You eliminate the character issues you cannot live with.

You eliminate system non fits.

You draft the BPA or BPAPON loosely defined. If there are many equally rated guys in the same tier, you look to trade down to the lowest spot you can get one of those guys. Don't trade down too far for fear of what happened a few years ago where Cooks and Clinton-Dix and Ford went back to back to back and you're stuck in panic mode and pick Smith. (BTW, to get from #25 to the 85th rated player on my board is way beyond panic!)

It really isn't that difficult to develop a system of drafting a board and going through probabilities of what may happen. Find 25 guys you would be OK with in the 1st round, either stay at #14, or move down if the tiers say it's so, and as long as you get one of your guys, you're good.

To see this as some revolutionary idea is truly pathetic.
The Franchise
If we're rebuilding, lean towards BPA. If we're trying to win and make a run now, lean towards position. I think we all agree we're trying to win now, but I don't think it's ever truly black and white, considering the nature of the game.
Pila
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 27 2017, 12:50 AM) *
This infuriates me!

Berman expanded on this on PST by saying that Douglas puts them in tiers based on Pro Bowl level, solid starter, backup contributor etc, and does not simply rank them "by rounds".

Now Z, you have known me for years and have heard me opine many times about just this. My compilation for the last 15 years, many that I shared with you, has had ratings which rate each prospect by expected contribution as an NFL player. I've said how this was the major thing and how the round rankings were much less significant.

Now this is supposedly Howie finding god? I knew this the first day that I looked into the draft a few years before the infamous Jon Harris selection. And anyone else who knows how to look at the draft knows this is the way. Sadly, many sources used to rank them this way, but today only one remains, NFL.com. Used to be Pro Football Weekly and the National Post also. Now only one. Even ESPN does the grading by rounds!

If Howie Roseman and our top brass did not know this and were not using this type of system before now, then were were truly fucked because that would mean they are the most incompetent front office around. That would explain a Danny Watkins, a Marcus Smith.

You rank them in tiers based upon expected contributions in the NFL.

You eliminate the character issues you cannot live with.

You eliminate system non fits.

You draft the BPA or BPAPON loosely defined. If there are many equally rated guys in the same tier, you look to trade down to the lowest spot you can get one of those guys. Don't trade down too far for fear of what happened a few years ago where Cooks and Clinton-Dix and Ford went back to back to back and you're stuck in panic mode and pick Smith. (BTW, to get from #25 to the 85th rated player on my board is way beyond panic!)

It really isn't that difficult to develop a system of drafting a board and going through probabilities of what may happen. Find 25 guys you would be OK with in the 1st round, either stay at #14, or move down if the tiers say it's so, and as long as you get one of your guys, you're good.

To see this as some revolutionary idea is truly pathetic.


That seems like a no brainer. But isn't the challenge really in the accuracy of the gauge?

I'm not sure the design of the gauge itself is the story here.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Pila @ Apr 26 2017, 08:32 PM) *
That seems like a no brainer. But isn't the challenge really in the accuracy of the gauge?

I'm not sure the design of the gauge itself is the story here.

Yes, you are right. In the end it is talent evaluation.

However, as a driver who doesn't know how to race would have a difficult time winning the biggest races, a front office that doesn't know how to set a draft board would have a problem picking the best talent.
Pila
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 27 2017, 01:41 AM) *
Yes, you are right. In the end it is talent evaluation.

However, as a driver who doesn't know how to race would have a difficult time winning the biggest races, a front office that doesn't know how to set a draft board would have a problem picking the best talent.

Your race analogy is a good one. But I'd liken it to knowing the course or track, but having a poor understanding of race car dynamics.
Joegrane
No, they don't necessarily "have to." If someone has "fallen", there will likely be a team interested in trading up. The value in additional pick(s) for trading down will go up.

Unfortunately a trade down = boos on national TV.

I hope they don't worry about that. McNabb worked out quite nicely despite the boos.

QUOTE
So what takes precedence if a player starts to fall and it’s a tight end or a safety or a running back whom Douglas’ staff grades higher than the best cornerback or defensive end on the Eagles board?

Will they really enter a season with Patrick Robinson and Jalen Mills and Rob Brooks at corner? If their goal is to maximize the value they get out of this year’s draft, they might have to.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 26 2017, 08:50 PM) *
To see this as some revolutionary idea is truly pathetic.

It demonstrates why they've been so ineffective drafting for so long.
Zero
And just a thought, but the Eagles only have Mathews, Sproles, Smallwood and Watson as RB on the roster. Sproles says he's retiring next year, Mathews is presumed gone and Watson is ___? Is Mathews really gone? Is Watson their big back? Do they draft two RB?
nephillymike
I think they could keep Mathews if they need to.

He still may be serviceable.

when healthy he is very good.
Eyrie
I don't think that Mathews is that highly rated by the coaches. He didn't feature much in the fourth quarter of games last year after the fumble against Detroit.

I'm hoping for us to take a big back in a middle round and for Smallwood to build on the promising flashes he showed last year. We can then use Sproles as desired rather than relying on him through necessity.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.