DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2020 NFL Season 2020 NFL Draft BPA vs. Drafting for need, finally answered.

Thoughts? I think positional value remains a factor.

https://fanspeak.com/nfldraftnews/2020/0...r-draft-boards/

Fanspeak Series: How teams use grading scales to set up their draft boards

Written by
Jake Rigdon
February 5, 2020
​

Note: What do teams say about the “best player available” vs. “biggest need” debate? How do they factor in injuries when evaluating players? How do teams put together their own big boards? This week, Fanspeak will answer those questions and more as we provide an insiders’ look into the player evaluation process with veteran NFL and college scout Chris Landry of LandryFootball.
Click here to read Monday’s report.
Click here to read Tuesday’s report.
Today, Fanspeak looks at how teams set up their own draft boards.
———-
Here’s the scenario:

Your team is in desperate need of a guard, but the highest-rated remaining player on its draft board, a receiver, is still there when it’s your team’s turn to draft.

Further complicating matters is that one elite receiver has fallen much further than anyone expected, but that’s not a position of need on your team.

There’s also this: It’s a deep draft for receivers but is not a deep draft for interior linemen, meaning, you might not be able to draft the best guard in the second round if you don’t take him in the first.

What should your team do?

It’s a scenario that is likely to play out at least once during the 2020 NFL draft, which is April 23-25.

In the above scenario, should your team draft a guard? Take the best player available, the receiver? Or should your team try to trade down, pick up more picks and use one of them to, hopefully, draft that interior lineman your team so desperately needs?

The answer, said veteran NFL and college scout Chris Landry, comes down to your team’s grading scale.

“This is why draft rankings and draft boards like you read by analysts are not the same as how NFL teams set up their draft boards,” said Landry of LandryFootball.com. Landry, the former director of the Scouting Combine, currently serves as a consultant for NFL and college teams.

“Rankings are not the issue; rather, proper grading leads to the correct ranking on a real draft board. You have to grade to a standard and not grade players based on need,” he said.

The grading scale
So, what does a “real” draft board look like?

For starters, teams grade players according to critical factors and position specifics, regardless of need, Landry said. Once teams establish their final grades, the players are then categorized accordingly.

This is an example of the grading categories Landry has used in draft rooms for more than 30 years:

7.4-7.0 = Superstar ability
6.9-6.5 = Immediate starter (for any team)
6.4-6.0 = Potential starter
5.9-5.5 = Has a chance to make a roster and contribute
5.4-5.0 = Potential backup and contributor
4.9-4-5= Free Agent prospect not worth drafting
Of course, those grades vary from team to team. Some teams may deem a player as a better schematic fit for them and therefore give that player a higher grade than other teams, for example.

But in order to avoid reaching for players or passing on much better talent just to fill team needs, Landry said teams should let their grading scale help dictate the selections.


Dane Brugler
✔
@dpbrugler
Biggest NFL Draft misconception is that the 1st round is reserved for team's top need. Doesn't often play out that way #BPA

21
1:32 PM - Feb 24, 2015
Twitter Ads info and privacy
36 people are talking about this
“Each grade category separates the quality of how you see all players by position and overall regardless of position,” said Landry, who has worked with the Tennessee Titans/Houston Oilers and Cleveland in previous stops. “So for example, a 6.9 and a 6.5 player is in the same category. The 6.9 versus 6.5 are just to separate players within that grouping.

“So, taking a 6.5 player over a 6.9 player is no problem because, by definition, you have graded them in the same grade category. However, taking a 6.4 player over a 6.5 player is a mistake as you are by definition taking a lesser player.”

Hope is not a strategy
Back to the original scenario.

Your team needs a guard in what is considered a relatively weak draft for that position but isn’t sure it will be able to draft one in Round 2. It doesn’t need a receiver, but one of the top players in the draft – a receiver – has somehow fallen into your team’s lap when it’s time for them to select a player.

Who your team drafts, then, should be dictated by that draft scale.

For example, say Minnesota decides it needs an upgrade at guard to pair with young center Garrett Bradbury (the team’s first-round pick last year at No. 18 overall). The team might be eyeballing Clemson guard John Simpson or even St. John’s Ben Bartch, but taking either player at No. 25 overall may be too high. However, it’s likely that neither player is still there when the Vikings are back on the clock in the second round.

And let’s say in this example that Alabama receiver Henry Ruggs III is still available late in the first round and is the highest-graded player remaining on Minnesota’s own draft board. Receiver, though, is not an immediate need.

This is where Landry’s grading scale comes into play for teams.

If the team has a grade of 6.9 on Ruggs and a grade of 6.5 on either Batch or Simpson, then Minnesota should take the guard. But if Batch or Simpson’s final grade by the Vikings is below that – even slightly below with a grade of 6.4 – then the team should take the receiver.

“If you have multiple players in the same grade category, then you should take the player at the biggest need or take the player where there is the least amount of depth to fill that spot later in the draft,” Landry said. “A properly set up draft board will easily help you figure this out. But you should never dip a grade level below for a player of need as this doesn’t make your team better.

“You spend all year evaluating prospects and then properly setting up your draft board, so you must let your draft board speak to you. If you start moving things around to fit needs, all you are doing is putting a body at a position of need and hoping.

“And hope is not a strategy.”



Coming tomorrow: How big are team’s final big boards? Odds are good that it’s much smaller than you realize. The series’ final post will examine how many players most teams put into their big boards.



​

Thanks,that's a good read.
Of coarse positional value plays a role.That's why QBs and pass rushers are taken so early.

Good, educational read. I prefer the one that I got from Bill Belichick many years ago and have shared several times on this board. The Vertical/Horizontal aspect of team's board is huge.

Repost it here, please.

I probably won't. It takes forever and I am not even sure if I can get all the facts right.

Maybe someone can find one of my old posts about it. I posted it several years in a row.

Good read.

Positional needs do come in to play. If the players grade in the same grade level.

As I have said for years, you don't have clear cut delineation between players all the way down the board. You might have 4-5 players ranked close enough you can justify taking any of them. At that point, grab the player who is best going to help tomorrow.

Also, the further down the board you go, the closer players are graded, so as you get deeper in the draft, you can draft for needs all you want.

Even by the mid 2nd round you probably have player grouping 10-15 players deep. That is going to give most teams a pretty good cross section of positions to choose from.

We draft at #10. It is going to be a fairly small group from which to pick. As in the example in the article, I hope we don't pass on a player rated as potential superstar for a player rated as a potential solid pro simply to fill a need.

I do understand that QB falls in to a different situation. That position trumps all. There will probably be 3 QB's taken before we pick, so we get to pick one of the 7 best non-QB's in the draft. There will also probably be at least 1 OL player selected before we draft, so for us to take one we have to have at least 2 OT graded in the top 7 players.

When I look at the boards, that might be hard to do if being totally honest and unbiased.

But to add, we might have a few more players rated in the same grouping, so that increases the odds a Oline player will come in to play

Pretty interesting but I'm confused by these 2 classifications.

One, they seem almost identical.
Second, if they are different, isn't "potential backup" better than "has a chance to make a roster"

Weird.

I see your point. Sounds like one could develop in to a decent back-up player, and one is a special teamer only....he can play there, but he isn't going to be a back-up to your starter at LB or corner.

Those are the guys who play on grit and desire and manage to play 2-3-4 years. Think Dino Hall. He was a pretty good return guy, but he was never going to be your back-up RB....I think he was a RB.

Good explanation of the differences between those two tiers. Your example of Hall helps make a fine line clearer.

Agreed. I would think that a potential backup would have a chance to make a roster.

You ask some good questions. As an amateur, I'm in no position to give definite answers. Generally, it seems to me that well established, stable franchises who often appear in the playoffs have standards that are institutional and don't fluctuate even as some scouts or front office people change over time. I don't know this for sure but I think the Saints, Ravens, Packers and of course the Patriots are some of those teams. So I would believe there is a commonly held standard for each grade within these scouting offices. That standard might be different for the Cowboys or the Steelers but within the team, everybody involved knows what that is. If a player doesn't meet the starndard for a starting LT for the Eagles then dissenting opinions would find it hard to get the final decision maker(s) to agree.

None of the can guarantees success. The rate for hitting on a 1st rounder league-wide is 50%. It would be interesting to see which teams are above average.

I am not going to try and remember exactly what I wrote for quite a few years in a row about what I learned from Bill Belichick when I worked for a scouting service because I am not sure if I can accurately recall all the facts.

I will speak briefly about he Vertical and Horizontal boards that NFL teams have because that was my biggest take away from what BB was saying.

I will try to use common language so all those who want to learn can understand.

Vertical board: This one is pretty easy. Teams rank players from best to however far they go. One guy is rated the best player, then the second best player, etc. That's easy to understand. From what I remember, Bill said that this is the most important aspect of the draft process. You might want to pass on a guy if another player in a position of need is also available, but you should never move down more than 2 spots on your Vertical board. I think this is huge and if you want to understand good drafting teams from bad, then you should probably remember that. To be concise, you can move off of your Vertical board, but not more than 2 spots. There were a few examples of 3 spots, but those were rare and involved QBs.

Horizontal Boards. This is two-fold and much trickier. A horizontal board helps rank guys by position. It's especially important when you have a cluster of guys at a certain position. Last year, there were a ton of corners who had similar rankings by most folks that I know of. Two years ago, there were a plethora of RBs that had similar rankings. Can you pass on one guy in round 1 and pick another similarly ranked dude in round 2 at that same position? Same goes for every other subsequent rounds.

The second part of the Horizontal board is ranking the guys on your own team and Bill really emphasized this even though most of my other research at the time did not. He was real big on ranking your own players. In other words, the Browns have two great WRs in OBJ and Landry. They have capable dudes behind them and hell........who the hell even needs those guys when you have two studs? Thus, the Horizontal board for that position group would take a hit on prospective WR draft choices. If it were me, I would pass on that position and move down the 1-2 and even maybe even 3 spots on my Vertical board to take a guy at a position of need for the Browns.

Does all of that make sense? I will try to answer questions if anyone has them, as long as they are honest and not designed to start a fight.

Allow me to add a real-life example to help make this more clear.

Y'all know that Ozzie Newsome worked in the FO w/Belichick when both were in Cleveland. Ozzie really bought into his time w/BB and learned from him. This helped make him a successful GM.

Back in the day after Modell moved the team to Baltimore and made Ozzie his GM...........they went through the process and Ozzie had Jonathan Ogden as his highest rated player on his remaining board. Modell wanted to draft Lawrence Phillips, the woman-beating RB from Nebraska instead. Ozzie did not back down and they chose Ogden who is in the NFL HOF. Phillips got killed in prison.

Another example for the Wizard of Oz was when he had Ed Reed ranked high on his board. The pick was approaching and Ozzie wanted to draft Ed Reed [FS]. Biscotti, the new Ravens owner, wanted Ozzie to draft Lito Sheppard [corner] because he had a similar grade and that corners were more important. He wasn't wrong about that, butOzzie said something like........I stay true to my Vertical board. Sheppard turned out to be a very good player for the Eagles. Meanwhile, Ed Reed is in the HOF.

Perspective.

Makes sense to me. The vert board is a simple ranking as your team has then graded. All teams boards are going to vary somewhat but I would bet most are pretty close when ranking say the top 150 players....real close in ranking the top 25 players.

The horizontal takes in to account your own teams strengths and weakness by position. Those players are listed on a horizonal plane.

When we get to the #10 pick, we have a name. If that name is high on the horizontal, you have your guy. If not, if the #11 player on your vert list is high on the horizontal, you pick him. If you have to move 3-4 slots to find a guy on the horizontal, hold to the vertical and take the #10 player.

Some good post Vers. That insight about ranking your own roster is simple genius. Now that you bring it up it seems obvious but I never thought about it before as a formal part of draft preparation.

Great take.

One thing I forgot to mention about the Horizontal boards. They actually slot a draft eligible player in their own board. I think that would be really helpful as you move on during the draft.

For example, let's say it's the latter rounds and you have a corner available as the top guy in your Vertical board. You look on your Horizontal board and see that this guy ranks behind Ward, Greedy, and Mitchell but would be slotted ahead of the remaining corners on the team. I think this is important and is directly tied to the "need" aspect of the draft.

The way you've explained this is exactly what my understanding of the vertical and horizontal board are and how they work.

I'm certainly not a draft expert, but from watching teams draft over the years it's my opinion that far too often teams move further down their vertical board for need than they should. They seem to put far too much emphasis on their horizontal board than they should.

Great read with sensible scenario. This was very educational.

"Hope is not a strategy." In Berea, it seems a cornerstone for the Browns, and explains so very much. Our drafting seems ready to draw to a number of inside straights. Hope is the anchor for Browns fans. Too cynical, and admittedly unfair, but it is hard to explain how some folks got here, and mores, how they stayed here. Thanks for this!

A good read in SI.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/06/27/nfl-an...ries-chip-Kelly


Not sure why it won't post up. Type in, si article in analytics in nfl


Imagine that, Paul Brown a analytics junkie. Even in your mind you know Paul Brown didn't suck.

When your team is devoid of true superstars like ours has been for so long you have to prioritize difference makers, game changers. If you are a team that has star players you can start filling out your roster with need type players and hope more star players fall to you.

The bottom line is if you're a bottom feeder and you don't swing for the fences you're always going to be a bottom feeder.

Same here.. I learned something today!

I don't disagree.

Just remember this when a GM says they took "the highest player on their board."

Which board?

Your board of only safeties?

With all the teams that should be the goal, because of the lower cost of rookie contracts on superstars.

JMHO- Owners aren't the only problem- Our last playoff coach, Butch Davis, fell in love with Willie "Reefer" Green, we've thrown away so many picks not considering or digging deep enough into CHARACTER- availability means a lot. Mangini had issue with his own character, but I'll always thing that characteristic means a lot...Our first round DB who didn't really want to play football....WOW, we've sucked for decades....hope we get better this time...GO Browns!!!!

Who you hire,who you don't and who you fire are 100% of why you get the results you do.

We've talked quite a bit about BPA vs need and there is a ton of talk about drafting OT's.

My personal preference is to draft BPA and use FA for need. I see the draft as long-term solutions and FA as more of quick fix.

Passing on better players for guys who fit a need will eventually weaken the entire team over time.

Yep same thing. Every year I pick better players than the Browns GMs do. It is truly baffling, because football is the easiest draft because the college game is the most similiar than any other sport

I think it all depends on the team and player. Let's say the Browns have a RB at 10 on their draft board. There is no way I would take a RB at 10, when that is a major strength of the team. I think a GM would be an idiot to draft a RB at 10, if that's a strength and not a need

Yep and thats why the Browns lose. They cant draft or hire

I agree with most of what you posted. Butch was their best hire since 1999

Yep

Totally agree, and he already admitted to drafting Manziel. I will guarantee Haslam drafted Mayfield too

LOL. good one

No - Dorsey drafted him Dorsey had complete control of the team and Dorsey was high on Baker.

On the OP and article. It was good but I think it's a bit superficial. The differential between the players has to come into play - a larger differential in grade even within the same bracket means there is more chance you look hard at the BPA. Likewise - what position and how much depth is needed at that position. If you have a young franchise QB and BPA is a QB in the 1st or 2nd round - and you need a OL position and are weak .... there is much much more reason to drop and pick the position of need even if there is a gap in grade/evaluation. jmo Belichik's system made more sense - but even there, the number of spots you can consider dropping on a vertical board must surely be tied to how closely they are graded. If the differential in grade over 5 spots is minute - then you can drop 5 spots ... if the differential over 2 spots is significant, maybe you don't drop even 2 spots.

I wonder where Tom Brady and Jerry Rice, graded on that scale?