Draft Capital v Pre Draft Ranking v Landing spot help

[murphysxm]

Draft capital would be fourth on my list and is not very high in my process. I firmly believe that the value of draft capital declines severely as soon as the pads go on, and coaches who want to keep their jobs are going to put their best players on the field. It only takes one team to like a player - rightly or wrongly - to acquire high draft capital, where the other 31 teams may think he got picked 2 rounds too high. That said, if a player that I like drops significantly in the draft I take an entire second look at the film, because the entire league is seeing something I don’t.

This is well said and I agree.

[frerichs5]

I pay close attention to coaching staff changes and offseason player changes on a team. That can absolutely change a player’s outlook. DAL lost a ton of talent on the O line and replaced it with a couple of rookies. I’m downgrading their running game significantly. PIT made a significant effort at upgrading their O line and hired Arthur Smith at OC. I’m upgrading that running game quite a bit. WAS and NE have coaches that put a premium on the running game - that’s great not only for their RBs but also will help protect their rookie QBs in their learning curve. That’s really important IMO, and those are changes that most probably cross multiple seasons.

Perception of the current situation means next to nothing to me. It can change very quickly in the NFL. I was always impressed by Terrell Davis locking up the starting RB position his rookie year because of a hit he made on a kick return in preseason, and that struck home with me. Coaches see these guys day in and day out, on the field, in the classroom and off the field. They get all sorts of information on players that we’re just not privy to, and then there are injuries, adds and drops, and the following offseason where surrounding cast and coaching can change a ton.

Admittedly, it’s early on a Friday, so very possible I’m misunderstanding. But don’t these two paragraphs contradict each other? On one hand, it sounds like you care about situation, but then say it means next to nothing. Or are you more talking you care about situation around them not at their own position vs not caring situation at their own position? Do you mind clarifying?

[Cameron Giles]

Draft capital would be fourth on my list and is not very high in my process. I firmly believe that the value of draft capital declines severely as soon as the pads go on, and coaches who want to keep their jobs are going to put their best players on the field. It only takes one team to like a player - rightly or wrongly - to acquire high draft capital, where the other 31 teams may think he got picked 2 rounds too high. That said, if a player that I like drops significantly in the draft I take an entire second look at the film, because the entire league is seeing something I don’t.

This is well said and I agree.

Ironically, the best players on the field tend to be those with high draft capital and this is firmly supported.

Organizations have no meaningful investment in late round players and UDFA dart throws who are cycled out every year. The players who will get the most opportunities to succeed will always remain those with high draft capital.

[Bronco Billy]

I pay close attention to coaching staff changes and offseason player changes on a team. That can absolutely change a player’s outlook. DAL lost a ton of talent on the O line and replaced it with a couple of rookies. I’m downgrading their running game significantly. PIT made a significant effort at upgrading their O line and hired Arthur Smith at OC. I’m upgrading that running game quite a bit. WAS and NE have coaches that put a premium on the running game - that’s great not only for their RBs but also will help protect their rookie QBs in their learning curve. That’s really important IMO, and those are changes that most probably cross multiple seasons.

Perception of the current situation means next to nothing to me. It can change very quickly in the NFL. I was always impressed by Terrell Davis locking up the starting RB position his rookie year because of a hit he made on a kick return in preseason, and that struck home with me. Coaches see these guys day in and day out, on the field, in the classroom and off the field. They get all sorts of information on players that we’re just not privy to, and then there are injuries, adds and drops, and the following offseason where surrounding cast and coaching can change a ton.

Admittedly, it’s early on a Friday, so very possible I’m misunderstanding. But don’t these two paragraphs contradict each other? On one hand, it sounds like you care about situation, but then say it means next to nothing. Or are you more talking you care about situation around them not at their own position vs not caring situation at their own position? Do you mind clarifying?

I appreciate your asking. The first is long term situation. They most probably span 3 seasons or more. The second is tied to situations that are immediate and can change as early as Training Camp or Preseason, or within a year.

Example: I picked up Burton this year with pick 2.06. I loved his film (game film, not his striking the girl after the game) and my opinion was reinforced by others’ opinions that I trust. He’s not going to make much of an impact this year with Chase and Higgins there, but Higgins is most probably gone after this year because CIN isn’t going to spring for 2 massive WR salaries. So I love the long term situation given his talent and the CIN O, and I’ll ignore the short term situation that he’s blocked - and I’ll hope he’ll grow up in the NFL (and word that Houshmazedah is working with him on his character and improving his pro game also swayed me more than a little).

Does that make sense and explain the difference?

[Bronco Billy]

Draft capital would be fourth on my list and is not very high in my process. I firmly believe that the value of draft capital declines severely as soon as the pads go on, and coaches who want to keep their jobs are going to put their best players on the field. It only takes one team to like a player - rightly or wrongly - to acquire high draft capital, where the other 31 teams may think he got picked 2 rounds too high. That said, if a player that I like drops significantly in the draft I take an entire second look at the film, because the entire league is seeing something I don’t.

This is well said and I agree.

Ironically, the best players on the field tend to be those with high draft capital and this is firmly supported.

Organizations have no meaningful investment in late round players and UDFA dart throws who are cycled out every year. The players who will get the most opportunities to succeed will always remain those with high draft capital.

Yeah, and NFL teams still miss often enough even with all that draft capital that we ought to be skeptical. And if a guy transitions well with enough talent to play despite being a later pick is going to get on the field. There’s literally tons of empirical evidence in both cases.

I’m the guy who rejects Trey Sermon because his film showed a guy who ran like he had a dump truck on his back ands drafts Elijah Mitchell much later because his film was much better than Sermon’s. And I miss my share too, but at least it’s my call when I do.

[frerichs5]

I pay close attention to coaching staff changes and offseason player changes on a team. That can absolutely change a player’s outlook. DAL lost a ton of talent on the O line and replaced it with a couple of rookies. I’m downgrading their running game significantly. PIT made a significant effort at upgrading their O line and hired Arthur Smith at OC. I’m upgrading that running game quite a bit. WAS and NE have coaches that put a premium on the running game - that’s great not only for their RBs but also will help protect their rookie QBs in their learning curve. That’s really important IMO, and those are changes that most probably cross multiple seasons.

Perception of the current situation means next to nothing to me. It can change very quickly in the NFL. I was always impressed by Terrell Davis locking up the starting RB position his rookie year because of a hit he made on a kick return in preseason, and that struck home with me. Coaches see these guys day in and day out, on the field, in the classroom and off the field. They get all sorts of information on players that we’re just not privy to, and then there are injuries, adds and drops, and the following offseason where surrounding cast and coaching can change a ton.

Admittedly, it’s early on a Friday, so very possible I’m misunderstanding. But don’t these two paragraphs contradict each other? On one hand, it sounds like you care about situation, but then say it means next to nothing. Or are you more talking you care about situation around them not at their own position vs not caring situation at their own position? Do you mind clarifying?

I appreciate your asking. The first is long term situation. They most probably span 3 seasons or more. The second is tied to situations that are immediate and can change as early as Training Camp or Preseason, or within a year.

Example: I picked up Burton this year with pick 2.06. I loved his film (game film, not his striking the girl after the game) and my opinion was reinforced by others’ opinions that I trust. He’s not going to make much of an impact this year with Chase and Higgins there, but Higgins is most probably gone after this year because CIN isn’t going to spring for 2 massive WR salaries. So I love the long term situation given his talent and the CIN O, and I’ll ignore the short term situation that he’s blocked - and I’ll hope he’ll grow up in the NFL (and word that Houshmazedah is working with him on his character and improving his pro game also swayed me more than a little).

Does that make sense and explain the difference?

Yep, I see what you’re saying now. Thanks!

For me personally, I’m usually working under the assumption I don’t know as much as I think I do. What I think is a long/short term situation very well may not be. Haha

[Cameron Giles]

Yeah, and NFL teams still miss often enough even with all that draft capital that we ought to be skeptical. And if a guy transitions well with enough talent to play despite being a later pick is going to get on the field. There’s literally tons of empirical evidence in both cases.

I’m the guy who rejects Trey Sermon because his film showed a guy who ran like he had a dump truck on his back ands drafts Elijah Mitchell much later because his film was much better than Sermon’s. And I miss my share too, but at least it’s my call when I do.

Not only do you miss your fair share, but you miss more than NFL teams. We all do.

None of us have a seven-round prospect board of NFL players. What we do is aided significantly by what the NFL does and tells us. We know about late round players because the NFL puts them on our radar. None of us are instinctively watching Montana State and Louisiana games because we just know there's a great player there that the NFL hasn't even discussed. So, yes draft capital is significant.

It's like the stock market. Any casual retail investor can point out a bad company and a good company. Hell, you can even make money from it. But how many can build and manage a portfolio that consistently beats the returns of the S&P or the total market? I can tell you that Clyde Edwards-Helaire probably won't be better than Jonathan Taylor, but if you asked any of us to build a big board every year without any influence from CFB or the NFL, the results would be laughable.

It's fun to have your own personal rankings and play GM, because that's what fantasy football and dynasty is. You should play that way and enjoy it. But, we don't know as much or more than NFL teams.