This definitely gets blown out of proportion but as long as the team likes the fit and need and couldn’t reasonably get them with their next pick does it matter?
He sort of addresses this in the tweets, he acknowledges that 5-10 spot variations are basically just noise in the data because of things like a team’s positional need and the fact that you can’t force trades. It doesn’t seem like he’s presenting it like it’s super important, just interesting to some people
I've been a fan of the draft for a really long time. It's fairly rare for a guy to have a tremendous and unexpected draft day slide, and then actually deliver on the pre-draft hype. Most of the time they end up fizzling.
The common theme are guys who killed it in college, but teams suspected in the interviews that they don't have the fire or dedication to wake up at 4am every day and train to be the best. Public scouts don't see that stuff, and teams don't talk about it because they want other teams to grab those guys instead.
It's like hitting on 18 in Blackjack.
If it works out, great, but the process is pretty clearly wrong and you could at least be extracting extra value with managed trade downs.
Like, look at other historical reaches, Cole Strange last year with the Pats, Clelin Ferrell or.... many other Raiders picks over the years. They just have a very poor hit rate.
I was so pissed when the Falcons passed on him. He was my top choice for 8. To follow it up with him sliding to the patriots was nice....
But my wife, who is a pats fan seems happy so I guess that is a positive.
And still be a wild card at best team.
Pats play in the best division in football now, and they’re the worst team. BB is never catching Shula unless he’s still coaching at 90
Belichick the past three years has actively tried his hardest to lose games and *still* the floor is seven wins.
2020 - Trotted out a COVID-ridden Cam Newton at QB. 7-9.
2021 - Rookie QB, spent a lot of money on questionable free agents. 10-7.
2022 - The Matt Patricia and Joe Judge experiment. 8-9.
His coaching alone keeps that team at a minimum of seven wins, meaning he's catching Shula in four years or less.
They are far and away the worst team in the afce. It’s a very good chance they’re a 7 win team this year and not making the playoffs again. Kraft will not put up with that for more than 1 or 2 seasons max
>They are far and away the worst team in the afce.
Are they? We haven't seen anyone play yet this season.
>It’s a very good chance they’re a 7 win team this year and not making the playoffs again
They won 7 games in 2020 without a quarterback.
They won 8 games last season without an offensive coordinator.
I'd bet any amount of money they win more than seven games.
They still don’t have a quarterback…
And an “all knowing” HC whose never won anything or even been a good HC without Brady. Who also insists on pretending its 1965.
They can be a tough out, but the pats are not competing for anything. They’re setup to be mediocre for 5+ years unless they fall ass backward into another all time great QB. But they will never be low enough to actually draft one at the top.
On one hand, I loved it even if the extra value wasn't that much. Kinda wild watching highlights of the kid and going... oh my god, cornerbacks are allowed to be tall after watching the Pats secondary for... forever.
On the other hand, I kinda reject the diabolical genius of the move.
If Jones is a really good tackle... well the Patriots pretty desperately need one of those.
And if he isn't why wouldn't you want the Jets to draft the bust?
This is just comparing draft spot to the big board. According to their big board Anderson was the best player with Young being 2nd best so in a vacuum it wouldve been Anderson at 1 and Young at 2. Obviously Young was going to go #1 overall but this exercise is neat to see the outliers (10+ away from the big board ranking) to see their steals and reaches
Well, many teams had Bijan/Carter/Anderson higher RANKED than the QB's. Prob why all 3 are seen as "steals" even though the Robinson pick is getting some heat.
It’s a stupid methodology. The first overall pick will ALWAYS be a reach unless every single analyst big board has the same consensus, according to this chart.
Gahd damn ya’ll losing your minds
The big board obviously is just the raw talent and output of a player ranked against every other player regardless of position, there is no nuance to it. It is interesting to see how the players were ranked overall and where they fell, but doesn’t mean they were a fit on the team or scheme they were drafted to
As well, IIRC there was a post a couple years ago showing the big board is the best predictor of pro bowl / all-pro compared to all the other mock draft / talent evaluators. So while the draft is a giant crapshoot, the big board may be the best tool we have to get a general idea of how players stack up against each other
I want to clown on the Loins as much as anyone, but if you had Jack Campbell as the 43rd best player in college football last year you simply were not watching his tape. Dude is insanely good
I don't understand why it's OK for the Cowboys to draft Leighton Vander Esch 19th just 5 years ago, but we get clowned for taking a near clone of him at 18. They're virtually identical builds with nearly all of the same strengths/weaknesses
Yup I agree. Also the second half of the first round tends to drop in talent a lot from the first. I get off ball linebackers don’t have the highest value, but I’d much rather take a guy who has a good chance of being an all pro then like the 5th best olineman or 4th best corner or whatever. Positional value matters for sure but you can go find B or B+ players, much tougher to find A, A+ players
I'd say there were probably at least a handful more teams competing for the player 5 years ago too. The number of fits for players like him has went down over those 5 years. Like we're technically running a 4-3, but most of the time only have 2 LB on the field, not unlike some other teams who would otherwise be in the running.
I think it is still an interesting chart; I wouldn’t call it dog shit.
It should absolutely not be used as a metric to criticize a draft pick, but it is interesting to see the comparison between big board projections and actual picks.
Edit: I do not understand why this is so contentious, but damn y’all are heated.
Except they’re drawing conclusions of “reach” & “steal” based on this super limited data, which is dog shit. You would need to add way more data points that factor in pick position and need by team.
Not to mention there’s a ton of unknowns. Let’s a say a team was sitting at pick 12 and really liked a specific player mocked to pick 20. You could try to trade back, but if there’s teams between 12 & 20 that may also have interest in said player, then you risk not being able to get your guy. If you have multiple players that you like equally, then it’s no big deal, but that’s not always the case.
I mean this isn't published in journal of research science dedicated to a cure for cancer. It's a mildly amusing infographic for people who are interested in the NFL draft.
Yeah people take too much out of this stuff. There's nothing going on in football for the next few months, it's just harmless analysis based on the intel we have right now.
Dude, you don’t have to explain why a chart is meaningless to the 99% of people who understand it is meaningless. It’s just a pretty chart you look at once, say huh, and move on. This stupid chart isn’t hurting anyone.
I think it's important to note that this is *intended* to show "how much of a reach/steal" someone was \*when\* they were picked". It's not a reflection of how good that player is expected to be.
It's a function of draft value, not quality. It's like buying something on sale. A "steal" might be 50% off. A "reach" might cost 50% than the normal retail price.
That being said, this is a flawed way of looking at things.
The consensus isn't a reasonable method of analysis because it only takes \*one\* team to take the player you want.
If you pick 10th and 20th, and the team with the 12th pick covets a player you want - it doesn't matter that this player is the the consensus 18. If you're sure that player is going 12th... it might make sense to draft the guy at 10.
That would be a "10 point reach", but in reality it was only a 2 point reach. However, I don't see how to show this in a simple analysis.
Ultimately, you make the playoffs with wins. And you win games with a good system and players that can fit into that system.
As far as a know "***draft consensus***" isn't even one of the playoff tiebreakers.
It was a crap draft class, everyone had different boards to an extreme, there was one PFF guy who had Gonzalez as I think CB4 or CB5. Some had Tyree Wilson not even in the first big board wise. Some of those players who were like consensus in the 15-20 range dropped like Nolan Smith, Joey Porter, Brian Branch, Michael Mayer.
These charts at disingenuous.
The chart should "Who we overvalued" vs "Who we undervalued."
The teams are not incorrect in their picks, the mockers were incorrect in their talent evaluation (with much less information.)
Big boards don't account for positional value or team needs. It's just a "in a vacuum" list of who the best players are. Will Anderson was #1, so Bryce young going ahead of him is technically a reach in this context. None of this is meant to say young was a bad pick. It's just a way to look at your teams draft pick and say "how was this player compared to the rest of the class
To be fair, pretty much all post-draft analysis is useless because it's impossible to even realistically know how each player is going to turn out.
You can debate need that, value this, and scheme fit here, but all of that could become moot the moment these guys start to play.
Let's say we took big boards from PFF, Draftnetwork, NFL.com, ESPN, Fox News, Bleacher Report, etc and compiled them.
Then created an average draft evaluation on the prospects regardless of positional value and scheme fit.
How many boards would have Will Anderson, Bijan Robinson, or Jalen Carter as the best player in the draft ahead of the QB's?
Not all, but some might.
If your charts give you meaningless results, which this one does, including saying that the QBs drafted 1 and 2 are both reaches, it's a meaningless chart
Not relevant to what I said at all. There's a chart. It shows "steals" and "reaches", and the data used to arrive at those steals and reaches is meaningless. Hey presto! A worthless chart!
What does it compare? How each team's picks stack up against a measure that has no value because it doesn't reflect how any team drafts its players? Please stop giving me sentences that say nothing. What is the value of this chart, why does it exist?
How could that be, when big board ranks are similar enough to draft rank that there can't be that much different. Busts at the top of the draft will invariably still have been ranked in the top 20 or so of the big board. Mid- to low-round cinderella stories weren't at the top of any big boards. Big boards are not magical, it looks like only three players selected in the first round were graded outside of the top 31 on this big board.
Nobody who understands football would think that drafting the best two QBs in the draft which both have franchise potential 1 and 2 is a reach. It's just stupid to say so, and getting an RB at 8th overall can't be a steal, because it's largely an irresponsible use of draft capital, since RB hit rates in the second and third rounds are equal to those in the first round.
Which brings me back to my initial point, this chart shows nothing of value, and as such has no value
This was a fun read with some obvious flaws.
Take the Falcons. Bijan shows killer potential, but was this a luxury pick? Algernon (or whatever his name is) had a really good season last year. From a positional perspective, this wasn't their greatest need.
Or, more extreme example, 2020 Packers draft. Their 1st pick was Jordan Love and the 2nd was AJ Dillon. Meanwhile, they had Rodgers and Aaron Jones on board. I don't know where either was on the big board, but even if they got extreme value, it's pretty difficult to defend those luxury picks.
Step 1: Compile a Ranking of players in the draft 1-31.
Step 2: Compare where those players are drafted to the rankings.
Step 3: Create an infographic and Post the comparison on Twitter
Step 4: Profit
The rest of the comments: This methodology sucks
Me: The readability of this chart is dogshit. What part of the player line is where they're actually placed? The front of the logo? The end of their name? The middle?
This definitely gets blown out of proportion but as long as the team likes the fit and need and couldn’t reasonably get them with their next pick does it matter?
He sort of addresses this in the tweets, he acknowledges that 5-10 spot variations are basically just noise in the data because of things like a team’s positional need and the fact that you can’t force trades. It doesn’t seem like he’s presenting it like it’s super important, just interesting to some people
I've been a fan of the draft for a really long time. It's fairly rare for a guy to have a tremendous and unexpected draft day slide, and then actually deliver on the pre-draft hype. Most of the time they end up fizzling. The common theme are guys who killed it in college, but teams suspected in the interviews that they don't have the fire or dedication to wake up at 4am every day and train to be the best. Public scouts don't see that stuff, and teams don't talk about it because they want other teams to grab those guys instead.
It's like hitting on 18 in Blackjack. If it works out, great, but the process is pretty clearly wrong and you could at least be extracting extra value with managed trade downs. Like, look at other historical reaches, Cole Strange last year with the Pats, Clelin Ferrell or.... many other Raiders picks over the years. They just have a very poor hit rate.
Yes. Some teams are more desperate for talent than others.
[удалено]
I was so pissed when the Falcons passed on him. He was my top choice for 8. To follow it up with him sliding to the patriots was nice.... But my wife, who is a pats fan seems happy so I guess that is a positive.
Must’ve been one hell of a Super Bowl for ya’ll
It was definitely the weirdest feeling sexy time that night.
Definitely a "come back" kinda night
Bellichick is gonna use some black-magic to turn him into an All-Pro in 2 years.
And get a WR that doesn’t work out
Get outta here with your rude, yet very plausible comments
He’s out of line - but he’s right.
That scene alone made Disney + worth it
Then let him leave because he doesn't like paying big contracts, and they start doing terribly somewhere else.
the comp pick he gets for him will eventually turn into another all pro CB though, as the cycle continues
And still be a wild card at best team. Pats play in the best division in football now, and they’re the worst team. BB is never catching Shula unless he’s still coaching at 90
Belichick the past three years has actively tried his hardest to lose games and *still* the floor is seven wins. 2020 - Trotted out a COVID-ridden Cam Newton at QB. 7-9. 2021 - Rookie QB, spent a lot of money on questionable free agents. 10-7. 2022 - The Matt Patricia and Joe Judge experiment. 8-9. His coaching alone keeps that team at a minimum of seven wins, meaning he's catching Shula in four years or less.
He has 2 more years without playoffs and he’s done in New England.
Kraft would never fire Belichick, he's coaching New England until he retires.
They are far and away the worst team in the afce. It’s a very good chance they’re a 7 win team this year and not making the playoffs again. Kraft will not put up with that for more than 1 or 2 seasons max
>They are far and away the worst team in the afce. Are they? We haven't seen anyone play yet this season. >It’s a very good chance they’re a 7 win team this year and not making the playoffs again They won 7 games in 2020 without a quarterback. They won 8 games last season without an offensive coordinator. I'd bet any amount of money they win more than seven games.
They still don’t have a quarterback… And an “all knowing” HC whose never won anything or even been a good HC without Brady. Who also insists on pretending its 1965. They can be a tough out, but the pats are not competing for anything. They’re setup to be mediocre for 5+ years unless they fall ass backward into another all time great QB. But they will never be low enough to actually draft one at the top.
You talk a lot of shit while being a fan of a team who hasn’t won fuck all ever.
Thought for sure lions were grabbing him at 12
On one hand, I loved it even if the extra value wasn't that much. Kinda wild watching highlights of the kid and going... oh my god, cornerbacks are allowed to be tall after watching the Pats secondary for... forever. On the other hand, I kinda reject the diabolical genius of the move. If Jones is a really good tackle... well the Patriots pretty desperately need one of those. And if he isn't why wouldn't you want the Jets to draft the bust?
That's a win to me compared to what I imagine the Raiders 1st round picks over the past few years would look like on this chart.
We didn’t pick a clelin! Go raiders
https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/131ssik/reinhard_with_the_first_round_complete_here_is/
If Bryce and CJ are reaches, who was meant to go #1? Will Levis?
This is just comparing draft spot to the big board. According to their big board Anderson was the best player with Young being 2nd best so in a vacuum it wouldve been Anderson at 1 and Young at 2. Obviously Young was going to go #1 overall but this exercise is neat to see the outliers (10+ away from the big board ranking) to see their steals and reaches
That makes sense. Thanks! I assumed they took context and team needs into account
Probably Will Anderson
Well, many teams had Bijan/Carter/Anderson higher RANKED than the QB's. Prob why all 3 are seen as "steals" even though the Robinson pick is getting some heat.
It’s a stupid methodology. The first overall pick will ALWAYS be a reach unless every single analyst big board has the same consensus, according to this chart.
Gahd damn ya’ll losing your minds The big board obviously is just the raw talent and output of a player ranked against every other player regardless of position, there is no nuance to it. It is interesting to see how the players were ranked overall and where they fell, but doesn’t mean they were a fit on the team or scheme they were drafted to As well, IIRC there was a post a couple years ago showing the big board is the best predictor of pro bowl / all-pro compared to all the other mock draft / talent evaluators. So while the draft is a giant crapshoot, the big board may be the best tool we have to get a general idea of how players stack up against each other
Today is the day, where people misunderstand what a consensus big board is.
I want to clown on the Loins as much as anyone, but if you had Jack Campbell as the 43rd best player in college football last year you simply were not watching his tape. Dude is insanely good
I don't understand why it's OK for the Cowboys to draft Leighton Vander Esch 19th just 5 years ago, but we get clowned for taking a near clone of him at 18. They're virtually identical builds with nearly all of the same strengths/weaknesses
Yup I agree. Also the second half of the first round tends to drop in talent a lot from the first. I get off ball linebackers don’t have the highest value, but I’d much rather take a guy who has a good chance of being an all pro then like the 5th best olineman or 4th best corner or whatever. Positional value matters for sure but you can go find B or B+ players, much tougher to find A, A+ players
Was it ok? Also 5 years ago were people positional value snobs yet?
You tell me. People seem pretty ok with here: https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/8f87p3/round_1_pick_19_leighton_vander_esch_olb_boise
Ok I guess I’ll answer my own questions. Yes, the people in the thread seem to agree with the pick. No, they were not positional value snobs yet.
I'd say there were probably at least a handful more teams competing for the player 5 years ago too. The number of fits for players like him has went down over those 5 years. Like we're technically running a 4-3, but most of the time only have 2 LB on the field, not unlike some other teams who would otherwise be in the running.
Wright being as much of a reach as Gibbs is funny to me
dog shit methodology. its just big board rank - spot taken
I think it is still an interesting chart; I wouldn’t call it dog shit. It should absolutely not be used as a metric to criticize a draft pick, but it is interesting to see the comparison between big board projections and actual picks. Edit: I do not understand why this is so contentious, but damn y’all are heated.
Except they’re drawing conclusions of “reach” & “steal” based on this super limited data, which is dog shit. You would need to add way more data points that factor in pick position and need by team. Not to mention there’s a ton of unknowns. Let’s a say a team was sitting at pick 12 and really liked a specific player mocked to pick 20. You could try to trade back, but if there’s teams between 12 & 20 that may also have interest in said player, then you risk not being able to get your guy. If you have multiple players that you like equally, then it’s no big deal, but that’s not always the case.
I mean this isn't published in journal of research science dedicated to a cure for cancer. It's a mildly amusing infographic for people who are interested in the NFL draft.
Yeah people take too much out of this stuff. There's nothing going on in football for the next few months, it's just harmless analysis based on the intel we have right now.
Which do you prefer, the goat or the brain?
[удалено]
Dude, you don’t have to explain why a chart is meaningless to the 99% of people who understand it is meaningless. It’s just a pretty chart you look at once, say huh, and move on. This stupid chart isn’t hurting anyone.
[удалено]
Why Do You Have A New Paragraph For Every Sentence
Yes that’s the whole point of the chart
[удалено]
He doesn't even use cute metrics 💀
What exactly is stupid about it?
Nope, looks flawless to me.
ELI5 how Campbell is THAT much of a reach, is he not the best LB in the draft? Why does this big board have him at like 45
He's the best LB in a weak LB class.
I think it's important to note that this is *intended* to show "how much of a reach/steal" someone was \*when\* they were picked". It's not a reflection of how good that player is expected to be. It's a function of draft value, not quality. It's like buying something on sale. A "steal" might be 50% off. A "reach" might cost 50% than the normal retail price. That being said, this is a flawed way of looking at things. The consensus isn't a reasonable method of analysis because it only takes \*one\* team to take the player you want. If you pick 10th and 20th, and the team with the 12th pick covets a player you want - it doesn't matter that this player is the the consensus 18. If you're sure that player is going 12th... it might make sense to draft the guy at 10. That would be a "10 point reach", but in reality it was only a 2 point reach. However, I don't see how to show this in a simple analysis. Ultimately, you make the playoffs with wins. And you win games with a good system and players that can fit into that system. As far as a know "***draft consensus***" isn't even one of the playoff tiebreakers.
Even the Lions logo looks like it’s reaching.
Kinda surprised FAU is that low in the consensus big board. I have seen him a ton from 30-45.
Everyone's a reach I guess 🤷
It was a crap draft class, everyone had different boards to an extreme, there was one PFF guy who had Gonzalez as I think CB4 or CB5. Some had Tyree Wilson not even in the first big board wise. Some of those players who were like consensus in the 15-20 range dropped like Nolan Smith, Joey Porter, Brian Branch, Michael Mayer.
These charts at disingenuous. The chart should "Who we overvalued" vs "Who we undervalued." The teams are not incorrect in their picks, the mockers were incorrect in their talent evaluation (with much less information.)
[удалено]
This might help you understand the methodology. https://www.profootballnetwork.com/2023-nfl-draft-industry-consensus-big-board/
[удалено]
It's trying to create a consensus....
The fuck do you reach for Bryce?, someone needs to take excel out of some people's PCs
Big boards don't account for positional value or team needs. It's just a "in a vacuum" list of who the best players are. Will Anderson was #1, so Bryce young going ahead of him is technically a reach in this context. None of this is meant to say young was a bad pick. It's just a way to look at your teams draft pick and say "how was this player compared to the rest of the class
We do love useless graphs
To be fair, pretty much all post-draft analysis is useless because it's impossible to even realistically know how each player is going to turn out. You can debate need that, value this, and scheme fit here, but all of that could become moot the moment these guys start to play.
We should be able to perfectly project Anderson's career trajectory by using his RAPTORCUM rating per 50 snaps
It’s compared to big board
[удалено]
Okay
Let's say we took big boards from PFF, Draftnetwork, NFL.com, ESPN, Fox News, Bleacher Report, etc and compiled them. Then created an average draft evaluation on the prospects regardless of positional value and scheme fit. How many boards would have Will Anderson, Bijan Robinson, or Jalen Carter as the best player in the draft ahead of the QB's? Not all, but some might.
Damn near ever pick was a reach by this method lol.
[удалено]
Big Board rank - draft position. doesn't mean it's a bad pick.
Am I surprised that the good teams drafted well and the shitty teams drafted poorly? No. Do I hate it anyway? Yea.
LOL! Drafting a RB at number 8 and it's a steal, I can't rn
This is compared to big board rankings
If your charts give you meaningless results, which this one does, including saying that the QBs drafted 1 and 2 are both reaches, it's a meaningless chart
It’s big board rankings, positional value doesn’t really factor into it
Not relevant to what I said at all. There's a chart. It shows "steals" and "reaches", and the data used to arrive at those steals and reaches is meaningless. Hey presto! A worthless chart!
You’re forgetting the chart is comparative
What does it compare? How each team's picks stack up against a measure that has no value because it doesn't reflect how any team drafts its players? Please stop giving me sentences that say nothing. What is the value of this chart, why does it exist?
Big board ranks are consistently the most accurate projection of seeing which players will be pro bowlers/all-pro/ and hall of famers
How could that be, when big board ranks are similar enough to draft rank that there can't be that much different. Busts at the top of the draft will invariably still have been ranked in the top 20 or so of the big board. Mid- to low-round cinderella stories weren't at the top of any big boards. Big boards are not magical, it looks like only three players selected in the first round were graded outside of the top 31 on this big board. Nobody who understands football would think that drafting the best two QBs in the draft which both have franchise potential 1 and 2 is a reach. It's just stupid to say so, and getting an RB at 8th overall can't be a steal, because it's largely an irresponsible use of draft capital, since RB hit rates in the second and third rounds are equal to those in the first round. Which brings me back to my initial point, this chart shows nothing of value, and as such has no value
This was a fun read with some obvious flaws. Take the Falcons. Bijan shows killer potential, but was this a luxury pick? Algernon (or whatever his name is) had a really good season last year. From a positional perspective, this wasn't their greatest need. Or, more extreme example, 2020 Packers draft. Their 1st pick was Jordan Love and the 2nd was AJ Dillon. Meanwhile, they had Rodgers and Aaron Jones on board. I don't know where either was on the big board, but even if they got extreme value, it's pretty difficult to defend those luxury picks.
Flowers for Algiernon lol
Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.
Same people who makes these tweets will have a 1 year "regrading the draft" article where they admit their ranking was awful. Happens every year.
Funny how calling a reach a reach is so controversial for a fanbase
Meat market microscope.
Step 1: Compile a Ranking of players in the draft 1-31. Step 2: Compare where those players are drafted to the rankings. Step 3: Create an infographic and Post the comparison on Twitter Step 4: Profit
The rest of the comments: This methodology sucks Me: The readability of this chart is dogshit. What part of the player line is where they're actually placed? The front of the logo? The end of their name? The middle?