I recall one of the beat writers last year interviewing John about their daft process. It's quite ingenious and toes the line between draf ting for need and BPA.

First thing they do is grade their existing roster. Each player gets a 1-100 grade.

Then they rate all the rookies in the same manner.

They build their board based on who improves their roster the most compared to players already in the roster.

So say we get to 25 and Kawann Short and Deandre Hopkins are both on the board. Hypothetically Short has a grade of 78 and Hopkins has a grade of 85. BPA says pick Hopkins.

But if they have Clinton McDonald graded at a 60 and Golden Tate graded at a 75, they would pick Short because he offers the greater improvement over the existing roster spot.

That's the way John and Pete work the draft. Just something to keep in mind.

It's really BPVA.....Best Player Value Available.

Their system has been working well so far. Thanks for the info, though a link would be nice.....

Russell Wilson at 92 take Hopkins and bump the other issues to round two. lol

sutz wrote:It's really BPVA.....Best Player Value Available.

Their system has been working well so far. Thanks for the info, though a link would be nice.....

I've tried to track it down. Might have been a radio interview.

Good post OP and sutz summed it up well. BPVA is the approach we've been taking..

I'd add that positional depth in the draft will also come into play, as well. A WR that scores an 85 may be the BPA in the first round, but if there's 5 receivers graded out as 80s that will fall to the 2nd rd, the drop off is much smaller than perhaps the DT position between 1st and 2nd round.

I think we have to take Hopkins if he is available, I think he is a top 10 talent

Thanks for the insight McGruff. Still, I'd hope their system accounts for opportunity cost. For example, passing on the 85 WR could prove to be a mistake if the next best option is a 70. What if there are other DTs that score similarly to Short? If you have three 78 DTs and just one 85 WR, that I would hope that is a consideration.

I am a right brained person, and as such I get a little suspicious of left brained compartmentalized decision making. Using a number system is great until it makes you pass on a hall of famer that you knew was going to be great, all because the number system told you to. So far that hasn't been a problem, but with the late 1st round being so unusually awesome this year, it could be the first chance this FO gets to swing and miss and have it hurt. When it comes down to it, I'd feel better about them trusting their instincts more than a numbers system.

As much as I want a WR I wouldn't be surprised if they took the shotgun approach with the position this year. We could address our DT/LB in round 1 & 2 and then spend 3 later picks on WR's. I could see Wheaton in the 3rd, Hamilton in the 5th, and Marquess Wilson in the 7th and let them battle it out for roster spots. We really only have 3 roster locks at WR so the more they bring in the better the competition.

I understand the scale they use but in this scenario who would we take

#2 WR Tate = 82
#3 WR Baldwin =81

1st Rd WR (Hopkins) =85
2nd rd WR (Rogers) = 80

#1 DT Mebane = 90
#2 DT Branch = 75

1sr rd DT (Short) = 82
2nd rd DT (Williams) = 76

Could we not realistically improve more if we drafted WR 1st DT 2nd. If we waited at WR the player would not be better than our #2 or #3. Only way to improve there would eb to draft in round 1. Whereas drafting a 2nd rd DT would still be an improvement. We could essentially get 2 starters this way. DT might be soo weak a 3rd round could be a starter. I don't see any 3rd rd WR beating our Tate or Baldwin.

Positions that could net us starters depending on package
Round 1 WR (#2 WR)
Round 1-3 DT (5 tech)
Round 1-4 TE (#2 TE)
Round 1-4 LB (WLB)
Round 1-4 DE (Leo/3rd down)


Perfect scenario
#1- WR (Allen/Patterson/Hopkins/Hunter/Austin)
#2- DT (Short/S.Williams/B.Williams)
#3- LB (Brown, Green, Hodges, Porter, Jenkins, Gooden)
#4- TE (Escobar, Reed, Toilolo, Fauria, Kelce)
#4- DE (Simon, Kruger, Lemonier, Gholston)

Sign FA DE (Osi, Avril, Bennett, Johnson, Carter, Freeney)

Branch is a free agent. And we need to differentiate between the two tackles.

Whatever they do when they draft seems to work. PC/JS could draft a punter at 25 and I'd be sold on it.

The whole BPVA concept must also take into account the strength of next year's draft as well... taking into consideration the depth of talent in positions of need.

Recon_Hawk wrote:Good post OP and sutz summed it up well. BPVA is the approach we've been taking..

I'd add that positional depth in the draft will also come into play, as well. A WR that scores an 85 may be the BPA in the first round, but if there's 5 receivers graded out as 80s that will fall to the 2nd rd, the drop off is much smaller than perhaps the DT position between 1st and 2nd round.

Good point.

Clearly PC and JS's formula's are much more sophisticated than these simplified examples. I'm sure they evaluate everything from all angles. I'm VERY excited for this coming draft. If it's anything as impactful as the 2012 class, than we should expect a division Title in the very least.

This is a type of football 'moneyball metrics assessment', like the Oakland team used for on base % relative to slugging %, or the lost opportunity cost of outs from failed base stealing .

I'm sure the team looks at sunk cost, opportunity cost, affect upon cap or future cap, in terms of their 1-100 assessment of each player. I'm sure there is more than one metric as well. In short though it comes down to this, is the draftable player perceived to be better by enough than at a position of need in terms of value to justify using the draft pick on that draftable player?

kearly wrote:Thanks for the insight McGruff. Still, I'd hope their system accounts for opportunity cost. For example, passing on the 85 WR could prove to be a mistake if the next best option is a 70. What if there are other DTs that score similarly to Short? If you have three 78 DTs and just one 85 WR, that I would hope that is a consideration.

I am a right brained person, and as such I get a little suspicious of left brained compartmentalized decision making. Using a number system is great until it makes you pass on a hall of famer that you knew was going to be great, all because the number system told you to. So far that hasn't been a problem, but with the late 1st round being so unusually awesome this year, it could be the first chance this FO gets to swing and miss and have it hurt. When it comes down to it, I'd feel better about them trusting their instincts more than a numbers system.

Good point, Kip. I do think, though, that they have it covered. It seems to me that Schneid has the numbers game and the metrics, while Pete seems to go more on gut instinct and the eyeball test for the whole "is he a good football player" question. Between the two of them, I sense a pretty good balance in talent evaluation being exhibited.

As was pointed out lower in the thread, there are certainly other things to consider, such as future draft classes and your opportunity cost calculations. They've done well so far, so I'm apt to trust them moreso than prior administrations. The track record is pretty good.

I will also note that they do seem willing to venture out of their "comfort zone" when it comes to the measurables they want. Golden doesn't really fit their size preferences, nor do a couple of the DBs they've picked up. So I have hope they can get past the numbers and pick good players. They've done it before, so it appears they do have flexibility in their system to recognize talent, even if it isn't in the perfect package.

I'd wager that they incorporate interviews and psychological evaluations in to the equation. As mentioned above, the "is he a football player" probably has its value as does athlete vs technician.

sutz wrote:

kearly wrote:Thanks for the insight McGruff. Still, I'd hope their system accounts for opportunity cost. For example, passing on the 85 WR could prove to be a mistake if the next best option is a 70. What if there are other DTs that score similarly to Short? If you have three 78 DTs and just one 85 WR, that I would hope that is a consideration.

I am a right brained person, and as such I get a little suspicious of left brained compartmentalized decision making. Using a number system is great until it makes you pass on a hall of famer that you knew was going to be great, all because the number system told you to. So far that hasn't been a problem, but with the late 1st round being so unusually awesome this year, it could be the first chance this FO gets to swing and miss and have it hurt. When it comes down to it, I'd feel better about them trusting their instincts more than a numbers system.

Good point, Kip. I do think, though, that they have it covered. It seems to me that Schneid has the numbers game and the metrics, while Pete seems to go more on gut instinct and the eyeball test for the whole "is he a good football player" question. Between the two of them, I sense a pretty good balance in talent evaluation being exhibited.

As was pointed out lower in the thread, there are certainly other things to consider, such as future draft classes and your opportunity cost calculations. They've done well so far, so I'm apt to trust them moreso than prior administrations. The track record is pretty good.

I will also note that they do seem willing to venture out of their "comfort zone" when it comes to the measurables they want. Golden doesn't really fit their size preferences, nor do a couple of the DBs they've picked up. So I have hope they can get past the numbers and pick good players. They've done it before, so it appears they do have flexibility in their system to recognize talent, even if it isn't in the perfect package.

Pete has talked extensively about their having certain measurables in mind, but that they will go outside the box if a player has "compensating factors." Like Earl's speed and Golden's agility and Wilson's . . . Um . . . Being Wilson.

jammerhawk wrote:This is a type of football 'moneyball metrics assessment', like the Oakland team used for on base % relative to slugging %, or the lost opportunity cost of outs from failed base stealing .

I'm sure the team looks at sunk cost, opportunity cost, affect upon cap or future cap, in terms of their 1-100 assessment of each player. I'm sure there is more than one metric as well. In short though it comes down to this, is the draftable player perceived to be better by enough than at a position of need in terms of value to justify using the draft pick on that draftable player?

Using the "think outside of the box" theory, what if JS and PC selected Eddie Lacy with the 25th pick? Think about it first before you come unhinged.
I've been screaming for years about the need for a 1000 yd back, and you've seen how well that worked out for us. Beast mode has taken alot of big shots, its starting to loosen his grip on the ball. Is Turbin a 1000 yard back? Keeping thinking about the options here.

Chawker wrote:

jammerhawk wrote:This is a type of football 'moneyball metrics assessment', like the Oakland team used for on base % relative to slugging %, or the lost opportunity cost of outs from failed base stealing .

I'm sure the team looks at sunk cost, opportunity cost, affect upon cap or future cap, in terms of their 1-100 assessment of each player. I'm sure there is more than one metric as well. In short though it comes down to this, is the draftable player perceived to be better by enough than at a position of need in terms of value to justify using the draft pick on that draftable player?

Using the "think outside of the box" theory, what if JS and PC selected Eddie Lacy with the 25th pick? Think about it first before you come unhinged.
I've been screaming for years about the need for a 1000 yd back, and you've seen how well that worked out for us. Beast mode has taken alot of big shots, its starting to loosen his grip on the ball. Is Turbin a 1000 yard back? Keeping thinking about the options here.

Not sure if your joking or not? Pete and John are outside the box, but there's 0% chance we draft Eddie Lacy.

Well regardless they can tell what the system concept is but it's their ratings specifically that make the difference. I would wager each person that posts in this thread given the chance to grade 20 players would be different then what Pete and John grade them.