And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need

Discuss your thoughts about anything draft related. Mocks, College and Pro. Knock yourselves out!!! RATING: PG-13
And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:55 pm
  • 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.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1557
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Blaine, WA


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:15 pm
  • 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.....;)
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 10037
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Monroe, WA


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:16 pm
  • Russell Wilson at 92 take Hopkins and bump the other issues to round two. lol
    2013-2014 SUPERBOWL CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    Chawker
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1320
    Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:18 am
    Location: corner of 40th & plum


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:21 pm
  • 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.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1557
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Blaine, WA


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:23 pm
  • 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 am Godzilla, you are Japan!
    User avatar
    Recon_Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2046
    Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:01 pm
    Location: Vancouver, Wa


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:30 pm
  • I think we have to take Hopkins if he is available, I think he is a top 10 talent
    seahawks875
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 238
    Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:14 am


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:18 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10657
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:08 am
  • 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)
    Last edited by Wenhawk on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Image
    User avatar
    Wenhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2128
    Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:38 am
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:10 am
  • Branch is a free agent. And we need to differentiate between the two tackles.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1557
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Blaine, WA


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:23 am
  • Whatever they do when they draft seems to work. PC/JS could draft a punter at 25 and I'd be sold on it.
    February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 4739
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:07 am
  • 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.
    EastCoastHawksFan posted... "Trading for Harvin is by far the worst move John S has ever made." (March 18, 2014)

    your World Champion Seattle Seahawks.. how sweet is that!!
    User avatar
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3067
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:04 pm
  • 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.
    jlwaters1
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2374
    Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:48 pm


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:09 pm
  • 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.
    jlwaters1
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2374
    Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:48 pm


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:50 pm
  • 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?
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to completely take the final step. That was done and the final step was taken.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons.

    What a special magical year!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1836
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:41 pm
  • 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.
    Last edited by sutz on Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 10037
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Monroe, WA


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:25 pm
  • 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.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8053
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:54 pm
  • 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.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1557
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Blaine, WA


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:29 pm
  • 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.
    2013-2014 SUPERBOWL CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    Chawker
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1320
    Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:18 am
    Location: corner of 40th & plum


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:38 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 884
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:22 pm


Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:17 pm
  • 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.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Used to be an Alumni till they pulled a USC on me...
    .Net official Clueless, Dumbass, Douche, Simpleton, CensoredTard , Idiot, member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 10081
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.




It is currently Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:20 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests