Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:55 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
Posts: 1437
Location: Blaine, WA
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>


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:15 pm 
USMC 1970-77
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 9561
Location: Monroe, WA
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:16 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:18 am
Posts: 1265
Location: corner of 40th & plum
Russell Wilson at 92 take Hopkins and bump the other issues to round two. lol

_________________
Supporting MY Seahawk scents 1976. Inviewed by Wayne Cody KIRO Radio 1976 Lions pre season game. GO SEAHAWKS!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:21 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
Posts: 1437
Location: Blaine, WA
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>


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:23 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Online

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 1894
Location: Vancouver, Wa
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 got passion for my Hawks and I ain't afraid to show it


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:30 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:14 am
Posts: 238
I think we have to take Hopkins if he is available, I think he is a top 10 talent


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:18 pm 
* Mr Random Thought *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 9847
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:08 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:38 am
Posts: 2017
Location: Graham, WA
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)

_________________
Image


Last edited by Wenhawk on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:10 am 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
Posts: 1437
Location: Blaine, WA
Branch is a free agent. And we need to differentiate between the two tackles.

_________________
<A>
<IMG></A>


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:23 am 
* NET Sage *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm
Posts: 4371
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:07 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am
Posts: 2888
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)

Moved to Seattle in 1980. Hawks fan for 34 years and counting.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:04 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:48 pm
Posts: 2281
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:09 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:48 pm
Posts: 2281
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:50 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm
Posts: 1738
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. Until the OLine is strengthened the team will remain weak.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:41 pm 
USMC 1970-77
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 9561
Location: Monroe, WA
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.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS


Last edited by sutz on Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:25 pm 
* NET Nobody *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
Posts: 7613
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:54 pm 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
Posts: 1437
Location: Blaine, WA
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>


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:29 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:18 am
Posts: 1265
Location: corner of 40th & plum
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.

_________________
Supporting MY Seahawk scents 1976. Inviewed by Wayne Cody KIRO Radio 1976 Lions pre season game. GO SEAHAWKS!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:38 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 873
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And another thing . . . BPA vs. Need
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 8:17 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
Posts: 9252
Location: Renton Wa.
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EmbattleTheeHawks, two dog and 12 guests

 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.