I'm serious. Say it's the second round of the draft, and I'm a GM deciding between a left tackle and a nose tackle. The grading scale is out of 100, where 100 is the future GOAT at his position, 50 is league average at his position, and 0 is the Hackenberg of his position. Both the LT and the NT grade as a 75, which means they're projected to be above average players at their positions. In this case, taking the LT is a no-brainer, so I take him. Now say Mac is picking right after me. I've just taken the 75 LT off the board, and the next-best one is a 65. If Mac goes strictly by BPA, he'll take the 75 NT over the 65 LT. And that's why we keep ending up with interior defensive linemen. Because by the time it's Mac's turn to pick, the players available to him with the highest grades at their positions are necessarily the ones playing the least important positions. Every GM faces this problem, but most GMs aren't so wedded to their draft grades and will take a player of a more important position who also grades lower at his position.
I'm fine with having a draft strategy and being stubborn with it... i mean i hate that we have taken a ton of interior defenisve lineman and a safety and basically ignored offense outside of danrold the past decade, but I can get onboard with having a philosiphy and sticking to it. what i cant get on board with is whiffing on 90% of your picks in rounds 2-7 and not having any all-pro talent with your picks in the top 5 or 8. (who knows on darnold and q williams... too early) If you are going to bypass need and key positions (LT, Edge rusher, LCB) and skill positions for "best player available" then those "best players" need to stay in the league, see the field, start, and contribute. and your top 10 picks need to be major contributors and all-pros. like if you are going to pass on mahomes and watson for a safety he needs to be troy polamolu or ed reed. and you need to have guys in rounds 2 thorugh 7 actually contirbute
I thought about this a little more. It seems to me that whatever scale you use to rank players should have an "absolute" or position-independent value attached to each player. So in your example, rating by position both the NT and the LT have grades of 75, but there should also be some kind of rating as to the overall impact of each position. I've suggested this in the past regarding QBs. Given that a QB is THE MOST important position on a team, the scale you use needs to reflect that. As one approach you could rank/weight each position as to its impact on the team, as well as the difficulty in filling that position.For example, let's assign a 100 to QBs, a 95 to LTs, a 90 to Edge/Pass Rusher, and so on...you can argue about the values or which position has which value, but you get the idea. So in your example again, the NT and LT are both rated 75 using the non-weighted scale, but if a LT is a 95 on my scale, and the NT is an 85 we would get the following values: LT = 175; NT = 160, so the Overall BPA Value is with the LT. I think this would give a more accurate evaluation of the talent and its impact.
The tweet has been reposted in here, it was that glen naughton tweet I think without traveling back to look. Ps I never use the main page here tbh I am linked straight to the forum.
Agree on the concept but probably would consider a "Degree of Difficulty" factor that is multiplied against the rating as is done in sports where subjective judging is necessary rather than simply added to it. Do we know that teams are not doing this already in producing their draft books?
Agreed. Though one additional point regarding QBs. Unlike most of the other positions, you don't rotate QBs. So even if you need one, and based on your scale he's the highest-rated player on the board, doesn't mean you should take him. For example, the next Jameis Winston will score higher on your metric than pretty much any non-QB you can get, but do you really want to commit to him as your QB? In that case, you're better off waiting till next year to get a QB.
The rumors of Mac being fired are made up by Lombardi and Belicheat because Lombardi's son was part of Bowles staff that was let go. A coach and GM not agreeing on FA and or the draft is not news, I am sure it happens all the time. The owner just let the GM spend 80 million dollars of his money and pick players in the 2019 draft. Isn't that enough proof is all BS or do you want to be a TMZ'er? Enough already
Well we will see today if this is true or not. I doubt very highly it will be, kinda feel bad for those that got all excited by these rumors.
The rumors were supposedly verified by two differ reporters with different sources as far as Gase being unhappy with Mac. They never mentioned a firing just that he’s very unhappy with the GM. No need to be a troll and put words in I never stated, but when you have no reasonable response I guess that’s all you can do is troll.
I disagree. All GMs, McCagnan included, already have position factored into their grades. In your example, the left tackle would actually be a less promising prospect even if they are both rated '75' because part of his 75 grade is being boosted by his position. a 65, even less of a promising prospect vs. a 75 at a less prioritized position. They also have to realize they are drafting players for 2,3,4+ years down the line and not for immediate need. I realize you are just spitballing, but we also don't know if Mccagnan has ever faced a situation like you describe. Honestly, if you look at his draft history, other than the 1st round he has focused on position and need in those middle rounds. I mean everyone is upset they have such a need at edge rusher but shit Maccagnan has been drafting edge rushers every. single. year. Mauldin, Jenkins, Donahue, Polite.... The problem seems to be his ability to evaluate talent, not his prioritization of it!!!
I was listening to WFAN on my way to work this morning. They said Macc is safe and rumors are entirely false. Take it for what its worth.
Gase has no authority as he's just been hired as HC. And Greg Williams, who was DC of the Browns, and acting HC, just got hired too, as the HC of our Defense. Gase HAS to know his 'replacement' is one tic away. If Greg's Defense 'shines' while Gase's Offense struggles, Gase could be out mid season 2020 and the reigns handed to Greg Williams. No joke. There may be factions at 1 Jet Drive who wanted Williams over Gase from day 1. So when Mac (true to form) concentrated all his top draft capital on the Defense, while 'almost' ignoring the Offense, Gase might feel like he's being 'set up' to fail. We NEED a Mangold capable Center BAD. It's really tough for an Offense to do much better than their O-line allows. So with Greg Williams looking over his shoulder and smiling at his new recruits, I can see why Gase is a little uneasy.
The problem is there are only 32LT in the NFL and there are analytics that tell GM's what's ideal and what's likely to bust. If there are likely 2 starting caliber LT in the draft based on grades and they're gone at what point do you move on? This is the dilemma of GM's after the first 10 to 32 picks. The smart move is to trade down if you don't think the LT is going to make it and fill other needs rather than take the higher rated player who doesn't fit a need. QB, LT, edge rushers and CB's who can play press man are extremely hard to draft down the board because in order to survive in the NFL these positions usually need to be very high on the scale in order to make it in the NFL. You can fill a roster including special teams with other players who are a dime a dozen.
I agree. In the scenario which you responded to, if you as a GM have a draft grade of 65 on an LT prospect, then it's not a matter of your thinking he isn't going to make it. Even if he doesn't become good enough to be a reliable starter, he may become a very good backup. Injuries are part of the game and every team needs depth. If you have no need at NT/DT, then it doesn't matter if a prospect at that position has a higher grade than a prospect at a position of need, it isn't going to make your team any better (or only negligibly so) to take the NT/DT rather than taking the player at the position of need or of greater importance or to trade down and look to address needs.
