Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner
 

Draft philosophy

DaveW2 : 3/15/2017 7:54 pm
Admittedly this is a vast subject, but I'd like to address a particular aspect. And that is, how does an organization ideally utilize players from all seven rounds of the draft?

The conventional wisdom is that the first round selection should be a productive starter in his first year, and ideally a Pro Bowler in his subsequent years. Second and third rounders should be able to contribute, but not necessarily start, in their first year. Nevertheless, they should become backbone contributors during their tenure.

That leaves the 5-7 rounders. How should a team approach these to extract the most benefit going forward? Are they developmental candidates, backups, draft trade options, or something else. I don't have any figures in front of me, but I think I can safely say that, except for an anomaly or two (Ahmed Bradshaw comes to mind), these later round picks have not been very productive for our team, and probably not for other teams as well. So, what do you think is the best option for late rounders?
go fishin  
gtt350 : 3/15/2017 8:11 pm : link
,
Last year we didn't have a seventh,  
Ira : 3/15/2017 8:24 pm : link
but the 5th and 6th round picks did pretty well for late round rookies.
it's a good question...  
Dan in the Springs : 3/15/2017 8:43 pm : link
I really think your approach to the draft has more to do with your current roster. If you are loaded, your later picks must have high ceilings to have a chance to make the team. This was our approach following the most recent SB championships. High ceilings in later rounds mean low floors, so they are risky. If they don't pan out as your team ages you must shift approaches, which Reese did over the last few years. That's when you draft the high floor low ceiling guys, like all the team captains we've selected in the past three years or so.

So it really depends on where your team is at, imo.
Throw in  
Glover : 3/15/2017 8:43 pm : link
the first round players who never pan out and late round picks and undrafted free agents who become studs. They must think all guys they draft could be starters in the NFL. Obviously some have higher expectations than others, but all GMs know theres no such thing as a sure thing. Just gotta go in to it with the belief that their player evaluation is sound and their work will pay off.
Many  
AcidTest : 3/15/2017 8:52 pm : link
teams had Bradshaw as a third round pick based on talent. He fell to the seventh round because of talent concerns.

Day three players tend to be in one or more of the following categories:

(1) Players who have fallen because of character concerns. This year that included Chad Kelly. Somebody will probably draft him on day three, especially since he's a QB.

(2) Players who have fallen because of injuries, especially if they are recent.

(3) Players who have only played football for a few years.

(4) Players from small schools.

(5) Players who played in a system not suited to their talents.

(6) Workout warriors, and players with extraordinary physical characteristics, like an OL with extremely long arms.

Teams are willing to take risks on day three because these players are cheap, and most don't work out anyway. Many don't even make the final 53, and are often beaten out for roster spots by UDFAs. Most are of course expected to play ST.
If possible, I'd give up 3rd and 4th round picks for multiple later  
CT Charlie : 3/15/2017 11:01 pm : link
round picks. After the top 60-70 guys, I think it's hard to predict. The draft is a crap shoot and you want to stack the odds in your favor.
RE: Many  
Jesse B : 3/16/2017 8:53 am : link
In comment 13394570 AcidTest said:
Quote:
teams had Bradshaw as a third round pick based on talent. He fell to the seventh round because of talent concerns.

Day three players tend to be in one or more of the following categories:

(1) Players who have fallen because of character concerns. This year that included Chad Kelly. Somebody will probably draft him on day three, especially since he's a QB.

(2) Players who have fallen because of injuries, especially if they are recent.

(3) Players who have only played football for a few years.

(4) Players from small schools.

(5) Players who played in a system not suited to their talents.

(6) Workout warriors, and players with extraordinary physical characteristics, like an OL with extremely long arms.

Teams are willing to take risks on day three because these players are cheap, and most don't work out anyway. Many don't even make the final 53, and are often beaten out for roster spots by UDFAs. Most are of course expected to play ST.


thrrr are probabaly 5 players every draft who don't fall into one or more of those categories.
RE: If possible, I'd give up 3rd and 4th round picks for multiple later  
AcidTest : 3/16/2017 8:54 am : link
In comment 13394643 CT Charlie said:
Quote:
round picks. After the top 60-70 guys, I think it's hard to predict. The draft is a crap shoot and you want to stack the odds in your favor.


Tend to agree.
System fit/special teams  
Jesse B : 3/16/2017 8:57 am : link
After the first three rounds grab guys who can play special teams and have characteristics that could make them a fit for your system.

A pass catching running back, coverage linebacker, swing tackles, return men. And ocassuonally you'll strike gold and they will prove to be more capable then people thought.

There are very few clean prospects. Players either didn't produce enough for their perceived talent , lack ideal measureables, or have character concerns. If they don't fall into one of these three categories they are top 10 picks.
draft for starters in every round  
idiotsavant : 3/16/2017 9:52 am : link
in order to do this one has to watch and take advantage of sentiment trends regarding types of players, trends concerning typical rounds for good players by type, have bullshit detector at max.

in addition, identify opportunities within ones own team, not just -needs- but play style or -intended play style- (hello, OL) where improvements can be % most realistically made on that round by round positional basis in each instance, leveraging the above.

then, the obvious, work hard at the 'known leading' players as well, in case they drop and you have value conflicts that result.

and finally, keep in mind, 16,500 kid are eligible and about only 330 go to the combine so...regarding all the obsessing about the first round 'studs', sure, that's important, but if you fail to work the numbers you are really missing the whole story.

why would any team outsource the first stage of its scouting pool to whomever does the combine invites? that would be counter productive to be polite.
Back to the Corner