Mayock out

[Guest]

NBC Sports EDGE Football

@NBCSEdgeFB

·1m

Raiders bust Arnette gets futures deal from Chiefs

[Guest]

There's not a GM in the league who hasn't missed out on top picks. Nobody bats 1000. Look no further then Hall of Famer Bill Polian's last decade with the Colts and you'll find some real stinkers in there. It's just the nature of the business and you almost need to be lucky as much as you need to be smart. 

Nobody bats 1000? Hell, nobody bats 400. 

I will say that each pick should be weighted according to where he was taken. For example, a miss in the top 5 should carry more weight than a miss in the 20s. And a hit in the 4th round should carry more weight than a hit in the top 5. 

I've been thinking about repurposing an intern to due some data diving on this very thing. A sort of PFF for the draft. Everything now can be measured and compared. Why not drafting? Yet, there's no logical, sensible way to compare how teams draft. 

There's a few, but they're woefully opaque and hard to understand. So I don't know how accurate they are. For example, there's AV (average value), which considers contribution, VOE (value over expectation), which considers contribution but factors in draft slot, and the old standby: post season recognition (all pro, etc). For what it's worth, over the last 10 drafts, Rick Spielman ranks 1st in the first one, 3rd in the second one and 1st in the third one, with the obvious caveat that only a handful of GMs have been around long enough to render an apples comparison. 

I think PFF, with all their staff and resources, will crack this nut and start using their grades to compare drafts, but they have to do a much better job of what they already do before anyone takes it seriously. 

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:

There's not a GM in the league who hasn't missed out on top picks. Nobody bats 1000. Look no further then Hall of Famer Bill Polian's last decade with the Colts and you'll find some real stinkers in there. It's just the nature of the business and you almost need to be lucky as much as you need to be smart. 

Nobody bats 1000? Hell, nobody bats 400. 

I will say that each pick should be weighted according to where he was taken. For example, a miss in the top 5 should carry more weight than a miss in the 20s. And a hit in the 4th round should carry more weight than a hit in the top 5. 

I've been thinking about repurposing an intern to due some data diving on this very thing. A sort of PFF for the draft. Everything now can be measured and compared. Why not drafting? Yet, there's no logical, sensible way to compare how teams draft. 

There's a few, but they're woefully opaque and hard to understand. So I don't know how accurate they are. For example, there's AV (average value), which considers contribution, VOE (value over expectation), which considers contribution but factors in draft slot, and the old standby: post season recognition (all pro, etc). For what it's worth, over the last 10 drafts, Rick Spielman ranks 1st in the first one, 3rd in the second one and 1st in the third one, with the obvious caveat that only a handful of GMs have been around long enough to render an apples comparison. 

I think PFF, with all their staff and resources, will crack this nut and start using their grades to compare drafts, but they have to do a much better job of what they already do before anyone takes it seriously. 

I mean it would be interesting breaking down an overall formula on grading GM's, but to me I think you have to look at the overall success/impact of a draft three years afterwards to make a fair judgement. What the Raiders were able to pull from the Clelin Ferrill draft was a huge reason for their success this season. Could they and should they have done more with those picks? Yeah maybe, but drafting is a huge roll of the dice anyways as we know...so it's all debatable