|
National Football League
Draft King Analysis
November 1, 2007
Lou Pickney, DraftKing.com
Reader feedback is always welcomed here at DraftKing.com. Send your thoughts to me at LouPickney@gmail.com.
From: Kevin Harwick
To: LouPickney@gmail.com
Date: Oct 29, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Packers CB
Thank you for the work you put into the site.
I agree with a corner in the 1st round for the Pack, but I think this would be a scheme mismatch as the Pack plays mostly man / bump n run. It would work if you’re only wanting to fill the the 3rd spot, but I would think you need to go bigger if you’re looking for possible Woodson/Harris replacements. I’d hope some of the CBs you have going earlier will drop when Juniors declare.
Any opinion?
Lou: You make a good point about the corners primarily working out of the man-to-man set, but the idea isn't as much for the Pack to draft someone for the third corner position (even if that's where they will initally end up) as it is for the player to replace Al Harris (who turns 33 next month) or 30-year-old Charles Woodson.
What the Packers do is going to be predicated on who declares for the draft, both at corner and at running back (which is where I currently have the Packers going in round one), and obviously how they think the available players will work in their system.
From: Scott Anonymous
To: LouPickney@gmail.com
Date: Oct 30, 2007 12:43 AM
Subject: Questions
Lou - you should probably get used to me writing you about your site, as (A) I enjoy it quite a bit and (B) you seem to value reader input. Atleast for now!
- Do you plan on not only trying to predict teams' draft picks in the first round, but also analyzing their picks based on their needs and the player's skills?
- Do you plan on addressing the second round? I can't think of a second-round mock draft that's ever been anything close to right, especially since things get so unpredictable after pick 10 in the first. Maybe with the reduced time in the first, teams will trade less? This seems to make sense on the surface, but in the past few years the second round has had only 10 minutes between picks (as the first will this year), and plenty of deals get done during the waiting period then as well.
- Do you plan on reviewing draft picks from the past draft or two and looking at how well they've done?
- Do you plan on looking at the strategy teams employed in the past regarding the draft and trying to base your predictions on that? Some teams, it would seem, would be more willing to wheel and deal on draft day (New England), while others would seemingly need to be bowled over by an offer. Some teams like to draft based on need, which seems more likely at the top of the round since those teams presumably have bigger problems to address, while other teams seem to consistently draft "the best player available", perhaps because they're consistently drafting at the end of the first round (Pittsburgh).
The following are opinions and I'd like to get yours in return, if possible...
It's my personal opinion that drafting the best player available is almost always the best way to go. There's always the argument that "not all first-round QBs turn into Peyton Manning, but drafting a QB in the first is virtually the ONLY way to get Peyton Manning". That may be all well and true, but you don't need Peyton Manning to win Super Bowls, either. Of course it helps. But the Texans took this sort of route when they drafted David Carr in 2002, when really they should have drafted Julius Peppers. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but I bet that even then most people would have told you that Julius Peppers was the safer bet. And that's one of 1000 examples I'm sure.
I would also argue that "immediate wins" that a player can provide you is undervalued (although I could see that getting extremely overvalued as well). This is more of a concern for teams that are picking in the top-5. The Raiders almost certainly won't be the #1 pick this year, but it's not because of JaMarcus Russell. They probably would have been better served getting Joe Thomas or Calvin Johnson, both of whom are making significant contributions to their teams (and both of those teams may very likely draft in the lower half of the first round [obviously Cleveland won't actually be drafting, but they didn't plan on that when they took Thomas]).
Getting wins quickly is a good way to make sure your salary cap doesn't get bogged down by top-10 pick after top-10 pick, year after year. See: the Texans, bothered by questionable prospect after questionable prospect under the Casserly years. Only Dunta Robinson worked out; hey, the law of averages had to intervene at some point. It's easy to pick apart my argument, though. The Lions took how many receivers in the first? And none of them were Calvin Johnson, as a prospect or as an on-field presence. But that's the point - some prospects are obviously going to help you the next year - by several degrees over their peers at their position or projected draft slot - that you should take them if given the chance, if only to ensure that you aren't picking in the top-10 all the time and paying unproven players like they are Pro Bowlers. Calvin Johnson at #2 is different than Mike Williams at #2, because it was obvious CJ was going to be a stud in the NFL and Mike Williams was a chunky diva. Millen shot himself and the Lions in the foot when he went into that draft thinking "we need a receiver". That's no way to approach a draft. You would never approach a free-agent market thinking "I need a left tackle" and sign the best one available to a Walter Jones deal.
So, as you may have figured out by now by looking at both of those opinions, you probably figured that I think "drafting by need" is a pretty stupid thing to do. And it is, unless you are a perennial playoff team and are given the option to do so. The Patriots might end up with a top-10 pick because they have the 49ers' first-round pick. They would be a perfect example of when it would be a good idea to draft "based on need", since their "need" wouldn't really be motivated by desperation. Too many teams feel they "need" a franchise QB (Russell, A. Smith, Carr, Boller, Harrington, etc...) and end up having their hands forced by faulty logic.
"Drafting by upside" is "drafting by need"'s cousin - almost as sure-fire disastrous. Those sort of picks are best reserved for teams that aren't going to start such a player immediately and/or can pick up said player in at least the late second round.
And finally, yes I'm down on Russell... he was a late-first-rounder at best before the LSU-Notre Dame game, and he shot up after that because he beat Brady Quinn and could throw a ball to the moon. I predict people will soon come to realize that JaMarcus Russell was surrounded by far superior talent (Dwayne Bowe, Craig Davis and Early Doucet on offense, Ali Highsmith, LaRon Landry, Glenn Dorsey on defense). Meanwhile Brady Quinn had a receiver who ended up playing minor league baseball for the Cubs and a running back who is signed to the Texans' practice squad and can't get any big-boy NFL playing time because of the Adimchinobe Echemandu, who, as well all know, is well on his way to the Pro Bowl *eye-roll* You may see Tom Zbikowski go in the second round, but that's about all you'll ever be able to say about the talent around Quinn last year.
Finally, I have a gripe with Mel Kiper, Jr. It seems like his Big Board is a mix of...
(A) Genuine, legitimate first-round talent, guys you can reasonably expect to make an appearance in the Pro Bowl
(B) Hype guys that are hit and miss a lot and probably aren't worth what a first-round pick could get you (see A)
How many times do we see scouting reports that say Player B "takes plays off" and end up seeing turn into consistent performers? LenDale "Donut" White? Albert "the Boot" Haynesworth, prior to this year (which is a contract year by the way)? Dwayne Jarrett, who has 1 catch this year despite being healthy? Quentin Jammer and DeAngelo Hall, who are absolutely terrible excuses for an NFL cornerback? These are B-type guys. Granted, Jarrett and White were second-round picks but Kiper was big on them for considerable amounts of time, and I wonder how much of Kiper's hype (the unquestioned king of the NFL draft, as far as how many ears his words fall on) about these types of guys being first-round type picks is self-fulfilling prophecy. I wish Kiper would either say that his Big Board are players that would be good, safe first-round picks, OR are players that have huge upside. He'd be better served to have a running mock draft, since that reflects what teams interpret and may end up doing, no matter how smart it might actually be.
Lou: First off, I love the doughnut reference to LenDale White. My brother
Matt and I joke that there is a "HOT!" sign for doughnuts that motivates White in his runs for the Titans. Two seasons now and it hasn't gotten old for us yet.
I think Mel Kiper does an excellent job and I must disagree with you about his Big Board and the predictions he makes. His depth of knowledge related to the draft is remarkable, and in general I concur with his draft order. He has made it clear that his evaluations are not a mock draft and that he doesn't attempt to project who will go where.
Believe me, I've had people try to compare me to Kiper, but his volume of knowledge is worlds deeper than mine. He is a valuable source of information, since his player assessments are usually strong, and what he does and what I do are distinctly different things, albeit both related to the draft.
One thing to keep in mind: there is no such thing as a sure thing in the draft. Players are listed high because of their potential and upside (though that is more of an NBA Draft phrase, as Bill Simmons has written about many times), but making the adjustment to the next level is hardly a lock for anyone. There are so many intangibles involved, particularly from a mental level but also with injuries and the like, that it's tough to give anyone a "sure lock" assessment.
Kiper's Big Board is fine by me, and with many, many years of proven success with it, I'd suggest that he'll be inclined to keep it the same as he has in the past.
There may be NFL fans who disagree with some of your player assessments. DeAngelo Hall may be a disruptive force, but he is a two-time Pro Bowler. As for the rookie receivers you cited, remember that they are rookies and that, unlike a position like running back, wideouts typically don't begin to show true development until their third season.
I do plan to have team need breakdowns as a forthcoming feature on the site. Same with second round picks. When I do it, I want to do it right, so I'm still working on what the best way to do that is. The second round can be especially difficult due to trades; consider that more than half of the picks in last year's second round (17 of 32) were traded at least once. Trying to accurately predict under those circumstances can make things especially difficult.
Keep this in mind: the further you move from the top of the draft, the more difficult it is to make an accurate prediction on who will go where. More variables come into play, not the least of which is attempting to assess where a given team will judge a player compared with others at his position. Sure, it's easy to say that Darren McFadden is the #1 RB in the 2008 Draft (if he comes out), but who's the #2 guy? Ask five people and you might hear five different answers: Mike Hart, Steve Slaton, Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, and Felix Jones.
As for reviewing drafts, that is an interesting idea, though I firmly believe that there is a minimum of three years that needs to pass to give even an initial evaluation, and five to give a full evaluation. Perhaps that would be a good effort to do in that dull period after the draft and before the pre-season.
I'm not sure how valuable it would be to rate teams based on past draft strategies, given that in any draft the tables can turn. New England has a history of trading down and acquiring future picks (which is a very smart approach, by the way), but then they surprised many by taking so-called "character issue" player Brandon Meriweather with pick #24. Of course, they then parlayed their other pick into landing San Francisco's 2008 first rounder, so some trends hold true.
As far as teams drafting for need, it's not always a bad thing. Reaching to take a need player can be questionable, though sometimes a team will feel that it desperately needs to address a given spot to the point of either stretching or making an unbalanced and/or risky trade to acquire a pick to land a certain player.
With the quarterback issue, there have been some greats who went in the first round: John Elway, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, etc. That's not always the case; between diamonds in the rough (Tony Romo, Kurt Warner) and late picks turning into jackpot payoffs (such as Tom Brady), there are plenty of success stories from guys who were hardly can't miss prospects.
NFL Draft Prospect Profiles
Draft King is owned and operated by Lou Pickney. © 2003-2024, all rights reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed here are those of Lou Pickney alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any media company.
| 