Article About Draft Position And Cap Savings With Roster Construction Implications (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

Worthy read that seems to confirm some thoughts that might be in the air. 

https://overthecap.com/maximizing-roster-construction-by-valuing-positions-in-the-nfl-draft/

 

[Gatorman]

Worthy read that seems to confirm some thoughts that might be in the air. 

https://overthecap.com/maximizing-roster-construction-by-valuing-positions-in-the-nfl-draft/

Very interesting and something that most teams likely don't look at.  I have always believed that the first round of drafting should consist of QB, WR, Edge, and LT period and only if those spots are settled should you draft for "luxury" 

(I also believe that bc the QB situation is so premium that teams even with an entrenched starter should grab one as a "luxury" every few years for Trade value or injury insurance).

I do wonder, how "generational talents" work here.  Guys like Parsons, Aaron Donald, Ramsey, etc...

 

[bostonfred]

I listened to an interview with Bill Polian on xm recently where he said that despite the common thought process, there was a lot of value to running back in the late first because

1) look at the hall of fame running backs, they were overwhelmingly drafted in the first round

2) late first round running backs are typically the pick of the litter, while late first round picks at other positions can be pretty weak

3) the economics of the rookie contract are a lot easier to swallow when you're paying 1.26 money instead of 1.4 money for Barkley

4) the fifth year option is generally overrated for other positions and a lot don't even get picked up but for running backs you're getting them for almost all of their useful years

 

[Obie Wan]

I listened to an interview with Bill Polian on xm recently where he said that despite the common thought process, there was a lot of value to running back in the late first because

1) look at the hall of fame running backs, they were overwhelmingly drafted in the first round

2) late first round running backs are typically the pick of the litter, while late first round picks at other positions can be pretty weak

3) the economics of the rookie contract are a lot easier to swallow when you're paying 1.26 money instead of 1.4 money for Barkley

4) the fifth year option is generally overrated for other positions and a lot don't even get picked up but for running backs you're getting them for almost all of their useful years

and yet the 5th year option for RB is picked up the least for any position

the current NFL game passed Polian by a long time ago

 

[Gatorman]

I listened to an interview with Bill Polian on xm recently where he said that despite the common thought process, there was a lot of value to running back in the late first because

1) look at the hall of fame running backs, they were overwhelmingly drafted in the first round

2) late first round running backs are typically the pick of the litter, while late first round picks at other positions can be pretty weak

3) the economics of the rookie contract are a lot easier to swallow when you're paying 1.26 money instead of 1.4 money for Barkley

4) the fifth year option is generally overrated for other positions and a lot don't even get picked up but for running backs you're getting them for almost all of their useful years

Not going to crap on Polian (or pile on) but certain positions the NFL is realizing there are inefficiencies and RB is likely one of he worst.  To the first post, you can see that the "best first round positions" seem to be the ones that almost work on an island: QB, WR, Edge,  and LT do not need to have as much "synergy" with the rest of the team as other positions.  Arguably the two positions that seem to have the "most synergy" with the "team concept" are the ones who are the most devalued now: LB and RB, followed by the interior O Line and safety positions.  That is not to say (as polian suggests) that there are not "outliers" there that disprove the conventional wisdom.  Heck, we see players who do just that (Parsons, Q Nelson, Ed reed, etc) but they are examples of the "generational talents" at their position while most competent starters come later on in the draft.

A great RB still needs an at least "decent" offensive line.  A good QB can make do with a subpar line (and it needs to be Dolphins 2021 bad or Houston with Carr bad to make the QB look lost). A good Linebacker needs beef up front to be effective. 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Saw an article that pointed out how much more a grinder rb can help a good team just looking to seal games, vs a bad team that often has to abandon the running game. So never undervalue landing spot at the rb position.

 

[bostonfred]

and yet the 5th year option for RB is picked up the least for any position

the current NFL game passed Polian by a long time ago

The 5th year option is a relatively new phenomenon and the first few drafts happened to be historically bad for running backs. 

I understand it's a contrarian argument but to me those are the interesting ones because I can hear the group think arguments whenever i want. 

The thought exercise for both of us would be... should the raiders pick up the fifth year option on Josh Jacobs for about 7 million?   Did that option make the Jacobs pick slightly more valuable in the back half of the draft when they took him?   

I think that's an interesting test case, because Jacobs wasn't THAT highly regarded coming out,  and he hasn't been THAT good, and yet i think he easily gets a multi year deal averaging over 7m per year if he hits free agency. 

If I'm choosing a benchmark so i can make good decisions in future drafts, I actually really like "i guess he was worth a first, i wouldn't call him a bust, but he wasn't exactly elite, just above average". 

 

[bostonfred]

Not going to crap on Polian (or pile on) but certain positions the NFL is realizing there are inefficiencies and RB is likely one of he worst.  To the first post, you can see that the "best first round positions" seem to be the ones that almost work on an island: QB, WR, Edge,  and LT do not need to have as much "synergy" with the rest of the team as other positions.  Arguably the two positions that seem to have the "most synergy" with the "team concept" are the ones who are the most devalued now: LB and RB, followed by the interior O Line and safety positions.  That is not to say (as polian suggests) that there are not "outliers" there that disprove the conventional wisdom.  Heck, we see players who do just that (Parsons, Q Nelson, Ed reed, etc) but they are examples of the "generational talents" at their position while most competent starters come later on in the draft.

A great RB still needs an at least "decent" offensive line.  A good QB can make do with a subpar line (and it needs to be Dolphins 2021 bad or Houston with Carr bad to make the QB look lost). A good Linebacker needs beef up front to be effective. 

A hall of fame talent like Tomlinson or Barry doesn't need an o line but most do so i agree with that point. 

The elite safeties can turn a defense from good to great more than almost any other position - look at guys like Reed, Harrison,  Sean Taylor, etc. If you see a safety discussed in that top 5 range you have to at least consider it because they're probably legit.  It would be interesting to look at how often pundits thought a safety was top 10, how often they got picked top 10, and how often they made the HoF.  

In the context of your point, a running back who can make the team good without a run blocking o line and a safety who can improve a defense by upgrading the players around them are rare commodities but exist "on an island" like you said.

And that's really what you seem to be defining as a "good pick"in the first.  Someone who can be good and improve the guys around him instead of needing good players around him to succeed.   

I'd argue that there are very few quarterbacks who meet that criteria but that's a minor quibble. Good post overall.   

 

[Gatorman]

I'd argue that there are very few quarterbacks who meet that criteria but that's a minor quibble. Good post overall.   

Thanks.  I agree about what you said about QBs but there is such a squeeze on them heading into a draft that they always seem to jump about 10 -20 picks up from where they should go (the Era of a Rodgers sliding to the late first is a thing of the past).

I do also think teams in a QB search should draft more than 1 qb in a given year. See the WFT back in the day.