Great Article on Drafting Process (insight on Dorsey's school of thought)

[Dante84]

Super long article. VERY interesting for draftniks. It will likely change the approach we take when doing mocks, as we now must factor in how prospects compare to current guys on our roster, if we haven't been doing that already.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/3/6...cess-big-board

Lots of sections, but one that I found very interesting and relevant:

Draft day: Vertical vs. horizontal boards

Teams most commonly use two types of draft boards for use in the "war room" -- the vertical board and the horizontal board.

The vertical board is just a numbered list of players -- 1 to 150, for instance -- that represents your hierarchy for prospects that the months and months of debate and evaluation has produced. In theory, a GM can just look at his board and pick the highest-graded remaining player left out there. "The whole goal of the draft process was for our general manager to have a top-150 list," explains former Ravens scout Daniel Jeremiah. All of our meetings before had led to this whole thing vertically, so we have meetings before we get to that point in time. That's all been discussed. So we have it by position up on the draft board, but on his sheet of paper, he has his 150. And, it's really paint by numbers. 'He went?' Check him off. 'He went?' Check him off. 'He went?' Check him off. 'It's our pick? Who's our pick? Who's our highest rated guy?' Boom, turn in the card."

In other words, a true best player available (BPA) approach. Theoretically, once all the pre-draft work is done, draft day should be easy.

On the other hand, there is the horizontal board. Teams in the Ron Wolf tree of scouting [The Chiefs, because Dorsey] more typically use this, where draft prospects are graded and compared to players on that current roster. "We grade for our team," John Schneider explains, "we don't grade for the league. Our board basically represents that. We grade a guy based on whether we think he can compete with Bruce Irvin or Malcolm Smith or Bobby Wagner, and that's the way our board falls."

They want to select players that can compete with and hopefully beat out players at different positions on their roster. This makes draft day a little more hectic. It's a process that is grounded somewhere near BPA, but more flexible based on need and depth.

Former Packers scout Marc Lillibridge, who spent time working side-by-side with John Schneider under Ron Wolf, knows just how this goes. "There were times where we’d get into debates on whether we were going to take, say, a linebacker or a defensive end," he told me. "Or if we were going to take a quarterback or a defensive back. So I think it just comes down to, in those cases, nine out of 10 times, from people I’ve talked to and been around and had conversations with, if it’s a dead heat between two players, it comes down to need. You go with need.

"So, you’re saying you’re taking the best available player, but if you’re loaded at, say quarterback -- you have two great quarterbacks and your board is sitting there tied with David Carr and, say, Phillip Gaines, the corner from Rice. They’re both the exact same [score], but at corner you have two legit starters but then your nickel guy is coming up for a contract after next year and in two years, your other corner is up, then that’s really all you have. Then, in that case, you’re probably going to end up taking the corner."

This is where moving up and down the board becomes a strategy. And this is where things can get really complicated and stressful.

"In those kinds of situations, it’s a moving target. You want value, "Lillibridge said. "You ask: 'do we think there are any teams behind us that really want Carr? Can we trade out and get Gaines two spots lower? Or maybe four spots lower?'"

He plays out a scenario:

"Let’s say that you have Gaines as a 7.2 and let’s say you have Antone Exum from Virginia Tech as a 7.1. You say, if we trade back four spots, Carr goes, the team after that takes Gaines, and then we know the third team probably doesn’t need a corner. Would we then be okay with taking Exum with that next pick? Or, do we feel that Gaines is worth that 0.1 in score differential? Does it make that much of a difference? Those kinds of conversations are going throughout the whole draft, and you’re doing that with every position."

This is where the pro personnel department comes in. The GM, working closely with his team, tirelessly researches other teams' needs, follows up on rumors, voraciously reads respective teams' local media, and makes calls non-stop to better try and gauge where teams are going to be targeting certain players or positions. There is legit football espionage going on here.

"So, it comes down to: you really have to have your ducks in a row." Lillibridge said. "It can get kind of hairy a little bit."

[Direckshun]

Read this earlier today. Great read.

[Dante84]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Read this earlier today.

hipster

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Dante84

hipster

HAVE YOU READ THAT PIECE IN THE TIMES

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

HAVE YOU READ THAT PIECE IN THE TIMES

I saw that in Gothamist.

[htismaqe]

Marc Lillibridge is a cool dude.

[BlackHelicopters]

Long but interesting read

[saphojunkie]

This explains a lot about Dorsey always saying "best player available" but then drafting on need. So, the best player available this year would be the best overal guy who can beat out Avery or Lewis or Catapano.

[Bob Dole]

Seems like there would be a hybrid where you create a horizontal then use that to compile your vertical. Assign a likelihood that draftees could beat out a member of your roster, then rank those based on that likelihood. If you need a safety but there is not a candidate with a high likelihood to beat out someone you already have, it's a wasted pick.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

Seems like there would be a hybrid where you create a horizontal then use that to compile your vertical. Assign a likelihood that draftees could beat out a member of your roster, then rank those based on that likelihood. If you need a safety but there is not a candidate with a high likelihood to beat out someone you already have, it's a wasted pick.

That's what I was thinking.
I would imagine that a big vertical board could be compiled with these things already factored in, but can see why they would do this, because then they can see where other players rank in accordance with how valuable all players are to all teams to see what kind of trade down value the current available players have to other teams.

[htismaqe]

So if that is the INTENTION, what is the EXCUSE for drafting Fisher?

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

So if that is the INTENTION, what is the EXCUSE for drafting Fisher?

Shitty draft. Simple as that.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Shitty draft. Simple as that.

So they just suck at the draft then?

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

So they just suck at the draft then?

You think it's a little early to determine the overall value of last years draft, or no?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

You think it's a little early to determine the overall value of last years draft, or no?

Everybody is offering the overall value of last year's draft as an excuse for drafting Fisher when he showed on the field he wasn't BPA and didn't fill a position of need.

So is it too early or not?

Got some flawed logic going on up in here.