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."

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by SNR

How do you explain the Dee Ford pick?

Or Phillip Gaines when there was still a ****ton of WR talent available, which was the Chiefs' most urgent position of need that entire offseason?

No team that claims to go with a BPA draft strategy will follow it verbatim, otherwise you'd see a draft one of these years where 4 or 5 players of the same position get drafted (even though last year came close with the Packers and Jaguars both picking 3 WRs each).

But there are quite a number of teams that definitely embrace the spirit of the BPA philosophy. If the 2014 (and 2013 draft to some extent) are any indications, then we can expect John Dorsey's Chiefs to fall in that category.

How far will that philosophy extend this year? Would the Chiefs pick Alvin Dupree if he fell to 18? My guess is they'd probably try to weasel a trade down, but we all know how much Dorsey sucks at negotiating those kinds of things. If nothing was available in the way of a trade down, and the options basically come down to Cam Erving or Alvin Dupree, I'm guessing that Dorsey would take Alvin Dupree.

Dbs were much more critical a need than wrs last offseason. Let's not forget the panic we all had going into the season with the secondary we had.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Dbs were much more critical a need than wrs last offseason. Let's not forget the panic we all had going into the season with the secondary we had.

Only fools were worried about the secondary. I was not, and it wasn't because I thought Phillip Gaines was going to play meaningful snaps and do somewhat well. I was fairly confident that we would have an improved secondary from 2013, and I was definitely right. Considering we had Berry's bad ankle and his lymphoma diagnosis as well as the spotty health of our newly acquired dimeback, my assertion was more true than I even thought.

Not hating on Gaines at all. I think he's a good player, and I'm glad we made that selection, but if you're going to be like Tuckdaddy and claim that BPA is bullshit, then the Phillip Gaines pick CLEARLY muddies up that assertion. WR was such a glaring need this offseason and the draft was so deep and stocked with WR talent that it would totally have been acceptable and understandable for Dorsey to break with his BPA strategy and take maybe the 2nd or 3rd player on his board as long as it was a WR.

But Dorsey stuck to his BPA guns. And I personally think it paid off even at the expense of our putrid play from all WRs not named Bowe last year.