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."

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

He is most certainly filling a position of need now. Which Dorsey may have foreseen.

No way to know who the best player in a draft was by their rookie season.

Seems people only use this common knowledge when it doesn't apply to our picks.

That's flawed logic, IMO. Fisher may well turn out to be one of the top 5 players from that class, and is filling a huge position of need for us.

It's so easy to look at guy from a small school who played injured through his rookie season, and say, Welp.

See: Dontari Poe (minus injury)

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

He is most certainly filling a position of need now. Which Dorsey may have foreseen.

Really? Is that why the impending vacancy at left tackle is, according to the Chiefs, going to be filled by someone other than Eric Fisher?

Originally Posted by beach tribe

No way to know who the best player in a draft was by their rookie season.

Seems people only use this common knowledge when it doesn't apply to our picks.

Of course. If you don't like the Fisher pick, you're just a hater that doesn't like anything the Chiefs do. :roll eyes:

Dorsey was pure ****ing GOLD in free agency last year. A good portion of the draft was very good, too. The Eric Fisher pick just wasn't. Sorry.

Originally Posted by beach tribe

That's flawed logic, IMO. Fisher may well turn out to be one of the top 5 players from that class, and is filling a huge position of need for us.

If he's a right tackle, it's a terrible pick. Plain and simple.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The article talks specifically, as do several people in this thread, about Dorsey's school of thought on the draft.

The article contends that he uses a BPA scheme, weighted by position of need.

Fisher doesn't fit either of those. His play on the field bears out that he wasn't the BPA, and the fact that he couldn't even secure a starting spot full time says he didn't fill a position of need.

It was a panic pick because the draft sucked, nothing more, nothing less. Dorsey isn't infallible, and his "draft strategy" isn't revolutionary.

I don't how you can ignore the fact that Dorsey may have known he wasn't going to sign Albert, or be able to afford to.
Also taking into account that he Fisher may have had a learning curve coming from a small school so may have not been able fill that void until after Albert was gone.
Seems to me like he's looking further than just the end of his nose.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

I don't how you can ignore the fact that Dorsey may have known he wasn't going to sign Albert, or be able to afford to.
Also taking into account that he Fisher may have had a learning curve coming from a small school so may have not been able fill that void until after Albert was gone.
Seems to me like he's looking further than just the end of his nose.

ERIC FISHER ISN'T REPLACING ALBERT.

Dorsey, out of his own mouth, said Eric Fisher is a RIGHT TACKLE.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Really? Is that why the impending vacancy at left tackle is, according to the Chiefs, going to be filled by someone other than Eric Fisher?

Saying that Fisher is penciled in at RT in January means nothing to me

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Of course. If you don't like the Fisher pick, you're just a hater that doesn't like anything the Chiefs do. :roll eyes:

I never implied anything like that. And saying that judging a pick after his rookie season is premature does not do that.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

If he's a right tackle, it's a terrible pick. Plain and simple.

If he does not win the LT job in camp, I completely agree.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

ERIC FISHER ISN'T REPLACING ALBERT.

Dorsey, out of his own mouth, said Eric Fisher is a RIGHT TACKLE.

This.

Fish stays at RT.

And he should...if he can't find a ****ing way to master that why the hell would we want him at LT?...

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

ERIC FISHER ISN'T REPLACING ALBERT.

Dorsey, out of his own mouth, said Eric Fisher is a RIGHT TACKLE.

No he didn't. He said that he was penciled in a RT right now. That's it.

[htismaqe]

Look, I'm not down on Dorsey. I think he's shown a lot of promise already. Obviously, he's new to the role and needs to grow.

I just think all of this talk about him somehow being "special" (there was a reference to Sabermetrics in another thread) is silly.

[beach tribe]

Can't believe people would just write fisher off as an average RT after an injury riddled rookie season after coming from Central Michigan.

He will no doubt get a shot to win the LT job in camp, and if he can't win it in his second season, after an off season in the strength program, it was a shitty pick.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Can't believe people would just write fisher off as an average RT after an injury riddled rookie season after coming from Central Michigan.

He will no doubt get a shot to win the LT job in camp, and if he can't win it in his second season, after an off season in the strength program, it was a shitty pick.

I haven't written off Fisher at all.

I never wrote off Tyson Jackson. In fact, I'm one of the few here that think, given the right financial terms, we should re-sign him.

It doesn't make taking him at #3 any better of a draft pick.

After all, Fisher is just a piece of evidence. This discussion isn't about Fisher, it's about Dorsey.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Look, I'm not down on Dorsey. I think he's shown a lot of promise already. Obviously, he's new to the role and needs to grow.

I just think all of this talk about him somehow being "special" (there was a reference to Sabermetrics in another thread) is silly.

I don't see how he has proven a damn thing thus far. Too early to tell.
He did well in FAs, but also made some shitty signings like Dunce-a.

Until we see what Fisher, Kelce, Nico, and Cummings actually are, we won't know anything about this past draft either.

All I'm saying is that it's impossible to tell at this juncture.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I haven't written off Fisher at all.

I never wrote off Tyson Jackson. In fact, I'm one of the few here that think, given the right financial terms, we should re-sign him.

It doesn't make taking him at #3 any better of a draft pick.

After all, Fisher is just a piece of evidence. This discussion isn't about Fisher, it's about Dorsey.

Agreed.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

I don't see how he has proven a damn thing thus far. Too early to tell.
He did well in FAs, but also made some shitty signings like Dunce-a.

Until we see what Fisher, Kelce, Nico, and Cummings actually are, we won't know anything about this past draft either.

All I'm saying is that it's impossible to tell at this juncture.

I think we have good reason to think positive but he get's a C+ for last year despite the huge turnaround...

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Really? Is that why the impending vacancy at left tackle is, according to the Chiefs, going to be filled by someone other than Eric Fisher?



Of course. If you don't like the Fisher pick, you're just a hater that doesn't like anything the Chiefs do. :roll eyes:

Dorsey was pure ****ing GOLD in free agency last year. A good portion of the draft was very good, too. The Eric Fisher pick just wasn't. Sorry.



If he's a right tackle, it's a terrible pick. Plain and simple.

That's simply not true. Some of the best pass rushers in the league are lining up all over the front, including wide against the right tackle.

Von Miller goes against the right tackle often enough that the idea of the right side being somehow less in the spotlight is just silly.

As if, having a lock-down left tackle, but giving up double digit sacks on the other side if just fine.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by Rausch

I think we have good reason to think positive but he get's a C+ for last year despite the huge turnaround...

Can't really argue with you. I think his grade can most certainly be revised if we can get some solid play out of those 2nd year players.

Kelce, and Cummings have a real shot at making a huge difference on this team, but that cannot be counted on one iota.