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 T-post Tom

I posted this in a draft thread, but here is my guess on some of what the Chiefs are likely to do this off-season. (Not saying this would be my choice necessarily: just a prediction of what the Chiefs might do.)

1. Sign Golden Tate as their #2 WR.
2. Keep Jenkins.
3. Drop Avery.
4. Draft a WR in the later rounds.
5. Prediction of what their draft board will look like when the 23rd pick comes up. (Assuming many, many things. Including that they don't trade down/up; or land a top flight FS in FA.)

----- a. Calvin Pryor
----- b. Kona Ealy
----- c. Louis Nix
----- d. Ryan Shazier

Why would we drop Avery

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

HAVE YOU READ THAT PIECE IN THE TIMES

I saw that in Gothamist.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Why would we drop Avery

Exactly. Going back to horizontal, what WR in a late round would be an obvious bet to beat out Avery for a roster spot?

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

Exactly. Going back to horizontal, what WR in a late round would be an obvious bet to beat out Avery for a roster spot?

Highly doubtful.

Our WR corps is too thin to drop a proven commodity.

[T-post Tom]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Why would we drop Avery

Avery's production does not merit his cap #. His salary for '14 is about 3X that of Jenkins and they're both similar types of receivers. (Speed) It goes up quite a bit more for 2015. Bowe's contract is uber inflated and there's only so much $ you can allocate at a specific position. Dumping Avery gives them extra money to go after a sure handed young receiver that has gotten better every year (Tate). All speculation of course, but the logic is valid.

[T-post Tom]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

Exactly. Going back to horizontal, what WR in a late round would be an obvious bet to beat out Avery for a roster spot?

Reread the post: Golden Tate

[T-post Tom]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Highly doubtful.

Our WR corps is too thin to drop a proven commodity.

2 touchdowns and less than 600 yards? And almost 3X the salary as Jenkins?

[planetdoc]

Originally Posted by article

New England has picked seven times in each of the last two NFL Drafts. Compare to Seattle, which drafted 11 times in 2013 and ten times in 2012. It's a different approach, and Schneider (and all of the Wolf tree of GMs) believes in building in some insurance for players that they miss on by drafting in volume.

chiefs have 6 picks. Last yr the chiefs made player for player trades with Jenkins and Sherman. They gave up 2 second round picks for Smith. Then Dorsey tried to gain a better 2014 late pick by trading a 7th and Edgar Jones for a 6th.

Chiefs had a 7 player draft class in 2013, but also had the advantage of being the first in the waiver wire (which is like having a bunch of extra late picks). Chiefs don't have that benefit this yr. They need more picks to take advantage of this deep draft class, and reduce risk.

As for Free Agency

I only expect to see the chiefs pursue CUT players. Chiefs will likely get 2015 comp picks for Albert, Schwartz, and Asamooah leaving. They might even get lucky with something for Mcluster. Signing FREE AGENTS can negate comp picks, while CUT players wont. The team might as well use that salary cap space on signing Alex Smith, Houston, and Berry long term.

[OldSchool]

So, in other words. We draft like how many of us have been saying. BPA at position of need. Nothing really new to see here.

[Dante84]

Originally Posted by OldSchool

So, in other words. We draft like how many of us have been saying. BPA at position of need. Nothing really new to see here.

If you need it watered down, yes. There's a lot more in there, though, outside of what I posted in the OP.

Specifically, I like how we are not only looking at the areas that need to be upgraded, but also weighing those prospects against our current roster.

[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.

[saphojunkie]

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.

Don't be a vagina. The book isn't written on ANY of the draft picks from last year, including Fisher.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Don't be a vagina. The book isn't written on ANY of the draft picks from last year, including Fisher.

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.