George Karlaftis

[kccrow]

I can't stop fixating on this guy in the first round. The more I see him in the early 20's in mocks, the more I want KC to make the deal to go get this kid.

He reminds me of Ryan Kerrigan and Justin Smith. If he's somewhere in between, he'd be well worth a 20-ish pick. I just like his game. Great power in his punch. Good hand usage. Alot of moves but a staggering bull rush. Great feet. Excellent burst off the snap. What he doesn't have is great bend and agility which negates his speed rush.

But those traits, the ones involving power and speed-to-power, those win in the NFL. I don't care about his 40 time. He ran faster than the Bosa brothers. It's fine. He has elite vertical and broad jumps and a respectable bench press. I just imagine the day he gets stronger, and he will. If he learns to use better power rush technique, he's going to be very solid.

I think a lot of the lack of sacks this past year was the volume of double-teams and no other real threat on Purdue's defense. You watch his games though and he's putting tackles in the dirt. He's getting hits on the QB. He had a solid win rate as a pass rusher.

I love this guy as a SDE prospect. I want him to be a Chief. If you can go out and get a Sam Williams in the 2nd to pair with this guy as a bendier, more athletic WDE, I think you'll have an incredible pair of bookends for the foreseeable future.

So, am I missing something? Do I not see some fatal flaw?

[htismaqe]

Unless Veach's presser was a complete smokescreen or an outright lie, the Chiefs absolutely do view it the same way.

If it weren't for the COVID year, this would be one of the worst draft classes in a long time, similar to 2013.

There's about 15, maybe 20, blue chip prospects in this class. There's about FIFTY players in that second tier, maybe more, and Veach mentioned it explicitly in his press conference.

I'd be willing to concede that picks 29 and 30 aren't all that valuable in a normal year if you're willing to concede that this simply isn't a normal year.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by O.city

If they hit, sure.

Those end of the first picks just aren't as valuable as we all want them to be. IF you can package them somehow to go up and get an impact player, do it.

I will be livid if Brett Veach packages his first rd picks to effectively move from two top 32 picks to only one. That’s a lot of hands in one basket. No bueno.

That’s not smart.

There are so many good players that can be had at the end of the first rd. It’s proven every single year

[O.city]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Unless Veach's presser was a complete smokescreen or an outright lie, the Chiefs absolutely do view it the same way.

If it weren't for the COVID year, this would be one of the worst draft classes in a long time, similar to 2013.

There's about 15, maybe 20, blue chip prospects in this class. There's about FIFTY players in that second tier, maybe more, and Veach mentioned it explicitly in his press conference.

I'd be willing to concede that picks 29 and 30 aren't all that valuable in a normal year if you're willing to concede that this simply isn't a normal year.

Thats my point though. That second pool is always right there where it is this year from a pick perspective. When you're at the end of the first you're just picking from it.

It's definitely bigger this year due to the Covid year, absolutely.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Besides the fifth year option, is there a difference in the player taken at 29 or 30 and the guy taken at 45-50 in a normal draft year?

Statistically, yes.

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpr...l-draft-picks/

But it does seem that a lot of the study being done on this suggests that the curves are MUCH flatter than conventionally believed. A top 10 pick isn't actually 3 times more likely to succeed than a pick at 30 or whatever the 'draft charts' say.

I think what the 'large numbers' tend to wash out is the value of the QBs taken that high and what they bring to the table over any other position. But when it comes to the other positions? Seems like there's just not much utility in trading way up to attack them.

And that if you believe in the flatter curve, trading back from say 29 to 46 for a 3rd rounder is a no brainer.

For the TL;DR crowd, here's a chart this guy made based on the actual on-field performance of draft picks over the last 20 years or so:



It's just a MUCH tighter gradient.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah, for the same reasons I like Dulcich as well.

I wish I knew who he had on his board around those picks. I just cannot see a scenario where Mafe and Jackson are the 'right' gets there.

I will say that he's pretty tuned into what the Chiefs like and so are some of the other podcast guys - they have sources here and there. And to see Mafe and Logan Hall so routinely noted as possible early picks makes me really nervous.

I mean I don't hate either of those guys, but those are late 2nd, early 3rd guys to me. And when someone with a finger on the pulse of the organization suggests that they are really strong considerations....man, I hope that's just a media echo chamber where those guys sit around and talk themselves into the same handful of dudes (y'know, kinda like the CP draft forum) and not a line they're getting from the front office.

And NOBODY is talking Sam Williams to the Chiefs. And that gives me a sad.

I’m not sure he’s clued in on guys like that. He’s never been huge on the draft.

I need to go back and look at his past ones.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by RunKC

I will be livid if Brett Veach packages his first rd picks to effectively move from two top 32 picks to only one. That’s a lot of hands in one basket. No bueno.

That’s not smart.

There are so many good players that can be had at the end of the first rd. It’s proven every single year

It's just not. There aren't "so many good players at the end of the first every year".

There are some. Sure.

So many? Nah.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

I know and understand you draftniks wanna sit tight and make all those picks and hit on all those draft picks.

I don't think the Chiefs will and or feel the same.

I find it odd that on one hand you say 'is there any real difference between 29 and 45' and then on the other say 'well we shouldn't expect to have a high success rate on those middle round picks...'

If your central thesis is correct - that late 1sts aren't that much more valuable than 2nds, then wouldn't the answer be trading BACK?

Unless you think that the chances of success increase exponentially at around 20 and before, then getting 'more darts' (to use your own analogy) is substantially more valuable than moving closer to the dart board.

And frankly that's what the math seems to suggest as well.

A cheap trade-up for a specific target would be fine. Alternatively, they should be looking to get MORE picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, not trade them away.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Statistically, yes.

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpr...l-draft-picks/

But it does seem that a lot of the study being done on this suggests that the curves are MUCH flatter than conventionally believed. A top 10 pick isn't actually 3 times more likely to succeed than a pick at 30 or whatever the 'draft charts' say.

I think what the 'large numbers' tend to wash out is the value of the QBs taken that high and what they bring to the table over any other position. But when it comes to the other positions? Seems like there's just not much utility in trading way up to attack them.

And that if you believe in the flatter curve, trading back from say 29 to 46 for a 3rd rounder is a no brainer.

For the TL;DR crowd, here's a chart this guy made based on the actual on-field performance of draft picks over the last 20 years or so:



It's just a MUCH tighter gradient.

That 25 point jump from 32 to 33 seems pretty wild no?

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I find it odd that on one hand you say 'is there any real difference between 29 and 45' and then on the other say 'well we shouldn't expect to have a high success rate on those middle round picks...'

If your central thesis is correct - that late 1sts aren't that much more valuable than 2nds, then wouldn't the answer be trading BACK?

Unless you think that the chances of success increase exponentially at around 20 and before, then getting 'more darts' (to use your own analogy) is substantially more valuable than moving closer to the dart board.

And frankly that's what the math seems to suggest as well.

A cheap trade-up for a specific target would be fine. Alternatively, they should be looking to get MORE picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, not trade them away.

Oh, I'm 100% on board with trading back for picks.

The problem is, who are people gonna wanna trade up for?

In the end, it comes down to your trust for your scouting.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

That 25 point jump from 32 to 33 seems pretty wild no?

Not really.

I can't speak directly to how they got it, but I've always said that the 'well it's really just a 2nd round pick' crowd is kinda stupid.

It isn't a 2nd round pick. It's a first round pick. A late first, yes. But it's a first round pick. And folks that try to hand-waive that fact make very little sense to me.

I think there IS some white noise that may drive that a little bit though. 33 is typically going to a bad situation on a bad team. It's also likely a team looking at really high variance players; boom/bust types that will often bust. Whereas that pick at the back of 1 is either made by a very good team looking for a lower variance contributor OR a team that's traded into the round for a very specific target that has slid.

In either event, I think the results are about what I'd expect - a 1st round pick does have more value than a 2nd rounder. And by a not insignificant amount. But ultimately I think it really shows that the tops of these rounds aren't as valuable as we thought and in many ways the 2nd and 3rd rounds are where you can REALLY turn a draft into a mammoth haul.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by O.city

Oh, I'm 100% on board with trading back for picks.

The problem is, who are people gonna wanna trade up for?

In the end, it comes down to your trust for your scouting.

The answer is "nobody".

Unless it's just a handful of spots, the price simply isn't worth it.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Not really.

I can't speak directly to how they got it, but I've always said that the 'well it's really just a 2nd round pick' crowd is kinda stupid.

It isn't a 2nd round pick. It's a first round pick. A late first, yes. But it's a first round pick. And folks that try to hand-waive that fact make very little sense to me.

I think there IS some white noise that may drive that a little bit though. 33 is typically going to a bad situation on a bad team. It's also likely a team looking at really high variance players; boom/bust types that will often bust. Whereas that pick at the back of 1 is either made by a very good team looking for a lower variance contributor OR a team that's traded into the round for a very specific target that has slid.

In either event, I think the results are about what I'd expect - a 1st round pick does have more value than a 2nd rounder. And by a not insignificant amount. But ultimately I think it really shows that the tops of these rounds aren't as valuable as we thought and in many ways the 2nd and 3rd rounds are where you can REALLY turn a draft into a mammoth haul.

But that would speak to the team specificity of the actual draft pick. Whoever the Chiefs pick or the Packers pick etc are more likely to be successful because of who they are actually picked by.

From an actual player picked standpoint, the 32 pick isn't different than 33. Circumstances matter more.

If QB's fell and or there is someone willing to come up for a player, do it. Every time.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

But that would speak to the team specificity of the actual draft pick. Whoever the Chiefs pick or the Packers pick etc are more likely to be successful because of who they are actually picked by.

From an actual player picked standpoint, the 32 pick isn't different than 33. Circumstances matter more.

If QB's fell and or there is someone willing to come up for a player, do it. Every time.

Sure - there's some static in the analysis without question. There always will be.

The idea being that the law of large numbers would help to cancel some of that out.

You can't get a perfect answer, but I think over a large enough sample size you can get some meaningful data. And I think the data sure suggests that yes, 1st round picks are more valuable than 2nd rounders. But that they are perhaps not as much more valuable as sometimes suggested. Additionally, it really suggests (quite loudly, in fact) that 2nd and 3rd round picks are much more valuable than conventionally understood.

I think what some of us are guilty of, myself included, is taking our 'franchise QB or bust' mindset and carrying it forward. When it comes to the QB position, 2nd and 3rd is a wasteland. And we hammered that point so hard for so long that 2nd and 3rd round picks just became afterthoughts to us. But in actuality, when it comes to every OTHER position on the board, they're not substantially less likely to hit than 1st rounders are. At least in relation to other picks that could be taken.

I suppose what you could do to counter that is say "well wait a minute, a late 3rd rounder at 111 points is half as likely to be successful as a late 1st at 220..."

And then the math starts to check out a bit. But if you can take that late 1st and then turn it into a mid-2nd and a mid 3rd then do some combined probability work, you're well ahead w/ the latter scenario.

But then I just get crosseyed again and start praying for the draft to hurry up and get here.

Like I said - it's all just jerking off until the picks are actually up and you see who's available.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by O.city

It's just not. There aren't "so many good players at the end of the first every year".

There are some. Sure.

So many? Nah.

Tee Higgins
Jonathan Taylor
Jayson Oweh
Jevon Holland
Elijah Moore
Greg Rousseau
Antoine Winfield
Patrick Queen
Xavier McKinney
Kyle Dugger
Chase Claypool
Jaylon Johnson
Asante Samuel Jr
Azeez Ojulari

That’s the last 2 years of guys in that 2nd wave of “2nd rd prospects” that could be taken at the end of the first.

You wouldn’t take any of these guys?

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by The Franchise

He’s also missing our 4th round pick from the Dolphins.

I like double dipping on DE but Mafe and Drake Jackson aren’t it.

He did take your boy Dulcich.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah, for the same reasons I like Dulcich as well.

I wish I knew who he had on his board around those picks. I just cannot see a scenario where Mafe and Jackson are the 'right' gets there.

I will say that he's pretty tuned into what the Chiefs like and so are some of the other podcast guys - they have sources here and there. And to see Mafe and Logan Hall so routinely noted as possible early picks makes me really nervous.

I mean I don't hate either of those guys, but those are late 2nd, early 3rd guys to me. And when someone with a finger on the pulse of the organization suggests that they are really strong considerations....man, I hope that's just a media echo chamber where those guys sit around and talk themselves into the same handful of dudes (y'know, kinda like the CP draft forum) and not a line they're getting from the front office.

And NOBODY is talking Sam Williams to the Chiefs. And that gives me a sad.

Originally Posted by The Franchise

I’m not sure he’s clued in on guys like that. He’s never been huge on the draft.

I need to go back and look at his past ones.

I went back and looked at the last mock before the draft and this is what he had.

2nd - Jamin Davis, LB
3rd - He traded down and took Dayo Odeyingbo, DE.
3rd - Tommy Tremble, TE
4th - Jaelon Darden, WR

So he had positions right but was nowhere close on the type of player in that position that the Chiefs were looking at.