2015 NFL Draft: The Consensus Board Grades Your Team’s Draft
Who won the draft?
In the grand scheme of football things, that generally doesn’t matter—winning the Super Bowl does. But to simplify it to that ignores the massive amounts of work and effort that goes into a playoff push, where the draft is often key.
We don’t know who “won” the draft in the context of results-based grading, because we don’t know the results. But if we’re just as willing to give prospects “round grades” or evaluate whether or not a team made a good pick, we should be able to summarize our thoughts on those teams, and the easiest way to do that is “grades.”
So in the sense that one can’t “grade” the draft until we’re three years out, I suppose that’s true but not useful information. In the same way that we can’t criticize a coach hire, a free agency move or a trade until we’re three years into the contract, we can’t criticize player acquisitions in the draft until we’re through.
But there’s no point to analysis if we’re going to defer it to an unknowable future—you wouldn’t read this blog if you weren’t willing to engage in some speculation. We predict win-loss records, argue that a team may make the playoffs or not, say that one team is destined to succeed or fail, and no one minds that. But when people “grade drafts” that’s too soon.
Anyway, so long as we have information on how people grade prospects, we have information on what people in the aggregate think about the talent a team has acquired.
To the Consensus Board!
By calculating pick value using the AV formula developed by the Harvard Sports Collective and the average value assigned by each of the 43 boards used to rank prospects, we can determine the return a team gets for their investment in the draft. If we curve the percent return to the top team, we can give letter grades. Let’s do it!
| Team | Total Pick Value | Total Talent Value | Score | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIT | 4616.3 | 5370.6 | 100% | A+ |
| MIN | 5918.8 | 6831.8 | 99% | A+ |
| NYJ | 5172.8 | 5761.3 | 96% | A |
| ATL | 5202.8 | 5656.2 | 93% | A |
| MIA | 4824.3 | 5237.0 | 93% | A |
| JAX | 6216.5 | 6638.0 | 92% | A |
| CLE | 9403.4 | 9789.0 | 90% | A- |
| CIN | 5569.5 | 5730.3 | 88% | B+ |
| CHI | 5262.7 | 5322.9 | 87% | B |
| BAL | 5371.7 | 5399.7 | 86% | B |
| HOU | 4688.9 | 4635.1 | 85% | B |
| DAL | 4248.3 | 4030.0 | 82% | B- |
| DEN | 4248.2 | 3997.0 | 81% | B- |
| DET | 4326.0 | 4052.3 | 81% | B- |
| BUF | 2885.1 | 2692.0 | 80% | B- |
| CAR | 2649.2 | 2454.0 | 80% | B- |
| NYG | 4791.7 | 4427.1 | 79% | C+ |
| SF | 5814.1 | 5289.2 | 78% | C |
| TEN | 8102.3 | 7244.0 | 77% | C |
| GB | 4425.2 | 3920.8 | 76% | C |
| NE | 5645.4 | 4898.1 | 75% | C |
| SD | 4023.5 | 3477.2 | 74% | C |
| NO | 6864.2 | 5932.2 | 74% | C |
| OAK | 6538.8 | 5591.9 | 74% | C |
| IND | 4414.0 | 3735.8 | 73% | C |
| PHI | 3934.6 | 3207.9 | 70% | C- |
| TB | 6457.2 | 5196.4 | 69% | D+ |
| WAS | 6712.6 | 5365.8 | 69% | D+ |
| KC | 4037.4 | 3029.8 | 65% | D |
| ARI | 4434.6 | 3326.2 | 64% | C- |
| STL | 5650.3 | 4076.9 | 62% | D |
| SEA | 3629.7 | 2464.2 | 58% | F |
Last year, Minnesota got the top grade. This year, the teacher’s pet ended in second behind Pittsburgh. The rankers really liked the Steelers’ acquisition of Gerod Holliman (ranked 121) in the seventh round and Anthony Chickillo, ranked 120th and picked with selection number 212.
Of course, this isn’t quite my analysis—I don’t particularly like Holliman and I think 121 is generous for him, while I think Chickillo is probably better than 120. This board also doesn’t take into account injury or other revealed risk that the board cannot take into account.
And of course, the value calculations know nothing at all about need.
Seattle, who finished in last place last year, did so again. New England, who had some of the biggest reaches in the draft, made up for it with immense value elsewhere (and arguably more, as the board likely did not properly rate players like Darryl Roberts).
One of the keys is not screwing up the first pick you have (Buffalo wasn’t immune because the board takes into account how much capital you had, not where you were slotted). Tampa Bay was not helped by the fact that Winston was ranked second on the consensus board, but that doesn’t mean they were wrong to take him. One of the things this can’t do is account for positional importance (along with need).
The best pick in the first round was Leonard Williams by the Jets, which is no surprise. Following that was Bud Dupree by the Steelers and Malcom Brown by the Patriots. The formula also loves the Randy Gregory pick by Dallas at pick 60.
The two best acquisitions were by the Cleveland Browns (Ifo Ekpre-Olomu, CB from Oregon) and the Tennessee Titans, one pick later (Tre McBride, WR William & Mary). A lot of steals happened at the bottom. Take a look at the top ten:
| Rank | Player | School | Position | Pick # | Team | Pick Value | Talent Value | Difference | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75 | Ifo Ekpre-Olomu | Oregon | CB | 241 | CLE | 171.37 | 768.87 | 448.7% | 1 |
| 96 | Tre McBride | William & Mary | WR | 245 | TEN | 162.88 | 632.49 | 388.3% | 2 |
| 44 | Michael Bennett (DT) | Ohio St | IDL | 180 | JAX | 321.93 | 988.46 | 307.0% | 3 |
| 121 | Gerod Holliman | Louisville | S | 239 | PIT | 175.67 | 478.31 | 272.3% | 4 |
| 154 | Corey Robinson | South Carolina | OL | 240 | DET | 173.52 | 402.04 | 231.7% | 5 |
| 51 | Jay Ajayi | Boise St | RB | 149 | MIA | 419.44 | 960.22 | 228.9% | 6 |
| 98 | Derron Smith | Fresno State | S | 197 | CIN | 275.37 | 614.77 | 223.2% | 7 |
| 27 | T.J. Clemmings | Pittsburgh | OL | 111 | MIN | 571.33 | 1228.86 | 215.1% | 8 |
| 143 | Ben Koyack | Notre Dame | TE | 229 | JAX | 197.72 | 419.44 | 212.1% | 9 |
| 165 | Dezmin Lewis | Central Arkansas | WR | 234 | BUF | 186.58 | 383.70 | 205.6% | 10 |
Jacksonville appears in ten top ten twice, and Pittsburgh has the 11th with Chickillo. Both Minnesota and Cincinnati had the most appearances in the top 40.
You want to see the worst, right?
| Rank | Player | School | Position | Pick # | Team | Pick Value | Talent Value | Difference | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 584 | Rodney Gunter | Delaware State | IDL | 116 | ARI | 548.60 | 160.72 | 29.3% | 1 |
| 2000 | Tray Walker | Texas State | CB | 136 | BAL | 466.54 | 150.00 | 32.2% | 2 |
| 218 | Jamon Brown | Louisville | OL | 72 | STL | 794.65 | 272.43 | 34.3% | 3 |
| 208 | Jordan Richards | Stanford | S | 64 | NE | 855.41 | 295.46 | 34.5% | 4 |
| 246 | Chaz Green | Florida | OL | 91 | DAL | 673.83 | 240.07 | 35.6% | 5 |
| 584 | Mykkele Thompson | Texas | S | 144 | NYG | 437.05 | 160.72 | 36.8% | 6 |
| 250 | Angelo Blackson | Auburn | IDL | 100 | TEN | 625.17 | 238.73 | 38.2% | 7 |
| 2000 | CJ Uzomah | Auburn | TE | 157 | CIN | 392.46 | 150.00 | 38.2% | 8 |
| 2000 | Tye Smith | Towson | CB | 170 | SEA | 351.42 | 150.00 | 42.7% | 9 |
| 138 | Mitch Morse | Missouri | OL | 49 | KC | 993.19 | 426.48 | 42.9% | 10 |
| 167 | Frank Clark | Michigan | EDGE | 63 | SEA | 863.54 | 375.58 | 43.5% | 11 |
| 517 | Bradley Pinion | Clemson | P | 165 | SF | 366.82 | 162.29 | 44.2% | 12 |
| 760 | David Mayo | Texas State | OFB | 169 | CAR | 354.46 | 159.10 | 44.9% | 13 |
| 265 | Jon Feliciano | Miami (FL) | OL | 128 | OAK | 497.82 | 225.86 | 45.4% | 14 |
| 2000 | Matthew Wells | Mississippi State | OFB | 178 | NE | 327.70 | 150.00 | 45.8% | 15 |
I included the top 15 in part because I think a lot of these players were misvalued by the Consensus Board. Of course, I included over 1100 players, but I do think Tray Walker and Tye Smith should have been on some boards (although this may be because I pay attention to #SeahawksTwitter so who knows). Mitch Morse was unranked on a lot of boards, but ranked somewhat highly when he was, so that complicates that.
One final thing—we can average the grades out over the past two years to see how teams did.
| Team | Yr 1 | Yr 2 | Total | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIN | 112.5% | 99.2% | 105.9% | A+ |
| HOU | 92.8% | 93.4% | 93.1% | A |
| PIT | 81.8% | 100.0% | 90.9% | A- |
| ATL | 84.5% | 93.5% | 89.0% | B+ |
| OAK | 103.9% | 73.5% | 88.7% | B |
| BAL | 83.7% | 92.0% | 87.9% | B |
| JAX | 81.3% | 91.8% | 86.6% | B |
| CHI | 85.6% | 87.0% | 86.3% | B |
| NYJ | 73.9% | 95.8% | 84.8% | B |
| MIA | 76.1% | 93.3% | 84.7% | B |
| TEN | 97.7% | 71.6% | 84.7% | B |
| CIN | 78.4% | 88.5% | 83.4% | B |
| CLE | 75.6% | 89.5% | 82.5% | B |
| GB | 87.1% | 76.2% | 81.6% | B- |
| DET | 82.4% | 80.5% | 81.5% | B- |
| SF | 83.9% | 78.2% | 81.1% | B- |
| PHI | 88.3% | 70.1% | 79.2% | C+ |
| BUF | 77.4% | 80.2% | 78.8% | C |
| CAR | 77.5% | 79.6% | 78.6% | C |
| WAS | 85.0% | 68.7% | 76.9% | C |
| DAL | 72.2% | 81.6% | 76.9% | C |
| IND | 79.6% | 72.8% | 76.2% | C |
| SD | 76.0% | 74.3% | 75.2% | C |
| NE | 74.4% | 74.6% | 74.5% | C |
| STL | 84.1% | 62.0% | 73.1% | C |
| ARI | 74.7% | 70.0% | 72.4% | C |
| DEN | 62.3% | 80.9% | 71.6% | C- |
| TB | 73.6% | 69.2% | 71.4% | C- |
| NYG | 60.0% | 79.4% | 69.7% | D+ |
| KC | 74.5% | 64.5% | 69.5% | D+ |
| NO | 62.6% | 74.3% | 68.4% | D |
| SEA | 41.8% | 58.4% | 50.1% | F |
I guess Rick Spielman subscribes to #DraftTwitter.
As for Seattle? You do you, Seattle.