One of the interesting things about gathering Big Boards across the country and finding the different ways that evaluators grade the players is that it gives us an ability to take a look at the draft from their perspective. There’s a big stigma against “grading the draft,” that I don’t think makes a lot of sense because we’re so willing to share our opinions on the players and teams who drafted them in every other way.
It seems we can give opinions about individual players and their teams without criticism. but as soon as we summarize it in a letter grade, we’re doing something wrong and have to wait. Instead, it may be better to wait three years to judge it.
But that’s no fun, and we want feedback. We just have to acknowledge we have a high band of uncertainty and give our impressions of the draft.
But how about instead of inserting post-hoc opinions about our favorite team, we take a look at a metric we’ve already laid the groundwork for? Let’s compare a team’s draft capital to what the Big Boards accumulated said.
It’s not perfect, especially in a deep draft, but by assigning players in their rankings an amount of points equal to the trade charts’ equivalent pick value, we can find out what players are considered to be worth. Using the NFL Trade Value Chart (put together by Jimmy Johnson way back when), we can compare the amount of draft capital a team entered the draft with to the “value” of players selected. This is perhaps the most appropriate way to gauge the number of “steals” and “reaches” a team makes and quantifying.
The question is which board to use? We have a consensus board, an evaluator board and a forecaster board from fifty different sources. After looking at the forecaster boards, I saw that they did end up—as we expected—being the most accurate at creating a Top 100 that matched the draft value of the NFL (not by counting the number of players in both top 100s, but by finding the average error for each player. I’ll write about it in more detail later, but for now just know that “predicting” where players go doesn’t tell us if a player is good).
Instead, we’ll look at the evaluator board. The two point systems I’m using are the Jimmy Johnson chart and the Football Perspective Chart based off of Approximate Value. The system is simple—the percentage difference between the amount of draft capital you have and the amount of player capital you acquired determines how well you did. I have also added and subtracted the traded future picks from their relevant teams using the traditional discount rate (50%), even though there’s good evidence that that’s a bad rate.
The scores are normalized so that 100 is average, and every 15-point difference is one standard deviation away from average. The first chart uses the traditional Jimmy Johnson chart:
| Team | Score |
|---|---|
| Minnesota | 165.4 |
| Oakland | 124.2 |
| Green Bay | 122.4 |
| Baltimore | 118.8 |
| Houston | 116.4 |
| Atlanta | 111.5 |
| Tennessee | 109.0 |
| San Diego | 108.1 |
| Carolina | 107.6 |
| Cincinnati | 107.1 |
| Detroit | 107.0 |
| San Francisco | 102.5 |
| Washington | 101.9 |
| St. Louis | 100.4 |
| New York (J) | 97.3 |
| Buffalo | 96.5 |
| Chicago | 96.2 |
| Philadelphia | 93.8 |
| Indianapolis | 93.6 |
| Tampa Bay | 92.1 |
| Cleveland | 91.8 |
| New England | 91.6 |
| Pittsburgh | 91.1 |
| Jacksonville | 90.5 |
| Kansas City | 88.1 |
| New Orleans | 86.0 |
| Dallas | 85.9 |
| Arizona | 85.1 |
| Denver | 84.9 |
| Miami | 81.5 |
| New York (G) | 78.8 |
| Seattle | 53.3 |
The second chart uses the Approximate Value calculator from Football Perspective:
| Team | Score |
|---|---|
| Minnesota | 143.8 |
| Oakland | 132.1 |
| Tennessee | 123.8 |
| Houston | 117.1 |
| Philadelphia | 111.0 |
| Green Bay | 109.4 |
| Chicago | 107.4 |
| Washington | 106.6 |
| Atlanta | 105.9 |
| St. Louis | 105.3 |
| San Francisco | 105.1 |
| Baltimore | 104.8 |
| Detroit | 103.1 |
| Pittsburgh | 102.2 |
| Jacksonville | 101.6 |
| Indianapolis | 99.2 |
| Cincinnati | 97.6 |
| Carolina | 96.4 |
| Buffalo | 96.3 |
| Miami | 94.5 |
| San Diego | 94.4 |
| Cleveland | 93.8 |
| Arizona | 92.6 |
| Kansas City | 92.3 |
| New England | 92.2 |
| New York (J) | 91.5 |
| Tampa Bay | 91.1 |
| Dallas | 89.2 |
| New Orleans | 76.2 |
| Denver | 75.8 |
| New York (G) | 72.7 |
| Seattle | 48.1 |
Either way, the Vikings come out ahead. Oakland’s draft was stellar, but most people didn’t catch that and Seattle may have gotten better players in UDFA than they did in the draft (this chart doesn’t account for that). If Seattle had drafted zero players with its picks, it’s score would have been 44 and 19, depending on the chart, making their draft shockingly subpar.
This chart doesn’t take into account needs, scheme fit or positional value (both concepts I think are important when evaluating drafts), simply the pre-draft judgment of talent. That might be why, when I asked on Twitter, I got wildly different responses from people when I asked them who they thought had the best draft for value. Most said San Francisco (12th and 10th) and I also got responses saying St. Louis (14th and 15th), Jacksonville (24th and 13th) and the Steelers (23rd and 14th). I would also argue that some of the responses were not driven by the amount of capital the teams entering the draft had, and both the Rams and the 49ers entered the draft in the top five of total draft capital (pick value) in the AV calculation. Because the Jimmy Johnson chart is steeper, the Rams ranked 1st in the Jimmy Johnson chart and the 49ers ranked 16th. Basically both teams had a ton of high value picks, so they should have more high-value players.
For what it’s worth, I trust the AV chart more on both accounts—determining who had the most capital and who got the most return, because it is based on historical data. One final thing we can do is look at it division by division. First, by the Jimmy Johnson TVC:
| Division | Score |
|---|---|
| NFC North | 125.3 |
| AFC West | 107.5 |
| AFC South | 105.1 |
| NFC South | 100.4 |
| AFC North | 99.7 |
| NFC West | 93.1 |
| AFC East | 92.3 |
| NFC East | 87.9 |
Then by the AV Chart:
| Division | Score |
|---|---|
| NFC North | 117.0 |
| AFC South | 111.5 |
| AFC West | 102.5 |
| AFC North | 98.8 |
| NFC West | 94.3 |
| NFC South | 93.7 |
| AFC East | 93.7 |
| NFC East | 92.8 |
Which means that the improvement teams saw relative to their draft may differ significantly by the fact that their divisional rivals did well or poorly. The Vikings’ success, for example, is going to be tamped down by the success of the rest of the division, while the New York Giants’ failure may be hidden by the weak drafting of its division.
And yes, again it is impossible to truly judge a draft until we’re three years out. But based on what we know, this is the evaluation as it stands right now—driven not by homerism but by the consensus of 50 experts and some interesting tools. If you want letter grades, they are as follows:
| Team | Grade |
|---|---|
| Minnesota | A+ |
| Oakland | A |
| Tennessee | A- |
| Houston | B |
| Philadelphia | B- |
| Green Bay | B- |
| Chicago | C+ |
| Washington | C+ |
| Atlanta | C+ |
| St. Louis | C+ |
| San Francisco | C+ |
| Baltimore | C |
| Detroit | C |
| Pittsburgh | C |
| Jacksonville | C |
| Indianapolis | C |
| Cincinnati | C- |
| Carolina | C- |
| Buffalo | C- |
| Miami | D+ |
| San Diego | D+ |
| Cleveland | D+ |
| Arizona | D+ |
| Kansas City | D+ |
| New England | D+ |
| New York (J) | D |
| Tampa Bay | D |
| Dallas | D |
| New Orleans | F |
| Denver | F |
| New York (G) | F |
| Seattle | Please see the teacher after class |
Enjoy your success Vikings fans! I am sorry, Seahawks fans but you’ve had it pretty good for a bit now, anyway.
View Comments
Wow! I've used the consensus board for several things, but this article blows my uses out of the water. I do find it interesting that (of the 171 players on both the projection and evaluation top 200 lists) Minnesota got the top valued draft pick (Teddy Bridgewater) AND the top valued UDFA. Definitely a successful haul of college talent.
Great analysis and amazing result, espesh for a Vikes fan.
I totally agree re not being able to evaluate a draft until years later, but I'm actually no more interested in how a draft class ends up doing in reality - once all the vagaries of life and football have have taken their toll - than I am in how well the organisation makes decisions given the knowledge available at the time. Arif, your analysis may be flawed (it might reflect too much expert bias and group-think for instance, but I'm not Nate Silver and evaluating the detail is beyond my pay grade), but I think what you've done is more than entertaining. Nice job :)
Thanks!
By it's nature, it's a reflection of consensus, but the individual boards that went into it were not the result of groupthink—there was a wide variance in the valuations by individual boards. In terms of expert bias, I think that's a given, but there are enough amateur boards from unpaid writers whose talent at evaluation I respect (another bias) that there is some amelioration of it.
Nevertheless, it's impossible to escape that. 50% of first-round picks (and it's a deep class, so maybe fewer) will bust. This board does not reflect that (though to some extent each ranker has priced what they think the likelihood of a bust is into their rankings), but it at least represents some interesting ways to use data.
Speilman has been spectacular. I had faith that he'd kill it, and he did. Bridgewater who we all thought would be gone, and Barr to replace Allen. Very nice. Now Ponder is what he should've been, a good back up for a year and then he can be a F.A.... Regarding Johnny Football, I wanted that guy initially, but then I thought of Harvin and being great, but always hurt and always a question about attitude. Patterson is WAY better, no attitude and always available, a team guy, going to Wild games, a Minnesota fan. Now we can have a quality prospect without the Manziel celebity man guy BS.. Now, we've got to beat the Rams and then the Pats at home.
Barr's not replacing Allen, he's a LB. Everson Griffin replaces JA.
By the way, classy move Patterson taking Bridgewater to the Wild game. Remember when Ponder called all the recievers to some passing working and it was all crickets.
* workout
Interesting stuff, in as much as attempting to provide objective analysis with a subjective data set can be. Just out of curiosity, what would these numbers look like if compiled using say, Mel Kiper's big board (and his alone)?
Side note.. 6 teams made trade requests for Bucs Glennon.
Hmm. He definitely is a vertical passer.
Why in the world did the Vikings pass on drafting Michael Sam?
I would gladly give him a ride in my tow truck. The Front Seat!
Easy Sis....easy. Dude is taken, didn't you see.
Just watched 2 minutes of TE AC Leonard vs tenn. Tech and had enough. He was getting beat every play.
So 2 minutes and you saw enough to say he can't play in the NFL, is that what you are eluding to? Man where where you in year 2000 around lets say pick 199 we could of used you and the top notch NFL insight!
No, DB. I'm saying what I was watching was so bad I turned it off. Comparing every player to a 1/5000 late blooming generational talent is not my cup of tea, thank you.
If you would, provide me with your opinion of the quality of his play against below average talent. Now that you've disregarded my analysis of his play, I'd like to hear what types of skills you think he can develop to become a historic monument of football history just 14 years from now.
i don't mean to give you a hard time man it just pretty silly to make any "analysis worth a damn" based on 2 minutes of game film.
If that was the criteria the UDFA OT out of Tennessee we signed is going to be the best OT ever has he was the only OT to dominate Clowney in his monster 2012 season...just kind silly is all
Richardson is going to get ridden hard. Maybe he makes it, maybe not.
Without further tape review on AC:
Needs to attack his man
Needs to widen base in blocking
Needs to lock out
Cannot catch block edge rushers at D1AA .. Will be wildly overmatched by pros
Needs to get off the ball both in routes and blocking
Need quicker breaks in routes
Needs to finish routes to open space for other options
Needs to smoothen routes, better understand coverage
Needs to add after the catch moves
Needs to add break tackle, stiff arm
Needs to drive through blocks
Often thrown off balance by smaller defenders
Often gives up inside to rushers
What he did well:
Controls significantly smaller defenders
Capable of catching
That's as far as I got on the tape.
If you were judging him on his blocking you might as well turn it off. The guy is a receiving TE, anyone will tell you he isn't a blocker right now. He has freaky athleticism and is getting a look in camp. If his legal stuff is behind him and he's willing to dedicate himself to football he could be great. If not, he's one of 37 guys that will be cut. The is an undrafted free agent we're talking about, it's not like they just blew a 2nd round pick on him. If he didn't have the legal issues and flaws your pointing out he would have been a 1st or 2nd round pick.
Jimmy Graham probably catches more balls than any other receiving tight end in the league. Less than 10 a game. So for 60 or so plays a game what are his responsibilities? Either clear defenders or block them. 80% of his snaps he blocks or clears defenders.
I understand why he is going to camp and the likelihood of him making the team. What I said was the film was no good. Thank you for adding something like "I saw his game against X and he was tearing it up". That was much appreciated.
Um ya, that's why he went undrafted. It is not going to cost the Vikings a draft pick or count against the cap to bring him in and take a look.
CAPTAIN _BVI_US : I'd like to by a vowel.
Can we please act like he's played football before? That we can enter camps with some idea of where our players talents might stack up? Can we use what little information we have to formulate an opinion of what he's going to have to get better at just to make the practice squad? No? Let's just be thankful he comes at no cost and that anything he does is gravy? Well that's one way of doing things.
STRENGTHS: Fluid body control and athleticism with natural movements in his routes and as a ballcarrier. Good build-up acceleration to be a vertical threat and get behind the defense. Tough ballcarrier with good core strength and balance to shrug off tacklers. Speed to finish with the ball and be a dangerous YAC target. Good extension and catching radius to snag grabs away from his frame. Tracks well with the hand-eye coordination to watch the ball into his hands. Uses his frame well to shield defenders, staying focused in traffic. Experience lining up inline, in the slot and out wide with four career 100-yard receiving games, earning FCS All-American and All-OVC consideration the past two seasons.
Leonard was named a second-team All-American after leading the Tigers with 34 receptions and 441 yards for an average of 13 yards per catch in 2013. He also scored an invited to the Scouting Combine in Indianapolis, where his agility test scores were among the best in the tight end group across the board.
The junior also added five touchdowns in 2013
Combine Results
40 Yd 20 Yd 10 Yd 225 Bench Vertical jump Broad Shuttle 3-Cone Drill
4.50 2.57 1.51 20 34 10'8" - -
Thank you!