(11-27-2020, 08:17 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(11-24-2020, 08:21 PM)enigma Wrote: People have always been divided on either side of the debate between selecting BAP or a need when drafting. But let me pose a scenario because I want to see how you would proceed using these hypotheticals and the upcoming draft class.

Lets say the following players have the following arbitrary grades (for this example) associated with them coming out:

- Lawrence, QB, 9.9/10
- Sewell, OT, 9.5/10
- Fields, QB, 9.2/10
----------------------------------------------
- Z. Wilson, QB, 8.5/10
- T. Lance, QB, 8.2/10
- K. Trask, QB, 8/10
- M. Jones, QB, 7.8/10
----------------------------------------------
- S. Cosmi, OT, 8.8/10
- L. Eichenberg, OT, 8.6/10
- R. Slater, OT, 8.4/10
- A. Leatherwood, OT, 8.3/10
- J. Mayfield, OT, 8.2/10
- J. Carman, OT, 7.9/10


I have skipped certain positions in this scenario just focused on the OT and QB debate especially at the top of this draft. The Jets claim the first pick and go with Lawrence. Would you select Sewell and then possibly hope for one of the second-tier QBs like Trask/Jones at our mid 20s pick - with a real possibility that Wilson, Lance, and/or Trask might be gone? Or would you select Fields at 3 and then go with an OT (not considering other positions in this scenario)?

I have always believed that it's a mix between BAP and need with each position having a certain weight that it carries. For me personally, I would take Fields over Sewell even if he is graded slightly lower than Sewell because of the impact that QB position has. I'm not diminishing what an OT/LT can bring, obviously it is a premium position like QB but I feel like we could maximize value and production going this way.

There are multiple ways to approach the NFL draft and it's not as simple as going only BAP or needs-based. And that's why I love the predictive analysis with what teams would do with how many picks they have, which prospects are available, and more.

Again, obviously these grades are arbitrary and only created for this scenario, but what are your thoughts?

Why not create a grade that is a combination of pure player value plus positional value plus team need value?

In your scenario above, as a player, Sewell might be rated 9.5 and Fields rated 9.2, but since QB is about 3 times more important than OT, if you add in positional value, then Fields could have a grade of 27.6 compared to Sewell's 9.5.  <of course in that example I am multiplying and not adding, but you get my point.  Wouldn't you give up 3 all-pro tackles to get an all-pro QB?  I would.