Originally Posted by Amnorix
(Post 5690776)
Thought this would be of general interest, since no doubt Pioli and crew are doing it the same way:
A year or two ago, I heard Bill Belichick say that in the last two weeks before the draft his staff is focusing on "horizontal stacks" (i.e., prospects with the same grade but different positions) and ranking them. This suggests that more players have the same grades than many of us assume -- and that the "ties" must be broken by other factors. I would guess that need, value of the position, depth of the draft at that position, interest of other teams, and perhaps alternative ways to get comparable players are all factors. Can you offer some insight on this?
John
A: Solid topic here, John, and you had me scrambling back to 2003 to read some of Bill Belichick's comments on horizontal stacks. Here is what I took from Belichick's comments that year: The vertical stack is by position -- quarterbacks, tight ends, running backs etc. The horizontal stack helps you assess value -- comparing, for example, the cornerback rated at the same spot as the guard. It is possible I might not be interpreting this the right way, so here are Belichick's comments from 2003:
"When you stack your board, you're going to look vertically ... The way we do it, we look vertically by positions. Here's all the quarterbacks, here's all the tight ends, here's all the running backs. Horizontally across the board, you try to get some kind of value of ... This cornerback and this guard, and this linebacker and this tight end would have about the same value. They'd come in and they'd be role players for us. They're never going to be starters. Or whatever their value is. And so when you're sitting there trying to make your picks, you may be looking at three or four guys and they're all kind of about the same. You're five or six picks away and whichever one of these guys we end up with, we take them in this order, but we could live with any of them. But sometimes you're sitting there and you have three or four guys in that category and you have one guy that you feel like is sitting up there and is significantly higher and you're not saying, 'Well, he's just going to come in and be a role player and he'll never be a starter.' You're saying, 'Well, this guy could come in and he's going to be a starter for us, now it might take a year and he has a little developing he has to do, but we feel like this guy can come in and he can be a starter for us.' That's when you sit there and think about, 'Alright, do we want to try to jump up and get this guy if we don't think he's going to fall to us and give up whatever we have to give up to move up and get him, or do we want to stay here and hope he's on the board -- he probably won't be -- and we'll end up with one of these other guys.' It just comes down to draft management. Sometimes you try to trade up and get him and nobody wants to trade with you and you sit there and let it come to you. But that's basically the process. I don't think you sit there and say, 'Well, we're only going to trade up if we think the guy's going to be an impact player or we're only going to trade up if the guy's going to be a starter or whatever.' We've traded up in the fourth round, fifth round, down in the fifth round, sixth round, so I don't think when you're picking in the sixth round you're really thinking, 'This guy's going to be an impact player.' We would have picked him in the second." http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal..._09/?page=full
|
