Bill Belichick on Stacking the Draft Board (especially Horizontal Stacking)

[Amnorix]

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

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

No way they're taking 11 guys. They're either going to move up slightly (say from 23 to 20 or whatever), or they're going to move out, probably out of one of their second round picks for a 1st next year.

We have 6 in the first 3 rounds. I call that trade fodder.

I don't see it, either. They will fleece a bad team (like they did for the 49ers, so they could get Staley) and look like geniuses the next year.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

I don't see it, either. They will fleece a bad team (like they did for the 49ers, so they could get Staley) and look like geniuses the next year.

The issue often comes down to short term versus long term. The Patriots don't NEED to get THAT guy NOW to win, or save their jobs. They're happy to get overpaid by the team that is desperate to save the GMs or coach's job, or whomever.

It's a big advantage.

[kc rush]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

More detail on Belichick's stacking and scouting:

Very interesting. It makes you wonder what Carl did for 20 years. I can't imagine that he was nearly this analytical.

[Skyy God]

Originally Posted by kc rush

Very interesting. It makes you wonder what Carl did for 20 years. I can't imagine that he was nearly this analytical.

I'm sure the way Medlock vs. Crosby played out is indicative of his MO.

[bowener]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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

Wha...?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Pittsie

I'm sure the way Medlock vs. Crosby played out is indicative of his MO.

Lots of teams would have taken Medlock.

I swear, people make these comments without ever watching college football.

[KCrockaholic]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Lots of teams would have taken Medlock.

I swear, people make these comments without ever watching college football.

Crosby was by far the better kicker. I was pissed when we passed him to take Medlock. The teams that thought medlock was good were all stupid. Who seriously thought a black kicker was worth being drafted? Thats like a white cornerback being taking in the 2nd round.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by kcrockaholic4life

Crosby was by far the better kicker. I was pissed when we passed him to take Medlock. The teams that thought medlock was good where all stupid. Who seriously thought a black kicker was worth being drafted? Thats like a white cornerback being taking in the 2nd round.

No, he wasn't.

Medlock led the entire NCAA in kicking accuracy, especially from long range.

Crosby had alot of long ATTEMPTS, but he was horribly streaky and scouts were concerned that the ball came out too low, which would lead to blocks in the NFL.

Hindsight is 20/20 and obviously Crosby worked out better. But leading into that draft, Medlock was the better prospect to pretty much every team in the league - it's a documented fact.

[KCrockaholic]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

No, he wasn't.

Medlock led the entire NCAA in kicking accuracy, especially from long range.

Crosby had alot of long ATTEMPTS, but he was horribly streaky and scouts were concerned that the ball came out too low, which would lead to blocks in the NFL.

Hindsight is 20/20 and obviously Crosby worked out better. But leading into that draft, Medlock was the better prospect to pretty much every team in the league - it's a documented fact.

I guess I should have said "Crosby was by far the better kicker in my eyes". I always put him above Medlock. Maybe not you, or a few scouts. But I did.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by kcrockaholic4life

I guess I should have said "Crosby was by far the better kicker in my eyes". I always put him above Medlock. Maybe not you, or a few scouts. But I did.

Not a few scouts. Nearly all of them.

There's was a considerable amount of concern about how low the ball left Crosby's foot. He had literally changed his mechanics to get longer kicks and they were worried he would get blocked all the time.

[KCrockaholic]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Not a few scouts. Nearly all of them.

There's was a considerable amount of concern about how low the ball left Crosby's foot. He had literally changed his mechanics to get longer kicks and they were worried he would get blocked all the time.

Thats nice. It just proves they were wrong.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Not a few scouts. Nearly all of them.

There's was a considerable amount of concern about how low the ball left Crosby's foot. He had literally changed his mechanics to get longer kicks and they were worried he would get blocked all the time.

I remember reading a few that thought Crosby was better. But you're right. I remember being excited about Medlock. Little did I know Herm could **** up an accurate kicker.
Posted via Mobile Device

[ChiefsCountry]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

No, he wasn't.

Medlock led the entire NCAA in kicking accuracy, especially from long range.

Crosby had alot of long ATTEMPTS, but he was horribly streaky and scouts were concerned that the ball came out too low, which would lead to blocks in the NFL.

Hindsight is 20/20 and obviously Crosby worked out better. But leading into that draft, Medlock was the better prospect to pretty much every team in the league - it's a documented fact.

Dude its just me and you on the Medlock thing. Of course if I remember back to then we were the only ones who pimped him then.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by kcrockaholic4life

Thats nice. It just proves they where wrong.

They weren't wrong about his talent. He has a mental illness that nobody knew about at the time.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

I remember reading a few that thought Crosby was better. But you're right. I remember being excited about Medlock. Little did I know Herm could **** up an accurate kicker.
Posted via Mobile Device

Herm didn't **** up anything.

Medlock is sick. Seriously, mentally sick.