Though I am over the worst of my unreasoning mad...
My belief prior to the 2014 draft was that the distribution of talent was unusual, and it is this different distribution that made “trade down” more attractive to me than usual.
There was no more “top end” talent than usual. But there was a great amount of second tier talent, worthy of selection within the “top 100,” both tier 2a (constituting, roughly, picks 15-50) and tier 2b (approximately picks 50-100).
If anything, there were fewer than normal players that should have been given first round grades. (For me, there were only 10-12: Watkins, Clowney, Mack, Robinson, Matthews, Lewan, Ebron, Barr, Donald, Gilbert, and maybe Bortles and Evans.)
Of course there were about 25 others that some or many would value as a first round value (including both safeties at the top of virtually everyone’s list (Pryor and Clinton-Dix). But, for me, none of these were tier one, but tier 2a. Some (e.g., Benjamin and Cooks), may have been even tier 2b. And while IMO there is a difference between tier 2a and 2b (such as the difference between a Marqise Lee (2a) and Jordan Matthews (b), it is nowhere near as big as the difference between a Watkins (tier 1) and either one of them. Sure, anyone can be a bust. But, none of those 10-12 players have the degree of issues Lee (injury, unexceptional senior year) or Dix (average speed) or Pryor (tackling form, field discipline), or anyone else you might pick in the first round if stuck there.
In my opinion, there was such a wealth of top-100 talent in this draft that it could not be exhausted by previous picks. Indeed, I believe it was spread across so many positions, that it would be highly unlikely that you would be picking anywhere before pick 110-115 and be unable to get at least tier 2b talent and fill a position of need for the Packers.
It takes two to tango, of course. Trade requires a willing partner. If there are none, if there are no trades that offer an extra pick of top-100 talent, well, then you do what people using picks 20-32 usually do: you pick the best available player and try to satisfy as high need as possible.
Part of me wants to think this is what happened to Thompson. And if so, Clinton-Dix was easily the pick to make of the choices available.
Unfortunately, for specific reasons detailed below, I do not think it was the case I can’t imagine why Cleveland wouldn’t made the same offer to Thompson that it made to the guy in Philadelphia. And, this is where my criticism starts, I think the ability to get another top-100 pick and still get a tier 2a pick at #26 was worth the risk (in my opinion, near certainty) that one particular tier 2a pick, Clinton-Dix, would himself be gone.
Opinions are like assholes, of course. Everyone has one, and nowhere is this more true when a fan puts himself or herself forward as being able to comment on draft-day decisions by a leading professional in his field. Therefore, I think it is important to be really clear on the method I’m applying here and why I think it offers more than the ratings given by most of the usual suspects of “draft expert” or “blogging fan.”
Because be very clear: This is not an approach that assumes trades will be available at each Packer pick. The method use intentionally tries to provide lower bound estimates of trade likelihood. No possible trades are considered other than the ones actually made by other teams during the draft. And none of the trades listed in my “counterfactual draft” were “assumed” a priori to have actually been offered to the Packers. Those trades are the ones that, after looking at the trade, my sense of the traders’ motivations, and the ability of GB to offer a trade at least as good as the ultimately made, I concluded that the trade would have been offered to GB when it was on the clock. (You may disagree with my logic, but don’t accuse me of assuming the trade was offered to GB.) This is not an exercise in either assumption or “proof” it is only an attempt at ascertaining plausibility and probability.
My analysis will be divided into two parts. One compares the Packer draft to the drafts of the other 31 teams. This part is what draftniks usually do, though I expect the “formula” I’m using is different. The second section, in a separate thread, the part which as a professional historian I think is the cool part, is a “counterfactual” analysis of what trading down might likely have yielded.
PART ONE: Ranking the teams’ drafts.
Here, I ignore the “trade down value” questions entirely, and apply two separate (though overlapping) metrics for comparing the quality of the Packer draft compared to those of the other 31 NFL teams.
In calculating the two metrics, teams are awarded points for each pick according to the pick’s projected roster position (3 points for a high quality starter, 2 for a serviceable starter, 1 for a game day roster player and ½ point for each of the others). The total is reduced between ½ and 1½ points for each pick deemed a reach, and increased by similar amounts for each pick of a player that falls beyond where I thought he’d go. (Thus, Pittsburgh got the maximum 1½ bonus points when my man, Shade Tree McCullers, lasted until the very end of the 6th round.) One point is added for each top 100 pick the team made, and added regardless of whether the pick actually was of a player I deemed in the top 100.
[For the Packers only, I also added ½ point for every player the team picked up as an undrafted free agent if I thought this player was draft-worthy. (Thus the Packers get ½ point each for Hubbard, Neal, Lyerla, and Perkins.)]
Similarly, I added points for future draft picks acquired and subtracted for future picks traded.
Finally, anywhere from 0.5 to 2 points per pick could be added or subtracted from the total for future draft picks acquired/given up by the team during the 2014 draft.
Metric #1: “Percent of scale”
The teams total points were converted into a percentage of 15 “possible” points. This percentage thus provides a way of comparing different teams’ drafts that isn’t wholly determined by the team’s relative draft position or by the number of picks they have. By adjusting for when players were drafted relative to their projected value, teams are rewarded for not overpaying. To get at least an A- under this metric, a team needed to get a percentage score of at least 87.5%. A B- required 70%, a C- 55%, and a D-, 40%.
How did I arrive at 15 points for the denominator of my percentage? Without trades and compensatory picks, each team would have one pick in each round, and three picks in the “top 100.” If we assume that (i) making the final active roster is going to be worth one point; that (i) no team picks players it doesn’t expect have at lest some chance to make the final 53; and that (iii) on average top-100-quality means twice as much value as picks after 100, then a perfect score for a team starting with seven picks, one in each round, would be 10 points. However, with compensatory picks added in, the average number of picks was actually eight, not seven. Add in the fact that the standard deviation of the number of picks was approximately 1.74, I decided to use 15 as the “a perfect score for a typical team.”
Results under metric #1:
Scoring 80%, Green Bay got a respectable B under this metric, finishing in a tie for 18th place with Arizona and Buffalo. Top scores went to St. Louis, Minnesota, and San Francisco, each with 123.3%. Low scores were New Orleans and Seattle, each with 44.3%. Detroit, was tied with New England for 11th, with a score of 86.7%, and received a B+. The Bears were last in the division, and 24th overall, with a 66.7%, or C+. (As an aside, my “counterfactual” would have yielded a score of 180%.)
Metric #2: Points per pick.This is the most straightforward of all. Just divide the number of total points found by the number of picks, and you get an estimate of the average value received per pick.
A team that scores 2 or higher by this metric (e.g., Tennessee at 2.02) has had a great draft: it means I am predicting the average result across all of that team’s picks will be “serviceable starter.” And Cleveland, scoring 2.89? That’s a GM-of-the-year draft if it pans out as the metric predicts.
Results under Metric #2.How did NFC North teams under metric #2? Minnesota: 1.85, ranked third; Detroit: 1.63, 12th; Green Bay, 1.33, 26th; Chicago: 1.25, 28th.
It should be noted, however, that a good chunk of Green Bay’s score came because of the half-point it got for four of its UDFA. Without the points given for picking up Hubbard, Lyerla, Perkins, and Neal after the draft, Green Bay would have lagged all but three teams, with a pretty measly 1.11. (For what it’s worth, the counterfactual draft would have been in third place, with a hefty 1.93.)
[An aside: Lest you think this is too much trouble for day-after ratings that have such a cosmic margin for error, note that both metrics could be used down the road to estimate just how bad the initial rating was. Everyone “knows” that the error is huge; but exactly how huge is ‘huge’? These metrics, in my opinion, offer a way of answering that question and thus finding a reasoned way of ranking draftniks both relative to each other and to GMs.]
For those who are interested -- the full rankings:Metric #1: Percent of scale, out of 15.
180 Wade’s counterfactual
123.3 Minnesota
123.3 San Francisco
123.3 St. Louis
113.3 Cleveland
113.3 Houston
110.0 Atlanta
96.7 Pittsburgh
93.3 Oakland
93.3 New York Jets
90 Jacksonville
86.7 Detroit
86.7 New England
83.3 Dallas
83.3 Miami
83.3 Tennessee
83.3 Washington
83.3 Cincinnati
80.0 Green Bay
80.0 Arizona
80.0 Buffalo
73.3 Philadelphia
73.3 Baltimore
70.0 Tampa Bay
66.7 Green Bay (without points for UDFA)
66.7 Chicago
63.3 New York Giants
60.0 Kansas City
60.0 Denver
53.3 Carolina
56.7 San Diego
46.7 Indianapolis
43.3 New Orleans
43.3 Seattle
Metric #2: Points per pick
2.83 Cleveland
2.08 Tennessee
1.93 Wade’s counterfactual.
1.85 Minnesota
1.85 St. Louis
1.83 Atlanta
1.75 Tampa Bay
1.75 Oakland
1.71 Arizona
1.71 Buffalo
1.70 Houston
1.67 San Francisco
1.63 Detroit
1.61 Pittsburgh
1.57 Philadelphia
1.56 Washington
1.56 Miami
1.56 Cincinnati
1.50 Jacksonville
1.50 Denver
1.50 Kansas City
1.44 New England
1.42 San Diego
1.40 Indianapolis
1.39 Dallas
1.36 New York Giants
1.33 Green Bay (with points added for draft-worthy UDFA).
1.33 Carolina
1.25 Chicago
1.22 Baltimore
1.17 New York Jets
1.11 Green Bay (without points for UDFA).
1.08 New Orleans
0.72 Seattle
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)