Barrett Jones was drafted just about where he should have in my opinion. I had him #109 overall and he came off the board at #113.
The Rams had a brilliant draft.
Member of the EIB club
Love the list and I had most of those value picks very high too. The only one I had as a great value pick that I didn't see on your list was Kenny Stills. I think he has potential as a WR. I was a little shocked to see Michael Mauti as such a value pick though ... I thought I was the only person on this board that liked him. I think had he not had so many durability concerns he would have gone higher. Mauti is the type of player that may surprise people. Stash him on IR and let him get his body right and you have a good LB by year 2.
"I want guys who want to make an impact on and off the field. Good human beings. Guys who want to get better. Guys who want to improve. They want to be great, want to win. Those types of guys we can work with every day." --Joe Philbin
- Defending the Read Option - What do you think?
Ireland had a pretty mediocre draft, IMO. We passed up a lot of superior talent for the guys we took, thanks to his crazy horizontal draft strategy.
Agree with Slimm that the Rams killed it, one of the best drafts in recent years. Austin is probably my least favourite pick of the lot!
Zac Stacy is going to be one of the stars of this draft, in time. And he was a seventh rounder.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. - S. Beckett
We're talking about standard deviations and such when talking about this. For instance, a guy taken in round 3 who you had projected in round 6, would not be nearly as big of a reach as taking a guy in round 1 who you had projected to go in round 3. In other words, its not just about the number value of how far away a player was taken. There is much more of a difference in talent from round 1 to round 3 than from round 4 to round 6. So you have to be careful about using these numbers to say who was the biggest reach according to your own feelings on the player.
In other words, the difference in your 130th ranked player and your 170th ranked player is much less than the difference in your 10th ranked player and your 50th ranked player. The numerical difference is simply 40 in both cases, however I would say the 50th ranked player going 10th would be a much bigger reach than the 170th ranked player going 130th.
Based on your rankings and not my own, Id say Lemonier was a huge value, perhaps the best value considering where you had him ranked and where he was taken. I too was higher on Lemonier than most, but again that isnt a factor in what his value was....... were using your rankings.
The biggest reach using your rankings was likely still Frederick. I dont know where you had him slotted, you say 2nd round, but unless you had him early to mid 2nd, thats a huge reach at that point. Or no wait...... did Watson go really early? I noticed you had him ranked way down there. Watson is probably still the biggest reach using your rankings, but you see my point about weight of the numbers I hope.
If we went by my rankings, the biggest reach was clearly Geno's Myth, who I had ranked as undraftable.
Bill Belichick on "putting the tape on"
Let me start off by pointing out that the bolded part here is simply inaccurate, WV. The dropoff in talent is most drastic after the first 8-10 elite prospects are taken. The talent pool from from the 11th player or so on my board, all the way to the 50th best player on my board is typically very similar. The same applies to the next 40-50 players, and so on. There's a lot of hair splitting that goes on when distinguishing these prospects from one another.
By the same token, the talent level from round 4 to round 6 is also very similar. The first steep dropoff in talent in any draft is after the best 8-10 players come off the board, not necessarily the first 8-10 picks. The next steepest dropoff in talent is found after the first 150 or so players are taken. The talent pool for the final 100+ players selected extends all the way to the UDFA pool after the top 150, is just as closely together as the talent from 11-50, just less of it (talent). The talent begins to become extremely watered down in this range. You're hoping to find players that can simply make your roster and provide depth in this range.... which is a longshot.
This is why getting a player of 3rd round ability in the 7th round range is MORE valuable than getting a 1st round player in the 3rd round if the expected linear value is the same. A team got a potential starter here in the range where selecting a guy who can even make your roster is a longshot. That's value.
If you go back to Awsi Dooger's comment regarding how according to my board, Sharrif Floyd should be the best value pick simply because he was the #1 player on my board, the explanation I just gave you should answer his question as to why Floyd wasn't the best value pick of the entire draft. It's because the talent pool where Floyd came off was still populated with elite talent. However, Floyd was the best value pick of the 1st round in my opinion. Which is why there's only one player selected in the 1st round that made my top 64 value picks.... it was Sharrif Floyd.
The biggest reach using my rankings was not Travis Frederick. I had a 3rd round grade on Frederick (99th overall) on my board. Fact is, there were probably bigger reaches in the draft that didn't even make my top 26. The reason they didn't make my list is because I had not scouted those players, therefore I can't comment on how big of a reach that selection was. There were players taken that I had never even heard of.... and if you're taking players that I haven't scouted or heard of before, that's saying something. Trust me.
Selection value simply based how they were ranked according to my board is best explained using the absolute difference in a linear fashion that I provided. Asking me who I think are going to be the best pros regardless of where they were selected is an entirely different subject. Corey Lemonier is a fine example.
I'm surprised you didn't have S Duron Harmon as one of the big reaches. Common belief was that he was a 7th rounder or even UFDA. I came to him late on and posted in the Draft Forum that I couldn't believe this kid wasn't higher on boards or asked to the Combine. I couldn't see the issue with the kid that would have him close to undrafted.
I think I said in the post that he looked at least a fourth rounder to me, but I didn't believe for a minute that any NFL team would take him there - let alone in the third.
I have to say I like him. I think it's awful value in Round 3 though, as nobody would have looked sideways at this kid until at least round 5, more likely 6 or 7. But, when it all shakes out, he could be one of the best safety prospects going into the NFL this year.
Well, I didn't find Harmon enough of a reach in the 3rd round to make the top 26 reaches. I supposed if I just kept going and listed every single reach in the draft, sure he would've made it at some point. The one's I listed here were what I felt to be the most significant in terms of how they were on my board. Keep in mind, that just because a player was a reach according to this thread, and has a negative number next to it, doesn't mean I necessarily dislike the pick that much. There are other factors to consider.
About a year ago in July, Harmon was actually the #16 safety on my board heading into the season last year, and it's probably safe to give Belichek the benefit of the doubt when it comes to safeties. I don't know of anybody that didn't piss all over his pick of Tavon Wilson last year in the 2nd round with safeties like Brandon Taylor and George Iloka still on the board. Wilson turned out to be a pretty good player.
I agree with you that if he wanted Harmon he could've gotten him later. But if you like the player, take him.