"Refusing to deviate from a benchmark that’s wrong roughly half the time isn’t an act of discipline, or not one you’d want to achieve, anyway; you’re just guaranteeing that you replicate the median outcome in a system where the median outcome is mediocre relative to the other teams and bad relative to the hope that your prospects will mostly pan out." Bingo
I think one of the biggest flaws in grading picks based on the consensus board is the consensus is always reacting to NFL trends as opposed to predicting them. You mention how the Jaguars GM got blasted for his draft this year. One of his biggest problems according to consensus was the blocking right end he took. A few other teams also had big time consensus reaches for blocking tight ends. This is a clear example of the entire NFL valuing a type of player a lot more than the majority of draft experts. If the trend of 3 tight end offenses continues to grow you could see a dramatic reevaluation of that type of prospect or positional value in a few years. Being a couple of years late to a trend in the NFL is a sure fire way to get fired.
The interesting and hard to argue against point for the consensus board is that over the decade or so with them the big reaches have failed at a shockingly higher rate than other picks
The NFL's ability to siphon attention from the other three sports playing actual games with MONTHS of coverage flanking the draft never fails to bewilder and depress me.
Thank you for this public service. To justify my hours of draft consumption, please let me pile on with two more thoughts.
Before doing so: you make a great point about draft boards not being independent exercises. I had that precise thought a couple of days ago when Steve and Sam were reviewing a team’s draft in light of their own rankings. And, for one player, only a single spot separated them on a ranking in the 160s (163 and 164, I believe). That’s not a coincidence.
First, years ago, the consensus concept took hold with average draft position (ADP) analysis for fantasy drafts. But those picks are made on public information whereas teams spend millions to accumulate non-public information. So, by design, draft boards by outsiders do not reflect those of teams—which is the market consensus that really matters. Just look at Jerome McCoy, who many projected to go in the first round but lasted until pick 101 because teams apparently had non-public information about his injury recovery. If that’s why McCoy fell, it’s foolish to consider him a “steal.”
Second, in any event, the overall consensus does not account for different schemes—and scheme fit is increasingly important as talent declines. For example, some teams only want WRs who block. So those GMs have radically different valuations for certain players. And, importantly, there may not be enough players with scheme-specific attributes for all the teams playing that style. As a result, a pick that looks like a reach on the public consensus draft board is not one in reality because demand for that talent cluster exceeds supply.
"First round quarterbacks (the most important picks of all) hit at roughly 35–45%, depending on how you define success and the data you want to look at; regardless of where you look, a majority fail to become winning starters. RotoWire’s analysis of 800 first-round picks since 2000 found that 52% of all players taken in the top-10 ever earned Pro Bowl honors, while the first round in general saw a 29% bust rate, remarkable figures given how much teams covet first round draft selections. The fact that whether a first round pick succeeds is essentially a coin flip often blows people’s minds, given how every much high-profile prospect is hyped in the leadup to the draft. "
I don't follow sportsball, but this is one of the things I find fascinating about the NFL draft - how often humans who are paid stupid amounts of money to get it right, get it wrong. How often the hype machine goes full Wile E. Coyote, praising some guy as the best passer, runner, tackler, blocker, whatever since the leather helmet era, and the guy turns out to have an okay career, a couple solid seasons but not offering anything resembling value for the money, not to mention, he's a head case.
It’s the same dynamic as when you draft a fantasy team on, say, CBS Sports. After the draft it gives you a draft grade, which grade is SOLELY based on how close you drafted to the site’s original rankings. In other words, if you auto-draft (i.e., not show up), you get an automatic A. In all my years playing fantasy sports, the lower my grade, the higher my finish.
Good article. I also think Draft Grades are hilarious. You're handing these out before rookies in their early 20s even play a single snap? Yahoo Sports once gave the Detroit Lions an F for taking Jahmyr Gibbs. He is now a three-time Pro-Bowler. Lol.
I wonder if there is a way to quantify the hit rate of “reach” picks compared to the middling hit rate of consensus picks. It will likely be bedeviled by the “small N” problem.
All of this about Twitter, Typing Penises, etc. is obviously true, but I don't think Index Fund is an appropriate analogy. Or rather, this situation is actually worse than you're saying.
If I buy index funds and get returns that are better than 75% of people who pick individual stocks, that's a great outcome. That 25% who are beating me doesn't damage me at all, I'll stick with this approach forever. But the NFL is a zero-sum game! If your front office doesn't have an approach that they think gives them an advantage, what are they even doing?
Lastly, this lack of humility you note is ironic, because of the four major leagues, the NFL draft is absolutely the fastest to be relitigated. It is a guarantee that by the second week of preseason, this consensus will be blown apart. The board for pretty much every position will be shaken up, in some cases significantly, and yet you won't hear many analysts wonder whether the frenzy around the draft was overdone...
"Refusing to deviate from a benchmark that’s wrong roughly half the time isn’t an act of discipline, or not one you’d want to achieve, anyway; you’re just guaranteeing that you replicate the median outcome in a system where the median outcome is mediocre relative to the other teams and bad relative to the hope that your prospects will mostly pan out." Bingo
I think one of the biggest flaws in grading picks based on the consensus board is the consensus is always reacting to NFL trends as opposed to predicting them. You mention how the Jaguars GM got blasted for his draft this year. One of his biggest problems according to consensus was the blocking right end he took. A few other teams also had big time consensus reaches for blocking tight ends. This is a clear example of the entire NFL valuing a type of player a lot more than the majority of draft experts. If the trend of 3 tight end offenses continues to grow you could see a dramatic reevaluation of that type of prospect or positional value in a few years. Being a couple of years late to a trend in the NFL is a sure fire way to get fired.
The interesting and hard to argue against point for the consensus board is that over the decade or so with them the big reaches have failed at a shockingly higher rate than other picks
Hmm. Haven’t seen a baby picture recently…
The NFL's ability to siphon attention from the other three sports playing actual games with MONTHS of coverage flanking the draft never fails to bewilder and depress me.
Maybe because the draft is such a crapshoot?
I feel like it's 75% America's cultural addiction to pro football, 25% all draft coverage taking the form of a listicle, that magical clicks-magnet.
Your guess is probably better than mine.
Ditto this comment.
Agreed. This year I didn't watch one second of the draft. NBA and NHL playoffs were more exciting.
Thank you for this public service. To justify my hours of draft consumption, please let me pile on with two more thoughts.
Before doing so: you make a great point about draft boards not being independent exercises. I had that precise thought a couple of days ago when Steve and Sam were reviewing a team’s draft in light of their own rankings. And, for one player, only a single spot separated them on a ranking in the 160s (163 and 164, I believe). That’s not a coincidence.
First, years ago, the consensus concept took hold with average draft position (ADP) analysis for fantasy drafts. But those picks are made on public information whereas teams spend millions to accumulate non-public information. So, by design, draft boards by outsiders do not reflect those of teams—which is the market consensus that really matters. Just look at Jerome McCoy, who many projected to go in the first round but lasted until pick 101 because teams apparently had non-public information about his injury recovery. If that’s why McCoy fell, it’s foolish to consider him a “steal.”
Second, in any event, the overall consensus does not account for different schemes—and scheme fit is increasingly important as talent declines. For example, some teams only want WRs who block. So those GMs have radically different valuations for certain players. And, importantly, there may not be enough players with scheme-specific attributes for all the teams playing that style. As a result, a pick that looks like a reach on the public consensus draft board is not one in reality because demand for that talent cluster exceeds supply.
I have approximately zero opinions on the NFL or the NFL draft, but man, I've gotta start working "Dorkus Malorkus" back into my conversations.
The last thing I was expecting was a Danny Kelly shoutout. Occams razor says the Ringer Fantasy Football guys are the best in the game.
Have you read the Incerto Series from Nassim Taleb?
"First round quarterbacks (the most important picks of all) hit at roughly 35–45%, depending on how you define success and the data you want to look at; regardless of where you look, a majority fail to become winning starters. RotoWire’s analysis of 800 first-round picks since 2000 found that 52% of all players taken in the top-10 ever earned Pro Bowl honors, while the first round in general saw a 29% bust rate, remarkable figures given how much teams covet first round draft selections. The fact that whether a first round pick succeeds is essentially a coin flip often blows people’s minds, given how every much high-profile prospect is hyped in the leadup to the draft. "
I don't follow sportsball, but this is one of the things I find fascinating about the NFL draft - how often humans who are paid stupid amounts of money to get it right, get it wrong. How often the hype machine goes full Wile E. Coyote, praising some guy as the best passer, runner, tackler, blocker, whatever since the leather helmet era, and the guy turns out to have an okay career, a couple solid seasons but not offering anything resembling value for the money, not to mention, he's a head case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_NFL_draft
It’s the same dynamic as when you draft a fantasy team on, say, CBS Sports. After the draft it gives you a draft grade, which grade is SOLELY based on how close you drafted to the site’s original rankings. In other words, if you auto-draft (i.e., not show up), you get an automatic A. In all my years playing fantasy sports, the lower my grade, the higher my finish.
Good article. I also think Draft Grades are hilarious. You're handing these out before rookies in their early 20s even play a single snap? Yahoo Sports once gave the Detroit Lions an F for taking Jahmyr Gibbs. He is now a three-time Pro-Bowler. Lol.
I wonder if there is a way to quantify the hit rate of “reach” picks compared to the middling hit rate of consensus picks. It will likely be bedeviled by the “small N” problem.
Ringer Fantasy Football Show is the best football pod out there
All of this about Twitter, Typing Penises, etc. is obviously true, but I don't think Index Fund is an appropriate analogy. Or rather, this situation is actually worse than you're saying.
If I buy index funds and get returns that are better than 75% of people who pick individual stocks, that's a great outcome. That 25% who are beating me doesn't damage me at all, I'll stick with this approach forever. But the NFL is a zero-sum game! If your front office doesn't have an approach that they think gives them an advantage, what are they even doing?
Lastly, this lack of humility you note is ironic, because of the four major leagues, the NFL draft is absolutely the fastest to be relitigated. It is a guarantee that by the second week of preseason, this consensus will be blown apart. The board for pretty much every position will be shaken up, in some cases significantly, and yet you won't hear many analysts wonder whether the frenzy around the draft was overdone...
I mean...nerds are overgrown children. Of course they can't take a victory, because a victory is never enough. What they want is to never feel bad.
"Sticky for weeks" is quite the metaphor.