My round-by-round and overall Bears 2019 draft grades

[Bearly]

My draft grades are as follows. \UDFA

 

[WindyCity]

Nope. The opposite is true. The metrics strongly recommend against trading up. It is much more advantageous to have multiple draft picks than to have a certain draft position. This is just from a few days ago:

The other takeaway is that almost all the picks are more valuable, and that is not a function of small sample size: it’s a function of the rookie wage scale. Players taken in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds are now expected to contribute, because the bar has been lower. If a 4th round pick costs a fraction of what a veteran costs, teams will be more willing to give that player a chance to produce even if he isn’t very good. This artificially inflates AV, since AV is tied to metrics like starts and games played. Teams are giving more starts and snaps to players on rookie contracts because of the rookie salary cap, and that leads to more AV — and distorts the draft value chart a bit.

My overall suspicion is the success of first overall picks from ’08 to ’14 distorts the steepness of the graph — it doesn’t appear like the 2nd and 3rd picks are doing any better than they used to — and that is likely due to small sample size (although the first overall picks since ’14 also seem pretty good so far, too!). And on a relative basis, I am not sure much has changed in the draft value chart world. But I do think it’s fair to acknowledge that draft picks are more valuable than they used to be and my Draft Value Chart implies, and that’s worth thinking about when teams trade multiple picks for one pick.

http://www.footballperspective.com/revisiting-the-draft-value-chart/

When you look at the entire league more picks is probably a benefit.

Right now the Pace targeted approach is working for him as an individual GM. I agree that overall more picks are better, but that is grouping 32 GMs into a giant pile.

At this moment Pace is on a bit of a heater when it comes to the draft and I would like him to continue to operate how he has been until the heater ends.

 

[WindyCity]

If a GM trades up to get the right guy, I couldn't give two shits what the rest of the RB class looks like.

This is essentially what it boils down.

Right now, outside of Trubisky, it appears that Pace's targeted move ups have been working. Therefor I am willing to continue to support the targeted approach over the volume approach.

With the caveat that I think this heater he is on and the Bears upcoming salary cap space will dictate a move to a more consistent volume approach.

 

[WindyCity]

My question, which you seem determined to ignore, is who already reached the conclusion that Belichik outsmarted Pace? I know rory didn't in his OP, so I don't know who you are referring to.

For whatever reason the Patriots give the Bears tremendous value on their trade ups

Last year with Miller they valued the Bears future 2nd round as the 45th pick and this year they valued the 4th round pick as the 118th pick. They are giving the Bears straight up value on future picks.

The Patriots do value future capital more than most teams, but it is rare to get that type of value from teams on future picks.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

The Patriots do value future capital more than most teams, but it is rare to get that type of value from teams on future picks.

Do you have numbers on that?

EDIT: That wasn't a challenge. I was really asking for a source where value for future picks are determined based on projected finishes of a team to assess the actual pick value. I imagine all teams give breaks on the future pick value if they are itching to make the deal. I also wonder if any GM thought highly enough of his own moves to accept a lower valued future pick? That would actually be funny imo.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

I agree that overall more picks are better, but that is grouping 32 GMs into a giant pile.

Yeah, that is kind of what "data" is....counting all outcomes. Not sure why that is a negative.

Reminds me of the Cubs forum when all the statistical data compiled over 100+ years of baseball says that you shouldn't have your best hitter sacrifice bunting to move the runners, yet when Maddon has Kris Bryant bunt, its justified by saying "Maddon had a feeling" and "Maddon won games" and "Metrics don't apply in Maddon's case".

 

[Washington]

I didn't read this whole thread and if what I post was already posted, move on. The article linked in explains some comparisons to Hunt. Take them for what they are worth, conservation fodder, just like grading someone before they actually take a test.

comparisons to Hunt

“The similarities between David and Kareem are their contact balance,” Ayeni said. “They can make people miss and break tackles. It’s ridiculous. In 2017, Kareem was a rookie with the Chiefs, David led college football in forced missed tackles and Kareem led the NFL in forced missed tackles.

“They both can catch the ball out of the backfield, short and down the field. They both are willing pass blockers and can protect the quarterback and they both run with a chip on their shoulders. Those guys both compete and don’t want ever want to go down. You know when you watch a running back and it’s like, ‘Whoa!’ It can be a business decision to tackle the guy. You have to gang-tackle them. Both have that desire to never let one guy bring them down.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

I didn't read this whole thread and if what I post was already posted, move on. The article linked in explains some comparisons to Hunt. Take them for what they are worth, conservation fodder, just like grading someone before they actually take a test.

comparisons to Hunt

Already posted scroll up.

Thanks.

 

[WindyCity]

Yeah, that is kind of what "data" is....counting all outcomes. Not sure why that is a negative.

Reminds me of the Cubs forum when all the statistical data compiled over 100+ years of baseball says that you shouldn't have your best hitter sacrifice bunting to move the runners, yet when Maddon has Kris Bryant bunt, its justified by saying "Maddon had a feeling" and "Maddon won games" and "Metrics don't apply in Maddon's case".

It is only justifiable if Kris Bryant is successful at it and the Cubs win.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

It is only justifiable if Kris Bryant is successful at it and the Cubs win.

I think that is the analytical data logic Devlin McGregor used to make Provasic!

You switched the samples, And the pathology reports! You kill Lentz, too?! Huh?! Did you?! He falsified his research, so that RDU-90 could be approved and Devlin McGregor could give you... Provasic!

 

[WindyCity]

Do you have numbers on that?

EDIT: That wasn't a challenge. I was really asking for a source where value for future picks are determined based on projected finishes of a team to assess the actual pick value. I imagine all teams give breaks on the future pick value if they are itching to make the deal. I also wonder if any GM thought highly enough of his own moves to accept a lower valued future pick? That would actually be funny imo.

Generally speaking the future picks are discounted by a round of value.

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

In the case of the Bears they were given straight up value,

Last Year

4[105]-84
2[2020]-306 points which is equal to the 59th pick

2[51]-390

This year

3[87]-155
5[162]-26
4[2020]-52 which is equal to 121st pick in the draft

3[73]-225
6[205]-8

 

[WindyCity]

Yeah, that is kind of what "data" is....counting all outcomes. Not sure why that is a negative.

Reminds me of the Cubs forum when all the statistical data compiled over 100+ years of baseball says that you shouldn't have your best hitter sacrifice bunting to move the runners, yet when Maddon has Kris Bryant bunt, its justified by saying "Maddon had a feeling" and "Maddon won games" and "Metrics don't apply in Maddon's case".

It is not a negative. But it also does not account for individual trends and abilities. Right now Pace is hitting on picks at a far higher rate than the "average" NFL GM.

If his drafting regresses, hit rate goes down, to the mean then he needs to adapt his drafting and take a more volume based approach.

Right now we I am comfortable with using his more aggressive approach.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

It is not a negative. But it also does not account for individual trends and abilities. Right now Pace is hitting on picks at a far higher rate than the "average" NFL GM.

If his drafting regresses, hit rate goes down, to the mean then he needs to adapt his drafting and take a more volume based approach.

Right now we I am comfortable with using his more aggressive approach.

He was due for a turn in fortune, as his picks the first couple years were about as bad as the Colts defense. Your comment "if his drafting regresses" completely ignores the entirety of Pace's drafting portfolio (I won't even get into his subpar W-L record). Even then, his 'trade up' for Trubisky cost the Bears a legitimate opportunity to have Mahomes and Kamara.

At least Maddon won a World Series (pulling Hendricks after 4 1/3!) and has a proven history of success. I wouldn't give the same 'benefit of the doubt' to Pace just yet.

 

[WindyCity]

He was due for a turn in fortune, as his picks the first couple years were about as bad as the Colts defense. Your comment "if his drafting regresses" completely ignores the entirety of Pace's drafting portfolio (I won't even get into his subpar W-L record). Even then, his 'trade up' for Trubisky cost the Bears a legitimate opportunity to have Mahomes and Kamara.

At least Maddon won a World Series (pulling Hendricks after 4 1/3!) and has a proven history of success. I wouldn't give the same 'benefit of the doubt' to Pace just yet.

It does not ignore it. While White and Grasu were busts, his first draft provided Amos and Goldman which compared to most drafts is pretty solid return in what would be considered his worst draft. His worst draft was his first, and it was not that bad, and he has pretty consistently improved from that point on.

The Trubisky trade was dumb.

He is still, currently one of the more successful drafters in the league, and we have not seen a regression to this point. Perhaps it is this year with the limited picks.

 

[WindyCity]

We have 4 years of Pace's draft as data to analyze.

He has earned the benefit of the doubt in terms of his strategy.

I too have doubts about whether he can maintain his current hit rate and continue to operate with limited picks, but at this moment it is working, we will see when and if he needs to adjust.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

The Trubisky trade was dumb.

Mind blown. Wow.

 

[WindyCity]

Mind blown. Wow.

In his aggressiveness that is the one move that was bad.

And the evaluation was worst than the trade.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Generally speaking the future picks are discounted by a round of value.

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

In the case of the Bears they were given straight up value,

Last Year

4[105]-84
2[2020]-306 points which is equal to the 59th pick

2[51]-390

This year

3[87]-155
5[162]-26
4[2020]-52 which is equal to 121st pick in the draft

3[73]-225
6[205]-8

Yes I already knew all that.

When you said "the Patriots give the Bears tremendous value on their trade ups" (as opposed to other teams when they trade future picks)

and you also followed with "it is rare to get that type of value from teams on future picks"

I thought you had a comparison of teams trading future picks to other teams trading future picks to show a pattern of how some GMs value the future picks vs. others.

 

[Bearly]

 

[WindyCity]

Yes I already knew all that.

When you said "the Patriots give the Bears tremendous value on their trade ups" (as opposed to other teams when they trade future picks)

and you also followed with "it is rare to get that type of value from teams on future picks"

I thought you had a comparison of teams trading future picks to other teams trading future picks to show a pattern of how some GMs value the future picks vs. others.

Last Year

The Patriots gave the Lions 66 points [mid 4th] of value for their 3[2019].

This Year

The Colts valued the Redskins future 2nd as a high 3rd.

The Dolphins valued the Saints future 2nd at 188 points or as a mid 3rd round pick

The Broncos valued the Steelers future 3rd at 70 points or as a mid 4th


Most teams are still discounting almost a full round on future picks.