Pipeline Theory

I think it's a pretty well thought out philosophy overall, and takes a rational, positional priority, and probabalistic approach. A couple of thoughts: (a) when you "miss" on a few in a row from either a particular position, or a particular round you end up in trouble, with a non-competitive team, and that increases a bunch of pressures like over-spending on the FAs you currently have or on others, or on "reaching" for positions. (b) I think your theory partly explains why patient, well-run organizations consistently produce competitive teams. They have the patience to use a logic approach and to wait for the probability and the methodology to work back in their favor. (c) for the "theory" or "model" or whatever you want to call it to work, still requires (a) good scouting and drafting (b) good coaching and development (c) good game planning and execution (d) good long-term front office decisions regarding the roster and the coaching staff (e) a little bit of luck.... so you're saying there's a chance ?!?

 

Agree 100%.

 

Nice post. To me, this is where you nailed it:

Rounds 4-7.
These rounds are where you assemble backups, special teamers, and take a few swings on high upside players.

Couldn't agree more. THESE rounds should be set aside for your STers, backups, punters, kickers, BU QB, etc. Fans who scream for taking a certain WR in round 5 who they think could be the next Randy Moss or taking a pass rusher in round 6 who could be the next LT are wrong. Sure, it's great to find a diamond in the rough, but that only happens like once out of 50 attempts, and then you leave your team void of TRUE backups, kickers, etc.

A GM who tries to draft starters in rounds 4-7 versus depth ends up with neither.

I gotta think a bit more about your pipeline concept. On the surface I like it. I'll comment on it in a bit....

 

As you might expect, I respect the time and thought you put into this, it is interesting, and I think you have some merit to your chart, but but overall I disagree. I think you're right that teams must consider the pipeline, especially for key positions, and develop some sort of long-range plan or system, but not one that they follow strictly every draft. They have to allow for special opportunities and it has to be flexible, and serve as only a rough guideline, not one that they must follow regardless. You say it's only a guideline and supposedly allow for deviation, but then turn around and refer to deviations as "emotional picks" which undermines your supposed flexibility.

To begin with, I think any draft plan/philosophy only serves as a general guide, not as a rule to follow slavishly. Every draft is different, and as the old saying goes, "Shit happens." A player you drafted and liked his play, suffers a major injury, if not a career-ending injury. You get the opportunity to draft a very special, elite player at WR or TE or LB that will elevate the play of your team up another level. A player that's perfect for your system and that you thought you'd have no opportunity to draft, falls to you. You want to trade down and get additional picks to upgrade your depth at several positions. One shouldn't pass on those opportunities/players because of some formula or system you've devised. Creating and using a formula like you have is a cookie cutter approach. It assumes that every draft is the same, has the same amount of talent, the strength of the draft occurs at the same positions, that a team's priorities remain the same, etc.

Secondly, as I suspected while reading the 1st paragraph, you relegate the offensive skill positions to the 2nd & 3rd round and lower. In an offensive-driven league, this is short-sighted at best, and foolish at worst. We have seen what elite WRs, TEs, and RBs can do in this league. Whereas most teams don't value the RB position any more, and one doesn't have to draft a RB in the 1st round, there are those come along who are definitely worth the 1st round pick. IMO at a minimum, WRs should be included in the 1st grouping, and RBs and TEs should be included in the 2nd round grouping because of the importance of the offense in today's NFL.

Thirdly, DT is not a premier position. All of the Jets' drafts over the last 10 years should have taught you that. Great DTs can be found in the 2nd round and lower. If one gets a chance to draft an Aaron Donald-clone, then yes, if you don't have other glaring needs, then one should seize that opportunity, but there are very few Aaron Donald clones running around. I know of none so far. There aren't a lot of DTs who are great pass rushers. Most are run stuffers. One can find great run stuffers even as UDFAs and in the 7th round. In addition, if you've already drafted a DT in the 1st round and drafted well, you certainly don't need to draft another in 4 years unless he has suffered a major injury and isn't the same player. IMO your formula or system would be much better if you switched DT and WR.

Finally, if your team has drafted well, and you have two 1st round picks at each premier position, then you certainly don't need to draft yet another 1st round pick at one of those positions. You use that pick to give some love to another position, and you use only a 2nd or 3rd round pick at the positions where you already have two 1st round picks. Your formula is too much like what Mac did. It puts waaaaaaaaay too much emphasis on the DL. The Edge Rusher position merits that emphasis, but not the DT position imo.

I think the bottom line is that you think teams can win with Defense and a mediocre offense, and I couldn't possibly disagree more with that philosophy. I think you're about 20 years behind where the NFL is now.

 

The nice thing about having effectively a four-year rotation is that by the time you're fairly sure whether the guy is a stud or a dud, you're in a position to move on.

 

What NFL GM tries to draft starters in rounds 4-7? No one I know of has ever said that or their drafting shows that was their approach. I think they all look at players taken in those rounds as backups and STers, and they get lucky. Players who had some talent get professional caliber coaching, refine their techniques and their coordinator puts them in a position to succeed, and they surprise everyone.

I don't think one can always say that the backups should be 4th-7th round picks, either. Using that formula, and with a premier position, you might have a situation where once your team is built and strong, where you have a 2nd or 3rd round pick as a backup because of the importance of the position, and because that player was too good to pass up in the draft.

 

Well, there were fans on here who were mad at JD for drafting a kicker/qb when there were still long-shot WRs on the board. Stuff like that. Also, those round 5-6-7 picks are sometimes traded away to move up a spot or two in the 2/3 rounds. So right there's another example of NOT drafting depth to get a better starter.

 

I refuse to subscribe to letting positional value overrule individual evaluations, team architecture,league climate & overall roster balance.

No 2 organizations are the same.No 2 positions are the same.No 2 evaluations are the same.Putting limitations & rigid standards in place is completely unimaginative in a process (the draft) that is largely an art form.

You need good players at ALL positions. You need pipelines at ALL positions. Putting artificial limitations on where resources can be utilized to help a team doesnt work.

 

I personally don't believe in correlating rounds to positions. You create your board each draft based on positional depth and talent (which is why we drafted OT or WR in RD1). There are always exceptions to the rule.

Ravens rarely resign linebackers because they continue to add talent and strengthen the position

 

of course it is.But that doesnt mean you say “im never drafting an LB in round 1 under any circumstance”

There maybe a yr where team’s most glaring need is an LB & there’s 3 w. First round grades & then a drop off to day 3 type grades.

Now if you wanna take your theory & adjust it on a yr to yr basis based on talent pool/team needs etc..i think thats valid.But to keep it the same yr in & yr out w no fluidity i think has some serious pitfalls

 

If an elite WR prospect is available when the Jets pick in round 1 next year, he cannot be passed on because of the idea that "you can get a good WR in later rounds." As for DT's in round 1, do we need any more proof that taking one in round 1 is not how to build a contending team? @MaximusD163 I'm not saying you're wrong in your OP, but it seems like you're boxing yourself into certain positions in each round. Each selection needs to be based on talent, character, work ethic, need, positional impact etc..... Flexibility matters when it comes to the draft.

 

I'd like to know how many of these teams had holes at Edge, WR, CB, and OL when selecting a DT in round 1. Last year, Josh Allen was there for the taking and Quinnen Williams was the pick. The edge prospect we did take didn't make the final 53 man roster. Q might end up being great, this team has taken DT's in round 1 multiple times in the 2010's with little to show for it.

 

MaximusD163, I "liked" your post because of the effort and thought you put into it, and I always enjoy "thinking outside the box" in trying to solve problems. That said, I agree more with Kurt and NC in disagreeing with the idea that a formula - which by definition is rigid, otherwise it isn't a formula - can be applied indiscriminately every year. As Kurt suggested, it might be useful as a guideline each year, perhaps as a starting point, but then you have to account for the reality of what your team needs actually are, and what the draft actually provides.

It's seductive to think that we can boil things down to fit into neat formulas, but Life just refuses to cooperate. Formulas promise a way to achieve repeatable success, and if we're talking about cake baking that's doable. But that's because the ingredients to bake a cake are readily available and consistent in quality. That isn't the case with athletes. Further complicating things is that each team has different "dietary needs" - while many can "eat" anything, some are vegetarians, some are gluten-free, some are fat-free or dairy free, all of this reducing the pool of potential players who can thrive on a given teams' "diet".

Much more important to consistent winning is something you sort of glossed over:

"...when it comes to personnel acquisition, you’re still going to need good scouting, coaching, development, and good game planning and execution right?...I didn’t include that stuff because no team will win without those things, or at least most of them no matter what positions you draft."

Trying to supply a formula that would in essence offset shortcomings in these other areas is like saying your bilge pump can overcome a hole in the transom of your boat. The bilge pump is proven to work as long as the source of leaking water is dealt with. The problem with the Jets is that we've had major holes in these other areas for years, especially with ownership. No formula can overcome that.

What WILL work is a good blueprint, and drafting and acquiring players that fit that blueprint. and while not a formula, there are some rules that have to be followed. For example, the first and most critical things is getting a FQB. That's akin to your foundation. If you don't have that, your 'house' can't be built properly. Also, you don't load up on certain positions just because you think they're the BPA, while you have other positions that need filling. In short, following your blueprint, you have to complete at least the basic shell of your 'house' before you start expanding it.

I believe Douglas has such a blueprint and is following it. While I'm a little concerned that he's leaning more towards a defense-heavy model (like the Ravens), the important thing is that he has a proven design. Once the main 'house' is built, we can modify it later. Sort of like you can start with a Cape Cod style house and then add wings and dormers and porches to make it fancier.

The difference between a formula and a blueprint is that an architect takes into account the landscape and materials available and modifies the end result to adapt to them, whereas a formula requires strict adherence.

Again, I applaud your effort and creativity, I just disagree on the conclusion.

 

To a certain extent I agree with you, because I’ve grown to think that the concept of “best player available” is a bullshit philosophy. For example, the punter we drafted was probably the “best” player on the board for several rounds, but everyone knew not to draft him before day 3 because they have an intrinsic understanding of positional value.

I think the “best player available” philosophy should be abandoned in favor of “most valuable player available”. The quality of the players is obviously still weighed heavily, but it’s balanced against positional value, team need, scarcity at the position in the rest of the draft, etc. This will bias you towards taking OL, EDGE, CB and QB in the first round, but this is probably a good thing considering those are the most crucial positions to be good at. Once the talent there is depleted within the draft, you can address the skill positions in subsequent rounds.

It also addresses a massive problem we’d been having under Maccagnan’s BPA approach. Good, young, promising players at OL/EDGE/CB don’t frequently hit the open market because teams understand how valuable they are. Furthermore, most teams picking in front of us factored in positional value into their draft process, selecting the aforementioned positions over players who may have been “better” but played less valuable positions. The result was us cleaning up the “BPA”s at the expense of taking positions of low relative value. And if good OL/EDGE players aren’t hitting the FA market, and you aren’t going out of your way to draft them, how exactly do you expect to get them onto your roster?

Ultimately, we wound up with some talented players but gaping holes at the most important positions on the field. That’s why I’m so glad Douglas resisted the WR temptation in round 1 to land a cornerstone tackle and turned his focus to a promising receiver in the 2nd round. Perfectly executed.

TLDR; take the most valuable player available in the draft, even if it isn’t the best player available