Helpful Links ... You can never get enough football!

ESPN
NFL TICKETS
NFL.COM
Dick Butkus
Monday Night Football
NCAA
Arm Chair Quarterback
CBS Sportsline

---

Understanding the NFL Draft

April 24, 2002

UNDERSTANDING THE NFL DRAFT, PART 1

Over the next several weeks I'm going to break down the 2002 Draft results. My goal is not so much to tell you which teams did well and which teams didn't. Lots of experts will be talking about that stuff and none of them really know what they're talking about because none of these rookies have played a down in the NFL yet. Instead, I'd like to discuss the ins and outs of what to look for from your favorite team and how to understand the process. I'll take you behind the headlines and reveal some of the misunderstood aspects of the NFL Draft.

"Best Athlete Available vs. Need Pick"

If you follow the draft at all, you hear many "draftniks” (supposed experts on the draft) talk about whether a team's philosophy is to take the "best available athlete" or to pick based on the team's biggest needs. While such talk sounds intriguing, the reality is that it is gibberish. Proof of my statement is the response most reporters get to the question. It typically goes something like this.....

(Reporter) Q: "Coach, was your selection of Tim Tank out of Humungous University based on an organizational decision to take the best player available at your spot, or was he the player you really wanted all along?" (Right about now the coach would prefer to strike the reporter with brass knuckles).

Coach answers...."Our goal in this draft is to improve our football team as much as possible, and we feel this pick helps us do that."

Now, allow me to interpret the above fictitious (though common) conversation. The following is what the reporter was really asking;

"Coach, most of the draftniks thought that Tim Tank wasn't worthy of a pick in the first round, since he timed out at the combine 4-millionth of a second slower than the Really Large Guy from Texas in the cone drill.....are you stupid or something? Besides, we told everyone on our radio show that you'd take a running back. Now we look like we don't know what we're talking about and I plan to slam you as a moron in the paper tomorrow for doing that to me."

This is how the coach was really responding...."Listen pin-head, I haven't slept in four days and I'm going to get fired if Mr. Tank is a bust. We worked him out and found out he likes to eat the thigh meat off of quarterbacks after a sack, and that his childhood idol was Attila the Hun. We found that very appealing. We also found out that Really Large Guy from Texas wishes he was a basketball player and hates to practice. So stuff a sock in it, because we're calling the shots. By the way, your paper sucks and I make more money than you."

Of course, if either the reporter or the coach really says what they want to say, neither would have a job long. That is, unless one of them is either Bill Parcells or Will McDonough (but that's a different column). So as fans, we are forced to listen to these silly quotes when all we want is the truth.

The reality of all of this is that the argument is insane. There is no such thing as an NFL team that takes the "best athlete available" vs. a "position need". If teams picked the best athlete available, they would almost always draft a cornerback, because normally cornerbacks are the best athletes on a football team. So the only way I would ever believe that a team did this is if their roster was filled with nothing but cornerbacks who were then converted to other positions once arriving in the NFL. This idea is, of course, ridiculous. You can write the following statement down in blood......TEAMS ALWAYS DRAFT THE PLAYER THEY THINK THE MOST HIGHLY OF (THAT'S STILL AVAILABLE) AT A POSITION THEY FEEL THEY NEED HELP. Period.

The only reason that this whole argument gets started every year is that the draftniks already think they've figured out what every team needs without asking them. They're sort of like your boss. They decide what you need and if you don't agree with them you must surely be stupid. So when the Atlanta Falcons take running back T.J.Duckett instead of the wide receiver they most assuredly really need, they cock their eyebrows and say... "THAT'S SUCH A REACH!! WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?" Well, maybe there weren't any receivers left on the board that they wanted to spend a first round pick on and they think Duckett is a can't miss talent. Maybe their starting running back (Jamal Anderson) isn’t so reliable any more after missing 75% of the last two seasons with knee injuries. Hmmmm. I'm getting ahead of myself.

The other side of the coin is that the draftniks use this argument when a team uses a pick on a player rated lower than someone else at the same position in the eyes of the draftnik. In other words, they think there were better players available to them, so he assumes they made the selection based on "need" instead of "value".

My point in a nutshell is that teams never take a player intentionally based on need or value. They take who they feel is the best player available to them at a position they want to improve. They don't care much what Mel Kiper, Jr. or anyone else outside the organization thinks about it, thank you very much.

"They Got Good Value with This Pick"

Here's another favorite line of the draftniks. When they say this, what they are usually really saying is "This pick isn't particularly sexy, and personally I'm not sure I like it, but it's hard to argue with it since this is where the player was projected to go."

They also use this line in two other circumstances...

A) When they want to say. "I don't know what to say right now because I feel like I might burp if I get excited" or ...

B) "This player is underrated in my opinion and I'm glad that they made me look smart by picking him."

My question always is when I hear this catchy phrase is "How the #@* do you know if they got good value?" I remember when the NBA was screaming foul when the ping pong ball popped up with a Celtic logo on it, and Boston selected Maryland center Len Bias with the first overall pick. Two or three days later, Bias was found dead from a cocaine overdose. I'm not trying to be morbid, but do you think the Celtics got "good value" with that pick?

More pertinently to the NFL, none of the people saying this catch-all phrase are on the hook to pay this young prima-Dona so that he reports to training camp on time. If I were paying the bill, I'd trade out of the first round every year. (Fortunately, I'm not) In my opinion, we don't know whether a team got good value on a draft pick until 2 or 3 years have gone by and the player has had time to develop. This isn't tennis, its football.

There are so many variables to consider when a team drafts any player, that unless you follow a team extremely closely, it's hard to really tell what a team needs or wants on draft day, and even then it's difficult because coaches and general managers often change their minds just minutes before it's their turn to pick.

Well, that's it for this week. In my next column I'll explain how successful NFL teams approach the NFL draft, from scouting to talent evaluation to the impact on the salary cap. Also, if you really pay close attention, I may insult someone, but I can't make promises.

A-River-Der-Chee,

Dave


Previous Articles

The Winning Ingredients
Time to Gloat

---

About the Author;
Dave LeBlanc is a part-time freelance writer with a life-long NFL addiction. Trust me ... I know!

He can be reached at Dave@boomerjournals.com and looks forward to your comments