FanPost

Positional Value and the NFL Draft

Tim Heitman-USA TODAY Sports

This Fanpost was written by a Windy City Gridiron member, and does not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions of its staff or community.

The NFL Draft is now 64 days away. In the weeks between now and when Roger Goodell announces that Jacksonville is officially on the clock, there are going to be thousands upon thousands of mock drafts created to try and predict what will happen once the moment arrives.

This is not a prediction of what may happen. Instead, I would like to try and analyze how draft selections might be made. There are predominantly two major schools of thought on this topic: drafting for need and drafting the best player available. Let's talk about both of these and how we might improve upon them into a weighted system, incorporating positional value into the equation.

Setting the Stage

Let's say you're the general manager of an NFL franchise. It's your first year, and you are now looking at what to do with your draft capital. You have all of your standard picks, and you've started to piece together your big board of prospects. Scouts are working around the clock to grade out all of the available players you might be able to add to your team. You now have to decide the biggest X factor question in the business: who makes the most sense to select when my team is on the clock?

One of the first questions you are likely to ask yourself in search of an answer to this question is "which selection makes the most impact to my team?" A perfectly logical question, and one that you could try to find a solution for in a number of ways.

NFL franchises have placed value on the different positions within the league that are publicly available in the form of contracts. In my last article, I included a chart where I averaged the top 10 highest paid players by position into their average salary per year for their respective positions. Here is a sample of that chart for reference:

Position

Avg Salary/Year

QB

$34,640,900

RB

$12,039,754

WR

$19,544,600

LT

$17,198,750

IDL

$17,902,600

EDGE

$20,588,333

CB

$16,149,333

Based on just a few of these positions, you could gather that teams value a top quarterback almost three times as much as a top running back. A cornerstone left tackle is just as valuable as a top interior defensive lineman, based on this logic, too. Is that the case league-wide? Probably not.

You could also look at previous drafts for positional value assumptions. Since the 2001 draft, there have been 20 years of picks to analyze. In that time, 15 drafts have seen a quarterback go first overall to the lucky team at the top. The only other positions to be taken first overall in the other 5 years were an EDGE player (Myles Garrett, Jadeveon Clowney, Mario Williams) or a left tackle (Eric Fisher, Jake Long). 1996 was the last time a player not playingkeyshawn one of those three positions was taken first overall, and that was the year of Keyshawn Johnson.

In the last five drafts, there were 159 first-round selections that covered 14 unique position categories. These position selections break down as such:

Position

Selections

C

5

CB

20

DE

18

DT

15

G

5

ILB

3

LB

11

OLB

5

QB

18

RB

8

S

10

T

18

TE

6

WR

17

Okay, so this is certainly one set of numbers that may or may not tell us something. But I'm assuming that you're a thorough GM and you want to try and improve upon this and spend a little bit of time to try and put these into some context. Right?

Good. Let's continue.

An Attempt was Made

Let's assume that every team is hoping that every draft choice becomes a starter-quality player (easy enough to assume), and let's also assume that there are some standard formation and player groups out on the field a majority of the time. Sharp Football Stats has a great chart that breaks down the most common personnel usage, and it can be filtered based on a number of different criteria. Their information says that 60% of all NFL plays are run out of and 11 Personnel package (3 WRs, 1 RB, 1 TE, 5 OL, 1 QB). It is used three times as often as the next closest personnel package and is the dominant formation of choice for every single team in the league. For defenses, this means that most alignments are going to match with a Nickel package (4 DL/EDGE, 2 LB, 3 CB, 2 S). If we use these roster spots to help average out how many of each of these first-round selections by position can be on the field at once, we get a new ratio:

Position

Selections

In Play

Sel. Per IP

C

5

1

5.0

CB

20

3

6.7

DE

18

2

9.0

DT

15

2

7.5

G

5

2

2.5

ILB

3

1

3.0

LB

11

2

5.5

OLB

5

2

2.5

QB

18

1

18.0

RB

8

1

8.0

S

10

2

5.0

T

18

2

9.0

TE

6

1

6.0

WR

17

3

5.7

This ratio changes up some things for us pretty quickly. Assuming you are only ever going to use one quarterback at a time (Do not make me come down there, New Orleans), there is a huge demand on finding a starter in the first round, compared to, say, a cornerback, where the overall number of selections is higher, but there could be 3 of them on the field at the same time, increasing the chances that they are used -€” regardless of position on the depth chart. Even if you drafted a cornerback with the intent of becoming your CB1, if that player ends up being a starter as a Slot CB, let's say, then your team is still getting some value from that player. If you draft a quarterback and don't like what you see, that player can't be used elsewhere in the formation (I said NO, New Orleans). That pick loses all value, based on expected playing time in a starter positon.

Now, there are some flaws in this logic that should be pointed out. A team likely won't let a first-round pick sit on the bench unless they truly are not ready, but some players need time to develop and are drafted with "future player" status in mind (Mahomes and Love, for instance). Simultaneously, that cornerback example I used before would still be considered a failed pick if your team expected to find a top, lockdown CB and instead found a nickel guy. You would be getting value, but it would be a let down to the organization's planning moving forward as now more resources need to be spent on that position if they are still in need of a top cornerback upgrade.

"Best" Player Available?

Drafting for team needs is pretty straight forward. GMs and coaches look at their rosters, see who is still under contract, what kind of performance they get from each group, and determine their biggest areas for improvement. They then draft based upon those needs. This can lead to reaching on a player you otherwise may not have had graded out to be worth the pick you selected them with, but it also guarantees that you're using draft capital on areas where your roster has weaknesses to (hopefully) make your team a more well-rounded competitor.

Drafting for "best player available," or BPA, is another style altogether. The "purest" form of BPA suggests that a front office grades out every prospect in the draft, creates a ranking system, and takes whoever is at the top of the board, regardless of team need. This never happens in the "purest" form, and I say that because if a team with a top-ranked franchise quarterback ends up with the top draft choice and their highest graded prospect is a quarterback when they are on the clock, they likely won't select that player. Instead, that team could try and trade down in the draft, accumulate more picks, and then have more chances to swing on the best players on their board. Situations like this are more often the norm using this strategy, and this methodology has become a lauded, pragmatic approach to building a contender through the draft. After all, we can safely assume that not all draft picks end up being successful selections, even at the top end of the draft. Therefore, accumulating more picks should mean more hits on players that turn into valuable members of your team. This is, of course, assuming that you are scouting and selecting players at the league average success rate.

However, there clearly are times when addressing a particular need is of the most importance. I don't believe it is a hard sell to convince you, Mr. Rookie GM, that a need for a quarterback would outrank a need for any other position. So now we've hit a crossroads, where these two different philosophies must be weighed against each other. Luckily, this year, I can use real names and what may end up being real situations to bring this problem into light.

Let's say that Carolina is on the clock at pick number 8. Things haven't broken the way they would have hoped. No one allowed a trade up and the top 4 quarterbacks on their board (Lawrence, Fields, Wilson, Lance) are gone. They want a young, new leader for their offense. Teddy Bridgewater is under contract for two more years, and he doesn't cost relatively much against the cap this year ($22.9 million in 2021, or just over 66% of the average yearly salary of the top 10 quarterbacks in football) and he just posted a QB Rating on the season of 92.1, good for 22nd in the league.

The next quarterback on Carolina's board is Mac Jones out of Alabama. Let's say that they believe he's the 25th best prospect on the table, and Carolina has made it clear that they think Teddy is a limiting factor in their offense.

However, also on the board at number 8 are the following names: Micah Parsons, Kwity Paye, Rashawn Slater, Kyle Pitts, Caleb Farley, and Christian Barmore, all of which are in the top 15 prospects on Carolina's board. They have needs at some of these positions, as well, and there's a pretty strong gap between where this group ranks and where Jones ranks.

So, who do they take?

An Interesting Experiment

Here's where positional value really needs to come into play. I've considered using salaries as a way to measure the value of each position, but it's almost impossible to use this comparison to decide between two different prospects, as any quarterback prospect will be catapulted above any other positional prospect due to the huge numbers top quarterbacks get paid. There certainly is a breaking point, but where is it?

To try and discern where that may be, let's use the last five drafts and their historical significance again. I will use the same source for all prospect grades and each prospects' overall rankings according to this source, along with where each of their top 32 prospects were actually drafted that year. Using this data, I'm going to look at the average rank, average actual pick, and average difference between their ranking and their actual selection number for each position as whole. The source that I am using for these grades does not take positional value into account at all -€” they simply grade prospects based on their evaluations and the talents of the prospect.

Position

Quantity

Avg. Pick

Avg. Rank

Avg. Diff

DE

14

13.5

12.1

-1.4

QB

17

15.9

15.9

0.0

DT

18

19.6

14.8

-4.8

OLB

11

18.5

12.1

-6.4

CB

20

22.4

21.0

-1.5

WR

17

19.9

17.4

-2.5

OT

19

20.8

17.2

-3.6

S

10

25.3

17.5

-7.8

RB

10

23.6

16.2

-7.4

ILB

10

21.3

17.2

-4.1

TE

7

22.7

16.4

-6.3

C

4

23.8

23.0

-0.8

OG

3

26.0

14.7

-11.3

Based on this information, quarterbacks are picked the most consistently in step with their ranking from this organization. For note, this even includes this organizations biggest miss on any top 32 prospect they ranked was Ryan Finley. The NC State quarterback was selected 74 spots behind where they ranked him as an overall prospect, but so many quarterbacks were taken above their ranking positions (e.g., Trubisky +25, Herbert +18, Watson +16, Goff +10, Wentz +8) that this was completely counteracted. Every other position group in these rankings were selected behind where they were ranked, on average. If you use these differentiators as grade adjustments, here is where the same group's rankings for this year would be adjusted, as a before and after:

BEFORE

Player

Position

School

Grade

Trevor Lawrence

QB

Clemson

97

Ja'Marr Chase

WR

LSU

94

Penei Sewell

OT

Oregon

94

Micah Parsons

ILB

Penn State

93

Zach Wilson

QB

BYU

93

Kyle Pitts

TE

Florida

93

DeVonta Smith

WR

Alabama

93

Rashawn Slater

OT

Northwestern

93

Patrick Surtain II

CB

Alabama

92

Caleb Farley

CB

Virginia Tech

92

Jaylen Waddle

WR

Alabama

92

Trey Lance

QB

North Dakota State

91

Justin Fields

QB

Ohio State

91

Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah

ILB

Notre Dame

91

Trevon Moehrig

S

TCU

91

Gregory Rousseau

DE

Miami

90

Jaelan Phillips

DE

Miami

90

Kwity Paye

DE

Michigan

90

Kadarius Toney

WR

Florida

90

Najee Harris

RB

Alabama

90

Alijah Vera-Tucker

OG

USC

90

Travis Etienne

RB

Clemson

90

Zaven Collins

OLB

Tulsa

90

Christian Darrisaw

OT

Virginia Tech

90

Levi Onwuzurike

DT

Washington

90

Jalen Mayfield

OT

Michigan

90

Jaycee Horn

CB

South Carolina

90

Mac Jones

QB

Alabama

89

Azeez Ojulari

OLB

Georgia

89

Christian Barmore

DT

Alabama

89

Joe Tryon

DE

Washington

89

Nick Bolton

ILB

Missouri

89

AFTER

Player

Position

School

Grade

New Grade

Trevor Lawrence

QB

Clemson

97

97.00

Zach Wilson

QB

BYU

93

93.00

Ja'Marr Chase

WR

LSU

94

91.53

Trey Lance

QB

North Dakota State

91

91.00

Justin Fields

QB

Ohio State

91

91.00

Patrick Surtain II

CB

Alabama

92

90.55

Caleb Farley

CB

Virginia Tech

92

90.55

DeVonta Smith

WR

Alabama

93

90.53

Penei Sewell

OT

Oregon

94

90.37

Jaylen Waddle

WR

Alabama

92

89.53

Rashawn Slater

OT

Northwestern

93

89.37

Mac Jones

QB

Alabama

89

89.00

Micah Parsons

ILB

Penn State

93

88.90

Gregory Rousseau

DE

Miami

90

88.64

Jaelan Phillips

DE

Miami

90

88.64

Kwity Paye

DE

Michigan

90

88.64

Jaycee Horn

CB

South Carolina

90

88.55

Joe Tryon

DE

Washington

89

87.64

Kadarius Toney

WR

Florida

90

87.53

Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah

ILB

Notre Dame

91

86.90

Kyle Pitts

TE

Florida

93

86.71

Christian Darrisaw

OT

Virginia Tech

90

86.37

Jalen Mayfield

OT

Michigan

90

86.37

Levi Onwuzurike

DT

Washington

90

85.22

Nick Bolton

ILB

Missouri

89

84.90

Christian Barmore

DT

Alabama

89

84.22

Zaven Collins

OLB

Tulsa

90

83.64

Trevon Moehrig

S

TCU

91

83.20

Azeez Ojulari

OLB

Georgia

89

82.64

Najee Harris

RB

Alabama

90

82.60

Travis Etienne

RB

Clemson

90

82.60

Alijah Vera-Tucker

OG

USC

90

78.67

Based on this, to answer our previous example, assuming that Carolina has the same grades as this source, then out of the group of Micah Parsons, Kwity Paye, Rashawn Slater, Kyle Pitts, Caleb Farley, and Christian Barmore -€” only Slater or Farley should be considered ahead of Jones.

I doubt that it shakes out that way, but if you try to just use historical precedent and the tendency of picks versus this specific ranking and grading system, you can come to some interesting conclusions (four quarterbacks in the first five prospects makes it seem less crazy that all four will be chosen before pick 8, if needs align and those teams grade these prospects similarly).

Using this method, if the Bears are sitting at pick 20, and the first 19 prospects are off the board from this table, then Darrisaw, Mayfield, and Pitts would all be available for us to choose from. Not a bad talent pool to pick from as a consolation prize for missing out on the quarterback draft sweepstakes.

I'm aware that this method may be VERY flawed. The point isn't that my method is the best method to use, just that there are different ways to try and approach the draft in determining what may be the "best" course of action to any given situation. However, I'll be the first to say that you can't always let numbers do the talking - Football is a sport of controlled chaos. There are way too many factors to let this chart decide the future of a franchise.

So, do what you will, Mr. Rookie GM. There are many moves to make -€” just make sure you have a plan.

This Fanpost was written by a Windy City Gridiron member and does not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions of its staff or community.