Position according to Value

[Chawker]

Every year its the same ol story, teams at the top looking for a superstar QB. So i'd say QB takes the top position.

1. QB followed by WR on offense then OL TEs and RBs.
2. DEs and DBs LBers and DTs on defense.

But, value for a position you have to figure in available and future needs. Plus this year we have a completely new coaching staff. There views are different then what we are use too. I hope I got this list right.

Cheers

 

[Chevy]

Taking into consideration of our new coaching staff and JS as the GM here is what I think there postional value is...

Offese: QB, RB (we are set at this position), WR, OL, and TE.

Defense: 3-4 OLBs, 3-4 DEs, ILBs, NT, CBs, and S.

 

[sutz]

Are those actual NFL values or are they fantasy football values?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Chawker]

Are those actual NFL values or are they fantasy football values?

Asking for a friend.

Seahawk values.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

We have values??

 

[CPHawk]

So stay put and draft someone we really need but higher than thei should be? Or trade down and lose that player, and have to pick the next best guy at the same spot?

 

[Chevy]

So stay put and draft someone we really need but higher than thei should be? Or trade down and lose that player, and have to pick the next best guy at the same spot?

According to JS, in the early rounds, draft BPA or trade down if the BPA is not a need. Later rounds he said draft for needs.

 

[CPHawk]

According to JS, in the early rounds, draft BPA or trade down if the BPA is not a need. Later rounds he said draft for needs.

But we have needs at OL, DL, LB, Safety and QB. And we are in this mess because HS gets cute and trades down, then drafts guys who aren’t that good.

 

[Chevy]

But we have needs at OL, DL, LB, Safety and QB. And we are in this mess because HS gets cute and trades down, then drafts guys who aren’t that good.

I'm right there with you. He has had bad years of drafting, until recently, which is why he spends a lot of our cap on supposed discounts.

 

[GemCity]

I don’t see us grabbing a QB. Had we not signed Howell, I’d say there was a definite chance.

I’m also not saying Geno or Howell are the QBotF.

I think there are going to be a lot of disgruntled folks after this draft.

I’m just going to trust that we’re in good hands…

 

[Chevy]

I don’t see us grabbing a QB. Had we not signed Howell, I’d say there was a definite chance.

I’m also not saying Geno or Howell are the QBotF.

I think there are going to be a lot of disgruntled folks after this draft.

I’m just going to trust that we’re in good hands…

If not QB this year, then there are some intriguing QBs next year. JS needs to acquire a extra 2025 2nd or even 1st round pick, if QB is his plan for 2025 draft. That will give him the draft capital to more up for a QB next year.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

With positional value you always start with the cap savings vs the free market cost and then you consider need. Even with an weak group on the roster if its cheap fill you can leave it as a need in the draft.

If I was making my draft board it'd go Player grades>adjusted for positional value>adjusted for team need.

Player grading is a whole different category.

Adjusting for positonal value is sort of like gambling. Imagine two types of games, both with even chances of losing, but one offers a bigger payout if you do win. You'd gamble on the bigger payoff every time (assuming odds/grades being equal), so you move it up the list.

You see a lot of teams get in trouble drafting for need cause it downplays player grades (bpa) and positional value fbecause of the idea that drafting at your biggest weakness improves the team more than drafting bpa at a position that is already strong, so it doesn't improve the team as much (in theory).

We've seen John draft for need and bpa. Drafting for bpa seems to be working better so I expect John to stick to that. That might mean a defensive end over a guard in the 1st rd because of the adjustment for positional value.