If I was doing the decision support model for this team there are two different pathways I would take.
Goals for Draft Eval:
The end goal of the draft eval process is clearly to get the higher level of malleable talent, or the higher level of talent (physical attributes + measurables) to the cost. Skill clearly is not highly valued and in fact is a component that negatively impacts the ability to get high value from a pick (since most of the other teams are searching for skill 1st, talent 2nd. Clearly there is some weighting going on for areas of immediate or projected need, but it looks like the team also highly values physically gifted players that can be dropped into a system, take time to mold, and provide you the "game changers" you need.
Draft eval scoring then is likely primarily about maximizing aggregation of high scoring physical attributes that are relevant to projected success.
(We built something like this by the way)
Goal for FA eval:
The end goal of the FA eval process is, or should be immediate application of existing skills & abilities to an immediate need. Talent becomes secondary if not tertiary, to both production (in context or modified to represented reasonable expected production) and professional conduct (ie work ethic, ability to work with groups, ability to run with new information, effort in weight room + practice field, etc.). Talent is less factor since we already know how the application of these physical gifts are represented on the field - we don't need to look at the #s and make guess. Nor should we.
For FAs, we want to measure production vs cost, and apply that # to both internal alternatives and external alternatives. Secondarily, we want to score skill attributes and attributes of professional engagement or improvement activity. Is the player good? Can they fill the hole we need at a reasonable cost? Will they still be able to improve or maintain productivity enough to justify the dip in production when anyone joins a new org?
We can see from the very beginning that there are two very different models we would have to use because the key components are almost inverse in importance. For drafts, we want to measure physical ability and elements of mental focus/ability.
For Draft picks: Talent is #1, Skill a pronounced #3, if not lower.
For FAs: Production (in context) should be #1, #2 cost/risk factors, #3 skill (since that weights skill twice as production is a function of skill, productivity of the system and opportunities) - talent almost falls off the page at this point.
Now we could get on mindmeister or something I likely jointly cobble together a mindmap of not only the factors that need to be considered but the relative importance of those factors for specific circumstances. I think it is clear that given the primary core goals for both activities are radically different, it is very very likely the decision process maps and decision maps should be - but given both the outcomes AND the consistent underweighting of factors that bite us in the rear....it smells like they are using very similar processes for both activities. Essentially doing the "Player Eval is Player Eval, we know how to pick good corners so picking a good corner in FA is doable" kind of approach.
The Seahawk approach seems very different from most FO actions in that it assumes a certain amount of failure. Instead of looking at each pick to minimize risk and maximize utility - we clearly look at picks as a collection, taking a highest aggregate talent approach and then get a great return because when you work the #s, and you use a good system, usually you can make it work out for you. I learned this investing in commodities contracts as a kid - but ultimately, like a professional gambler, if you give yourself good odds, great returns when you win, and limit costs on losses....you come out ahead.
The problem with FAs is that you get one spin, so just maximizing aggregate ability won't work. Because guys that don't work out still count $5M against the cap. Whereas you run 3 4th round picks through, 2 don't make it but 1 becomes an all star - you are a genius.
More importantly, as someone pointed out FAs are not replaceable cogs. They are people moving into a new organization that may or may not accept them. Very different from draft picks who have sort of built in acceptance processes. More importantly, they come with their own experiences & biases, so they might resist an established system - especially when they have beliefs (often valid) about their own productivity based on what they did elsewhere. So now, any FA has both a failure factor built in and a chance of disrupting equilibrium in your own org. The higher their own perceived value, the more likely this is to be a factor.
All of this points to the likelihood that the team must use FA sparingly, and avoid high cost FAs unless the value to cost is massive. But the consistent problems with FA eval or "bad outcomes" with them, still smells very much like they are using a very similar approach in FA eval that they use in draft eval. This appears to be the root of a problem that might have cost us at least one SB victory, maybe even a trip this year (you have to get crazy here but with Unger in, what is the chance a guy rushing in unblocked causes Rawls to turn around, which flips the defender on his back snapping his ankle....I get that so much else could have changed but I absolutely believe that if we had Rawls we win that Carolina game).
It doesn't mean we have to change our draft process and eval models (which I agree with, I think the race to minimize risk kills opportunity often and am glad the Seahawks focus more on value instead of the chance of failure) but we should at least eval if the high $ FAs need a separate model.
I think they do.
The key will be making the changes so you can still id the undervalued physical talents so you don't miss on the Lynch, Avirl and Bennetts they hit on. But there is a pivot point at which you have to use a different lens because what works at lower $ kills you at higher $$$. That said, I get there is constant pressure on the FO to consistently upgrade talent because it gets siphoned away, just not sure putting all your eggs into this big signing or that big signing is the best response to that impact.
