BearsFansOnline.com

There are a lot of new people here. Every year I make a consensus big board. Nfl.com, NFL draft scout, PFF, Tony Pauline, CBS, B/R are used with an athletic metric. The board will be updated after pro days about 2 weeks before the draft.

Sheet one = Big Board
Sheet two = Mock Draft

Big Board and Mock

Bears Picks

1st Edmunds, Tremaine Edge
- Fits the Pace athletic high upside type. He fits multiple rolls, has required length, and could be a generational talent.

2nd Smith, Braden OG
- Pace seems to pick higher floor guys in the middle and Smith is a starting quality guard of the bat. He also fits a need with the release of Sitton and keeps Whitehair at center. Kush or Smith as a guard/depth sures up the interior.

4th McIntosh, R.J. 5T
- Physically has all the requirements and is strong at the point. Imposing build with room. Adding another 5T that can drive up the field could help Hicks a ton in run and pass.

4th Gaulden, Rashaan CB
- He can play every DB position but is thought to be a NC of the bat. Big enough and athletic enough to play on the outside, and a good enough tackler to play in support. In time he could add a unique dimension to the team.

5th Igwebuike, Godwin S
- The Bears have been looking at physical safeties perhaps to run 3 safety sets. Godwin is physical enough to provide run support and just has the it factor in his game. Not a coverage guy but could be used in differing sets.

6th Richie James WR
- Paces small school guy. He meets the athletic markers, but is tiny. Fun to watch.

7th Edmonds, Chase RB
- Another small school guy who is athletic. He is like a poor mans Cohen.

I just wish McIntosh was a bit bigger. Seemed like teams ran left (our D Right), too easily last year. Maybe it was only certain teams...things are getting fuzzy on a season to forget. But I'd like an immovable pillar at that RDE spot who can sub out in passing situations. I like BJ Hill for that.

But as a 4th round pick, we're splitting hairs a bit. Maybe we can get both...

I like McIntosh because his body type he can add muscle easily, without losing movement. He needs to learn to stay low. I think he could be a solid starter.

This is solid stuff, mmmc_35.

I've tried to build a composite model using many of the same sources, but it's tedious and the maintenance has proved to be a nightmare. Kudos.

I have a actually got the system down pretty good. I was able to complete CB and S in 1 hour. Not including watching/ reading about players. Just the data entry.

Here is a work sheet. Soon I hope to clean up everything and have 4+ years of scoring to better show outliers.

QB Sheet

Wow, that pretty impressive. Seems like a lot of work..awesome.

It would be even better if we weren't drafting Edmunds as an edge guy, but I'll stop talking about him lol

I'm looking forward to your full spreadsheet with all the positional calculations.

Edmunds in particular. You have him listed as EDGE not LB. Is that how you calculated his TS? I have his TS .08 higher at LB. It depends a lot on how one estimates his vertical and 3-cone. I have them at 34" and 7.13. Don't know how you fudge vertical but I believe your fudge for 3-cone would put you at 7.26. The other raters you use in your composite, what position(s) were they rating Edmunds at?

Have you ever looked at how your consensus big board stacks up as a BPA analysis. I.e. if teams went purely BPA based upon it, would the success rate be higher than what actually happened?

It'd be using the consensus big board as an approximation of what team's internal big boards are but I think that it's the best proxy we have.

malk wrote:Have you ever looked at how your consensus big board stacks up as a BPA analysis. I.e. if teams went purely BPA based upon it, would the success rate be higher than what actually happened?

It'd be using the consensus big board as an approximation of what team's internal big boards are but I think that it's the best proxy we have.

Provide a good metric for "success rate" and I'm sure mmmc_35 could tell you. I can't because I don't have data going back as far as I believe he has, and any success measure has to incorporate several years of performance.

Also, a bigboard that tries to rank "best football player" requires positional adjustments based on supply/demand (where demand depends on value, e.g. QB is by itself at the top and FB is rather lonely at the bottom). Not to mention the fact that even though the '12 CBA regularized the draft pick scale it remains position dependent, 5th year options and tags are completely position dependent.

DL and Edge

The easiest 3 cone time seems to be taking 40 yd times 1.52. It was something like average 3 cone 7.1 / average 40yd 4.7 = 1.52. It's fairly accurate when I tested it. I had another one issuing 20 yd shuttle and using 10 yd split, but the accuracy of this was just as good.

I have been messing around with the jumps and not found any I like. I used yours and will probably go back to it once I sit down and organize it. For the vertical I just threw one together to get it done. The easiest incorporates weight and 40. My quick one isn't formatted correctly. As Louie Simmons (strength coach) says to run faster you need to work on jumping higher.

Malk every year I do a list of who I think the Bears should have drafted. I want to reorganize everything (last 5 drafts) and do something like that. My picks are not always the highest rated but generally are fairly close plus who I like and position.

2014 Draft
14 Fuller, Kyle CB
51 Kony Ealy DE
82 DaQuan Jones DT
117 Pierre Desir CB/FS
131 Jackson Jeffcoat Edge
183 Bennett Jackson S
191 Jonathan Dowling S
246 Ryan Groy G
UDFA Christian Jones LB
UDFA Cornelius Lucas OT


2015 Draft
7 Beasley, Vic EDGE
39 McKinney, Benardrick ILB
71 Odighizuwa, Owamagbe 5T
106 Shaw, Josh CB/FS
142 Hundley, Brett QB
183 Chickillo, Anthony Edge
UDFA Finney, B.J. C
UDFA Zenner, Zach RB


2016 Draft
9 *Laremy Tunsil OT
56 Carl Nassib 5T
72 Jacoby Brissett QB
113 Kenneth Dixon RB
124 Deiondre' Hall CB
127 Connor McGovern OG
150 Jerell Adams TE
185 Jalen Mills S/CB
230 Eric Striker LB
UDFA Devon Cajuste WR/TE
UDFA Paul McRoberts WR

2017 Draft
Pick NAME POS
3 Mahomes, Patrick QB
45 Chidobe Awuzie CB
67 Jordan Willis Edge
111 Bucky Hodges TE
117 Chad Hansen WR
119 Roderick Johnson OT
147 Desmond King S
197 Jeremiah Ledbetter 5T
221 Christopher Carson RB
UDFA Cole Hikutini TE
UDFA Carroll Phillips Edge

Success rate is something I have messed with but how do you determine it? Games started and games played seem to be logical. I know I have mentioned it before and laughed at but Madden rankings to me is the easiest. It's fairly impartial, and you get a very general indication of a player. 60 bad, 70 below average, 75-80 average, 80 good , 90 excellent. PFF scores don't really work because the way they score.


Bullard graded PFF at 75 or above average but didn't play much. 16 games played 3 started. Madden score of 72.

pro-football-reference has been calculating AV for a fairly long time. Even they admit that it's not very good, but EVERYBODY post CBA who does a study to calculate a better draft-value chart uses it to measure the success of draft picks (and it cheats, but not well, for position; there are attempts to improve it in that regard).

Middleguard wrote:

malk wrote:Have you ever looked at how your consensus big board stacks up as a BPA analysis. I.e. if teams went purely BPA based upon it, would the success rate be higher than what actually happened?

It'd be using the consensus big board as an approximation of what team's internal big boards are but I think that it's the best proxy we have.

Provide a good metric for "success rate" and I'm sure mmmc_35 could tell you. I can't because I don't have data going back as far as I believe he has, and any success measure has to incorporate several years of performance.

Also, a bigboard that tries to rank "best football player" requires positional adjustments based on supply/demand (where demand depends on value, e.g. QB is by itself at the top and FB is rather lonely at the bottom). Not to mention the fact that even though the '12 CBA regularized the draft pick scale it remains position dependent, 5th year options and tags are completely position dependent.

I haven't fully thought this through but I was thinking explicitly not ranking by position. There's a general idea that teams get into trouble when they don't "go bpa". In fact, it'd just be a case of ranking those big boards against the actual drafts, are they a better way of predicting success?

Last year, from the 13 boards I tracked, the highest Trubisky was ranked was 10, the average was 23, and one didn't include him because he wasn't in the top 50. But he was the consensus highest ranked QB. Three QBs were drafted by 12. Did the Bears get into trouble by not drafting Allen or Thomas (nearly tied on my consensus, and one had to be there at 3).

mmmc_35 wrote:Success rate is something I have messed with but how do you determine it? Games started and games played seem to be logical. I know I have mentioned it before and laughed at but Madden rankings to me is the easiest. It's fairly impartial, and you get a very general indication of a player. 60 bad, 70 below average, 75-80 average, 80 good , 90 excellent. PFF scores don't really work because the way they score.


Bullard graded PFF at 75 or above average but didn't play much. 16 games played 3 started. Madden score of 72.

Thanks for the reply (missed this earlier!).

I'd agree with Middleguard, Pro Football Reference's AV is as good a shout as any.

I don't know anything about AV score, but looking into it a tad...

Perhaps after 4 years taking the 2 highest AV scores.

So examples 2014 draft

Good player
Aaron Donald 2 best AV =35

Bad player
Jace Armaco 2 best AV = 4
Cody Latimore = 3

Injured but good
Kyle Fuller 2 best A/V = 12

It could work. 10 would probably be the cut off for success.