NFL Blowouts

The playoffs have been, with the exception of 1 day, a snooze. 8 of 10 games were a blowout. Unfortunately injuries played a significant role: Derek Carr's broken leg pretty much guaranteed the Raiders would be out, Earl Thomas's injury had the Seahawks collectively limping. Both had, otherwise, teams capable of making a Super Bowl run. It's definitely part of the game, but it's always too bad when a team is derailed by injury.

On the other hand we can argue that New England weathered the injury of its 2nd-best player and continues to dominate, making them a clearly great team: capable of adapting to adversity.

Let's hope the Patriots-Falcons game will be exciting. My gut feel is the Pats will find a way to corral the Falcons offense and come out on top. I'll be grilling for the occasion.

2016 Mock Draft

I'm headed to Mexico in a few days and creating a mock draft will not be one of my top priorities. I'm just going to assume that all the craziness is over. The draft capital spent by the Rams and Eagles is, in every sense of the word, an all-in move. They are betting the farm on getting their one pick right. It's simply too much to recover from if they don't. Some have theorized that the Rams' glut of young players means all those picks are less valuable, but show me a team that's not constantly looking for a cheaper next man up when good players hit free agency. The Eagles have shipped so many players away and frankly, have to get this right. Let's proceed! The Rams are on the clock.

1. Los Angeles Rams - Jared Goff, QB, Cal.
Debates are swirling about Goff v Wentz here, but I liken them to the "debate" about Luck v Griffin. People are too smart for their own good, and love to delve into contrarian theories. It's particularly easy when their money (or draft haul) isn't at stake. There is no way a QB from outside the BCS goes number 1. So, the Rams will take Goff and then go home for the next day and a half until they get to pick again. In fact, the Rams won't have a meaningful pick until the 2nd round of 2017.

2. Philadelphia Eagles - Carson Wentz, QB, North Dakota State
The Eagles said they're picking a QB. They also said Sam Bradford is their guy. What's for sure is they kept a 2nd rounder, but no longer have a 1st rounder next year, nor a 3rd or 4th this year. And also, they are picking a QB. Wentz is the only other one in the legit top-10 conversation.

3. San Diego Chargers - Laremy Tunsil, OT, Mississippi
This one fell right into the Chargers lap. Poor Philip Rivers has been desperate for an offensive line, and the clear-cut, top-graded player, who happens to be a left tackle, is on his way to San Diego. The Chargers roster is completely depleted so they could go other directions, but there's no reason to get cute here.

4. Dallas Cowboys - Jalen Ramsey, CB, Florida St
Another need meets value pick! If this were a few years ago, I'd bet on the Cowboys screwing this up somehow, but they've calmed down recently and have been making good picks. This will be another, and will quiet any talk about them signing Josh Norman. They can then spend the rest of the draft on some secret service to keep Tony Romo from getting injured. They really are that close to being a contender.

5. Jacksonville Jaguars - Myles Jack, LB, UCLA
The Jaguars' offense came to life last year with a 4000-yard passer, promising rookie running back and 2 1000-yard receivers. But, they lost a lot of games because opposing offense also looked great against them. This is a team that can become competitive with a few more good pieces, however, and I think they can take this in a lot of directions. Bortles got sacked a lot, so an offensive line investment could be in play. Is Ronnie Stanley a good value here? Is there a good fit for him on the existing line? They also lacked a dominant pass rusher and gave up lot of yards on the ground. I think in the end Jack's incredible ceiling wins out, but I wouldn't be surprised at Stanley, Bosa or Buckner either.

6. Baltimore Ravens - DeForest Buckner, DE, Oregon
The Ravens were sunk due to injuries last year and have a rare opportunity to get a blue-chip player. Many have them linked to Bosa, but that would be a mistake. I'm going to project that they're smart enough to figure that out. Going with an outside linebacker makes sense because they lost Upshaw and Dumervil and Suggs are getting older. But, I think they'll remember how their entire defense's identity changed with the right defensive linemen up front. I would pick Darron Lee as the alternative here, not Bosa.

7. San Francisco 49ers - Darron Lee, OLB, Ohio State
The 49ers scored less than 15 points per game, have no viable quarterback, had no pass rush, got sacked a lot and their top receiver turns 36 this year. Translation: they need good players, at any position. In my view, Lee is the best hope. The 49ers saw what a massive exodus on defense can do. They lost Justin Smith, Aldon Smith, Patrick Willis and Chris Borland from their front seven and they need to reload. I think Lee fits their 3-4 better than Bosa and they go this route. I wouldn't fault them for going with Ronnie Stanley either; their dominant days were when their line featured 3 1st-round picks.

8. Cleveland Browns - Joey Bosa, OLB, Ohio State
By all indications, Cleveland is an analytics shop under new management. What better treat for such a scenario than the best player on the board still available at 8? Scheme mismatch? Who cares. The Browns weren't horrific for a while last year, but injuries completely sunk their season. Their offense was not good, but their defense really imploded. They gave up 4.5 yards per carry, but also 34 passing touchdowns. They need some teeth back in that thing. I could also see them going with Sheldon Rankins to fortify the interior.

9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Laquon Treadwell, WR, Mississippi
Tampa had a quietly solid season. Winston got a ton of the press, but the team performed reasonably well. To help their offense get to the next level, Winston needs another weapon across from Mike Evans. Tampa's major issue was giving up 31 passing touchdowns despite decent sack numbers, so a corner would be in order, but it's just too early here. There are a number of solid options who could still be on the board in early round 2. Drafting a good tackle is always a reasonable choice with the 9th pick as well, so Stanley could get the call.

10. New York Giants - Ronnie Stanley, OT, Notre Dame
Another need meets value! The Giants roster is a complete mess, and they need good players. Tackles are some of the safest bets, and it's a position of need for them. Easy pick.

11. Chicago Bears - Sheldon Rankins, DT, Louisville
The Bears are also a mess, but nowhere more so than on the defensive line. They picked up Bobbie Massie in the offseason to be their right tackle and have Kyle Long on the left side, so Conklin doesn't seem like the right pick here. Rankins may not be a sexy pick, but he's the one they need.

12. New Orleans Saints - Jack Conklin, OT, Michigan State
After years of high-profile offensive linemen, the Saints are reduced to a who's who of players. Conklin should be an immediate upgrade. The Saints biggest need is a better secondary, but they'll have to address that later in the draft because the value just isn't there right now.

13. Miami Dolphins - Leonard Floyd, OLB, Georgia
Miami could go a few ways with this one, but they seem hell-bent on throwing capital at their front seven. Despite pretty good pressure, they gave up an unholy 45 passing touchdowns last year which suggests they need help in the secondary. Ryan Tannehill also got sacked 45 times, so their line is suspect. However, they ran the ball well ... so maybe that's more on Tannehill? I could see the Dolphins reaching big-time for Vernon Hargreaves too.

14. Oakland Raiders - Taylor Decker, OT, Ohio State
The Raiders' rebuild is coming along. They looked considerably better last year. Derek Carr looks promising and Amari Cooper and Michael Crabtree seem to be clicking with him. Their defense took strides forward on the backs of Khalil Mack and Charles Woodson. Woodson is done now, and someone will have to fill his shoes. This defense could be quite imposing with another dominant pass rusher on the other side. In our scenario, all the 1st-round talent is off the board, and instead they pick up an heir apparent to the aging Donald Penn.

15. Tennessee Titans - Reggie Ragland, ILB, Alabama
As it sits, the Titans miss out on the top end of offensive linemen, which would really help their cause. Marcus Mariota was sacked 54 times last year and they struggled to run the ball. I wonder if they would try to deal and move up to 13 after Conklin comes off the board (or maybe even to 11 after Stanley comes off). Offensive line seems to be their dire need. They certainly have the draft capital, and I bet the Dolphins would deal. The move would cost them a 4th rounder, which they happen to have a spare one of. As it sits, I think they address inside linebacker. The Titans could also trade down and amass even more picks in the process. I don't get the sense there's a ready-made trade partner here, but the Titans could give a discount and pick up another 3rd or 4th for moving down. There's always the risk that they trade so far back as to miss all the high-impact players, but this is a team that needs more shots at good players than they do a few shots at amazing ones.

16. Detroit Lions - Jarran Reed, DT, Alabama
This teams knows all too well what happens when a dominant defensive interior leaves town. For all the talk about whether Stafford is their guy, he sure looked fine to me. Half the NFL would gladly swap their starter for him. The other gaping hole is left by Calvin Johnson's departure. Could they go with Josh Doctson instead? No one in this draft will replace Megatron, but Golden Tate is likely not a true #1. They'll need an explosive group to maximize Stafford's potential, but first things first: they give up too much on the ground.

17. Atlanta Falcons - Shaq Lawson, DE, Clemson
Atlanta's run defense was terrible, pass pressure was non-existent, and pretty much nothing worked besides Matt Ryan to Julio Jones. Atlanta has to address the defensive side of the ball. Lawson fits their 4-3 and figures to help both facets of their defense.

18. Indianapolis Colts - Ezekiel Elliott, RB, Ohio State
That the Colts are picking this late is a miracle in itself. They couldn't run, couldn't keep a quarterback upright, gave up a ton of points on the ground and through the air. Frank Gore was their one effective player, but he's aging out. I think they get a player to help their offense by adding another dimension, then spend the next few rounds on offensive line and pass rush help.

19. Buffalo Bills - Emmanuel Ogbah, DE, Oklahoma State
The run on pass rushers continues! Jerry Hughes and Mario Williams tied for the team lead with 5 sacks each, and Williams is now gone. Tyrod Taylor was a find for them and their offense is decent. They need help generating pressure. Ogbah may be a reach here but his upside is tremendous.

20. New York Jets - Paxton Lynch, QB, Memphis
The Jets have gone to the QB well many times, and pulled out duds. But, while Ryan Fitzpatrick had a very good year for them, he's still in a contract dispute and not a long-term answer. Since the Jets have no other pressing needs, it's time to take a shot at the future. I think wide receiver is in play too here, considering there's not much behind Eric Decker and the aging Brandon Marshall, or Elliott (if he's still on the board) to replace the departed Chris Ivory.

21. Washington Redskins - Karl Joseph, S, West Virginia
Kirk Cousins was a revelation last year (count me surprised!), and lead a surprisingly potent offense. The Redskins also struggled to run the ball. Alfred Morris didn't look right and Matt Jones mixed explosion with some bad plays and fumbles. But, there's no one on the board worth taking for that. Defensively, they need help in the secondary.

22. Houston Texans - Germain Ifedi, OT, Texas A&M
The Texans really are a competent quarterback away from being a deep playoff team. They need some help in the running game, but they also need to keep new hope Brock Osweiler intact. Beefing up their line should help on both accounts.

23. Minnesota Vikings - Will Fuller, WR, Notre Dame
The Vikings were a really solid team, but need more punch. They hit the late-round jackpot with Stefon Diggs, but they need more. We're into the sweet spot for the wide receiver talent pool here and the Vikings go for it.

24. Cincinnati Bengals - Vernon Hargreaves, CB, Florida State
The Bengals have one of the most complete rosters in the NFL. They can go BPA, or fit a need. With the departure of Marvin Jones, #2 receiver becomes a need to keep defenses from keying on AJ Green. But, the loss of Reggie Nelson and Leon Hall is bigger. They have to shore up their secondary.

25. Pittsburgh Steelers - William Jackson III, CB, Houston
The Steelers biggest weakness was giving up big plays and touchdowns through the air. If any highly-rated pass rushers are left, they could go that route to cycle out Jarvis Jones (who's looking like a bust at this point).

26. Seattle Seahawks - Corey Coleman, WR, Baylor
With Russell Wilson's growth, surrounding him with playmakers would make this team almost unstoppable. The Seahawks showed last year their defense is still elite, so they can continue to push the offense here. Thomas Rawls will take over for Lynch (he was the better back already last year), and the Seahawks' continued success is not in doubt.

27. Green Bay Packers - Chris Jones, DT, Mississippi State
This offense just wasn't the same without Jordy Nelson. Aaron Rodgers did his best, but this team needs weapons to get the most out of the elite quarterback. Hunter Henry could give him a dynamic he hasn't had in a few seasons. But, the Packers are getting Nelson back and need to take a defensive lineman to help their struggling run defense, especially with BJ Raji's sudden leave from the league.

28. Kansas City Chiefs - Hunter Henry, TE, Arkansas
A curious pick, no doubt, given the presence of the excellent Travis Kelce. But, Kelce is due for a big pay raise this year and it never hurts to have a backup option, especially with a quarterback who works as well with a tight end as Alex Smith does. Also, imagine placing two playmaking tight ends into a lot of run formations in a run-heavy offense. Play-action galore!

29. Arizona Cardinals - Andrew Billings, DT, Baylor
The Cards can go a lot of directions here. The Chandler Jones trade and Evan Mathis signing frees them up to pick the best player available with no pressing need. Their defensive line has been primarily manned by elder 1-year-deal guys and Calais Campbell, who's quietly turning 30 this year. Rodney Gunter was a great find, but they need to reload with youth. They also have to start thinking about life after Larry, but the top batch of wideouts is already off the board.

30. Carolina Panthers - Eli Apple, CB, Ohio St
The Panthers were probably the strongest team last year. They lost Jared Allen (though he was no longer elite) and are on the verge of losing Josh Norman. I think they have an appreciation for what a top notch corner can do, and look to replace him.

31. Denver Broncos - Connor Cook, QB, Michigan State
The Broncos won the Super Bowl with downright dismal quarterback play. They are in a perfect position to draft a rookie, start him and still be a decent team by supporting him with the run and defense. I think they go for the upside of Cook, despite his personality red flags.

As usual, I'll get most of these wrong. A single trade can upset everything, as can a wrong guess. I'd be surprised if the top 5 were correct, teams simply have too many directions they can go and too much variance in how they evaluate/value players. I'll check back in a week and see how I did.

Pass rushing prospects

Using the guidelines I've come up with, it's time to evaluate the combine performances of the top pass rush prospects using Mel Kiper and Todd McShay's lists, as well as identify any high-upside players outside the top-ranked lists. As usual, I'll break them out by 4-3 DE vs 3-4 OLB.

Name	Position	40 dash	10yd split	Broad jump	Vertical
Myles Jack	OLB	--	--	--	--
Darron Lee	OLB	4.47	1.54	11'1	35.5
Leonard Floyd	OLB	4.60	--	10'7	39.5
Noah Spence	OLB	4.80	1.61	10'1	35
Kamalei Correa	OLB	4.69	1.62	9'0	33
Emmanuel Ogbah	OLB	4.63	1.58	10'1	35.5
Joey Bosa	DE	4.86	--	10'0	32
Shaq Lawson	DE	4.70	1.63	10'0	33

Plain and simple, Joey Bosa is the big loser. If I'm picking, I don't spend a 1st rounder on him. He simply doesn't project to Pro Bowl levels of performance, and there's simply too much other value available to use that pick on such an outcome. But, someone will take him. His college tape at a big-name school is just too good. Buyer beware.

Shaq Lawson is mixed. The optimist will see his numbers as good with a few exceptions, the pessimist as borderline. I don't know what it is about Clemson defensive ends, but there's just not a lot of success in the NFL.

Noah Spence ran a curiously slow 40 despite having a very good 10-yard split. Coupled with off-the-field concerns, he falls out of the first 2 rounds as well. Those picks should go towards high-floor impact players, not headache concerns.

Kamalei Correa has been getting buzz, but his measurables leave too much to be desired. I'd drop him to at least the 4th round. He had decent college production, but in a smaller conference; the league is full of great college players whose athleticism kept them from being impact NFL players.

Darron Lee and Leonard Floyd look great and should be the top 2 taken. Ogbah should probably be next in line. Myles Jack's tape shows extreme athletic ability as well, so maybe his lack of numbers isn't a big deal.

The lower-graded prospects have a number of high-upside options

Name	Position	40 dash	10yd split	Broad jump	Vertical
Travis Feeney	OLB	4.50	1.58	10'10	40
De'Vondre Campbell	OLB	4.58	1.64	9'8	34
Deion Jones	OLB	4.59	1.60	10'0	33
Montese Overton	OLB	4.61	1.59	10'3	34
Devante Bond	OLB	4.70	1.62	10'1	37.5
Charles Tapper	DE	4.59	1.59	9'11	34

There is a glut of interesting potentially 2nd- and 3rd- round players here. Many of these players had good college production too. I'd certainly take some of these players over Spence or Correa. In a league desperate for an impact pass rush, I'd rather spend a pick on whomever a team thinks fits their culture and system than on a running back or guard or a #3 wide receiver.

Some teams will make some serious mistakes and overvalue players. As usual, smart teams can benefit.

Checking back on point differential predictions

I wrote an entry predicting final season outcomes after week 7, based on point differentials at that point in the season. Let's see how they fared, along with some retrospective notes and commentary.

AFC East	Predicted	Actual	Final diff
New England Patriots	15-1	12-4	+150
New York Jets	12-4	10-6	+73
Miami Dolphins	9-7	6-10	-79
Buffalo Bills	8-8	8-8	+20

All teams were within a game of their differential-based expectations, but they all fizzled in the latter half of the season for various reasons. The prediction of finish order in the division had no material errors, but the Jets did miss the playoff.

AFC North	Predicted	Actual	Final diff
Cincinnati Bengals	13-3	12-4	+140
Pittsburgh Steelers	10-6	10-6	+104
Baltimore Ravens	6-10	5-11	-73
Cleveland Browns	6-10	3-13	-154

Well, there's a reason Mike Pettine is no longer employed. These predictions were materially spot on: Cinci won the division but missed out on the bye, and Pittsburgh is awarded a wild card berth. Based on differential, we'd normally expect the Steelers to reach 11 wins, but their highly bipolar games (with vs without Roethlisberger) explain that outcome.

AFC South	Predicted	Actual	Final diff
Indianapolis Colts	6-10	8-8	-75
Tennessee Titans	6-10	3-13	-124
Houston Texans	5-11	9-7	+26
Jacksonville Jaguars	4-12	5-11	-72

The Texans turned their season around as effectively as they jettisoned Ryan Mallett. Clearly he was not the answer, and going to Brian Hoyer was the trick. The Colts stayed right on track in point differential, but managed to squeeze 2 unexpected wins out. The Titans and Jags underperformed their expectations by 1 game each. This division went completely against projections, though a statistician would argue that there was a lot of noise in the signal in Week 7. All the teams looked bad, there was no way to guess who would get their act together.

AFC West	Predicted	Actual	Final diff
Denver Broncos	11-5	12-4	+59
Oakland Raiders	7-9	7-9	-40
Kansas City Chiefs	6-10	11-5	+118
San Diego Chargers	6-10	4-12	-78

Who saw the Chiefs coming back to win 9 of their last 10 without Jamaal Charles? Seriously, that's crazy. The really crazy thing is their point differential puts their expectation just slightly towards 12 wins! Denver, on the other hand, outperformed their differential by 2 wins. I'm proud of the projection though, it's meaningful to project that a 6-0 team will be barely over .500 the rest of the way. The Chargers battled hard and we'd normally expect to see 6 wins at -78 points, but they just couldn't close out games. The projections correctly identified the division winner, but missed on the wild card.

Overall in the AFC, we correctly predicted 3 division winners and 1 wildcard (though to be fair, none of those predictions was a stretch), and a total of 4 playoff teams correctly.

NFC East	Predicted	Actual	Final diff
Philadelphia Eagles	10-6	7-9	-53
New York Giants	9-7	6-10	-22
Washington Redskins	7-9	9-7	+9
Dallas Cowboys	5-11	4-12	-99

The two teams that looked to be the favorites imploded down the stretch and are now searching for new coaches, and somehow Kirk Cousins channeled his inner Drew Brees. Redords are all within a game of where differential expects; everyone but the Cowboys changed course in the back half. The Cowboys ... well. The projections missed on the division winner, but correctly predicted no wild card teams. That counts for something, right?

NFC North	Predicted	Actual	Final diff
Green Bay Packers	13-3	10-6	+45
Minnesota Vikings	10-6	11-5	+63
Detroit Lions	4-12	7-9	-42
Chicago Bears	3-13	6-10	-62

Projections identified both playoff teams (though the Vikings were in the maybe bucket with Atlanta), just in reverse order. This wasn't a stretch either. The Bears and Lions turned in respectable second halves, and the Packers completely underperformed. Records are where we'd expect them to be based on differentials.

NFC South	Predicted	Actual	Final diff
Carolina Panthers	12-4	15-1	+192
Atlanta Falcons	11-5	8-8	-6
New Orleans Saints	6-10	7-9	-68
Tampa Bay Buccaneers	5-11	6-10	-75

A clean sweep! Remember at the time that many were doubting the Panthers despite their perfect start. They actually outperformed expectations at the end, +192 would project to 14 wins; they made a really strong run at 16-0. Differential at the time correctly predicted Atlanta's decline, but even it wasn't detached enough to see a 2-7 finish and missing the playoffs coming.

NFC West	Predicted	Actual	Final diff
Arizona Cardinals	14-2	13-3	+176
Seattle Seahawks	10-6	10-6	+146
St Louis Rams	7-9	7-9	-50
San Francisco 49ers	3-13	5-11	-149

Another really good projection! We nailed the division winner and the wildcard. Records were right where final differentials would expect, except for the 49ers who really had the differential of a 3-13 team but pulled some miracle version of Blaine Gabbert from their bench.

Overall in the NFC, we hit 3 of the division winners and 1.5 wild cards (calling Falcons/Vikings a 50/50), but overall got 5.5 of the playoff teams right.

For the NFL as a whole, using point differential after week 7 to predict final outcome was reasonably good. The method picked 6 of the 8 division winners and 9 or 10 of the 12 playoff teams. The method of using point differentials isn't anything earth-shattering or super insightful. The interesting question here is if representative data is present after 7 weeks. The answer seems to clearly point to yes.

The appeal of the method is its simplicity. It requires no complex math, no models adjusting for strength of schedule or opponents; it's something anyone can use in their head or on a napkin. If I felt up to it, I'd do an analysis of how many playoff teams are correctly predicted as a function of number of games played. Any strong indicators could be useful, say, in Vegas.

Per differential, the Panthers are favored in the Super Bowl. The Cardinals are 2nd and the Seahawks barely trail the Patriots for 3rd. Adjusting for injuries and when teams are peaking (or flailing), and it really seems like the top 3 contenders are from the NFC.

College football bloat season

Oops, that should be "bowl season".

The 2015 season features 40 bowl games (not including the national championship game), meaning over 2/3 of teams get to finish their season in a bowl. This is even more egregious than the NBA playoffs, where each year 16 of 29 (55%) of teams make the postseason. Aside from diluting the meaning of "making the postseason", this leads to a giant collection of non-competitive games. There's no reasonable way to pair up teams to begin with, and conference affiliations on many bowls further limit possibilities. I mean, why should the 5th best team from one conference vs the 6th best from another be a good game? Even the 6-wins criteria is laughable since most teams collect 3 wins against FCS teams; or in the cases of Minnesota and Nebraska, a losing regular season record was good enough.

So, how many of the 40 games are remotely competitive? And how does that break down between games where both, one, or neither team is ranked?

Here are the games between each group (red indicates a 20+ point margin of victory, green is 8 or less):

#1 Clemson vs #4 Oklahoma, 37-17
#2 Alabama vs #3 Michigan State, 38-0
#5 Iowa vs #6 Stanford, 16-45
#7 Ohio State vs #8 Notre Dame, 44-28
#9 Florida State vs #18 Houston, 24-38
#10 North Carolina vs #17 Baylor, 38-49
#12 Ole Miss vs #16 Oklahoma State, 48-20
#13 Northwestern vs #23 Tennessee, 6-45
#14 Michigan vs #19 Florida, 41-7

#20 LSU vs Texas Tech, 56-27
#21 Navy vs Pittsburgh, 44-28
#22 Utah vs BYU, 35-28
#24 Temple vs Toledo, 17-32
#25 USC vs Wisconsin, 21-23

Arizona vs New Mexico, 45-37
Appalachian State vs Ohio, 31-29
San Jose State vs Georgia State, 27-16
Louisiana Tech vs Arkansas State, 47-28
Western Kentucky vs South Florida, 45-35
Akron vs Utah State, 23-31
Boise State vs Northern Illinois, 55-7
Georgia Southern vs Bowling Green , 58-27
Western Michigan vs Middle Tennessee, 45-31
San Diego State vs Cincinnati, 42-7
Marshall vs Connecticut, 16-10
Washington State vs Miami, 20-14
Washington vs Southern Mississippi, 44-31
Duke vs Indiana, 44-41
Virginia Tech vs Tulsa, 55-52
Nebraska vs UCLA, 37-29
Minnesota vs Central Michigan, 21-14
California vs Air Force, 55-36
Nevada vs Colorado State, 28-23
Auburn vs Memphis, 31-10
Mississippi State vs NC State, 51-28
Louisville vs Texas A&M, 27-21

Not yet played:
#11 TCU vs #15 Oregon
Penn State vs Georgia
Kansas State vs Arkansas
West Virginia vs Arizona State

Interestingly, the games between unranked teams had a lot more drama. There was literally not a single game between ranked teams that was decided by one score or less, and 6 out of 9 were by 20 or more. These are the top-tier games and they are blowouts. The other games with one ranked teams did barely better. Overall, the count in played games of close-normal-blowout for each group is:
2 ranked teams: 0-3-6
1 ranked team: 2-2-1
2 unranked teams: 11-6-5

The overall tally is 13-11-12. Put another way: practically random. The lack of quality games involving a ranked team (2-5-7) is particularly sad. I'm not sure what to do about this, or if this just means the comparisons between conferences are a crapshoot.

 

What if college football used my what-if system?

I've written several times about an alternate approach to the college football playoff, and even outlined how it would have been more relevant last year. Time to do the same again as Stanford is beating down Iowa. For the record, here are the 6 BCS bowls, as played:

#1 Clemson vs #4 Oklahoma, 37-17, in the Orange Bowl **
#2 Alabama vs #3 Michigan St, 38-0, in the Cotton Bowl **
#5 Stanford vs #6 Iowa, 45-16, in the Rose Bowl
#7 Ohio State vs #8 Notre Dame, 44-28, in the Fiesta Bowl
#9 Florida State vs #18 Houston, 24-38, in the Peach Bowl
#12 Ole Miss vs #16 Oklahoma St, 48-20, in the Sugar Bowl

** - National championship game semifinal

Between scheduling and playing, all but one of these games were either blowouts or featured teams well outside of the top 12 teams in the country. Ohio St vs Notre Dame was the only decent game featuring teams with legitimate claims to a BCS bowl. Why is Houston or Oklahoma more deserving than #10 North Carolina and #11 TCU? Flipping it around, why is Ole Miss more deserving than Michigan or Northwestern?

To look at the what-if games, let's remind ourselves of the traditional bowl affiliations:
Orange Bowl: ACC champ vs at-large
Cotton Bowl: Big-12 champ vs SEC
Rose Bowl: Pac-12 champ vs Big Ten champ
Peach Bowl: SEC vs ACC
Sugar Bowl: SEC champ vs at-large
Fiesta Bowl: Pac-12 vs at-large

And remind ourselves of the top teams and Power 5 conference champs (in bold):
1. Clemson (ACC) 13-0
2. Alabama (SEC) 12-1
3. Michigan St (Big Ten) 12-1
4. Oklahoma (Big 12) 11-1
5. Iowa (Big Ten) 12-1
6. Stanford (Pac-12) 11-2
7. Ohio St (Big Ten) 11-2
8. Notre Dame (Ind) 10-2
9. Florida St (ACC) 10-2
10. North Carolina (ACC) 11-2
11. TCU (Big 12) 10-2
12. Ole Miss (SEC) 9-3
13. Northwestern (Big Ten) 10-2
14. Michigan (Big Ten) 9-3
15. Oregon (Pac-12) 9-3
16. Oklahoma St (Big 12) 10-2
17. Baylor (Big 12) 9-3
18. Houston (American) 12-1

Unlike many previous years, there isn't a highly ranked true outsider (like Boise St, TCU and Hawaii in the latter part of the previous decade). Using the affiliations as guidelines, we get partial games:

#1 Clemson vs at-large in the Orange Bowl
#2 Alabama vs at-large in the Sugar Bowl
#3 Michigan St vs #6 Stanford in the Rose Bowl
#4 Oklahoma vs SEC in the Cotton Bowl
at-large vs #15 Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl
SEC vs #9 Florida St in the Peach Bowl

Oregon is a stretch to make a BCS game, so we should consider swapping in a significantly more deserving non-Pac-12 team. We also don't have 3 deserving SEC teams for their 3 traditional slots. We now have to dole out the remaining teams in the at-large pool while maintaining high-caliber matchups to help get a real feel of how these teams rank against each other. Clemson already played Notre Dame so we don't want a rematch. The simplest thing would be to have Iowa play Clemson and Ohio State play Alabama. This gives us a rare chance to evaluate three conference champs against clearly comparable teams:

#1 Clemson vs #5 Iowa in the Orange Bowl
#2 Alabama vs #6 Ohio St in the Sugar Bowl
#3 Michigan St vs #6 Stanford in the Rose Bowl
#4 Oklahoma vs SEC in the Cotton Bowl
at-large vs #15 Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl
SEC vs #9 Florida St in the Peach Bowl

The next teams on the list are Notre Dame, North Carolina and TCU. Ole Miss is the only SEC team left, and their overall ranking suggests they should go to the Peach Bowl instead of the Cotton Bowl. Thus, the SEC should lose their Cotton Bowl spot in favor of a more deserving team. Oklahoma is realistically very far on the outside looking in already, so "only" getting Notre Dame is ok. And thus, the BCS bowls become:

#1 Clemson vs #5 Iowa in the Orange Bowl
#2 Alabama vs #7 Ohio St in the Sugar Bowl
#3 Michigan St vs #6 Stanford in the Rose Bowl
#4 Oklahoma vs #8 Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl
#10 North Carolina vs #15 Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl
#12 Ole Miss vs #9 Florida St in the Peach Bowl

It features 11 of the top 12 teams in theoretically competitive matchups (though of course we don't know how any of these would actually turn out). Oregon has clearly the weakest resume and I wouldn't really argue against swapping in another team (TCU, Northwestern or Michigan, or Houston), but it's at the tail anyways so it's not going to affect the championship game. If Clemson and Alabama both win, the decision is easy. If either (or both) lose, it gets progressively more complicated, of course. But let's remember: every game should count!

If we accept that only a conference champ should even be in the national championship game conversation, the above essentially plays like the playoff, but gives Stanford the slightest glimmer of hope if they win big and every other top seed loses. I think a non-zero claim to the championship game is legit in that case because the overall records differentiate less, and Stanford would have beaten the top Big Ten team (while Clemson and Alabama would have lost to comparable, but technically lesser, ones).

Realistically this year it all worked out the way it "should have" considering Alabama and Clemson were the clear top two. But, we'd hopefully see a few more competitive games along the way.

Projecting final standings

We're now 7 weeks into the season and can get a sense of how good teams really are. Using point differential, we can project final standings, so let's see how we'd expect teams to finish. Of course there are caveats: for example this won't account for remaining strength of schedule or significant injuries, but it's something. Let's see how close to reality we get!

The model uses the very strong correlation of every 2 points differential per game with 1 game away from 8-8. Due to rounding errors, the total wins and losses in the table might not quite add up.

AFC East New England Patriots 15-1 New York Jets 12-4 Miami Dolphins 9-7 Buffalo Bills 8-8 AFC North Cincinnati Bengals 13-3 Pittsburgh Steelers 10-6 Baltimore Ravens 6-10 Cleveland Browns 6-10 AFC South Indianapolis Colts 6-10 Tennessee Titans 6-10 Houston Texans 5-11 Jacksonville Jaguars 4-12 AFC West Denver Broncos 11-5 Oakland Raiders 7-9 Kansas City Chiefs 6-10 San Diego Chargers 6-10

NFC East Philadelphia Eagles 10-6 New York Giants 9-7 Washington Redskins 7-9 Dallas Cowboys 5-11 NFC North Green Bay Packers 13-3 Minnesota Vikings 10-6 Detroit Lions 4-12 Chicago Bears 3-13 NFC South Carolina Panthers 12-4 Atlanta Falcons 11-5 New Orleans Saints 6-10 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 5-11 NFC West Arizona Cardinals 14-2 Seattle Seahawks 10-6 St Louis Rams 7-9 San Francisco 49ers 3-13

The predictions generally feel sound, though it's unlikely that Arizona will go 9-0 the rest of the season, or that the Bears or 49ers will only win one more game. I'd also guess the Jags are trending upwards and will finish with more wins than the Texans, but the projections pass a gut check.

In the AFC playoffs we have division winners New England (bye), Cincinnati (bye), Indianapolis and Denver along with wildcards New York and Pittsburgh. The Colts would be the worst-ever division winner, but the AFC South looks to be really that bad. Looking at their schedule, their likely wins are in the last 6 weeks of the year when facing the Bucs, Jags, Texans and Titans.

In the NFC playoffs we have division winners Arizona (bye), Green Bay (bye), Carolina and Philadelphia and wildcards Atlanta and Seattle or Minnesota depending on tie-breaks. I personally feel better about Seattle's chances of getting to 10-6; the Vikings have tough games left against likely playoff teams Green Bay (twice), Atlanta, Seattle and Arizona, while St Louis and the Giants aren't easy outs either. Seattle's tough games are Arizona (twice), Minnesota, Pittsburgh and St Louis.

Tony Romo and Dez Bryant may return just in time to get the Cowboys a few wins and take them out of prime drafting territory. Early indications show 4 top-tier quarterbacks who could all go in the top 10; the rest of the top 10 is dominated by offensive tackles and defensive ends. Going from 5 wins to 7 would mean moving from picking around 3-5 to around 12-15. They'd miss out on either a blue chip player or the opportunity to wheel and deal.

San Francisco and Chicago would pick 1-2. Both have franchise quarterbacks who are underperforming. The top picks would be great opportunities to take a shot at the future. In our scenario, the Jags and Lions pick next. I think neither needs a QB so they get to make prime picks. Next come the Texans (need a qb), leaving the Cowboys to play host to a potential bidding war by quarterback-needy Cleveland and Kansas City, and maybe even New Orleans and/or San Diego if they're looking to the future. In other words, a lot rides on the draft order this year. It seems to be a rare year for quarterback talent and there's always more demand than supply. Then again, these draft player projections will change drastically by next March. They always do.

Matt Forte's trade value

Rumors have popped up that Chicago is looking to deal Matt Forte. Forte denies this, but it's not clear that he'd be in the know, nor would he publically admit it. That aside, suppose he is on the chopping block? What is he worth?

As usual, we have to try and find a lower and upper bound for the seller and the buyer to establish value. The major factors are Forte's quality as a player today, and his projected quality going forward, as well as his current contract.

Forte still appears to be a top player. In an offense without much else going on, he's still the 2nd leading rusher in the NFL after 4 games (367 yards) while maintaining a 4.4 yard per carry average. He's also on pace to exceed 50 catches for 500 yards and Forte has missed only 4 games in 7+ years. Forte's comparables are the highest bracket of the league (noted with round selected and games missed in seasons played):
Marshawn Lynch, 1st round, 25 in 10+
Adrian Peterson, 1st round, 24 in 9+,
LeSean McCoy, 2nd round, 7 in 7+
Le'Veon Bell, 2nd round, 5 in 3+
Eddie Lacy, 2nd round, 1 in 3+
Jamaal Charles, 3rd round, 17 in 8+
DeMarco Murray, 3rd round, 12 in 5+
Arian Foster, undrafted, 27 in 7+

So, we see a back who is consistently among the best not only in production, but also in availability. While most of the other elites miss 2-3 games a year, Forte has played in every game most seasons.

Forte is currently on the last year of his current contract, with a cap hit of $9.2M.

So what is Forte worth to another team? In the case of a team with a lot of pieces in place and aspirations of making a run now, they would get a proven, elite 3-down back, but only for this season. Since his contract is up, a team trading for him would either need to extend him or take the risk of him walking after the season. Forte is turning 30 this year, which has buyer beware written all over it in today's NFL. Based on purely his production, he could be worth up to a 1st rounder for a buyer. However, getting him for only 1/4th of the term of a draft pick means he should be worth no more than about 1/4th of that, or a late first to a 3rd rounder per the draft value chart. If the team can negotiate an extension for, say, 2 more years, that would up the value, however they should adjust for the projected loss of production as well, make about 1/2 a first-rounder the cap. That also translates to a late 1st to a 2nd rounder. So, depending on the details, he should be worth about a 2nd or a 3rd to a buyer, at most. I haven't factored in the relative value of getting someone not quite as good as Forte, nor the expectation adjustment of spending that 1st rounder on a back and what a team might get. The latter is in Forte's favor because most drafted backs don't go on to be as successful as him. However, he himself is a 2nd rounder and his peers include an even smear from 1st to 3rd (as well as an undrafted, proving that a team need not use a high pick for back), and in the next tier are later-round picks like Frank Gore, Lamar Miller, Chris Ivory, Justin Forsett, Alfred Morris. This works notably against him, to where a team should feel reasonably confident in getting a quality back with a 2nd or 3rd pick, and benefiting from the guaranteed cheap contract for 4 years. Using some fuzzy math, this drops Forte to no higher than a 3rd rounder in my book.

Chicago's incentive to part with Forte is to get draft capital to reload their team. They're sunk for the season, so aside from morale issues, Forte is not of much value to them anymore. Clearly he hasn't been able to get them victories; the Bears are 1-3 and have looked awful as a team. Unless the Bears can reload for a run next year, re-signing Forte doesn't make a ton of sense. It's probably time for them to take a chance on the next guy in the draft. I don't think the Bears will get there, so I think now is the perfect time for them to shop Forte around. Unfortunately they're in a position where pretty much anything would be value for them. Time and performance are not on their side.

Since the buyer's value is higher than the seller's, a deal could be made. But, since the values are probably far apart, it's essentially down to a bidding war (or preventing a bidding war). This begs the question of who would benefit from a year or two of Matt Forte? We've established that it only makes sense for a team with serious contender aspirations that needs a significant upgrade at running back. Who might that be?

Patriots - Already have Blount and Lewis. Not their style to make big trades.
Jets - Already featuring Chris Ivory. A franchise that wheels and deals a lot, but Forte wouldn't be the clear top back on the team. Maybe.
Bills - Already traded for McCoy and have Williams
Dolphins - Lamar Miller, not a contender

Bengals - Featuring Bernard and Jeremy Hill. Not their style to make big trade.
Steelers - Le'Veon Bell.
Ravens - Forsett. Losing wide receivers and defenders is their problem.
Browns - Not a contender.

Colts - Got Frank Gore. Franchise does make lots of moves and there's no one behind him. Maybe.
Titans - Not a contender.
Texans - Not a contender.
Jaguars - Not a contender.

Broncos - Anderson has been underwhelming and Hillman is carrying the load. Team is trying to depend less on Peyton's arm. Elway makes lots of moves. Maybe.
Raiders - Need to get younger. Not a contender.
Chargers - Drafted Melvin Gordon. Defense is their issue.
Chiefs - Jamaal Charles. Defense is their issue.

Cowboys - No feature back, but injured Romo and Bryant are the issue.
Giants - Running game is struggling, no big-name player. One-dimensional offense. Maybe.
Redskins - Alfred Morris. Not a contender.
Eagles - Picked up Murray and others. No reason to suspect Forte is a "Chip Kelly guy".

Packers - Eddie Lacy, they don't need help, and they rarely make deals.
Vikings - Adrian Peterson. They need help in the passing game.
Bears - N/A
Lions - Not a contender this year.

Panthers - Jonathan Stewart and Cam Newton account for one of the top rush offenses already. Defense is their calling card.
Falcons - Freeman and Coleman. Offense is not going to be their issue, even if their run-game isn't amazing. They just seem too dedicated to a pass-first offense, but they have brought in other late-career players. Maybe.
Bucs - Not a contender.
Saints - Not a contender.

Cardinals - CJ2K has had a resurgence, David Johnson is the future, and Ellington is almost back from injury. The Cards make opportunistic deals, but I don't see this one happening.
Seahawks - Lynch has been banged up, but Rawls has been running great. They have barely-used Fred Jackson too, as well as Wilson adding to the ground game. Seattle is a mover, but not here.
Rams - Gurley just had his breakout game, but there's no one viable behind him. Maybe.
49ers - Hyde. Not a contender.

So, all that to say we have the following potentially interested teams: Jets, Colts, Broncos, Giants and to a lesser extent, the Rams and Falcons. That's actually a pretty big suitor list; it only takes two to fall in love for a duel to occur! We can look at the transactions these teams have made.

Broncos - have acquired only one player in a trade since 2012 (FB Chris Gronkowski for DB Cassius Vaughn, 2012). They've traded away two other players (Tebow, 2012 and Heuerman, 2015) for draft picks.
Giants - have not been involved in a trade this decade.
Jets - Blockbuster trade (Revis, 2013) to get a 1st round pick and a conditional pick. In 2012 they traded Drew Stanton for a pick and traded T Wayne Hunter for T Jason Smith straight up.
Colts -  These guys have a laundry list of activity. 2015: Acquired Sio Moore for late-round pick. 2014: Acquired CB Marcus Burley for a 6th rounder. Acquired RB David Fluellen for K Cody Parker. 2013: Acquired FB Stanley Havili for DE Clifton Geathers. Acquired RB Trent Richardson for a 1st round pick.
Rams - Got a conditional pick for WR Chris Givens. Traded their #2 pick to Washington in 2012 for a king's ransom.
Falcons - have not been involved in a trade this decade.

Two of our six teams have not been involved in a trade and another was involved only in a minor trade to get draft capital. This leaves only the Broncos, Jets and Colts as teams with precedent for trading to acquire a player. However, only the Colts have traded draft capital for a player. This doesn't mean one of those other teams couldn't make a trade, but it does mean they're unlikely to increase the market value for a player. Of course, the market wouldn't have to be set in draft capital. The Broncos could, for example, offer Hillman straight up with the rationale that the Bears get a serviceable player they can sign to a longer-term, cheaper deal and the Broncos maximize their backfield for what must be Peyton Manning's last stand. Throw in the parallel with Terrell Davis helping an aging Elway go out on top, and it becomes believable.

So what do I think will happen?

The Broncos trade scenario involving Hillman is interesting, and realistic to me.
The Colts win with offense, and adding Forte gives them a different elite option next to Gore. However, their window for a championship is the next decade so they shouldn't bet the farm in a deal. A later pick, like a 5th or maybe a 4th could be interesting for them.
I don't expect that the Rams and Jets are thinking championship this year, so they really should be out anyways.
The Falcons have two young running backs and no reason to think they need a veteran at the position, now.
The Giants, I think, could benefit greatly from Forte's skills. They are going with a back-by-committee approach. Forte is a 3-down back who would make their offense less reliant on obvious passing plays, but they have no track record of making these deals. So while they should consider it, I don't think they'll be in play.

I think the Colts will have light interest and the Broncos should have serious interest. I've pegged the Colts at maybe a 4th or probably a 5th. Let's say a 5th. To beat that, the Broncos either need to give up a player worth more than that, or more draft capital than that. I don't think Hillman has that value, especially with an expiring contract. Denver doesn't have a 4th round pick in the upcoming draft, but has a 5th, 6th and a pair of 7ths. Teams can always figure out ways to dish up future picks and come to terms.

I think the Bears would want to get a meaningful pick for Forte, even if they might lose him otherwise. For example, they could ask for a 4th from Denver, but agree on a 2017 3rd instead (each year delay is roughly considered one round less valuable). Or to beat Indy's 5th, maybe an additional 6th, so like this year's 6th and a 2017 4th. Again, if Denver believes it can extend Forte for a couple years and get quality performance out of him and have him be a great supporting bridge for life after Elway, this price could go up ... maybe to that 3rd rounder this year. My bet is no higher than a current 4th (or a 2017 3rd) and a significantly non-zero chance of a trade with Denver happening.

 

Seahawk identity

I wrote recently about a potential decline for the Seahawks due to their eroded draft results. There's another noticeable shift this year, and probably has to do with Russell Wilson's big contract: they are throwing more.

	Passes	Runs	Russell runs	Total runs
2013	420 (45.2%)	413 (44.5%)	96 (10.3%)	509 (54.8%)
2014	454 (46.4%)	407 (41.6%)	118 (12.0%)	525 (53.6%)
2015*	101 (54.0%)	62 (33.2%)	24 (12.8%)	86 (46.0%)

	Passes	Runs	Russell runs	Russell uses
2013	420 (45.2%)	413 (44.5%)	96 (10.3%)	516 (55.5%)
2014	454 (46.4%)	407 (41.6%)	118 (12.0%)	572 (58.4%)
2015*	101 (54.0%)	62 (33.2%)	24 (12.8%)	125 (66.8%)

* Stats through 3 games

The Seahawks' winning script has been completely flipped. Where they used to run the ball around 54% of the time, they are now passing it that often. The run-first feel of the offense has dissolved. Another way to look at this is the percentage of plays Wilson is directly involved in. It's grown from 55.5 and 58.4 to 66.8 so far this year. Wilson is being asked to carry more and more of the offense, and the results are not following. Compounding that is Marshawn Lynch's diminished output (he's averaging under 4 yards per carry, down from 4.2 and 4.7 the previous years). Or maybe Lynch's less effective running is leading to more pass plays being called. Regardless, Wilson is not as effective, scrambling even more often, and taking 4 sacks per game (he averaged under 3 in the previous 2 years).

It will be interesting to see if these trends revert or continue. The offensive coordinator has remained constant over this time, which should eliminate a wholesale "offensive system change" as a culprit. Can the Seahawks throw their way to victory? Will they go back to what worked? Or will they take a step back this year?

Seahawks futures

The Seahawks have been getting a ton of positive press for their roster moves, but while casually browsing the 2011 draft and realizing just how much they extracted from it, I started to wonder what their drafting really netted them. For reference, here are their draft picks and notable undrafted rookie free agent signings since 2010. I've bolded names that played a significant role on the team, italicized are the subset still with the team, and placed an asterisk next to anyone who's made a Pro Bowl.

2010 (9 picks):
Russell Okung (1*), Earl Thomas (1*), Golden Tate (2*), Walter Thurmond (4), EJ Wilson (4), Kam Chancellor (5*), Anthony McCoy (6), Dexter Davis (7), Jameson Konz (7c)

2011 (9 picks):
James Carpenter (1), John Moffitt (3), KJ Wright (4), Kris Durham (4), Richard Sherman (5*), Mark LeGree (5), Byron Maxwell (6), Lazarious Levingston (7), Malcolm Smith (7c), Doug Baldwin (U)

2012 (10 picks):
Bruce Irvin (1), Bobby Wagner (2*), Russell Wilson (3*), Robert Turbin (4), Jaye Howard (4), Korey Toomer (5), Jeremy Lane (6), Winston Guy (6), JR Sweezy (7), Greg Scruggs (7), Jermaine Kearse (U)

2013 (11 picks):
Christine Michael (2), Jordan Hill (3), Chris Harper (4), Jesse Williams (5), Tharold Simon (5), Luke Willson (5), Spencer Ware (6), Ryan Seymour (7), Ty Powell (7), Jared Smith (7c), Michael Bowie (7c)

2014 (9 picks):
Paul Richardson (2), Justin Britt (2), Cassius Marsh (4), Kevin Norwood (4), Kevin Pierre-Louis (4), Jimmy Staten (5), Garrett Scott (6), Eric Pinkins (6), Kiero Small (7), Garry Gilliam (U)

2015 (8 picks):
Frank Clark (2), Tyler Lockett (3), Terry Poole (4), Mark Glowinski (4c), Tye Smith (5c), Obum Gwacham (6c), Kristjan Sokoli (6c), Ryan Murphy(7)

The first thing that pops out is the incredible success of their drafting from 2010-2012. Some teams go a decade without selecting 7 Pro Bowlers. I did a study spanning 2006-2010. That one focuses on just the 1st and 2nd round picks, but of those, no team had more than 3 such Pro Bowlers over 5 years (though the 2010 class were rookies still and hadn't had a chance to be selected). In this same vein, they have maximized their picks in the top rounds. All 7 such picks started, and 4 of them became Pro Bowlers. None of them was a bust.

The second thing that pops up is their quantity of picks. Teams average 8 picks per draft (with the added compensatories; there are 256 picks for 32 teams in each draft). The Seahawks have averaged 9.3. Once we get past the first couple rounds, there are way more misses than hits. The Seahawks seem to have embraced that and given themselves more chances to hit on players later in the draft.

The third thing that catches my eye is their huge decline in 2013 and 2014. I'll skip 2015 because there's no real data to judge players by, but they have virtually no production from the more recent drafts. When your entire draft boils down to a decent tight end or two mediocre offensive linemen, that's a wasted opportunity.

The fourth thing that catches my eye is how their picks have shifted to the later rounds. Part of that is a result of their success and the late picks that yields, mixed with their penchant for trading those picks to the Vikings. But ... it's hard to get serious impact players without 1st round picks, and they haven't had one of those in 3 years.

And finally, 4 of their 8 rookie picks this year were compensatories. This shows 2 things: that they've eroded their assigned picks and that they've lost a lot of free agents.

So where does this leave the Seahawks going forward? They've certainly picked many very good players. However, they've now had to sign many of those players to expensive new contracts and haven't been able to fill in the spots with cheap rookies well. There's a great core there, but I do wonder if they are due for some slightly rocky times ahead.


 

A path of destruction

Sometimes a player comes along who changes the fortunes of a team. Sometimes even two. Such is the story of Trent Richardson.

Richardson came into the league in 2012 as the top rated running back. He had been a beast at Alabama, finished 3rd in Heisman voting and had analysts making outrageous claims about being the next Jim Brown. Not everyone agreed. Notably, the original Jim Brown called him "ordinary", wondering what the big deal was if Richardson couldn't start ahead of Mark Ingram (another highly rated Alabama back), who was now middling with the Saints.

Cleveland was so enamored with him they traded up from 4th to 3rd to get him, swapping spots with a Vikings team already featuring Adrian Peterson. In other words, Minnesota wasn't taking Trent Richardson. It's possible someone else would have traded up for him but that's a long shot. The only other team close enough to pull the trigger was Jacksonville, and they already had Maurice Jones-Drew and problems everywhere else on their roster.

In the end, the Browns swapped spots with Minnesota at the cost of the 118th, 139th and 211th picks. For reference, those picks became:

Jarius Wright, WR, Arkansas (#2 receiver in catches, yards and TDs on team behind Greg Jennings)
Robert Blanton, S, Notre Dame (starting safety, tallied 106 tackles in 2014)
Scott Solomon, DE, Rice (struggling to make a roster)

The above is the opportunity cost of panicking. Richardson would have been there at 4, no doubt, and Cleveland could have netted 2 additional starters. That's a big miss. Playing the what-if card, Cleveland could have taken Alfred Morris at 139 and taken Ryan Tannehill, who has more upside and performance thus far than subsequent 1st-rounders Weeden and Manziel, combined, at 4 ... though given their track record, they probably would have taken Justin Blackmon and gotten even less in return.

To their credit, Cleveland recognized their mistake and jumped at a market opportunity when the Colts' retooling squad came calling. Jim Brown praised the move. How could anyone not? While Richardson played through injury in his rookie year and perhaps onlookers could be excused for giving him a pass on his 3.6 yards per carry, it became quickly evident to many that he was not the dynamic back we'd been promised. The Colts offered a 1st-round pick and the Browns took it. I don't know that the Browns expected that 1st rounder to only be the #26 pick, but it's better than Trent Richardson. They then promptly packaged the 83rd pick with it to move up for another headache: Johnny Manziel. Had they just taken Tannehill instead of Richardson, .... if only.

The Colts, in the meantime, got a running back they would dump by the end of the year and missed on opportunities to add Kelvin Benjamin or Bradley Roby. The Colts' pain was limited to one missed player.

The Browns kicked off a whole bad ripple by taking Richardson, one I could argue they still haven't recovered from.

The final chapter in this sad story is that Oakland signed Richardson to a deal with $600,000 guaranteed. He then became a first cut casualty. Oakland's mistake is a mere blip compared to the others ... and probably the last mistake an NFL team will make with Richardson.

Get your pass rush prospect here, hot off the presses!

The combine has brought us this year's crop of measurables, and they're pretty impressive! As a reminder, there is a remarkably simple subset of these numbers that almost all elite players share. Without further ado, here are this year's outside linebacker prospects:

Name	Position	40 dash	10yd split	Broad jump	Vertical
Randy Gregory	OLB	4.64	1.61	10'5	36
Vic Beasley	OLB	4.52	1.59	10'10	41
Alvin Dupree	OLB	4.56	1.60	11'6	42
Eli Harold	OLB	4.60	1.61	10'3	35
Shaq Thompson	OLB	4.64	1.69	9'9	33.5
Paul Dawson	OLB	4.93	1.68	9'1	28
Hauoli Kikaha	--	--	--	--	--
Nate Orchard	OLB	4.80	1.65	9'7	31.5
Kwon Alexander	OLB	4.55	1.58	10'1	36
Lorenzo Mauldin	OLB	4.85	1.68	9'4	32
Edmond Robinson	OLB	4.61	1.61	10'1	37
Shane Ray	DE	4.68	1.65	10'0	33
Dante Fowler	DE	4.60	1.59	9'4	32.5
Preston Smith	DE	4.74	1.60	10'1	34
Owamagbe Odighizuwa	DE	4.62	1.61	10'7	39
Mario Edwards	DE	4.84	1.76	10'0	32.5
Daniel Hunter	DE	4.57	1.57	--	--
Trey Flowers	DE	4.93	1.73	10'1	36.5

As alluded to above, this year's set has a lot of upside. Starting with the consensus-ish top 10 outside linebacker prospects, both Beasley and Dupree hit every level shared by most elite pass rushers. Randy Gregory, Eli Harold and Kwon Alexander meet all except for being near-misses on vertical jump. That's the top four prospects who measure very favorably, and another guy with serious upside. The second tier doesn't look as good: Thompson isn't terrible, but Dawson, Orchard and Mauldin all show serious deficiencies and should fall into the later rounds of the draft. Teams looking to take a mid-round flyer could look at Edmond Robinson who is just 1" away in vertical from a completely green results line.

The story is similar in the projected 4-3 DE group. While none of the top prospects are all green lights, Ray, Fowler and Smith all have very good measurable as a whole. In the lower range of the top prospects, Edwards and Flowers should fall. Odighizuwa is the lone all-green and could be primed for a Justin Houston-esque rise to eliteness. Or a Corey Lemonier-esque wallowing in mediocrity. Reminder: green lights don't mean a sure thing. Lack of green lights mean a sure not thing.

This group overall is interesting (or boring) because the top prospects all tested well. In many years there are a mix of highly-ranked guys who produced or meet combine criteria, but not both.

San Francisco earthquake

The rumor/news just hit that Patrick Willis is going to retire after 8 seasons as a 49er. Justin Smith appears likely to hang it up too. Smith is 35 and therefore well into the likely-to-retire zone. However, he still played at a high level last year.

Willis is just 30. He had season-ending toe surgery in 2014 and by his own assessment at the time had another 5-6 good years left in him. Either the toe issue is a lot more serious than he or anyone else thought, or he's decided that despite being able to, he's done playing.

My thoughts immediately jumped to Jim Harbaugh's exit. Certainly for a guy like Smith, feeling like the team is no longer a serious contender could be a deal-breaker. I don't pretend to know all the psychology involved, but I wonder if Willis was demotivated by Harbaugh's exit to the point where he just didn't want to play anymore. Despite any of his personal abrasiveness, no one can deny that Harbaugh was a coach and winner of the highest caliber. People respond to results and are willing to overlook a lot in someone who leads them to victory. By all accounts, the hiring of Tomsula to replace Harbaugh was a curious choice, perhaps more aligned with getting someone willing to plug the company line, so to speak. I wonder if players, who would already have been familiar with him, were not duly impressed.

There are also reports that Frank Gore is on his way out to Philadelphia. He's a late-career running back with something still left in the tank ... does going to Philly mean he feels he has a better chance at a good season there? It could be just about the money too, of course.

By the time this off-season is done, how many iconic 49ers will be gone? And just how much of that is because Harbaugh was ousted?

Eagles continue fleecing ways

Sources are reporting that the Eagles and Bills have agreed to trade LeSean McCoy and Kiko Alonso, seemingly straight up.

While on the surface the Bills are getting an electric running back, you've gotta figure the Eagles know when they have a depreciating or overvalued asset. Anecdotal evidence includes trading Kolb for a 2nd rounder and DRC a few years ago, and unloading Donovan McNabb, who was clearly a shell of his former self by that time. As fantasy owners no doubt noticed, McCoy had a down year last year (not just by TD numbers, but also in average rush; his receiving targets were way down as well). An optimist will simply say that he doesn't play the same role in Chip Kelly's offense, but let's not forget how dominant he was just a year before, in the same offense.

The Eagles get an inside linebacker who, at his best, is a perennial Pro Bowler. He's coming off ACL surgery so he's technically a risk, but the ACL recovery rate has improved. It's no longer a multi-year, career-threatening injury. Most guys are out one year, then return as before. Since Alonso should be ready for camps and preseason, he's not damaged per the Eagles point of view. However, trading for an injured player is a risk, no matter how much medicine has reduced that risk. This is further anecdotal evidence that McCoy is not the player he was in 2011-13.

Let's also consider that the Bills couldn't run the ball with anyone last year. The explanation is simple: no one respected their quarterbacks to beat them with the pass. That hasn't changed. In a league where unheralded backs make impact all over the place, it's implied that the environment (line quality, quarterback, playcalling) is as much of a factor as the back himself. McCoy is unlikely to singlehandedly reverse all those factors working against him.

Finally, McCoy is a rapidly depreciating asset. Conventional wisdom holds that he has just a couple more decent years left in him. The window of greatness could already be closed, or he could still be potentially effective for 3-4 years, but it's hard to know and the latter is the best-case scenario (and again, he won't be maximized by the Bills as they currently sit). Alonso, in the meantime, should give the Eagles 7-10 really good years.

If Buffalo has a plan to revamp their offense and maximize McCoy, great. However, that plan likely would have worked with a much cheaper back as well, without sending away an impact player, who as a bonus is still on his rookie deal. While letting him hit FA could be risky and if they didn't want to pony up cash in 2 years they would get nothing in return, I predict that McCoy and his salary will not have the positive impact the Bills are hoping for.

Remeber that thing I said?

About the playoffs not really working and still leading to too much contention?

This bowl season has already highlighted the problem with the new format (it's exactly just deferred it one step further): TCU's dominant win from the #6 spot (but not in the playoff) combined with FSU's faceplant (and the reluctance of voters all year to recognize them as the top team) should lead to questions about who should have been in the playoffs.

The inherent issue with a playoff system is that once teams are in, nothing else matters but winning going forwards. If we accept the premise that "every game counts" in college (which I'm willing to work with), then a short playoff completely counteracts it. Sure it matters that a team makes it in, but it allows a team that shouldn't really be in the "best team" conversation to get hot at just the right time.

Mixing subjective cutoffs with a short-list for the playoff doesn't work exactly because sometimes the 3rd or 4th best team shouldn't even be in the conversation, and other times it's murky beyond 4. For example, imagine if USC-Texas had been subjected to a playoff. Even if both teams emerge as winners of their semifinal game, there's a risk of injury, etc, for what amounts to a formality. And, if either of those teams had lost, few people would accept the other team as a legit candidate.

This year was murky beyond the 4. FSU was the only winless team but they kept wining in dramatic fashion. Some weren't even sure they belonged in the playoff. In retrospect, the highly competitive game between Ohio State and Alabama, mixed with the blowout of FSU by Oregon validates this thinking. And this is exactly the problem: the 3rd-6th spots often have murkiness in them (consider how to order the top teams from the BCS conferences, even) and by imposing a playoff on a subset we create an artificial barrier.

Since a 64-team playoff (where any reasonable contender is included) is not an option, let's embrace the murkiness in stages: play the BCS bowls, then vote on the top 2 teams to play in the championship. The top teams would be playing each other. We'd probably conclude that Oregon-Ohio State is the right pair this way as well, but it opens the door for a team like TCU to prove themselves against top-flight competition. Or, keep the bowl-conference affiliations. Suppose we'd have had:

#1 Alabama vs #5 Baylor in the Sugar Bowl
#2 Oregon vs #4 Ohio State in the Rose Bowl
#3 Florida State vs #6 TCU in the Orange Bowl
#7 Mississippi State vs #11 Kansas State in the Peach Bowl
#8 Michigan State vs #12 Georgia Tech in the Cotton Bowl
#9 Ole Miss vs #10 Arizona in the Fiesta Bowl

We can debate all we want how these games would have turned out, of course. Realistically, the Peach, Cotton and Fiesta Bowl will not show us anything about the national title conversation. Ideally TCU would be placed into the not-quite-aligned Orange Bowl and the winners from those 3 bowls end up in the national title game conversation. Style points still matter and everyone with any reasonable claim to the game is still alive. It's a game of murkiness, but a game we should embrace.

NCAA football playoff

2014 is the inaugural year of the college football playoff. It's finally here, a fair path to determining the top team in the nation!

So what was wrong with the old system? Opponents point to the somewhat arbitrary choice at the end of the year for determining the top 2 teams. In some years, there's a clear top team and a handful of nexts. In other years, there's a clear top 2. Yet again in some years, there are more than 2 contenders for legitimate number 1 status. Or there are undefeated teams from one of the other conferences who have a potential claim as well. It was simply unfair to always pick two teams when it wasn't clear which those two teams are. Sometimes they are vindicated (ex: Florida leapfrogging Michigan to #2 in 2007, then trouncing Ohio St), other times they look foolish (ex: USC destroying Oklahoma 55-19 in 2005 while Auburn was left out of the game). A playoff solves this because more of the top teams are in, and they play it out. With enough rounds (ex: NCAA basketball) it's fair because all the legitimate contenders are included.

So why hasn't there been a playoff before? The argument against it in football was that the extra games present too much wear and tear on the players, as well as force them to miss too much school.

The current playoff increases the arbitrary pool of eligible contenders to 4, and adds one extra game for the two teams who progress to the championship. While it may not be entirely likely, a team who has earned being one of the best could be knocked out in a bad game by a team who's arbitrarily included in the 4 (ex: USC, Oklahoma, Auburn in 2004, but did Cal or Texas really belong in that group?). It devalues the position a team has worked for all season; reducing the "every game counts" mantra we keep attaching to the sport. Also, what about teams like Hawaii from 2007, and the Boise State and TCU teams from similar years. They'd continue to be left out, forever making us wonder "what if?"

I propose an alternative:
Let's keep the BCS system similar to how we've had it, where approximately the top 12 teams make it to BCS bowl games. There's no preference for one bowl being "the championship", we just pair up top teams from various conferences. We let the BCS bowls play out. Then, we do one final ranking. The top two teams play once more for the championship.

Why it works:
Using the proposed system ensures that every team's ranking is calibrated by a matchup against another top team, from another conference. This addresses the gaps in quality matchups by those in lower conferences, and alleviates conference bias (ahem, SEC). It lets us re-evaluate if season rankings have just happened in conference bubbles and gives the non-BCS teams a chance to show how good they are (or aren't).

Why it's tricky:
The current system has the advantage of giving a more concentrated set of fans early warning that their team may be in the championship game. However, there's still the matter of people waiting to see that their team actually made it. It's not really any different from the pros where we only find out 2 weeks before who actually made it to the Super Bowl. Ticket planning is the only downside I can think of, and I'm not sure it's any worse than what the current playoff system creates anyways.

With the current system, some team is going to feel slighted at #5, or some clearly worse resume #4 will cause an upset. I think my system is better.

NFL Draft 2014 Preview

That wonderful time of year has come when the playoff intensity is arriving, the weather is turning brutal, and the awful teams have distinguished themselves. The top of the draft is starting to cement itself. Using my patent-pending formula of projecting final standings, I will now venture a first guess at the top of the draft! I'll be using some hand-wavy combination of Mel and Todd's big boards to base this on. Can you tell we're going to have serious insight here?

1. Houston Texans (2.6 wins) - Teddy Bridgewater, QB, Louisville
What a mess! The Texans were hoping to contend for a Super Bowl, instead they've lost their quarterback, running back and head coach to injury... and now they've gone ahead and fired their coach. Despite sitting at 2-11, the Texans have only lost 3 games by more than a touchdown. If not for an amazing streak of 5 games with pick-6s and a little bad luck, they could very well be at 7 or 8 wins and contending for the division. It's unlikely Case Keenum is their QB of the future and it's clear they're done with Matt Schaub. Their line hasn't been great, but their left tackle is not the issue. They also have serious issues in the secondary, but the positional value isn't there. Thus, they have no choice but to roll the dice and hope Teddy can deliver.

2. Minnesota Vikings (3.6 wins) - Jadeveon Clowney, DE, South Carolina
After an inspiring 2012, the Vikings have regressed again. Their defense is awful, they give up too many big plays, and their impact guys are aging. Jared Allen may finish with the lowest sack total of his career and he's also making fewer tackles than normal. This is a perfect pick for the Vikings, hitting both need and value. They'd love to land a franchise quarterback (Matt Cassell's probably been the best for them this year), and the 2nd round offers a good chance to do so. Adrian Peterson is still special, and Cordarrelle Patterson is a Percy Harvin-type playmaker, but they have an eroding core and this draft needs to be all about value across the board.

3. Atlanta Falcons (4.2 wins) - Jake Matthews, OL, TA&M
Another team in the Houston mold, the Falcons were more hurt by off-season moves. They neglected their offensive line and run game (trading one old back for another), and made what proved to be a mistake in not keeping John Abraham. While they are doing reasonably well getting sacks by committee, they have no legitimate threat beyond Osi Umeniyora, who is aging out rapidly. Matt Ryan's been sacked at a high rate as well. Really, the Falcons were loaded up for a Super Bowl push the last few years, and finally the team shook apart. They could alternatively go with an impact defensive end, but solidifying the offensive line should help all aspects of their offense which has completely imploded.

4. St Louis Rams (from Washington, 4.2 wins) - Stephon Tuitt, DT, Notre Dame
The Rams were all set for a promising season, but the injury to Sam Bradford and the slow development of Tavon Austin really limited their offense. While their front 7 is showing good, though intermittent, progress, they still give up too many big plays. They'll have Bradford back next year, and they can hope their playmakers develop. They can pick up additional running backs or secondary in later rounds, and with Jake Long on board they don't need a new left tackle. They need to make the best value pick, and Tuitt paired with Brockers, Quinn and Long could make for one of the best lines in the league. They really hit a homerun with the collapse of the Redskins, and should be able to load up with 2 high picks.

5. Buffalo Bills (4.9 wins) - Anthony Barr, LB, UCLA
Another disappointing season for the Bills, just seems like they can never get it together. They do have a promising young quarterback and offensive skill players, along with a defense that gets sacks like no other. However, they are surprisingly bad against the run and Barr would enter in a role similar to Von Miller.

6. Oakland Raiders (4.9 wins) - Khalik Mack, OLB, University of Buffalo
If Al Davis were still running the show, this pick would be Johnny Manziel. But, cooler heads are in charge, and they're still cleaning up the mess left by the previous regime. Despite their record, the Raiders have been competitive in many of their losses .. but there's no question Terrell Pryor is not an NFL quarterback and I don't think anyone is holding out for Matt McGloin to be that guy either, though he's been decent. The Raiders don't get sacks, give up lots of passing TDs and play generally mediocre defense. Mack has a chance to make an impact on a team that needs impact players.

7. Tampa Bay (4.9 wins) - Sammy Watkins, WR, Clemson
The Bucs are finally showing some signs of life! After starting 0-8 and jettisoning their former franchise qb and having a mess in the locker room, they seem to be on the right track. They need more playmakers on offense and Watkins fits that bill.

8. Cleveland Browns (5.2 wins) - Greg Robinson, OT, Auburn
The Browns have a clear need for a franchise quarterback, plain and simple. They are playing competitive defense, have a wide receiver with endless potential, a good young tight end and are putting points on the board through the air. However, their running game is awful and they give up almost 4 sacks a game. Their line needs help.

9. Jacksonville Jaguars (5.2 wins) - Cyrus Kouandjio, OT, Alabama
The Jaguars are terrible all around, and they shipped off their starting left tackle. This draft is deep with replacements, and Lewan represents a clear upgrade. Chad Henne is competent and given how far this team is from challenging, they need to make their high picks count. Offensive line is a much safer place to invest than quarterback.

10. St Louis Rams (5.9 wins) - Justin Gilbert, CB, Oklahoma St
The Rams second top 10 pick in this scenario. They've used the first as a value pick on their defensive line and have more flexibility to address need here. Despite a formidable pass rush and good run defense, they give up huge yards per pass. I think the Rams make a bet that their skill guys are going to develop and keep beefing up their defense against the very large and physical NFC West.

We'll revisit this after the end of the season when the order finalizes, then again after the combine.

Draft Pick Values

The NFL Draft features numerous trades, many of which seem to conform to the classic draft value chart. It's almost dogmatically accepted, but does it always make sense? My dad once told me to look at the extremes. He was referring to sanity checking if a proposed function made sense or not by testing it at variable=0 or infinity, but the same concept can apply here. Granted I'm backing the following up with little concrete data, but let's take a look at a few examples:

Trading from 2nd to 1st costs about a 2nd rounder. Getting to the top spot means you can guarantee picking that one blue-chip, can't-miss tackle or quarterback. If there's a dropoff after them, forfeiting a good shot at another starter makes sense. If you didn't, you'd be taking a bigger risk on the 1st rounder not working out. If it only cost an additional 3rd, this would be a clear win for the team trading up. If it cost an additional 1st, it would mean the team misses out on a premium pick. This passes the smell test.

The 20th pick is valued equally to the 33rd and 65th. At 20, there's unlikely to be a premium quarterback, tackle or pass rusher. While there may be an elite tight end, nose tackle or inside linebacker, these are positions of lesser impact. In other words, we're looking at players who either have limited impact no matter what, or have a red flag in either college production, measurables or character. The 33rd pick is a little more of the same, and may actually be more appropriate value-wise for the lesser impact positions. The 65th is skirting the territory where guys with clear NFL upside are disappearing, so finding a good role player is often the best outcome. This, again, feels like a reasonably fair trade. Another way to look at it is: the team with the top pick got their blue-chipper, and now they want to go all in for a particular player they want to take a chance on instead of waiting for the board to play out. Never underestimate the perceived value of getting to pick the particular player you want instead of taking who is left for you.

In general, the classic chart lets a team move up about half a round by trading their pick in the next round (ex: mid-2nd + 3rd = borderline 1st), and about a quarter round by throwing in their pick from 2 rounds later (ex: mid-2nd + 4th = higher pick by about 8 spots in the 2nd). What this expresses is that getting to pick the particular player they feel good about is worth not getting to take a chance on a lesser prospect later.

A very important thing to remember here is that the values assigned to each pick are generalized guidelines. Making a big trade up in some drafts has little to no reward. For example, 2013 and 2012 featured similarly graded blue-chip players at the same premium position. The Redskins had no reason to trade beyond the 2nd pick because both Luck and RG3 were franchise-changing quarterbacks (pending discovery of the indestructible ACL ... ). This year, the Jags had no reason to trade up to take the tackle of their choice because both Fisher and Joeckel are dominant, can't-miss players. In other words, the 1st and 2nd pick were worth about the same. Suppose RG3 wasn't there last year. Now suddenly, the benefit of trading to 1 is huge because no other quarterback in the draft compares to Luck. 2013 featured a glut of similarly graded players at a variety of positions. The Raiders traded their 3rd pick to the Dolphins for the 12th and 42nd. Per this chart, they gave the Dolphins a 50% discount. Why? Because they were desperate to add extra picks, and the quality of player they were likely to draft at 12 was not much lower than what they would have goten at 3. Getting 2 shots at the premium part of the prospect list was worth passing on Milliner or whoever they would have taken in their original spot. As such, we can't say that any trade value chart is inherently correct, there's too much contextual information missing without actual players plugged in.

We can, however, call out clearly degenerate cases. In the latter rounds, the gaps in relative values of picks get oddly large. Per the chart, the 211th pick is worth as much as 222, 223 and 224 combined. We're really looking at the scraps at this point, and picks are really a crapshoot here. We're essentially talking low-yield lottery tickets (keep in mind most 7th round picks won't even make the final roster). So why should 1 of these (at 211) be worth as much as 3 of these just a few spots later? This makes no sense at all. Similarly, the last 3 picks of the 6th round are worth as much as the last pick in the 4th. In the 4th, we're still looking at guys who have good physical skillsets and are expected to make the team and contribute. 6th rounders usually have significant physical shortcomings that most never make it past.

The classic chart uses an approximately exponentially decreasing point value model (about a factor of 2 per round) until the top of the 5th, when it changes over to an almost exactly linearly decreasing model. I guess it's trying to account for teams targeting specific crapshoot players, which again has perceived value to the team ... but really, would you elect to have more randomly given scratchers tickets, or hand-pick fewer of them?

Overall grade: B+. The top 4 rounds seems pretty reasonable, but the scale erodes in the later rounds.

To attempt to address the perceived arbitrariness of the classic model, a group created the Harvard model. Right off the bat we can tell that the later rounds are addressed: there's very little difference between 6th and 7th rounders, in fact it's not even possible (per the chart) to engineer a trade back in the 6th without the buyer grossly overspending (or getting into some crazy exotic pick swapping). Unfortunately the Harvard model completely faceplants in the earlier (aka: "important") rounds. For a 7th rounder, a team can move from the 32nd to the 20th, or from 16th to 10th, or from 10th to the 6th pick, or from 5th to 3rd, or 3rd to 2nd. This is lunacy. That 7th rounder is worthless, and you're telling me I can instead have my choice of blue-chip prospect, maybe align that with a need, or hop forward spot(s) to get the clearly better of 2 options? No no no no no. In the Harvard model, the 1st can be had from 7th with the addition of a 2nd rounder, or from the 3rd with the addition of a 4th rounder, or from 2nd with the addition of a 6th. Again, not a chance the seller would go for it. There's also a very oddly large discontinuity form the 32nd to the 33rd pick that should make any basic sanity checker scratch their head. And just to pile it on, the last few picks in the 7th are actually more valuable than those in the middle of the 7th (though this may be a copy/paste error, the sequence from 193 repeats starting at 215).

Overall grade: F. I appreciate their attempt at a statistical approach, but sometimes we don't use the right stats or put them together the right way and a simple smell test should say "no, this doesn't make sense". Anyone who reads KC Joyner's articles should be familiar with this reaction. The meat of the draft is in the top 2 rounds and getting values clearly wrong here makes the scale unusable.