The 2022 draft happened. Yes, that is how I chose to start this article. I cannot think of a draft class that I was less excited by since I’ve started following the NFL draft closely. Outside of a handful of top players, the 2022 class was full of players selected well ahead of where they would have gone in an average draft class. Perhaps this was the “aftershock” of COVID-19 and the shake up that it caused to NCAA to NFL matriculation. Next year looks to be a bounce back year.
With that said, bad draft classes make for fun draft grading, and this year is no different. I watched in disbelief this year as NFL teams eschewed value more than ever and all for the sake of drafting players they tabbed as “their guys”. As one might expect, wiser teams reaped value in this draft and this article will show just how well, or how poorly, NFL front offices performed.
The Consensus Big Board
For two years now, I’ve used The Athletic’s Consensus Big Board as a tool to establish draft prospects’ Estimated Draft Pick (EDP) and, in combination with Jimmy Johnson draft trade chart and positional weighting, draft value. As a refresher, the Consensus Big Board (CBB) is an aggregation of numerous big boards posted by NFL draft analysts and media compiled by Arif Hasan of The Athletic. The board is divided into the 3 versions: Forecaster Board, Evaluator Board, and Consensus Board, where:
“one type of analyst, the ‘forecasters,’ tend to have much more access to NFL and college personnel, which gives them information about injury concerns, character, off-field issues and behind-the-scenes information that could change our understanding of a player one way or the other. The other group, the ‘evaluators,’ rely on public data — primarily college game film and advanced statistics.” (Arif Hasan, The Athletic)
Hasan suggests the Forecaster Board better reflects the actual draft than the Evaluator Board, while the Evaluator Board is better at projecting NFL success. The Consensus Big Board, a combination of both the Forecaster and Evaluator Boards, is ideally the best of both worlds.
To verify, I plotted the 3 boards against actual 2022 NFL draft picks (figure below). Once again, the Forecaster board topped the other 2 boards by posting an r2 = 0.67, which also matches the 2021 Forecaster Board performance. Despite the lesser marks, the Consensus and Evaluator boards both improved from last year (r2 = 0.61 to 0.62 and r2 = 0.58 to 0.6 respectively)
While the Forecaster Board once again proved the better predictor, I chose to stick with the Consensus Board for player grades, which is consistent with the previous two articles. Based on Hasan’s analysis of the past CBB, the Evaluator board is a better predictor of NFL success anyhow, so placing too much weight on the Forecaster board may not the best way to grade draft performance.
Weighting the Grades
Last year, I introduced positional weighting to the CBB draft grades by taking the average of the top 5 salaries at each position group and dividing those values by the median of all top 5 positional salaries (for more details see: http://3gml.blogspot.com/2021/05/3gml-2021-consensus-big-board-draft.html). As I discussed previously, this circumvented issue with using the franchise tag as weighting, since edge rushers are either lumped in with LB or DE depending on scheme. I created a separate “Edge” class, which includes all true pass rushers, while 3-4 DE are included with 3-4 NT and 4-3 interior DL in the class “DT”. I also lumped all interior offensive linemen in one group since there is less distinction between G and C prospects versus tackle and interior o-line prospects. Lastly, kickers, punters, and long snappers are all included in the Special Teams “ST” class. Both the 2021 and 2022 Positional Weights are included in the tables and figure below for comparison.
It is immediately clear there are some changes between last year and this year. Given this offseason, one might have anticipated the meteoric growth in both QB and WR top 5 salaries. We can thank the Browns and Jaguars respectively for resetting the market at those positions. Edge also increased, but was supplanted by WR as the number 2 most valued position in the NFL. Like last year, LB, IOL, S, RB, TE, and ST were all less valued positions, but safety overtook IOL in 2022. Relative to QB and WR, all but LB saw a decrease in weighting. LB saw an increase due the market reset from the Fred Warner and Darius Leonard contracts.
The one position that still remains a headscratcher is cornerback. The top 2022 free agent corner, JC Jackson, signed for a below top 5 salary at the position. For whatever reason, the CB market has not been reset since the Jalen Ramsey contract (although the Browns recently extended Denzel Ward to a contract that tops Ramsey’s APY by a whopping $100k). Yes, he arguably remains at the top of his position by performance, but since when has that stopped teams from signing lesser players to bigger contracts at other positions? As you will see below, this will have implications for the weighted CBB grades.
Overall Team Performance
Using the positional weights, the overall CBB draft grades are presented in the figure below. This year, instead of assigning a GPA, I graded on a “curve” function based on the top Consensus Grade (0.6) and average grade (0.0). This I felt resulted in a better distribution of grades than in the past, which tended to be too top heavy (i.e. too nice). Since the methodology for this year’s grading remained the same, I thought I’d dedicate more time discussing the grade results that in previous articles. Below, I’ve included some commentary on my reactions to the CBB grades.
CBB Grade Reactions
Strongest Affirmation: Baltimore Ravens - A+
Plain and simple, the Baltimore Ravens nailed the draft and it shouldn’t be a surprise. They are the masters at waiting and letting good players fall to them year in and year out, and the CBB agrees. This year, a top 5 player in Kyle Hamilton and a top 15 player in Tyler Linderbaum fell in the Raven’s laps, both at 10 picks below their respective CBB rankings. Throw in Ojabo at 45 (ranked 29 on the CBB), Travis Jones at 76 (ranked 40 on the CBB) and Faalele at 110 (ranked 60 on the CBB), and this was a historically good draft by the Ravens (at least with what we know now). While I have questions about Linderbaum’s fit in the Ravens scheme (not to mention the irony of taking a center with 1 percentile wingspan and 5 percentile weight historically vs a tackle in Faalele with 96 percentile wingspan and 99 percentile weight), I don’t doubt their ability to make it work. An “A+” for the consistently top-of-the-class student.
Biggest Disagreement: Houston Texans - F
I did a double take when I saw this. I wouldn’t say I thought the Texans won the draft, but I certainly didn’t think they belonged in the same breath as the Jaguars and Patriots. Taking a closer look, this is case of 1) the Texans ranking players higher than the CBB, and 2) spending top 150 capital on positions of lesser value. They took all but LB Christian Harris higher than the CBB rankings, and they spent picks 15, 37, 75, and 107 on an interior offensive linemen, safety, LB, and RB. But they also got nailed by the Stingley pick, which, frankly, highlights a glaring weakness of a purely quantitative method for grading (I can already hear the Twitterverse shouting, “That’s right, nerd!”). The Texans selected Stingley at 3, and he was ranked 7th on the CBB, largely due to the concerns over his health. Not a soul thought that was a reach, but the value jump from 3 to 7 is 700 points (equivalent to pick 26) on the JJ chart, and the CBB graded accordingly. If Stingley stays healthy, this will likely go down as the worst draft grade in history, but if not… well, we will see. Regardless, the grade did prompt me to ask, “what if they hadn’t taken Stingley at 3?” With needs across the board, the Texans could have gone with any position at both of their first round picks. So I recalculated the grades by substituting what I might have done for the Texans at picks 3 and 15 (since Green at 15 also received a poor grade) using only players that were available at those picks Thursday night. I selected OT Evan Neal at 3 and CB Trent McDuffie at 15. I chose Neal over Ekwonu or Edge Kayvon Thibodeaux because he has a high floor and could play either RT or G for them immediately. At 15, McDuffie filled the CB need and is arguably a better fit to Lovie Smith’s Tampa 2 scheme than Stingley, who should be put on an island in a press-man scheme. Essentially, this is the reverse of what the Texans actually did with CB at pick 3 and OL at pick 15. The result:
This begs the question: would you rather have Stingley and Green or Neal and McDuffie? It probably all hinges on whether Stingley reaches his All-Pro ceiling, but it is interesting food for thought.
Better than Expected: Carolina Panthers - A
Beating up on the Panthers is the latest media hobby. The complete failure of trading a 2021 6th, 2022 2nd, and 2022 4th for Sam “Sixth Sense” Darnold, and then letting both Justin Fields and Mac Jones slide past them in last year’s draft, has increased the temperature setting from “Keep Warm” to “Broil” on the seats of Rhule and Fitterer (justifiably). But instead of panicking and over-drafting a QB at 6 this year, they made an oddly sagacious pick with OT Ikem Ekwonu, addressing a position that has long been a need for the Panthers. Then, they patiently waited (and we can argue whether the “wait” was actually due to the fact they had zero picks on day 2 thanks to Darnold) until the NFL game of “Draft a QB Chicken” played out to trade up a grab a QB. Now, was Corral a better choice than Howell? Well apparently the NFL thought so given that Howell waited another round and a half to hear his name called. Regardless, good value at prime positions with Neal and Corral equals good grades on the CBB.
Worse than Expected: New York Jets - B
Personally, I really liked the Jets draft and had them second to Baltimore. Getting Sauce at 4, Wilson at 10, and trading back up to get Jermaine Johnson at 26 was a slam dunk 1st round. Then, they snagged a perfect scheme fit in Jeremy Ruckert at pick 101. However, the CBB only gave them a “B”. Much like Houston, the Jets got dinged for taking Sauce at 4 when the CBB had other players like Neal, Thibs, and Ekwonu ranked higher. But Sauce is a perfect scheme fit and fills a position of (dire) need, so we will ignore the bad grade there. Picking an RB at 36 was the next poorly graded move and this time I can’t say I disagree. Hall went only a pick before the CBB ranking, but RB is not valued in today’s NFL so the pick resulted in a negative grade. I understand the pick, but considering the Jets took Michael Carter last year and have enough question marks at other positions, we can argue that other players at more impactful positions were still available at pick 36. RB simply could have waited as the CBB grade suggests. Either way, I don’t think the New York Jets really care.
Biggest Surprise: Buffalo Bills - D+
Outside of Kaiir Elam, I honestly didn’t notice the Bills draft. Typically, that means the draft was average – neither outstanding nor deplorable. The CBB grade disagrees. Elam was ranked 30th on the CBB and the Bills traded up to 23 to get him, which, while a plus position, still resulted in a poor grade (we are seeing a trend here with CB…). Then, they took RB James Cook at 63, whereas the CBB had him ranked nearly a full round lower (89th). Reaching for a non-premium position is surefire way to get a bad grade, and the remainder of their draft was filled with reaches vs the CBB rankings (outside of WR Khalil Shakir). Surprising? I thought so, but when you look at the CBB grades for other contenders, such as the Bengals and Buccaneers, you can see that reaching for players at positions of need is often luxury (or mistake?) of contenders in the NFL.
3GML Breakout
Moving from the NFL to 3GML, I took a closer look at each 3GML team pick and UDFA selection (all UDFA were ascribed pick 263 to keep it even between teams). Each team is discussed below with best value, worst value, and overall grade discussed. As with the curved grades in the previous section, I did not factor in value for trades, assuming that the move up or down accounted for the value of the new pick. Therefore, when I say “original pick value,” I mean the value of the final picks for each team.
Green Bay Packers
Best Value: QB Sam Howell
The most premium of premium positions is QB and snagging a QB rounds after his CBB ranking is a pure value pick. Still, GM SD surprised many by selecting UNC QB Sam Howell at 136. However, with incumbent QB Tua in a prove-it year and backup Drew Lock on the outs, this was a low-risk, high-upside pick. Howell likes to take shots down the field, but struggled in 2021 when most of his supporting cast exited for the NFL. Now he has landed in the frozen tundra with Green Bay, who has the WR corps to take advantage of Howell’s game. We may be talking about this pick as the steal of the draft in the years to come.
Worst Value: Trent McDuffie
CB and the CBB strikes again. This actually isn’t even a negative grade based on the Consensus board, but it is the Packers’ lowest graded pick. GM SD selected McDuffie right where he was valued, so it is not so much a bad value pick but rather illustrates how much value he got later in the draft. McDuffie is a stud who will compete for the slot role in Green Bay’s defense day 1. The only questions is whether his measurable will limit him to the slot and limit his ceiling (fun fact: only one CB in the last 5 years with <31” arms has made the Pro Bowl… 3GML Packers Casey Hayward).
Overall Grade: A
GM SD finds good value in another draft and finishes with the 3rd overall grade. Even with the luxury of 3 first round picks (one traded for a 2023 1st rounder in what was a very wise move), GM SD didn’t reach and achieved 142.7% of his draft picks original value. Not a single pick received a negative grade and GM SD still managed to fill a number of holes on his roster. The perennial playoff contender remains a threat to the NFC.
Houston Texans
Best Pick: QB Malik Willis
GM TH considered drafting a QB at pick 32, but instead traded back and still got the 2nd QB off the board with Malik Willis. For some reason beyond comprehension, Willis wouldn’t hear his name called until a round later in real life, but GM TH shouldn’t mind. He got one the best values in the entire draft by selecting Willis 17 picks later than he was ranked. Willis landed in the perfect situation with the Houston Texans, where he can sit and learn behind Dalton (the Mentor) and Minshew (the Gunslinger). He may be competing for the starting position by this time next year.
Worst Value: P Matt Araiza
Drafting a specialist, even one nicknamed “Punt God”, will always be ranked poorly by the CBB. Specialists just aren’t paid like a premium position and that drags this grade down for GM TH. However, Araiza went to the Bills in real life, who struggled with punting last year, so he has a shot to be the starter by week 1.
Overall Grade: A+
Every year GM TH finds insane value in the draft and this year is no different. He achieved 230.9% of his original pick value, shattering the record previously held by the (real) Buffalo Bills in 2020 (215.67%). Once again, GM TH finishes the draft with the 2nd highest grade, barely topped (by decimal points) by the insanely good Ravens draft. The bar remains high for 3GML teams.
San Francisco 49ers
Best Value: Edge Kingsley Enagbare
GM CD was surprised to see Enagbare last all the way to pick 139 (and beyond in real life), and gladly snatched up the versatile edge defender. Enagbare slipped due to average testing, but was a productive player for the Gamecocks and will provide much needed depth behind Brian Burns and Bradley Chubb for San Francisco. This was simply a “too good of value” pick.
Worst Value: OT Zach Tom
Zach Tom was one the players ranked all over the place. GM CD saw him ranked as high as the late 2nd and as low as the 5th. When OC Dylan Parham was snatched up only 5 selections before the 49ers first 3rd round pick, GM CD traded up to make sure he didn’t miss out on another scheme fit. Trading up often equates to bad value in the CBB and a low Consensus ranking for Tom drove it down further. If Tom, who landed in an excellent spot in real life, blossoms as a developmental player, this grade will be an afterthought.
Overall: B-
Over the last 2 years, GM CD hasn’t shied away from aggressively drafting players who fit the 49ers scheme. Unfortunately, scheme fit isn’t accounted for in the CBB (at least yet…) and while GM CD still managed to get 139.5% of his original pick value, the 49ers were still left with a B-. At 13th overall, the 49ers finished outside of the top 10 in draft grades for the second year in a row.
Conclusion
Another year, another successful draft for the 3GML league. This year, the CBB grades reinforced some qualitative assessments by those around the media, but also resulted in some puzzling grades. The continued undervaluing of cornerback by the NFL exposed a flaw in the average top 5 salary weighting method. Next year, I hope to correct for that by 1) developing a new quantitative method for weighting positional value, and/or 2) developing a quantitative metric to account for scheme fit. I’ve already started working on item 2 and hope to make progress on that in the coming months. In the meantime, I’ll leave you with one last bonus item. The CBB draft grades using the Buildthe53.com trade value chart by Tyler Hague! Congrats on the website Tyler!
