Good afternoon Panther fans! As some of you may recall, back in October I published an article entitled "The Draft Value Index: Drafting by the Numbers". The DVI system was an early draft of an attempt to put numerical values to players that balance team need and BPA. Many of you liked the system, and gave lots of feedback on how it could be improved. With the draft upon us, and with a few people mentioning and requesting an updated system applied to our current team needs, I have decided to roll out this detailed metric in a three part series leading up to the draft with a results post afterward. This is Part 2 of the 3 part series.
- Part I will be an introduction to the system as a whole, and will detail the TS or "Team situation" metric.
- Part II will detail the PQ or "Player Quality" metric.
- Part III will put it all together in an attempt to formulate a Panthers big board based on a balanced strategy and serve as a prediction for the draft.
- After the draft is concluded, I will give a synopsis of how the system held up, and analyze each pick within the DVI confines.
Without further ado.. I present to you part II of this series, the Player Quality or PQ metric. I will ask for a lot of fan help in making some of the ratings more exhaustive leading up to the draft, so please familiarize yourself with my rating system, and help fill in the blanks if you want!
Part II: The PQ rating
In order to establish a reliable system of where Need (TS, as discussed earlier) meets BPA (PQ, in this case), it is paramount to assign values to individual players that do not take needs into account. This system I will put forth in this section looks at the draftable players from a pure talent perspective, aka BPA. While all numbers and ratings systems must have a level of subjectivity to them, I will attempt to get as close as possible based on scouting reviews and college statistics. The system I am about to lay out takes into account player ceilings above all, in other words, when drafting this player, what level of play they will achieve in their NFL prime. I will also lay out some modifiers, intended to take injury history and off-field behavior into account.
Base Player Quality rating (BPQ)
BPQ represents the rating of a player from a pure talent perspective without taking injury history or off-field troubles into account. In other words, this is what a player is capable of at 100% and eligible to be on a football field.
A couple of key terms:
Viable starter- Someone you are fully comfortable carrying the load at a position
Serviceable starter – Someone you are comfortable carrying the load until better talent can be acquired
Developmental talent - Someone widely regarded as a "project player" in other words, possibility of a high cieling, but also a very low floor.
10 – Once in a generation player, immediate viable starter, perennial Pro Bowler and potential future HOF’er
9 – Special talent, proven college track record, immediate viable starter, future Pro Bowler
8 – Above Average talent, proven college track record, immediate viable starter
7 – Special talent, unproven college track record, immediate serviceable starter, future viable starter
6 – Above Average talent, unproven college track record, immediate serviceable starter, future viable starter
5 – Average talent, proven college track record, immediate and future serviceable starter
4 – Average talent, unproven college track record, future serviceable starter
3 – Developmental talent, proven college track record at position, future viable starter
2 – Developmental talent, proven college track record at other position, future viable starter
1 – Developmental talent, unproven college track record, future serviceable starter
Injury Concerns Modifier (ICM)
The ICM rating attempts to take into account a player's injury histories. In the draft, players with spotless injury reports get a slight bump up the board, while players with a checkered history can fall way way down depending on severity. Our own Brandon Hogan and Greg Hardy are prime examples of this.
+1 PQ for player with NO injury history, i.e. never missed a game in college due to injury.
+0 PQ for player with minor injury history, i.e. no major surgeries, never missed more than 8 games in his college career.
-1 PQ for player with moderate injury history, no injuries considered to have lingering effects, no major surgeries, missed more than 8 games in his college career due to injury.
-2 PQ for player with significant injury history, i.e. major surgeries that held him out of entire seasons, and may have lingering effects
Behavior Concerns Modifier (BCM)
The BCM rating attempts to take into account players with a troubled past. In the draft, players regarded as being a non-risk for off field issues will not take a hit to their draft stock, however being a good citizen doesn't always get you a boost in stock either. Occasionally, a player will be known for having a great list of "intangibles", Tim Tebow is a prime example of this. Someone known as a leader, field general, etc gets a slight boost to stock. However, players who missed games with suspensions, had criminal charges, or explusions will take a major hit to their draft stock. It takes a truly special player to overcome those circumstances. Another behavior related issue are concerns about effort or "how bad a player wants it", if a player has effort issues it can hurt their stock. Players with a high motor receive a stock boost as part of their BPQ, as scouts tend to include that in their talent evaluation.
+1 PQ for a clean record with a great deal of intangibles
+0 PQ for a clean record with no intangibles or a single minor suspension/misdemeanor
-1 PQ for large suspensions, multiple small suspensions, multiple misdemeanors reflecting a pattern of bad behavior, or serious motor/effort concerns.
-2 PQ for expulsions or felony offenses
Level of Competition, how it's handled
Level of competition is factored when gauging player talent. Most scouts build this into their ratings of individual players. Therefore, I don't think a separate modifier is worth exploring. If there are serious concerns about the competition a player faced, he will often be considered developmental talent or have an unproven college record. Except for the cream of the crop in non-BCS conferences or in FCS play, most players will be a BPQ of 3 or lower. For example, Armanti Edwards would grade out with a BPQ of 2, since he excelled as a QB in college but did not project as one in the NFL. Brian Quick, however, would grade a BPQ of 6 since he was so far above his competition and projects at his same position in the NFL.
The Full Player Quality formula (PQ)
So, mathematically, this is how we get the PQ rating.
PQ = BPQ + ICM + BCM
PQ as it pertains to 2012 NFL Draft prospects
In this section, I will give my PQ rating for a list of draft prospects that are considered to be "in the hunt" to be drafted by the Panthers. These will include all players we have brought in for a visit or have documented contact with. I'll also give a PQ rating for some notable prospects. I would like to make this section as exhaustive as possible, but I do not have the time to rate all the players in the draft. I would appreciate the help of anyone willing to contribute a rating for any prospects. Whether it be for just 1 prospect all the way up to 100s if you are really bored.
If you would like to help make this ratings table more exhaustive, this is all I need from you. Add the following things to a comment below.
- Player name and position
- Values for PQ = BPQ + ICM + BCM
- Brief justification for why you assigned these values (does not need to be long)
|Robert Griffin III||QB||9||-1||1||9|
PLEASE NOTE: The above ratings are not the big board so to speak. This looks at players purely on their personal quality at their position. The DVI rating will combine the PQ and TS ratings into a final rating that takes all factors into consideration. That will be the theoretical big board.
Also, if you disagree with my assessments above, DO NOT BE AFRAID TO COMMENT. I welcome constructive criticism. If you have a more intricate knowledge of a prospect, please rate him and give the reasons. I am always open to constructive criticism that has factual backing.
Stay Tunes next week for Part III of the DVI series, where we put all this info together!