MHR Partnerting With DraftTek.com

by John Bena on Feb 1, 2008 7:29 AM MST in 2008 NFL Draft - Denver Broncos

I am excited to annouce that the MHR is partnering with DraftTek.com, assisting the guys over there with information on the Broncos positional needs for the Draft. DraftTek is a Draft Simulation site that uses an in depth formula in an attempt to predict how the draft will unfurl this April.

Draft Tek explains what they do this way --

Draft Tek uses a computer model (VBA on MSExcel platform) to generate a 7-round simulation for the 2008 NFL Draft. As team needs and player rankings change over the months leading up to the draft, Draft Tek will be the first out of the block with updated projections - on a daily basis if events warrant.

The goal of Draft Tek's simulation is to produce a "reasonable" draft based upon the higher needs of each team getting filled in the earlier rounds based on the players available in the ranked player list.

Draft Teks staff readily admits that they are unable to keep a watchful eye on the ongoings of all 32 teams. The plan is to set up arrangements with knowledgeable sources for those teams where our understanding is inadequate. Readers are encouraged to submit positional analyses of their team of choice. However they should make some effort to use Draft Tek's priority codes found on the Team Needs page.

After the NFL Draft is completed in late April, Draft Tek offers a variety of unique content, primarily involving the rating and scoring of the most recent draft and also drafts of past years.
Draft Tek at times chooses to present features associated with sports other than football. In 2007 its name was recently changed to "Draft Tek Sports Information" to reflect this more varied focus.

Our role with this is to provide DraftTek with the ratings systems to input into the software. The better, more accurate the input, the better, more accurate the output will be. As the days countdown to the draft, the rating will get tweaked and fine-tuned, so don't worry if you look at certain picks and they seem far-fetched.

Feel free to give me your thoughts on our needs by position, with 1 being the most pressing need and 9 being a position of depth. You can use a number twice. Any questions you have about the process can be left in the comments as well....

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

drafttek

Quentin Groves They keep giving us this guy. He is a 3-4 LB not a 4-3. Get him locked out

by Rugbythug on Feb 1, 2008 8:49 AM MST reply actions

I can...

fix this by giving them a 'lockout list' of guys the Broncos would not be interested in because of reasons just like this...

-TSG

www.milehighreport.com

by John Bena on Feb 1, 2008 9:18 AM MST up reply actions

You may consider

locking out Dan conner as well, unless scouts think he can play OLB for us.

It is hard for me to make a list looking purely at need, because I keep making automatic assessments based on availability. Here is a try:

#1: OT. Because we have NO depth at Tackle. We have players (whether they are depth or not is up for debate) at SAF, LB and DT. We simply don't have any bodies at tackle.

#2: tie. DT, SAF. DT could help us make games closer, but another SAF could be the difference in close games.

#3: LB. OLB only at this point. If it aint baroque don't fix it!

#4: KR. Punts and kicks.

#5: Just take the best player on the board!

by Jeremy Bolander on Feb 1, 2008 9:41 AM MST reply actions

The formula...

takes that into account. It gives ratings to a certain position. If a player rated to go that high is not there, it will only "reach" so far before going to the next rating.

I need to find the complete breakdown of how the system works...It is very involved...

-TSG

www.milehighreport.com

by John Bena on Feb 1, 2008 10:17 AM MST up reply actions

My Ratings

QB: 6
RB: 4
WR: 5
TE: 9
OL: 2

DE: 6
DT: 3
OLB: 1
MLB: 7
CB: 5
S: 1

K: 3
P: 2

I hope that's the kind of feedback you were looking for, let me know if it's not.

Let me know if you have any questions about why I ranked certain positions certain ways.

http://www.cover4blog.com

by studbucket on Feb 1, 2008 10:25 AM MST reply actions

My Ratings

QB: 9
RB: 3
WR: 4
TE: 9
OL: 2

DE: 4
DT: 1
OLB: 2
MLB: 3
CB: 5
S: 2

K: 9
P: 5

Here is my rankings. I followed the logic used by Draftek. You may want to peruse there site http://www.drafttek.com/teamneeds2008.html

to see if You agree with me.

by Rugbythug on Feb 1, 2008 12:35 PM MST reply actions

database

I know it would be a real pain. But a computer model is excellent for predictive draft analysis. The real problem I see with this model is that there is only one player ratings list. This is faulty since each club will rate the players independantly. If one could use at least 3 or 4 different lists skewed twoards different team trends. 3-4 teams vs 4-3 , Zone blocking, West coast, spread, Tampa 2 Etc. Assigning different databases for each team would make much more variations especially in late rounds. Much more like the real draft.

by Rugbythug on Feb 1, 2008 12:42 PM MST reply actions

Funny

I emailed those guys with our needs in november. They are really cool guys and used my feedback on their need tables.

I wish I had made the suggestion for mhr to help them as a group.

Drafttek really gets good when they use their full formula.

Orange County is hot. Really! Haven't you seen the weather report?

by amirebram on Feb 1, 2008 3:24 PM MST reply actions

Im a big fan of DraftTek and the guy(s) who run it

And I had a similar thought about doing a Team Needs diary a few weeks ago. Kinda glad I decided not to. I like the more detailed explanation of the what the priorities mean that they posted recently. That, and the ability to set the priority for the second helping of positions with multiple needs is a nice upgrade.

The one thing I would like to see them develop for next year is a "look ahead" feature that not only looks at the players available for the current pick, but projects the players available the next time the team picks and gives that some weight when making the choice. Like a computer chess program, the look ahead could be simple - like just look at the players ranked near where the team next picks and see what is there. (ie. take a S over DT in the 1st because there are other DT's in the 30-50 range to take in the 2nd, but there are no safeties to grab there). Or it could try and get smarter and project how many players at each position would be taken before the team's next pick (based on rankings and priorities). Or it could even project each individual pick up to the next pick to see what the team's options would be. And if anyone has an extra supercomputer laying around, I bet they could write a program to project out the options for the entire draft for each team.

by MattR on Feb 1, 2008 3:59 PM MST up reply actions

My rankings

QB: 9
RB: 2
WR: 4
TE: 8
OL: 1

DE: 5
DT: 1
OLB: 2
MLB: 3
CB: 4
S: 2

K: 9
P: 3

2007=1995 all over again: http://www.milehighreport.com/story/2007/10/1/202724/157

by Tim Lynch on Feb 1, 2008 3:43 PM MST reply actions

Why such a need for RBs?

I think that we have a very good cadre of RBs, with the caveat that our guys did have a lot of injuries. What are your concerns with Henry, Hall Young (and even Bell, he should be well rested after the 2007 season).

by Arctic Bronco on Feb 2, 2008 2:38 AM MST up reply actions

Team needs

This is actually quite tough to do at this point. So much of it depends on who returns (Walker, Henry, Nalen, Hamilton, etc). But here goes

QB: 9
RB: 4 - I am assuming Henry comes back
FB: 4
WR: 4 - I am assuming Walker is too big a hit to cut
TE: 9
OT: 4 (M6)
OG: 5
C: 9

DE: 9
DT: 1 (M4)
OLB: 2
MLB: 6 - assuming DJ stays here
CB: 9 - assuming Paymah and Foxworth return
SS: 2
FS: 2

K: 9
P: 6

While doing this I realized another feature I'd like to see added. If you look at the safety positions, it is impossible to accurately reflect Denver's needs. They have a high need for a starting safety, but it does not matter which position it is. Once that need is met, the priority of the other safety should drop down. I see linebackers and OG/C the same way.

by MattR on Feb 1, 2008 4:12 PM MST reply actions

One question

Does DraftTek take into account past drafting patterns. I know this would not apply to several teams who have high turnover in their personnel departments, but with Denver, there is a history. The main reason I ask is because even though the Broncos have a high need for OT, their history would suggest they wouldn't spend a higher pick on one. Is that taken into account? I'm just having a hard time seeing them spend their 1st rounder on Clady. This may change as more teams are going to zone-blocking, but that remains to be seen.

Or so I'm told.

by MN Bronco on Feb 2, 2008 10:03 AM MST reply actions

No,

They haven't figured out a way to do this yet. Their formula workes based on the assumption that the picks are a combination of need (in 9 levels) and best player available (they have a list of players).

So more need would make a team reach more (on their value table). Or lack of need would allow a team to steal a falling player who is high on their board.

Orange County is hot. Really! Haven't you seen the weather report?

by amirebram on Feb 2, 2008 3:55 PM MST up reply actions