Following the Cookie Crumbs:
Retracing Baalke’s Beginnings
If you want to try to divine
the 49ers’ strategy in the upcoming draft—a stupid endeavor with no chance of
success—like I am, then you need to think like Trent Baalke. And if you want to
think like Trent Baalke you need to study up on Bill Parcells.
Trent Baalke was a former protégée
of Bill Parcells. The Big Tuna was kind enough to go over the basic principles
of his evaluation process in the now (sadly) defunct Bill Parcells’ Draft Confidential on ESPN a couple years back. It’s
hard to say exactly how much Baalke differs from Parcells now that he’s been
drafting on his own for a few years, but it seems like they are operating from
the same basic foundation that Parcells outlined in his ESPN special.
A very concise, but
worthwhile summary of that foundation can be found here from Blogging the Boys…
And another good summary can
be found here from NFL Mocks.
I highly recommend looking
over the information in those links—some of which I will share below—if you
have any interest in understanding why the Niners select the players they
select. It absolutely sheds light on how Baalke got the idea to “reach” for Aldon
Smith at No. 7 overall and Chris Culliver in Round 3 in the 2011 Draft.
And for fans of other teams
it is also similarly important, because Baalke certainly isn’t the only
Parcells disciple out there, though he may be the most successful. (Jeff
Ireland was another one, but he was a
miserable failure.)
I can also say that there are
plenty of teams and evaluators that do not abide by this system. Bill Polian
was present during one of the round table discussions on Bill Parcells’ Draft Confidential and made it clear his grading
system and evaluation of players was very different in some cases. The
difference in grading makes mock drafts impossible, because you can’t think
like 32 GMs, even if some originate from the same scouting tree.
Still, learning the basis of
one system can still help you better understand the draft process and at least
help you identify if your team follows that system closely, semi-closely, or
not at all.
The System: Grading,
Tagging, Drafting
I’ve taken the liberty of reformatting the prototype measurements into a pair of easily read tables, and copying over his letter tagging system. I am so nice and so helpful.
 |
| The hand sizes and arm lengths are lost like dust in the wind... |
A – Dominant and Impact Player
B – Impact Player
C – Impact Player/Undersized
D – Consistent Player
E – Non-competitive player
F – Lacks speed
G –Undersized player
H – Projection
I – Size and Speed
J – Growth potential/Weight
K – Redeeming Quality
You’ll notice that many of
those letter tags have to do with size and speed. Baalke is a huge believer in
Parcells’ “prototype” evaluation system, in which players of certain positions
must meet certain height, weight, arm length and hand size measurements to earn
the highest possible grade. Baalke has consistently used the term “prototype”
in his rare discussions about the draft process, and even admitted recently to
his fascination with long arms.
One of the specific things
mentioned in that piece on Parcells’ program was that Prince Amukamara was his top
CB (over Patrick Peterson it’s worth noting) despite having “short arms for a
corner.” These details seem trivial, especially because they are rarely—if
ever—brought up in the broad-stroke evaluations given by “draft experts” in the
major media, but they just ain't.
I have a huge soft spot for
Brandin Cooks and Lamarcus Joyner, but the likelihood either is selected in the
first round by Trent Baalke is pretty miniscule. They’d HAVE TO get that “C” tag for “Impact player/undersized” to even
warrant consideration in the first round.
In my personal evaluations
both have earned that tag, but even then they are necessarily lesser prospects
than players simply tagged with a “B” for “Impact Player” in Baalke’s grading
system—which may not be the case for other teams, meaning that the grading
system Baalke uses, at its very core, values smaller prospects less than other
teams, so the chances we draft a highly-rated undersized player is slim. Very
slim.
(It should be mentioned that
the only undersized players I can think of that Baalke selected in the first
three rounds are A.J. Jenkins and LaMichael James, one of whom was obviously a
complete bust and the other of whom has not contributed as much as you’d hope a
second round pick would. As Parcells said on his drafting of Pat White, “We violated a principle, and when you do
that it invariably stands up to bite you.”)
Parcells' grading system is
primarily based on a number grade, from 2.0 to 9.0; 2.0 being undraftable and
9.0 being the highest possible grade. 5.5 is the cut-off for being draftable, and
7.0+ is a first-round grade. (He reveals RB Billy Sims received his only ever
9.0 in the 1980 draft.)
The number grading and letter
tagging system go hand in hand, as you can tell from another quote in which he
discusses grading Lawrence Taylor, “Lawrence Taylor was an 8. He played like a
DE and we were drafting him as a linebacker. Great player. But it was
circumstance.”
Because L.T. was an H-player,
“a projection,” he was docked in his number grade (perhaps even a full point).
A (Very) Basic Simulation:
Mocking the Evaluation Process
 |
| from stateofthetexans.com |
Dee Ford should be a fun
example of how a player is graded, so let’s use him. Ford is 6’ 2”, 252 lbs.
with 10 1/4” hands and 32 7/8” arms. He ran a 4.53 and 4.59 unofficially at his
pro day.
First, I’ll grade him at his
college position, 4-3 Rush Defensive End. Ford is drastically undersized
according to the prototype. He does almost meet the requirement for arm length,
which is actually kind of remarkable considering his height. He does have the
necessary speed for the position. He is clearly a talented player, and given
his natural rush ability and motor he is certainly draftable as a 4-3 rush end
despite his size limitations, so he is necessarily above a 5.5. However due to
his size limitations he can’t be considered a Round 1 prospect, especially as a
traditional 4-3 Rush End.
All things considered, Ford
projects as only a situational rusher from the 4-3 end spot, so he’s probably a
mid-round prospect at that spot, so let’s give him a 6.1 rating.
As a 4-3 Rush End Ford grades
out like so: 6.1 GK (the redeeming qualities being excess speed and work
ethic).
Now let’s grade Ford as a 3-4
OLB, which might be a more natural position for him at the next level. Ford is
once again undersized, but not quite as drastically. In fact, he meets most of
the prototype numbers except for height. He’s slightly underweight, but we can
assume that he will add any necessary weight with an NFL training regimen
(giving him a “J” for growth potential/weight). His arms are close enough to
the prototype that we won’t dock him for it either. Once again, he is clearly
above a 5.5 because he is clearly a draftable prospect. He is even more suited
from a body-type standpoint to be a 3-4 OLB than a 4-3 Rush End so that will be
reflected in the grade as well.
Because he’s still undersized
for the position Ford will grade out lower than an 8 in this scenario. Let’s
say that on body-type and athleticism alone Ford grades out to a 7.5. We then
need to dock him for being an H-player, because we are projecting a fairly
dramatic position change. The position change will be a subtraction of 1.0 or
less (L.T. being an 8 by Parcells' standards means 1.0 is the highest a player
going from DE to OLB can be docked on a projection).
Again, all things considered
Ford grades out as a 6.8 (semi-arbitrary, but roll with it). We once again add
in the tags and he is a 6.8 GHJK as a 3-4 OLB.
That grades him out as a Round
2 prospect.
One more time, let’s grade
Ford as a 4-3 SAM LB, which might be his most
natural position at the next level. Traditionally the SAM has extensive
coverage and run defending roles, but the modern 4-3 SAM LB has taken on more
and more of a pass rushing role (for example, Von Miller).
Dee Ford hits or surpasses
every single measurement for a prototype SAM. Add to that his natural pass rush
ability and speed off the edge and you get a player with a very high grade for
the position. If an evaluator believes Ford to have loose enough hips to
develop as a coverage player, and enough strength to shed blockers and take on
power backs one-on-one in the box then he may even get a grade in the high 8s.
If he is seen as deficient in one or more of those areas he probably grades out
in the 6-7 range.
From my own evaluations I
think Ford is slightly deficient in terms of hip fluidity and functional
strength, but not wildly deficient in either. On body-type and athleticism
alone I’ll grade Ford out as a 7.7.
If I were evaluating him as a
very traditional 4-3 SAM playing in a scheme like Lovie Smith’s in Tampa, I
would dock him at least a full point for projection to that position. However,
since the responsibilities in most 4-3 schemes have changed to value pass rush
skills I won’t dock him any more than the 0.7 I docked him when projecting him
to 3-4 OLB. And since he does have skills primarily as a pass rusher he
projects as an impact rusher from the 4-3 SAM spot.
So his grade with his
projection is 7.0. Add in the tags for this evaluation and you get Ford as a 7.0
BHIK.
That puts him as a low-end
first round talent, but in this deep draft probably still pushes him into the 2nd
Round.
Hopefully that little
simulation was fun. It’s pretty simple.
A Note on Everything I’ve Ever Written About the 2014 Draft
My own big board is
fundamentally flawed (and I’ve known this and mentioned it previously) because
it’s not scheme-based. I plan on reordering it with Parcellian grades for the
49ers scheme before the draft—though this will mostly only significantly impact defensive players. Probably only like a 30-50
player board though. No way I’m redoing the whole thing. No fucking way.
Simulation Stimulation Part
II
 |
| from chiefs360.com |
I want to do one more
run-through, just because I want to hit on a player I like a lot and has been
connected to the 49ers by multiple outlets, not just me.
So let’s take a gander at
Brandin Cooks through the microscope of the Parcells-prototype. Parcells’ arm
length and hand size for offensive players aren’t available because he never
fully revealed them during his Draft
Confidential, but I think a safe estimation is 9+ on the hands and 31+ on
the arms (based on his measurements for defensive backs).
Brandin Cooks is 5’9”, 189
lbs. with 9 5/8” hands and 30 7/8” arms. He ran a 4.33 at the Combine.
Right away we knock Cooks for
his size. That’s a given. Any draft evaluator of any grading system would do
that, but it’s especially damning when using this grading system, which places
such a high value on physical measurements. His hand size is adequate—very
important for a wide receiver—and his arm length isn’t that below the norm,
especially for a player of his height.
How much his height hurts his
value is up to the evaluator, as Trent Baalke himself mentioned recently, “You’ve
got to determine does he play 5-9 or does he play 6-foot?” Baalke said.
“Because (Baltimore Ravens receiver) Steve Smith was 5-9, but he played 6-1…There’s
good receivers that play small.”
In my humble opinion Brandin
Cooks is one of the rare 5’9” receivers that plays bigger than his frame. He is
necessarily downgraded due to his size, but will not be downgraded
significantly. He plays tough and competes fiercely for the football. He is a
willing blocker.
Cooks receives high marks for
quickness, agility, balance, explosion, intelligence, character and
competitiveness.
He also gets a “K” for the
redeeming qualities of great speed, having run the fastest 40-time at the
Combine, and for being a Biletnikoff Award winner and team leader.
While he is exceptionally
quick, I do question his long speed to separate on vertical routes on the
outside. Cooks would not be a 9.0 prospect if he did meet the prototype for
wide receiver.
Let’s say I grade Cooks as an
8.2 in all areas except for size, for which he will be docked almost a full
point (slightly less because I believe he plays bigger than his size), giving
him an overall grade of 7.4.
Cooks’ full grade with tags
is 7.4 CDK. Cooks would be a solid Round 1 prospect, although probably not a
high first rounder in this draft class.
It is worth noting that a
receiver like Kelvin Benjamin might have a similar grade to Cooks because in
this grading system Cooks is knocked fairly substantially for his small stature.
If Benjamin were to receive a 7.3 grade based on film alone (whereas Cooks got
an 8.2), Benjamin would still be a very comparable prospect on draft day.
In fact, his grade with tags
could hypothetically look like 7.3 BI, which Baalke might value enough to
gamble on over a prospect like Cooks that technically has a higher grade.
Enough Words…
Scouting NFL talent is an
arbitrary process, but each team definitely has a specific system and approach
to the task. There is method to the madness. It is much, much more than picking
names from a hat. Understanding these prototypes is the first crucial step to understanding
Baalke’s method.
