Being Trent Baalke: Entering the Mind of the 49ers' General Manager

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 2^nd 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.