NFC Analytical 2024 Draft Grades

Quantifying trade, positional and selection value for the most accurate and predictive assessments of how well teams did in the NFL draft

Kwesi Adofo-Mensah and the Vikings embodied the good and bad of NFL drafting. Credit: AP

Three days, seven rounds and 257 picks later, the culmination of months of planning and detail for 32 NFL franchises has come and gone. All that’s left now is to sort through the results. I recently discussed in detail why parsing the noise for signal in draft grading can be so difficult, mostly because the draft media industrial complex doesn’t focus on what’s most important and predictive.

Draft content is mostly about who will be the best players in the NFL, so that’s also what drives most draft grades. The problem is that all the research around the draft shows that giving kudos or demerits based on how teams drafted versus your expectation is a fool’s errand. There’s only a little correlation between a loss in value when teams reach for a player versus consensus, and nearly no correlation if they draft a player later that we think they’ll go before the draft. As I explained in my draft grading philosophy primer:

It isn’t that prospect evaluation doesn’t matter, it’s that NFL teams pour so many resources and expertise into the task that relative success and failure will be narrow, especially over a longer timeline. You shouldn’t take away from the data that no teams are really good at prospect evaluations. Instead it’s that all teams are really good, and likely much better than outside evaluators.

While we can’t rely too heavily on the specific prospects the team chose at there draft slots, there are larger macro forces that teams can leverage to, on average, better their draft outcomes. The two primary drivers of quantifiable draft value are:

• Trade value gained/lost

• Positional value gained/lost

There are extended bodies of research on the value teams can gain trading back in the NFL, and in this analysis I quantify that value through looking at the equivalent value in NFL salary of players similar to those drafted. Rookie contracts are set at artificially low amounts, so the difference in player value over contract value is what the team gains with each draft selection, or surplus value. Different positions are valued much differently in NFL contract markets, so hitting on an All-Pro level running back in the draft gives less surplus value at a particular draft selection than landing an elite edge rusher. When teams are faced with the choice of wear to allocate their draft capital, especially in early rounds, accounting of positional value will skew the odds of success in their favor.

Looking at all the NFC teams in terms of value added ($M) in trades (average expected surplus of picks traded away versus those gained) and what I call selection value (a combination of positional value and a much smaller contribution from taking players after/before their consensus value), you can see that a couple big trades skews the results, and how powerful the impacts of those trades can be.

The pre-draft and in-draft trades for the Vikings burned a ton of surplus. The Vikings moved from the second round to the 23rd pick in anticipation of another move up, presumably for a top quarterback. Instead, the Vikings moved up again to get the falling edge rusher Dallas Turner, a very negative move by the numbers. Trading up for a non-quarterback isn’t always a bad move in hindsight, but it almost always is poor process. Luckily for Vikings fans, their braintrust did an excellent job accumulating positional value, offsetting nearly all of the value lost via trades. They also gained a bit of value relative to the rest of the NFL in their discipline not reaching on players.

The Eagles were on the side of the coin, making an NFL high eight trades: some bad, but mostly good.

Digging further into the two components of selection value, we see that positional value has a bigger relative impact, more than three times the standard deviation of value gained by drafting players versus consensus rankings.

The reach/steal paradigm is going to be the primary driver of most draft grades you see from media analysts this week, yet’s it’s least impactful. Research shows that steals are much less likely to produce benefit than reaches cause harm, so you should be especially skeptical of draft grades that lean heavily into teams who drafted the most players far after their consensus expectations.

Let’s get to our analytical grading, going through each NFL division here. Again, if you want more details why I believe this is the best method for analyzing drafts in a predictive manner, check out my draft grading primer.

Have the Cowboys gone analytics-woke as Jerry Jones is phased out of the decision-making and his son Stephen takes more control? I wouldn’t go that far yet, but the Cowboys gained material value through all three phases of the draft. They gained the entire $13.4 million in surplus value on a single trade-back in the first round, the point in the draft where value is to be made.

The Commanders’ entire positive on the draft comes from positional value, and that’s all from one pick: taking quarterback Jayden Daniels with the second overall pick. Not sure they should get much credit for the selection, but they also added a tiny bit of value moving down 10 picks in the second round. However, discipline versus consensus was a bit of an issue. I don’t hate either pick, but Ben Sinnott and Brandon Coleman were each selected 40-50 before their rankings on the consensus big board as second and third round picks.

The Eagles end up one of the biggest gainers of trade value surplus in the draft, despite make a few negative moves along the way. It’s a bit harsh, but historical surplus value on running back picks, even in the fourth round, are pretty bad versus other positions. This is mostly because the upside of hits at “Tier 1” positions in that range make such a big impact on the positional averages that go into the model.

The Giants continue to be one of the more uninspiring front offices in the NFL. They made no trades, at least adhering to the “do no harm” philosophy. They really get crushed for positional value, taking Malik Nabers in the top-5 where historical averages favor quarterbacks, offensive tackles and pass rushers. Drafting a safety in the second round, the lowest value position in the early round, is a sure-fire way to burn draft capital.