When deciding which player to select and when in the draft has anyone considered applying a positional value to the selection criteria. Most teams without a starting caliber QB apply this naturally--the qb becomes the number one need. What about quantifying that positional value for every selection?
First we would determine the value of each position in regards to that position contributing to the team winning games. Perhaps it would look something like this:
QB: .30
RB: .05
WR: .10
TE: .05
OL: .10
DL: .05
EDGE LB: .1
Inside LB: .05
DB: .2
This number would correlate to that position's contribution to winning games. So, this rough set would tell us coverage players(dbs) are twice as important to winning than EDGE Lbs. We could than apply this against each individual prospects grade to get a 'contribution to win value'. Basically, we would weight the positions that are correlated higher with winning games.
For example, the Whiners this year. It would seem very likely they are set to pick Bosa given Murray is the top pick. However, if say Greedy Williams is rated lessor than Bosa--but CB is twice as important to winning--Greedy the CB should be the pick(trading down definitely best though). Best player available is smart but teams should adjust BPA for the contribution that position makes to winning.
Curious what everyone thinks. This theory has implications for not only whom to select but how many to select. Other than TJ, I am leaning towards an almost all DB draft--we may have to replace two corners and have a 35 year old Safety when these draft picks are in their second year. And in the playoffs coverage is so important.
