What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I need some clarification (1 Viewer)

If Detroit offered the #1 pick, straight up, for the Texans' pick (#15), would YOU take that tra

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Doug Drinen

Doug Drinen

Footballguy
Moderator
[i'm not particularly interested in the Texans in particular. Just pretend they are a generic team with a mid-first-round pick.]

I know there have been threads about passing on the #1 pick and so forth, but there is always a lot of cross talk and I never can figure out what people really believe.

Do people really think the #1 pick is actually BAD? Or are they just saying that it's not as good as the old chart says? When people say, "nobody wants to trade up into the top 5," do they really mean that teams actually don't want those picks, or just that they're not willing to pay (the perhaps now obsolete former) market value for them?

If Detroit announced tonight, "we will give our #1 pick, STRAIGHT UP, for any pick in the 10--20 range," would they have takers? Or would they have to throw in a fourth rounder or something to get rid of the albatross that is the #1 overall?

 
I think it's a given that the higher pick is a better pick to have. That said, I think that gap from 1 to 15 is way too small right now, because of the $$$ needed to sign the higher picks.

Any team makes that trade in a heartbeat...but when has any such trade ever been offered!!!?????

 
Doug Drinen said:
[i'm not particularly interested in the Texans in particular. Just pretend they are a generic team with a mid-first-round pick.]

I know there have been threads about passing on the #1 pick and so forth, but there is always a lot of cross talk and I never can figure out what people really believe.

Do people really think the #1 pick is actually BAD? Or are they just saying that it's not as good as the old chart says? When people say, "nobody wants to trade up into the top 5," do they really mean that teams actually don't want those picks, or just that they're not willing to pay (the perhaps now obsolete former) market value for them?

If Detroit announced tonight, "we will give our #1 pick, STRAIGHT UP, for any pick in the 10--20 range," would they have takers? Or would they have to throw in a fourth rounder or something to get rid of the albatross that is the #1 overall?
Click to expand...
They don't want to pay the compensation it takes to move that high in addition to the signing bonus and salary to the player they draft that high.
 
that's too far of a drop and takes you to a point in the draft when you'll miss out on the elite players. but, most years, I think you're better off picking near the bottom of the top bucket rather than at the top because the salaries drop off pretty quickly after the 1st pick.

it's obviously always better to have your first choice of players. but, when you factor in the compensation and the cap, there's value inherent in getting a similarly valued player at a lower cost.

 
Aaron Rudnicki said:
that's too far of a drop and takes you to a point in the draft when you'll miss out on the elite players. but, most years, I think you're better off picking near the bottom of the top bucket rather than at the top because the salaries drop off pretty quickly after the 1st pick.it's obviously always better to have your first choice of players. but, when you factor in the compensation and the cap, there's value inherent in getting a similarly valued player at a lower cost.
Click to expand...
You guys are killing me! These are exactly the kinds of statements that have me confused.IS THE TOP PICK A GOOD THING OR A BAD THING????I'm not asking if the pick value chart overvalues the top pick. I'm asking whether you'd rather have the #1 pick (and pay the #1 salary) or the #15 pick (and pay the #15 salary)? No other picks involved. A straight up swap.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's undisputed that the top pick is likely to get you a better player than the 15th pick. (On average.)

It should also be undisputed that you'll pay more money to the player selected first than to the player selected 15th.

Given the salary cap, you're asking: is the extra money worth the extra awesomeness of the player?

I'm sure you're aware of this paper arguing that it's not. I think there are problems with their argument, but I don't know whether their conclusion is correct. I suspect it's not, so I voted "yes" to the second poll question, but I don't have a lot of confidence that I'm right.

The first poll question seems a lot easier. NFL teams value higher picks more than they value lower picks. The evidence is that every trade for picks requires the team trading up to give something extra to the team trading down. It's hard to even imagine an exception occurring in real life -- the fans would go nuts. :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug Drinen said:
IS THE TOP PICK A GOOD THING OR A BAD THING????I'm not asking if the pick value chart overvalues the top pick. I'm asking whether you'd rather have the #1 pick (and pay the #1 salary) or the #15 pick (and pay the #15 salary)? No other picks involved. A straight up swap.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have the #1 pick than the #15 pick and voted accordingly in the polls.
 
In most years I would much rather have the #1 pick instead of the #15 pick. Sure, there are always busts but if you have a good GM/coaching staff, and you actually manage to hit on the pick, you can end up with a Peyton Manning.

I'll go look up the last 10 #1 picks vs. the last 10 teen picks.

 
It's only a bad thing from that standpoint that your team from season N-1 was most likely the suck.

I'd take Pick #1 every time unless there were X number of players that I valued equally as the top player. In that case, I'd take Pick X.

 
If Detroit offered the #1 pick, straight up, for the Texans' pick (#15), would the Texans take that trade?

yes [ 11 ] ** [68.75%]

no [ 5 ] ** [31.25%]

Okay, I want to hear from the 5 who voted 'no'.

 
I always laugh when I hear NFL pundits talk about how "teams picking in the top 5 are stuck because no one is willing to trade up to get in the top 5" BS! I scream. Every pick has a value....if no team is willing to trade into the top 5 that only means that the asking price is too high. I think the "chart" everyone is looking at is wrong. I believe most/every NFL teams no that the chart value for a top 5 pick is wrong but they are afraid to take less than chart value because:

1. Kiper and other pundits will skewer them for not getting chart value

2. Fans will skewer them for getting less than chart value

3. Fans like top picks

4. There's a decent chance that somebody really good will get selected at the spot they traded out of (and who wants to be the GM that traded out of the spot that Manning/Peterson/etc. was selected?)

5. Teams picking in the op 5 don't have the smarts/guts/cajones to do what's right and risk alienating fans/media

6. GMs picking in the top 5 don't have the job security to do what's right and risk alienating fans/media

7. GMs know that no one (including the Peter Kings and Mel Kiper's of the world) understand cap management so they view it as better to die going down swinging (i.e. with a top 5 pick) than trying to explain how $ plays into player valuation (this goes for trades also)

8. When a top 5 player busts it's easy to blame it on the player (on when it happens continually does the GM get heat)

Mark my words...someday soon Indy, NE, Pitt, etc. will make a trade for somebody's "next year's #1" and that "next year's #1 will turn out to be a top 5 pick...and the whole NFL draft chart will be corrected when that well-run team trades that top 5 pick straight up for a 10-15 pick. My bet is that team will be NE (only because they love to trade for "next year's #1"...but I wouldn't be totally shocked to see Pioli do it this year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll modify the premise, ever so slightly. With these assumptions:

1) The Lions take Stafford at #1

The Rams decide to take Jason Smith at #2 as they see him as the best tackle prospect on the board and that is their biggest need.

The draft rolls along and we have the Redskins who decide to pick the player regarded as the 4th best OT, Michael Oher at #13, as they also see this as their biggest need.

For this premise both teams believe that Smith is the superior player but that Oher is nearly as good.

They each give Oher a 30% shot at being the better pro than Smith.

They both assume Smith will bust 20% of the time.

They both assume Oher will bust 30% of the time.

Given all these arbitrary (but I believe realistic) assumptions. Would you trade Smith and his #2 money contract for Oher and his #13 money contract?

-QG

 
The Chargers gave up a ton to trade up from #3 to #2 in order to get Ryan Leaf. They would have had to give up even more to get the #1.

They also got a lot of extra picks and players when trading down from #1 (Vick) to #5 (Tomlinson).

They also got a lot of extra picks when trading the first player selected (E.Manning) for the fourth (Rivers).

 
Morton Muffley said:
Mark my words...someday soon Indy, NE, Pitt, etc. will make a trade for somebody's "next year's #1" and that "next year's #1 will turn out to be a top 5 pick...and the whole NFL draft chart will be corrected when that well-run team trades that top 5 pick straight up for a 10-15 pick.
Click to expand...
If they trade the #1 pick straight up for the #15 pick, it's because they couldn't trade the #1 pick for the #15 pick plus a seventh rounder (perhaps in next year's draft).Do you think that's realistic?I think a team will always be able to get additional compensation for the #1, above just the #15.
 
The question really should be would you rather have 1) the #1 pick or 2) the #15 pick plus the free agent that you could acquire with the delta in rookie salaries. What's the difference in guaranteed salary between #1 and #15? $12-$15 million? You won't get a stud with that money, but maybe a proven vet nickel CB or #3 WR. In the salary cap era that's the true issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If any other pick were more valuable than the first, wouldn't the worst record get first choice of where they wanted to draft instead of just being handed 1,01?

 
Doug, I think some of your frustration comes from the fact you're looking for clarity on an issue most haven't weighed in on. Asking if you would swap the 15th for the 1st straight up bears almost no semblance of the kinds of discussions that usually surround the top pick. It's always a part of a broader discussion on the implications the top pick has, it's not in a vacuum.

In a vacuum, who wouldn't want the 1st instead of the 15th? :shrug:

 
TenTimes said:
If any other pick were more valuable than the first, wouldn't the worst record get first choice of where they wanted to draft instead of just being handed 1,01?
Click to expand...
I proposed this in a law school paper last year. I also wondered why no team had ever intentionally let their time expire.
 
guderian said:
The question really should be would you rather have 1) the #1 pick or 2) the #15 pick plus the free agent that you could acquire with the delta in rookie salaries.
Click to expand...
Minus the roster spot that the free agent takes up.(I.e., you get the same number of free agents whether you have the #1 pick or the #15 pick. It's just that you can pay them a bit more if you have the #15 pick.)
 
scoobygang said:
I also wondered why no team had ever intentionally let their time expire.
Click to expand...
Well that part is easy, it's because whomever they ended up selecting would most likely hold out to be paid as if they were selected in the teams original draft spot anyway, so it wouldn't do them any good.As for letting them choose where they want to pick, I think it's just a situation where when the rule was created obviously everyone would pick the next highest available pick, and the rule was never adjusted for the current era.
 
TenTimes said:
If any other pick were more valuable than the first, wouldn't the worst record get first choice of where they wanted to draft instead of just being handed 1,01?
Click to expand...
Only if the idea were to promote parity.If the idea were to give the best teams a locked-in perpetual advantage, you'd get exactly the current system. :shrug:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Morton Muffley said:
Mark my words...someday soon Indy, NE, Pitt, etc. will make a trade for somebody's "next year's #1" and that "next year's #1 will turn out to be a top 5 pick...and the whole NFL draft chart will be corrected when that well-run team trades that top 5 pick straight up for a 10-15 pick.
Click to expand...
If they trade the #1 pick straight up for the #15 pick, it's because they couldn't trade the #1 pick for the #15 pick plus a seventh rounder (perhaps in next year's draft).Do you think that's realistic?I think a team will always be able to get additional compensation for the #1, above just the #15.
Click to expand...
I agree in the case of #1 for #15, but I was merely trying to illustrate that I believe that even within the top half of the draft the following formula is not NECESSARILY true any longer:n>n+xnow we can debate the value of n and x, but I'd submit that up until five years ago n>n+x but now there are values in the top half of the first round where that is no longer true. Maybe it's only where n=5 and x= any number from 3 to 5, but I really believe that's true. Now "true" is another word we'll need tp define and here I mean mathematically true, because as we all know value is whatever someone is willing to pay, so as long as someone is willing to give up something to move up then my thesis is not realistically true. But I think one only needs to examine the paucity of trades in the top 10 to realize that something is wrong with the valuations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason Wood said:
In a vacuum, who wouldn't want the 1st instead of the 15th? :shrug:
Click to expand...
Massey & Thaler. :fishing: (What's the difference between a vacuum and a non-vacuum? I mean, teams pick in whatever environment they pick in. I think the question is, in the environment that teams actually pick in, is the #1 preferable to the #15?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Jason Wood said:
In a vacuum, who wouldn't want the 1st instead of the 15th? :bow:
Click to expand...
Massey & Thaler. :fishing: (What's the difference between a vacuum and a non-vacuum? I mean, teams pick in whatever environment they pick in. I think the question is, in the environment that teams actually pick in, is the #1 preferable to the #15?)
Click to expand...
No, because picking 1 means you're the worst team in the league, picking 15 means you're a middle of the pack team. :lmao:
 
Morton Muffley said:
I always laugh when I hear NFL pundits talk about how "teams picking in the top 5 are stuck because no one is willing to trade up to get in the top 5" BS! I scream. Every pick has a value....if no team is willing to trade into the top 5 that only means that the asking price is too high. I think the "chart" everyone is looking at is wrong. I believe most/every NFL teams no that the chart value for a top 5 pick is wrong but they are afraid to take less than chart value because:

1. Kiper and other pundits will skewer them for not getting chart value

2. Fans will skewer them for getting less than chart value

3. Fans like top picks

4. There's a decent chance that somebody really good will get selected at the spot they traded out of (and who wants to be the GM that traded out of the spot that Manning/Peterson/etc. was selected?)

5. Teams picking in the op 5 don't have the smarts/guts/cajones to do what's right and risk alienating fans/media

6. GMs picking in the top 5 don't have the job security to do what's right and risk alienating fans/media

7. GMs know that no one (including the Peter Kings and Mel Kiper's of the world) understand cap management so they view it as better to die going down swinging (i.e. with a top 5 pick) than trying to explain how $ plays into player valuation (this goes for trades also)

8. When a top 5 player busts it's easy to blame it on the player (on when it happens continually does the GM get heat)

Mark my words...someday soon Indy, NE, Pitt, etc. will make a trade for somebody's "next year's #1" and that "next year's #1 will turn out to be a top 5 pick...and the whole NFL draft chart will be corrected when that well-run team trades that top 5 pick straight up for a 10-15 pick. My bet is that team will be NE (only because they love to trade for "next year's #1"...but I wouldn't be totally shocked to see Pioli do it this year.
Click to expand...
Marked.........That will NEVER happen.

 
Jason Wood said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Jason Wood said:
In a vacuum, who wouldn't want the 1st instead of the 15th? :bow:
Click to expand...
Massey & Thaler. :fishing: (What's the difference between a vacuum and a non-vacuum? I mean, teams pick in whatever environment they pick in. I think the question is, in the environment that teams actually pick in, is the #1 preferable to the #15?)
Click to expand...
No, because picking 1 means you're the worst team in the league, picking 15 means you're a middle of the pack team. :lmao:
Click to expand...
not if you got the pick via trade.
 
Jason Wood said:
No, because picking 1 means you're the worst team in the league, picking 15 means you're a middle of the pack team. :bow:
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think that was Clayton's point. Having the #1 means your team is bad, which is bad.But given that your team had the worst record in the league last year, is the #1 better than the #15? I mean, let's say we went with the TenTimes/scoobygang idea, and the team with the worst record the previous year gets to pick whatever draft position they want. In normal years, would a team be more likely to take the #1 pick than the #15 pick?

(I think, based on your previous post, you'd say yes.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Morton Muffley said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Morton Muffley said:
Mark my words...someday soon Indy, NE, Pitt, etc. will make a trade for somebody's "next year's #1" and that "next year's #1 will turn out to be a top 5 pick...and the whole NFL draft chart will be corrected when that well-run team trades that top 5 pick straight up for a 10-15 pick.
Click to expand...
If they trade the #1 pick straight up for the #15 pick, it's because they couldn't trade the #1 pick for the #15 pick plus a seventh rounder (perhaps in next year's draft).Do you think that's realistic?

I think a team will always be able to get additional compensation for the #1, above just the #15.
Click to expand...
I agree in the case of #1 for #15, but I was merely trying to illustrate that I believe that even within the top half of the draft the following formula is not NECESSARILY true any longer:n>n+x

now we can debate the value of n and x, but I'd submit that up until five years ago n>n+x but now there are values in the top half of the first round where that is no longer true. Maybe it's only where n=5 and x= any number from 3 to 5, but I really believe that's true. Now "true" is another word we'll need tp define and here I mean mathematically true, because as we all know value is whatever someone is willing to pay, so as long as someone is willing to give up something to move up then my thesis is not realistically true. But I think one only needs to examine the paucity of trades in the top 10 to realize that something is wrong with the valuations.
Click to expand...
Maurile-Just so there's no confusion as to what I'm railing against...here is an NFL Draft Chart Value. According to this chart, the SB winning team would need to give up ALL of this year's and ALL of next year's picks in order to get this year's #4 overall pick. Do you think that's realistic? Now I don't know if teams are really using this chart (I suspect they aren't), but I do believe they are using something more similar to this than to something that better values the top 5 picks. That's all I was trying to communicate.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
TenTimes said:
If any other pick were more valuable than the first, wouldn't the worst record get first choice of where they wanted to draft instead of just being handed 1,01?
Click to expand...
Only if the idea were to promote parity.If the idea were to give the best teams a locked-in perpetual advantage, you'd get exactly the current system. :bow:
Click to expand...
I believe the NFL believes in competition. But I've been wrong before.
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Jason Wood said:
No, because picking 1 means you're the worst team in the league, picking 15 means you're a middle of the pack team. :bow:
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think that was Clayton's point. Having the #1 means your team is bad, which is bad.But given that your team had the worst record in the league last year, is the #1 better than the #15? I mean, let's say we went with the TenTimes/scoobygang idea, and the team with the worst record the previous year gets to pick whatever draft position they want. In normal years, would a team be more likely to take the #1 pick than the #15 pick?

(I think, based on your previous post, you'd say yes.)
Click to expand...
They damn well should be. If I was a team owner and my GM came to me and tried to explain the 'risk reward' was better taking the 15th pick, I would immediately start explaining the terms of his severance package.
 
Carolina Hustler said:
Morton Muffley said:
I always laugh when I hear NFL pundits talk about how "teams picking in the top 5 are stuck because no one is willing to trade up to get in the top 5" BS! I scream. Every pick has a value....if no team is willing to trade into the top 5 that only means that the asking price is too high. I think the "chart" everyone is looking at is wrong. I believe most/every NFL teams no that the chart value for a top 5 pick is wrong but they are afraid to take less than chart value because:

1. Kiper and other pundits will skewer them for not getting chart value

2. Fans will skewer them for getting less than chart value

3. Fans like top picks

4. There's a decent chance that somebody really good will get selected at the spot they traded out of (and who wants to be the GM that traded out of the spot that Manning/Peterson/etc. was selected?)

5. Teams picking in the op 5 don't have the smarts/guts/cajones to do what's right and risk alienating fans/media

6. GMs picking in the top 5 don't have the job security to do what's right and risk alienating fans/media

7. GMs know that no one (including the Peter Kings and Mel Kiper's of the world) understand cap management so they view it as better to die going down swinging (i.e. with a top 5 pick) than trying to explain how $ plays into player valuation (this goes for trades also)

8. When a top 5 player busts it's easy to blame it on the player (on when it happens continually does the GM get heat)

Mark my words...someday soon Indy, NE, Pitt, etc. will make a trade for somebody's "next year's #1" and that "next year's #1 will turn out to be a top 5 pick...and the whole NFL draft chart will be corrected when that well-run team trades that top 5 pick straight up for a 10-15 pick. My bet is that team will be NE (only because they love to trade for "next year's #1"...but I wouldn't be totally shocked to see Pioli do it this year.
Click to expand...
Marked.........That will NEVER happen.
Click to expand...
OK, will it surprise you if I too am ready to admit that I was overzealous in that part of the above post? :unsure: what I meant to predict was that someone would do something that looks very strange from simply a chart value perspective. Agree that top 5 to 10-15 is too big of a drop.

P.S. How's that for NOT sticking to my guns?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Morton Muffley said:
Maurile-

Just so there's no confusion as to what I'm railing against...here is an NFL Draft Chart Value. According to this chart, the SB winning team would need to give up ALL of this year's and ALL of next year's picks in order to get this year's #4 overall pick. Do you think that's realistic? Now I don't know if teams are really using this chart (I suspect they aren't), but I do believe they are using something more similar to this than to something that better values the top 5 picks. That's all I was trying to communicate.
Click to expand...
That's more than what the Saints gave up for Ricky. :unsure: I think the curve of the standard Draft Chart Value declines too steeply. Way to steeply. I'm with you on that. The more interesting question (IMO) is whether the curve should flatten out so much that it actually more than flattens out and goes upward somewhere. (Such that the Xth pick is worth more than the Yth pick where X>Y.)

 
Morton Muffley said:
Morton Muffley said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Morton Muffley said:
Mark my words...someday soon Indy, NE, Pitt, etc. will make a trade for somebody's "next year's #1" and that "next year's #1 will turn out to be a top 5 pick...and the whole NFL draft chart will be corrected when that well-run team trades that top 5 pick straight up for a 10-15 pick.
Click to expand...
If they trade the #1 pick straight up for the #15 pick, it's because they couldn't trade the #1 pick for the #15 pick plus a seventh rounder (perhaps in next year's draft).Do you think that's realistic?

I think a team will always be able to get additional compensation for the #1, above just the #15.
Click to expand...
I agree in the case of #1 for #15, but I was merely trying to illustrate that I believe that even within the top half of the draft the following formula is not NECESSARILY true any longer:n>n+x

now we can debate the value of n and x, but I'd submit that up until five years ago n>n+x but now there are values in the top half of the first round where that is no longer true. Maybe it's only where n=5 and x= any number from 3 to 5, but I really believe that's true. Now "true" is another word we'll need tp define and here I mean mathematically true, because as we all know value is whatever someone is willing to pay, so as long as someone is willing to give up something to move up then my thesis is not realistically true. But I think one only needs to examine the paucity of trades in the top 10 to realize that something is wrong with the valuations.
Click to expand...
Maurile-Just so there's no confusion as to what I'm railing against...here is an NFL Draft Chart Value. According to this chart, the SB winning team would need to give up ALL of this year's and ALL of next year's picks in order to get this year's #4 overall pick. Do you think that's realistic? Now I don't know if teams are really using this chart (I suspect they aren't), but I do believe they are using something more similar to this than to something that better values the top 5 picks. That's all I was trying to communicate.
Click to expand...
that particular chart most likely gets more use on internet message boards than it does in the nfl.that said, I've never seen one where the #15 is worth more points than the #1.

 
Morton Muffley said:
Carolina Hustler said:
Morton Muffley said:
I always laugh when I hear NFL pundits talk about how "teams picking in the top 5 are stuck because no one is willing to trade up to get in the top 5" BS! I scream. Every pick has a value....if no team is willing to trade into the top 5 that only means that the asking price is too high. I think the "chart" everyone is looking at is wrong. I believe most/every NFL teams no that the chart value for a top 5 pick is wrong but they are afraid to take less than chart value because:

1. Kiper and other pundits will skewer them for not getting chart value

2. Fans will skewer them for getting less than chart value

3. Fans like top picks

4. There's a decent chance that somebody really good will get selected at the spot they traded out of (and who wants to be the GM that traded out of the spot that Manning/Peterson/etc. was selected?)

5. Teams picking in the op 5 don't have the smarts/guts/cajones to do what's right and risk alienating fans/media

6. GMs picking in the top 5 don't have the job security to do what's right and risk alienating fans/media

7. GMs know that no one (including the Peter Kings and Mel Kiper's of the world) understand cap management so they view it as better to die going down swinging (i.e. with a top 5 pick) than trying to explain how $ plays into player valuation (this goes for trades also)

8. When a top 5 player busts it's easy to blame it on the player (on when it happens continually does the GM get heat)

Mark my words...someday soon Indy, NE, Pitt, etc. will make a trade for somebody's "next year's #1" and that "next year's #1 will turn out to be a top 5 pick...and the whole NFL draft chart will be corrected when that well-run team trades that top 5 pick straight up for a 10-15 pick. My bet is that team will be NE (only because they love to trade for "next year's #1"...but I wouldn't be totally shocked to see Pioli do it this year.
Click to expand...
Marked.........That will NEVER happen.
Click to expand...
OK, will it surprise you if I too am ready to admit that I was overzealous in that part of the above post? :unsure: what I meant to predict was that someone would do something that looks very strange from simply a chart value perspective. Agree that top 5 to 10-15 is too big of a drop.

P.S. How's that for NOT sticking to my guns?
Click to expand...
I understand what you're suggesting. I just don't see it happening. Not even for a 2-5 pick drop. There are to many variables that aren't being considered here.

No team would straight up offer a #1 pick for a #6, 15, whatever. They would be looking for a little something extra. And no team holding a #15 pick would be brazen enough to suggest the trade to the #1 straight up. And, once negotiation started, who is going to go from asking for something very reasonable like a #1 for a #15 and a 5th rounder, to getting bent over trading straight up.

And, at this point in history, aren't the teams holding the #15 picks going to understand the economics just as well as the teams holding #1's. So if indeed the #1 was a bad pick, who would trade for it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Morton Muffley said:
Maurile-

Just so there's no confusion as to what I'm railing against...here is an NFL Draft Chart Value. According to this chart, the SB winning team would need to give up ALL of this year's and ALL of next year's picks in order to get this year's #4 overall pick. Do you think that's realistic? Now I don't know if teams are really using this chart (I suspect they aren't), but I do believe they are using something more similar to this than to something that better values the top 5 picks. That's all I was trying to communicate.
Click to expand...
That's more than what the Saints gave up for Ricky. :unsure: I think the curve of the standard Draft Chart Value declines too steeply. Way to steeply. I'm with you on that. The more interesting question (IMO) is whether the curve should flatten out so much that it actually more than flattens out and goes upward somewhere. (Such that the Xth pick is worth more than the Yth pick where X>Y.)
Click to expand...
My belief is that in theory X>Y (i.e. even if I were creating the draft chart value), but in reality there are likely many instances where Y>X. For example, the chart (both theirs, yours, and mine) would be based on the average value of each draft position over many years. In this case we would likely see X>Y at every position throughout the chart. BUT in any particular draft we would also see many instances where we (as an NFL team) had 2 or more players available to us that we rated equally. In these instances (and don't you imagine there'd be many?) Y>X because we would prefer to trade down and select the remaining player. If we had 2 players rated equally we could trade down one spot, 3 players rated equally we could trade down two spots, etc. Now there are many reasons why we don't see this happen during the draft (time pressures, need for our trade partner to WANT to move up, etc.), but surely you'd agree that this apparent abnormality must actually occur quite often.
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
FreeBaGeL said:
scoobygang said:
I also wondered why no team had ever intentionally let their time expire.
Click to expand...
Well that part is easy, it's because whomever they ended up selecting would most likely hold out to be paid as if they were selected in the teams original draft spot anyway, so it wouldn't do them any good.
Click to expand...
Unless they pretended to do it by mistake. See: The 2003 Vikings. :confused:
Click to expand...
Who, if I'm not mistaken, had the #7 pick and fell back to #9, but got locked up into a contract dispute before finally paying the pick as if he were the #7 pick.So even that doesn't really work.

 
Slightly wrong question?

15 might be a bit far to drop and still get a premium guy, so yeah, I'd roll the dice on #1. But if you look at the #1 pick vs the #5 pick over the last 10 years or so, you'd be very hard pressed to say the #1s outperformed the #5s, and they made a TON more money.

Long/Dorsey: looks like Long, but pretty early

Russell/Levi Brown: I'd rather have Brown, but again, early

Mario Williams/AJ Hawk: both look very good, edge to Mario

Alex Smith/ Caddy: Smith huge bust, Caddy injured, but he was at least decent when he played

Eli/Sean Taylor: both excellent players, Taylor was regarded as having basically unrivaled skills at his position before he was killed

Palmer/Terence Newman: again, both excellent players

Carr/Quentin Jammer: neither one are studs, but Jammer is still starting, right?

Vick/LT: Vick is Vick and LT almost certainly HOFer

Courtney Brown/Jamal Lewis: Lewis all day and twice on Sundays

Tim Couch/Ricky Williams: pass the pipe please, give those couple of great years

Quite honestly, I'd rather have the 5s at their salaries than the ones at theirs and its not that close. Couple of those 1s set their team back a LONG time. Also worth noting, there don't seem to be ANY complete busts at #5. Couple of borderline guys, but no one on the Couch/Brown/Smith level.

I picked 5 as a nice round number. Didn't look too much at 4s and 6s surrounding.

Similarly, I honestly believe that if Detroit could do an even-up trade of #1 for #3 WITHOUT looking like idiots they'd do it, and it would be a smart move.

But to answer YOUR questions, yes, I'd gladly take #1 for #15. On the other hand, by the chart the #1 is worth nearly three #15s, and I don't think that's even in the ballpark in terms of real value. I'd much rather have two #15s (let alone three) in an average year than one #1. The ones have essentially busted half the time over the past 10 years and they have eaten a ton of salary doing it. The #15s bust too, but at least they don't kill your team cap.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
TenTimes said:
If any other pick were more valuable than the first, wouldn't the worst record get first choice of where they wanted to draft instead of just being handed 1,01?
Click to expand...
Only if the idea were to promote parity.If the idea were to give the best teams a locked-in perpetual advantage, you'd get exactly the current system. :popcorn:
Click to expand...
Actually letting the worst teams pick their slot could help the best teams more. A Millen-run organization would likley select a spot in the top tier, but below #1, so that they miss out on the true top tier. A cheap owner would pick later to save on salary, and talent isn't the big thing.
 
I understand what you're suggesting. I just don't see it happening. Not even for a 2-5 pick drop.

There are to many variables that aren't being considered here.

No team would straight up offer a #1 pick for a #6, 15, whatever. They would be looking for a little something extra. And no team holding a #15 pick would be brazen enough to suggest the trade to the #1 straight up. And, once negotiation started, who is going to go from asking for something very reasonable like a #1 for a #15 and a 5th rounder, to getting bent over trading straight up.

And, at this point in history, aren't the teams holding the #15 picks going to understand the economics just as well as the teams holding #1's. So if indeed the #1 was a bad pick, who would trade for it?
Click to expand...
If this ever did happen, it would take a perfect storm of circumstances with the right combination of teams and salary cap circumstances. Sadly, I believe it will take a trade like this to occur before the NFL will seriously look at implementing a rookie salary cap.
 
stevegamer said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
TenTimes said:
If any other pick were more valuable than the first, wouldn't the worst record get first choice of where they wanted to draft instead of just being handed 1,01?
Click to expand...
Only if the idea were to promote parity.If the idea were to give the best teams a locked-in perpetual advantage, you'd get exactly the current system. :tinfoilhat:
Click to expand...
Actually letting the worst teams pick their slot could help the best teams more. A Millen-run organization would likley select a spot in the top tier, but below #1, so that they miss out on the true top tier. A cheap owner would pick later to save on salary, and talent isn't the big thing.
Click to expand...
Millen would probably take picks #218 through #224 for his 7 picks.-QG
 
How about looking at best value available?

Here's who you get at the top of the draft (top 3 picks) and pay like franchise players:

2008: Matt Ryan

2007: Calvin/Joe Thomas

2006: Mario Williams

2005: Braylon Edwards

2004: Larry Fitz

2003: Carson/Andre Johnson

2002: Julius Peppers

2001: Mike Vick

If you slide down a dozen picks (13-17), this is who you can draft at a more reasonable salary

2008: Stewart/DRC

2007: Lawrence Timmons

2006: I don't even know here

2005: Jamaal Brown

2004: Tommie Harris, Lee Evans or Shawn Andrews

2003: Troy Polamalu

2002: Albert Haynesworth

2001: Marcus Stroud, Santana Moss or Steve Hutchinson

Pretty clear that if you're looking for a perrenial pro bowler you're much better off at the top of the draft. The risk in drafting Courtney Brown, Alex Smith or Robert Gallery is time as much as it is money.

 
Jason Wood said:
Doug, I think some of your frustration comes from the fact you're looking for clarity on an issue most haven't weighed in on. Asking if you would swap the 15th for the 1st straight up bears almost no semblance of the kinds of discussions that usually surround the top pick. It's always a part of a broader discussion on the implications the top pick has, it's not in a vacuum.In a vacuum, who wouldn't want the 1st instead of the 15th? :goodposting:
Click to expand...
That is precisely my question. LOTS of people every year (Sigmund Bloom on NFLDTL last week for example) say things like "the first pick is really a penalty." Or they call it an albatross. Or they say no one is willing to trade up to it.If I'm understanding you correctly, they don't really mean those things at all. They still think it's the best single pick to have, all things considered. They just mean that the first pick isn't as valuable as it used to be. Teams WOULD BE willing to trade up to it, just not for Jimmy Johnson price. I honestly did not know if that's what those people meant.
 
I almost feel like this is a trick question. Why wouldn't you want the best pick in the draft? Just the money? If you somehow draft the best player at #15 they'll hold out to rework their deal before it's completed anyway, or you'll have to trade them.

 
Choke said:
Doug Drinen said:
Jason Wood said:
Doug, I think some of your frustration comes from the fact you're looking for clarity on an issue most haven't weighed in on. Asking if you would swap the 15th for the 1st straight up bears almost no semblance of the kinds of discussions that usually surround the top pick. It's always a part of a broader discussion on the implications the top pick has, it's not in a vacuum.In a vacuum, who wouldn't want the 1st instead of the 15th? :goodposting:
Click to expand...
That is precisely my question. LOTS of people every year (Sigmund Bloom on NFLDTL last week for example) say things like "the first pick is really a penalty." Or they call it an albatross. Or they say no one is willing to trade up to it.If I'm understanding you correctly, they don't really mean those things at all. They still think it's the best single pick to have, all things considered. They just mean that the first pick isn't as valuable as it used to be. Teams WOULD BE willing to trade up to it, just not for Jimmy Johnson price. I honestly did not know if that's what those people meant.
Click to expand...
They are simply mistaken. For some it may be just a bit too much hyperbole, perhaps.
Click to expand...
I think people get caught up in finding "value." You can't have value at #1 but you can be excited (in April) about someone falling to you at #20. There's plenty of time for that on day two. I say take the #1 pick, take your "B-" draft grade that nobody will remember in June and walk away with the guy you think is the best in the entire draft.
 
Doug Drinen said:
Jason Wood said:
Doug, I think some of your frustration comes from the fact you're looking for clarity on an issue most haven't weighed in on. Asking if you would swap the 15th for the 1st straight up bears almost no semblance of the kinds of discussions that usually surround the top pick. It's always a part of a broader discussion on the implications the top pick has, it's not in a vacuum.In a vacuum, who wouldn't want the 1st instead of the 15th? <_<
Click to expand...
That is precisely my question. LOTS of people every year (Sigmund Bloom on NFLDTL last week for example) say things like "the first pick is really a penalty." Or they call it an albatross. Or they say no one is willing to trade up to it.If I'm understanding you correctly, they don't really mean those things at all. They still think it's the best single pick to have, all things considered. They just mean that the first pick isn't as valuable as it used to be. Teams WOULD BE willing to trade up to it, just not for Jimmy Johnson price. I honestly did not know if that's what those people meant.
Click to expand...
:lol: I think that's what they mean :lmao:Bloom is wicked smart, and usually well thought out so I can't see him saying the 1st pick is an albatross without meaning it in totality versus in a vacuum.I also think the "top picks suck" mantra has gotten louder lately because of Commissioner Goodell publicly decrying rookie salaries and thus a lot of fans are starting to buy into the notion that rookie salaries, particularly for top picks, are out of control.
 
was listening to Mike and Mike this morning and they said that supposedly Houston called up the Jets about swapping the #1 for the #4 back in 2006 and Tannenbaum asked what else the Texans would be willing to throw in. Sadly no source link, but found it interesting given this thread.

-QG

 
I think your question with the number at 15 is designed to illicit a specific response, and not really fair. I think a series of poll questions that was the #1 vs the #2 straight up, or the #1 vs. the #3, #4 or #5, etc. would end up showing that more and more people vote to slide down one or two slots because they are still getting similar caliber of talent while paying less money, which I think is the crux of the conversation about people not wanting to trade for higher picks. But by picking the number 15, you are clearly going to get a dropdown in talent, which makes it a loaded question, IMO.

 
Neil Beaufort Zod said:
I almost feel like this is a trick question. Why wouldn't you want the best pick in the draft? Just the money?
Click to expand...
Teams will obviously want the best pick in the draft. The question is whether the #1 pick is the best, or whether some other pick is.
If you somehow draft the best player at #15 they'll hold out to rework their deal before it's completed anyway, or you'll have to trade them.
Click to expand...
Teams will often extend a player before his rookie contract is up to avoid letting him become a free agent (at which point they'd generally have to pay him even more to retain him).But I don't know of many examples where a player has held out in order to get such an extension. It's really a losing proposition since the player needs accrued seasons before he becomes a free agent, and holding out doesn't get him accrued seasons. He needs to have free agency in sight to get any leverage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll Poll
Footballguys Rankings - Viewable By Individual Rankers - Did you know?
Replies
8
Views
308
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Hooper31
Grade your team's draft from 2022
Replies
16
Views
602
Terpman22
Terpman22
FreeBaGeL
Brock Bowers and recent history of elite rookie TEs
Replies
4
Views
587
Donnybrook
Donnybrook

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top