San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 New Era, you're a good poster so I'll humor you…but this topic is audacious to say the least. Ditka was fired following the season in which he made that ill-fated trade. Meanwhile the Redskins took those picks and drafted three Pro Bowlers…Champ Bailey, Jon Jansen, and LaVarr Arrington. That trade was roundly looked at as a doomed miscalculation and a joke. On top of that, the Packers would be THE LAST team to execute such a trade. Green Bay President Mark Murphy (who btw attended Clarence High School…he was born in Millard Fillmore Suburban) and GM Ted Thompson have said numerous times that the lifeblood of the franchise is the draft. Every year the Packers seem to draft a Pro Bowler and a few other starters. Now if you had said the Jets or the Redskins...
NewEra Posted April 14, 2011 Author Posted April 14, 2011 I think you wasted a lot of time and energy creating this thread. You are illustrating a point that should be obvious to anyone who is not a complete retard. Obviously the NFL draft pick value chart is just a tool used by teams to ESTIMATE the equity of a given trade involving a draft pick. The figures are not absolute, and of course the Packers are not going to trade all their draft picks for the next two years for the #3 this year. Your whole example is completely ridiculous. God, I can't wait for the draft!! I wasted about 15 minutes. Compare that to all the time I've wasted in the Von Miller is too small thread and I think I saved some time. I wrote it because there were a seveal posts I read that were saying that it's a great tool, if Jimmy Johnson put it together it must be good. Also, when posters discuss how we should trade down, they use the chart as an example of what we can get in return. It's very relevant considering where we are picking this year and how overvalued our pick is in terms of the "chart". I think it proved a point of how the higher picks are overvalued. If you don't, fine by me. New Era, you're a good poster so I'll humor you…but this topic is audacious to say the least. Ditka was fired following the season in which he made that ill-fated trade. Meanwhile the Redskins took those picks and drafted three Pro Bowlers…Champ Bailey, Jon Jansen, and LaVarr Arrington. That trade was roundly looked at as a doomed miscalculation and a joke. On top of that, the Packers would be THE LAST team to execute such a trade. Green Bay President Mark Murphy (who btw attended Clarence High School…he was born in Millard Fillmore Suburban) and GM Ted Thompson have said numerous times that the lifeblood of the franchise is the draft. Every year the Packers seem to draft a Pro Bowler and a few other starters. Now if you had said the Jets or the Redskins... Thanks, I value your opinion. Any gm that would accept that trade would be fired soon there after. Just an example how unfair an "equal value" trade can be, according tonthe value chart.
NoSaint Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 I wasted about 15 minutes. Compare that to all the time I've wasted in the Von Miller is too small thread and I think I saved some time. I wrote it because there were a seveal posts I read that were saying that it's a great tool, if Jimmy Johnson put it together it must be good. Also, when posters discuss how we should trade down, they use the chart as an example of what we can get in return. It's very relevant considering where we are picking this year and how overvalued our pick is in terms of the "chart". I think it proved a point of how the higher picks are overvalued. If you don't, fine by me. Thanks, I value your opinion. Any gm that would accept that trade would be fired soon there after. Just an example how unfair an "equal value" trade can be, according tonthe value chart. Or did you just confirm why we never ever see the big 32 to 3 jump? Because the values ARE ridiculously far off from each other and it doesn't make sense to execute it. No team is going to give that up for fear of losing jobs and no team is going to discount it on the strong chance #3 is a HoF talent..
BuckeyeBill Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 In Defense of the Value Chart... I usually print out a copy and enjoy watching the draft with it in hand. I like to imagine where or how the trades might occur (especially concerning potential Bills trades). Of course, teams don't follow it precisely but here's two instances in recent Bills Draft History where I saw it work. 1. After the Bills drafted Donte Whitner (remember that year), I remembered that they were really weak at Defensive Line and thought that they potentially might move up to get Ngata or Bunkley or someone like that. I looked at the chart and determined that the Bills could probably make a move near the end of Round 1. I found their sweet spot where they would most likely move up to trade based on the chart. Of course those two DL were taken before the Bill's sweet spot at the end of Round 1, but when it came... the Bills did move up EXACTLY where the chart said they might... and they selected John McCargo. 2. A similar situation happened with the Bills drafted Marshawn Lynch. I thought they wanted a linebacker and immediately I thought of Posluszny. I looked at the chart and saw that the Bills could have moved into picks 30-35 range (the sweet spot), but Poz would have to fall. I remember after pick 30 came up, I began listening, hoping the Bills would pick up Poz (because he was slipping). At pick 34, the Bills moved up and got who I hoped they would. They also got him about WHERE I thought they could get him. So the chart is useful... at least from an entertainment point of view.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 I think you wasted a lot of time and energy creating this thread. You are illustrating a point that should be obvious to anyone who is not a complete retard. Obviously the NFL draft pick value chart is just a tool used by teams to ESTIMATE the equity of a given trade involving a draft pick. The figures are not absolute, and of course the Packers are not going to trade all their draft picks for the next two years for the #3 this year. Your whole example is completely ridiculous. God, I can't wait for the draft!! I actually find the example posed by New Era pretty thought-provoking. What WOULD it take to trade up from #32 to #1? - - More about that in a minute. It's pretty easy for all the arm-chair expert GMs around here to give an instantaneous off-the-cuff reaction to a hypothetical trade, and do it not only without trying to look up what draft pick trades have been made in the past for reference, but in many cases without even reading the full text of the OP. There's room for intelligent debate about the extent to which the draft value chart can be used to predict what draft picks a team could probably get for trading down in the first round. Don't believe me? Read this link: http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/2/21/2004303/dispelling-myths-about-nfl-draft-trades I haven't tried to fact check the author's work, but the article makes a pretty compelling case for how the draft value chart is surprisingly accurate in predicting what you can get in return for trading down, at least where the trade down is one with some sort of historical reference point. In other words, with a few exceptions, pretty much all of the draft pick trades THAT ARE ACTUALLY MADE do seem to fall reasonably close to what the chart predicts as fair value. New Era makes a good case for the values at the top of the chart being "whack" - - so much so that lots of us took whacks at him. In a different thread, he posted an even more comprehensive article that accumulated 16 years of draft pick trades. Here's the link: http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/2009/04/nfl-draft-pick-trade-history.html So based on 16 years of empirical data, what WOULD it take to move up from #32 to #1? Not immediately obvious, because at least for the 16 year period from 1992 to 2008, nobody EVER moved up to #1 from anywhere close to as low as #32. Opinions are like noses - - everybody has one (that's the PG-rated version). Here's some actual facts based on the 16 years of real trade data: 1. The biggest trade down from #1 overall was a move back of only five slots, down to #6. The down-trading team got picks 6, 67, 102 and 207 in return. 2. The two biggest jumps from a starting point in the first round to obtain a single higher pick were: (a) From #30 to #10 - - the down trading team got 30, 94, 119 and the next year's first rounder in return; and (b) From #26 to #8 - - the down trading team got 26, 71, 89, and 125 in return Over the 16 years of actual data, nobody jumped all the way from #32 to #1. So let's see if we can figure out what it would take to put together a series of trades to accomplish the same thing. To avoid arguments about what next year's first rounder might be worth, let's include 2(b) above along the way - - a move back of 18 slots. 3. Here's an actual trade to add to the series: (a) From #6 to #8 - - the down trading team got 8 and 104 in return. 4. So what would it take to make the final trade down from #26 to #32? Closest actual trade in the data is this: (a) From #25 to #32 - - the down trading team got 32, 96 and 129 in return. Summary - - so if you model the hypothetical trade posed by New Era with a series of ACTUAL trade downs in smaller steps instead of 1 giant leap, here's the sequence of steps. Step 1 - Give up #1 to get 6, 67, 102 and 207; Step 2 - Give up newly acquired #6 to get 8 and 104 - - you now have 8, 67, 102, 104 and 207; Step 3 - Give up newly acquired # 8 to get 26, 71, 89 and 125 - - you now have 26, 67, 71, 89, 102, 104, 125 and 207; I don't have an actual trade data point to get from #26 to #32, but I do have a trade from #25 to #32. Using it will VERY slightly overstate what you get from the series of smaller trade downs, but not by much. Let's assume that it's the same: Step 4 - Give up newly acquired #26 to get 32, 96 and 129. Here's what you wind up with: 32, 67, 71, 89, 96, 102, 104, 125, 129 and 207 Here's the same list with the round in parenthesis (assuming 32 picks per round with no compensatory picks to screw up my math): 32(1), 67(3), 71(3), 89(3), 96(3), 102(4), 104(4), 125(4), 129(5) and 207(7). That's admittedly less than two full drafts, but it's quite a bit more than one full draft. Now you can snipe at this all you want - I'm combining trades from different years, I had to assume that #26 = #25, there would not be that many players worth trading up for in a single year, etc. But maybe the reason nobody trades up from #32 to #1 is because (i) it really would take a huge number of picks, and (ii) no GM who wants to keep his cushy job is willing to risk trading his entire draft for a guy who turns out to be the next Ryan Leaf or Tony Mandarich (I know that neither was taken #1 overall, but they were close). Anyway, seems to me like there's plenty of room for debate about just how useful the draft pick trade value chart really is. I can already feel the love.
Andre Speed Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) This should help about 99.875% of the readers of this thread(HINT: it is FROM the ORIGINAL post). In summary, the NFL draft pick "values" aren't balanced. The top 3 picks are overvalued IMO. after this clarification, y'can all go home. OP, nobody, but NOOOObody got it. ok, hardly anyone. that means something wasn't working. i hadda help ya get it across. that's like, cheating. next time, let people know where you are really coming from, instead of pretending that you really believe what you typed. you don't. i saw that. it's rare. most readers will not care enough do do that. once again, the original poster does NOT believe the packers or anyone should make ANY trade at all. he just thinks that the pick value charts seem to be context-dependent. no, he didn't get that across very well in his enthusiasm to connect with other fans. the offseason is a challenging time for lots of fans. i wish him and all of us success in dealing with that. good luck. ~AS Edited April 14, 2011 by Andre Speed
MyHorseAteTheKid Posted April 14, 2011 Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) Listen up Buddy and company!! Heres the trade that will turn this franchise around. I know we'd actually giving up too much here according to the numbers, but it just might work out in our favor. Trade our 1st pick this year to the packers, for ALL of their picks the next 2 years. Our pick is worth 2200 POINTS, and all of the packers' are only worth 1067 this year and possibly the same next, if they win the super bowl. Imagine how good the packers would be if they got their hands on one of the guys available to them at 3 coming off a championship? Choose one of the following: Fairley, Miller (but they wouldn't take him cuz he's too small), Peterson, Green, Jordan or maybe even Dareus if he's there. They'd most likely be better than last year, hence keeping their total draft pick "value" at 1067. A grand total of 2134. We may be able to get them to throw in their 4th 6th and 7th pick from 2013 in as well to make it even. I don't see why the packers wouldn't do it, it's an even trade. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670 Bills 1st pick- #3 overall- 2200 points. Packers picks- 1st (32)-590 points 2nd (64)-270 3rd (96)-116 4th (128) -44 5th (160)-28.4 6th (192)-15.6 3 7th (224)-1067 In summary, the NFL draft pick "values" aren't balanced. The top 3 picks are overvalued IMO. If there were a Peyton Manning, Ndamakung Suh AND Bruce Smith in every draft we could talk about this being balance, but thats not the case. Good lord.. Someone has way too much time on there hands!! Edited April 14, 2011 by MyHorseAteTheKid
NewEra Posted April 15, 2011 Author Posted April 15, 2011 I actually find the example posed by New Era pretty thought-provoking. What WOULD it take to trade up from #32 to #1? - - More about that in a minute. It's pretty easy for all the arm-chair expert GMs around here to give an instantaneous off-the-cuff reaction to a hypothetical trade, and do it not only without trying to look up what draft pick trades have been made in the past for reference, but in many cases without even reading the full text of the OP. There's room for intelligent debate about the extent to which the draft value chart can be used to predict what draft picks a team could probably get for trading down in the first round. Don't believe me? Read this link: http://www.buffaloru...fl-draft-trades I haven't tried to fact check the author's work, but the article makes a pretty compelling case for how the draft value chart is surprisingly accurate in predicting what you can get in return for trading down, at least where the trade down is one with some sort of historical reference point. In other words, with a few exceptions, pretty much all of the draft pick trades THAT ARE ACTUALLY MADE do seem to fall reasonably close to what the chart predicts as fair value. New Era makes a good case for the values at the top of the chart being "whack" - - so much so that lots of us took whacks at him. In a different thread, he posted an even more comprehensive article that accumulated 16 years of draft pick trades. Here's the link: http://adamjt13.blog...de-history.html So based on 16 years of empirical data, what WOULD it take to move up from #32 to #1? Not immediately obvious, because at least for the 16 year period from 1992 to 2008, nobody EVER moved up to #1 from anywhere close to as low as #32. Opinions are like noses - - everybody has one (that's the PG-rated version). Here's some actual facts based on the 16 years of real trade data: 1. The biggest trade down from #1 overall was a move back of only five slots, down to #6. The down-trading team got picks 6, 67, 102 and 207 in return. 2. The two biggest jumps from a starting point in the first round to obtain a single higher pick were: (a) From #30 to #10 - - the down trading team got 30, 94, 119 and the next year's first rounder in return; and (b) From #26 to #8 - - the down trading team got 26, 71, 89, and 125 in return Over the 16 years of actual data, nobody jumped all the way from #32 to #1. So let's see if we can figure out what it would take to put together a series of trades to accomplish the same thing. To avoid arguments about what next year's first rounder might be worth, let's include 2(b) above along the way - - a move back of 18 slots. 3. Here's an actual trade to add to the series: (a) From #6 to #8 - - the down trading team got 8 and 104 in return. 4. So what would it take to make the final trade down from #26 to #32? Closest actual trade in the data is this: (a) From #25 to #32 - - the down trading team got 32, 96 and 129 in return. Summary - - so if you model the hypothetical trade posed by New Era with a series of ACTUAL trade downs in smaller steps instead of 1 giant leap, here's the sequence of steps. Step 1 - Give up #1 to get 6, 67, 102 and 207; Step 2 - Give up newly acquired #6 to get 8 and 104 - - you now have 8, 67, 102, 104 and 207; Step 3 - Give up newly acquired # 8 to get 26, 71, 89 and 125 - - you now have 26, 67, 71, 89, 102, 104, 125 and 207; I don't have an actual trade data point to get from #26 to #32, but I do have a trade from #25 to #32. Using it will VERY slightly overstate what you get from the series of smaller trade downs, but not by much. Let's assume that it's the same: Step 4 - Give up newly acquired #26 to get 32, 96 and 129. Here's what you wind up with: 32, 67, 71, 89, 96, 102, 104, 125, 129 and 207 Here's the same list with the round in parenthesis (assuming 32 picks per round with no compensatory picks to screw up my math): 32(1), 67(3), 71(3), 89(3), 96(3), 102(4), 104(4), 125(4), 129(5) and 207(7). That's admittedly less than two full drafts, but it's quite a bit more than one full draft. Now you can snipe at this all you want - I'm combining trades from different years, I had to assume that #26 = #25, there would not be that many players worth trading up for in a single year, etc. But maybe the reason nobody trades up from #32 to #1 is because (i) it really would take a huge number of picks, and (ii) no GM who wants to keep his cushy job is willing to risk trading his entire draft for a guy who turns out to be the next Ryan Leaf or Tony Mandarich (I know that neither was taken #1 overall, but they were close). Anyway, seems to me like there's plenty of room for debate about just how useful the draft pick trade value chart really is. I can already feel the love. I appreciate your research. Good job. Good lord.. Someone has way too much time on there hands!! 15 minutes. thanks. It's been something on my mind, so I thought I'd take a look at it. The results are telling. I thought that the top picks value were overvalued. After 2 minutes of research, my thought were confirmed. Don't like the post, fine by me. This should help about 99.875% of the readers of this thread(HINT: it is FROM the ORIGINAL post). In summary, the NFL draft pick "values" aren't balanced. The top 3 picks are overvalued IMO. after this clarification, y'can all go home. OP, nobody, but NOOOObody got it. ok, hardly anyone. that means something wasn't working. i hadda help ya get it across. that's like, cheating. next time, let people know where you are really coming from, instead of pretending that you really believe what you typed. you don't. i saw that. it's rare. most readers will not care enough do do that. once again, the original poster does NOT believe the packers or anyone should make ANY trade at all. he just thinks that the pick value charts seem to be context-dependent. no, he didn't get that across very well in his enthusiasm to connect with other fans. the offseason is a challenging time for lots of fans. i wish him and all of us success in dealing with that. good luck. ~AS Glad you got it. I figured that saying "In summary....yada yada yada" would give people a clue where i was coming from, but it looks like a lot of people don't take the time to read the entire post, instead jump down my throat after a couple sentences. Fine by me, I find it funny.
Zulu Cthulhu Posted April 15, 2011 Posted April 15, 2011 Hey, not according to DreReed83, UticaBill, and Zulu Cthulhu. It is obvious to them that this is what all NFL teams use to make draft decisions. I'm pretty sure neither i nor dre said the value chart is the only thing teams consider when teams trade picks on draft day. And the draft value chart posted on Espn and elsewhere is not the exact one teams use. Every team uses their own version of the chart. Actually I should say "almost every" team since you are right, im sure there are some NFL franchises that don't employ a draft value chart at all. But go ahead along with newera and post a completely ridiculous topic just to spitefully try to prove us wrong. I am not wrong, and the draft value chart still exists. It exist as ONE tool that teams use to evaluate pick trades. Again, ONE tool. No one said teams follow this thing by rote. Year by year, the players available change, as does the accuracy of the chart. No one said differently. But keep being idiots. It amuses me.
Zulu Cthulhu Posted April 15, 2011 Posted April 15, 2011 Also, newera, you felt the need to start a new topic with your same stupid idea after it received no responses in the original thread? God you're petty.
NewEra Posted April 15, 2011 Author Posted April 15, 2011 (edited) I'm pretty sure neither i nor dre said the value chart is the only thing teams consider when teams trade picks on draft day. And the draft value chart posted on Espn and elsewhere is not the exact one teams use. Every team uses their own version of the chart. Actually I should say "almost every" team since you are right, im sure there are some NFL franchises that don't employ a draft value chart at all. But go ahead along with newera and post a completely ridiculous topic just to spitefully try to prove us wrong. I am not wrong, and the draft value chart still exists. It exist as ONE tool that teams use to evaluate pick trades. Again, ONE tool. No one said teams follow this thing by rote. Year by year, the players available change, as does the accuracy of the chart. No one said differently. But keep being idiots. It amuses me. I'm glad I amuse you. My point, the only thing I was trying to get across, still stands as obvious. The top picks are overvalued. Do you disagree? Simple question here: Do you think that the #3 pick is equal to every pick slotted by the team picking last...times 2? Simple answer. Agree or disagree? Also, newera, you felt the need to start a new topic with your same stupid idea after it received no responses in the original thread? God you're petty. Yes, I felt the need to start a new topic with my same stupid idea after it received no responses in the original thread 20 minutes after I posted it. Thanks, I am petty. Edited April 15, 2011 by NewEra
Zulu Cthulhu Posted April 15, 2011 Posted April 15, 2011 Alright, i'll play. I do agree the first 3 picks are overvalued. In fact, i think the first 10 picks of the first round are overvalued. That's a function of league revenues, and, in turn, rookie salaries exploding after the last tv deals. The actual player talent hasn't kept up with such a jump in 1round salaries, especially at the very top. Hopefully the new cba and rookie salary structure will remedy that. But again, you can't toss out the DVC as bunk, laughable, magic, liberal media conspiracy or whatever else you want to call it. It is not. Teams all around the league still use one and i'm sure they tweak their charts every year to more accurately reflect the talent that particular year.
NewEra Posted April 15, 2011 Author Posted April 15, 2011 Alright, i'll play. I do agree the first 3 picks are overvalued. In fact, i think the first 10 picks of the first round are overvalued. That's a function of league revenues, and, in turn, rookie salaries exploding after the last tv deals. The actual player talent hasn't kept up with such a jump in 1round salaries, especially at the very top. Hopefully the new cba and rookie salary structure will remedy that. But again, you can't toss out the DVC as bunk, laughable, magic, liberal media conspiracy or whatever else you want to call it. It is not. Teams all around the league still use one and i'm sure they tweak their charts every year to more accurately reflect the talent that particular year. K cool. I didn't toss the dvc a bunk, laughable, magical, liberal media conspiracy. I said it was overvalued at the top of the board.
billsrcursed Posted April 15, 2011 Posted April 15, 2011 This should help about 99.875% of the readers of this thread(HINT: it is FROM the ORIGINAL post). In summary, the NFL draft pick "values" aren't balanced. The top 3 picks are overvalued IMO. after this clarification, y'can all go home. OP, nobody, but NOOOObody got it. ok, hardly anyone. that means something wasn't working. i hadda help ya get it across. that's like, cheating. next time, let people know where you are really coming from, instead of pretending that you really believe what you typed. you don't. i saw that. it's rare. most readers will not care enough do do that. once again, the original poster does NOT believe the packers or anyone should make ANY trade at all. he just thinks that the pick value charts seem to be context-dependent. no, he didn't get that across very well in his enthusiasm to connect with other fans. the offseason is a challenging time for lots of fans. i wish him and all of us success in dealing with that. good luck. ~AS Thanks for this, NewEra would be better off deleting his OP and just asking everyone's opinion about the pick value chart. You know, keep it short and simple for the dummies. Speaking of dummies, lots of noobs swarming around here posting some real crap. Makes me remember why I stay clear until the regular season starts up. NewEra - I appreciate your thread, and agree with you about the point system.
NewEra Posted April 15, 2011 Author Posted April 15, 2011 Thanks for this, NewEra would be better off deleting his OP and just asking everyone's opinion about the pick value chart. You know, keep it short and simple for the dummies. Speaking of dummies, lots of noobs swarming around here posting some real crap. Makes me remember why I stay clear until the regular season starts up. NewEra - I appreciate your thread, and agree with you about the point system. Thank you sir
Zulu Cthulhu Posted April 15, 2011 Posted April 15, 2011 K cool. I didn't toss the dvc a bunk, laughable, magical, liberal media conspiracy. I said it was overvalued at the top of the board. I know you didn't and i don't mean to assign those opinions to you - those were stated in the earlier thread. Anyways, you are right about the values at the very top - hopefully that will change when the new deal is in place.
NewEra Posted April 15, 2011 Author Posted April 15, 2011 I know you didn't and i don't mean to assign those opinions to you - those were stated in the earlier thread. Anyways, you are right about the values at the very top - hopefully that will change when the new deal is in place. That would be nice. The good thing about it's current state of being overvalued up top, we are picking up top. Maybe we can take advantage of it. Would be nice to get multiple picks for our 1 pick. Doubtful, but ya never know.
Recommended Posts