Interesting Draft Value Chart Stuff

[OCinBuffalo]

First of all let me debunk some myths about the Draft Value Chart, and it being "not used" or "outdated":

 

1. "not used". Team deny using it, which means: it's definitely used. When a team denies anything about anything...involving the draft...what does that tell you? The denial debunks it. This requires no further evidence. Arguing that the DVC isn't used, is exactly like arguing that Cordy Glenn is a guard. Both bags of silly come from the same place: The disinformed are intentionally made so, by teams lying their asses off.

 

2. It's "outdated". Perhaps it is. But if you look at how closely teams followed it last year, it's clear they are still using it. Is it going to eventually be revised to reflect the new realities of the NFL CBA? Of course.

 

See here: for more evidence on 1&2: http://min.scout.com/2/1280630.html

 

Still more evidence that the DVC was in full effect for 2012: http://www.bloggingt...-still-relevant

 

Last year the Bills trade value difference with the Rams? 7.6 points. We traded down to 16, and lost 400 DVC points. But we got their 2nd, which netted 440 points. We were +40. Therefore, we swapped 3rds, and lost 35 points. +5. What a coincidence! We needed to give back 40 points, and we gave back 35. We got their 7th = 2.6, so we ended up +7.6 points ahead.

 

The numbers in that last link, and our last trade do not lie. In fact, the deviations from the DVC are so minute, complete with the outlier that proves the case, that anyone who is competent in stats knows this pretty much ends the argument.

 

Just in case you still aren't sure and want to talk about RG3 or how the Raiders were taken for a ride by Miami(DVC-wise)? I will remind you: you are talking about the Redskins, and football decisions. Good Luck! And, the Raiders had to take what they could get: that's their penance for also making bad football decisions for years. Again, the exceptions prove just about everything. Yes, the Redskins and Raiders...and football decisions.

 

So, now that we've dispensed with the nonsense...(no really, tell me some more about how Cordy Glenn is a guard )

 

Numerous attempts have been made to revise the DVC, and google is your friend for that. I'm not linking them all here. It suffices to say that while we all know that the DVC needs to be/has been changed, hardly anyone knows how. Like the Minnesota guy said: in a few years, somebody will give DVC 2.0 to somebody who prints it, and then? We'll have a new set of denials.....

 

However, fast fowarding to right now: Here's a great take on how the DVC should be looked at: http://www.dallascow...9f-6ddaeb5fcabd

 

Clearly, this sucks for posters who want to trade down.

 

The question is: does anybody else believe in this guy's analysis? Also, looking at his value vs peformance is sorta scary. IF we can actually trade down, and sorta hang around the same places he has the Cowboys hanging around at, this might be another great draft for us.

 

However, speaking of odd football decisions: this Dallas guy better remember the nut case who runs his favorite team. "Trading up into the low double digits" is awfully close to: 9th overall. And, if Manziel or somebody else with draft buzz is hanging around at 9? Don't forget about the 5th year option that you get for drafting a guy at 9, and not 11. Jerra could easily convince himself of his awesomeness, and trade up to get that player.

Edited January 18, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[Dean Cain]

These charts are great but can they find me a future HOFer?

[KGUNBILLS]

It is clear to me that you have put a lot of time and thought into to this post. Let's hope that the FO weigh the options carefully in this draft. On a personal note, I believe that trading down is for teams that can afford to trade down. Right now, the Bills can't afford to.

[ALF]

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

[Nanker]

http://walterfootbal.../draftchart.php

ergo, Cleveland's 2nd 1st round pick - #26= 700 points, their 2nd round pick - #35 = 550 points, and their 5th round pick - #133 = 39.5 points for a total of 1,289.5 for The Bills 1st round pick - #9 = 1,350 points. But if we also swap our 3rd round picks - their's - #35 = 550 points for ours - #41 = 490 points, then this fantasy trade nets out to 1,349.5 given up by Cleveland for Buffalo's 1,350 points.

 

Let's see if THAT happens.

 

edit: I screwed that up. The 3rd round swaps are actually 2nd round values.

I'm too tired/bored to fix it. Point is, it would take a lot for a trade to happen with Cleveland, but they've got a bunch of extra picks already and just might do it. Joe Banner is a legendary evil genius in his own mind.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Nanker

[flomoe]

It is clear to me that you have put a lot of time and thought into to this post. Let's hope that the FO weigh the options carefully in this draft. On a personal note, I believe that trading down is for teams that can afford to trade down. Right now, the Bills can't afford to.

 

Yes and No.

 

Yes, the Bills could use #9 to draft a potential star player which is always the hope. But it is only one player.

 

No, the trade down scenario is exactly what the Bills could use, as seen last year. Trading down nets you additional players that are at a potentially higher level. It stocks the cupboards in the areas that are extremely thin(see OL and TE). The scenario laid out by Nanker has the Bills netting an additional 2nd and 5th rounder, while still grabbing a quality 1st rounder at 26. The leaves the Bills a total of 4 picks in the top 70 roughly. Thats a nice haul for some quality players at some much needed positions that a horribly thin.

 

They could grab a WR, OL, LB, and TE that they might like all before they even hit the 4th round. I would do that all day every day unless there is a superstar stud, can't miss Hall of Famer sitting there at 9, which is unlikely.

Time for Doug to find the Browns number.

Edited January 18, 2014 by flomoe

[Beerball]

It is clear to me that you have put a lot of time and thought into to this post. Let's hope that the FO weigh the options carefully in this draft. On a personal note, I believe that trading down is for teams that can afford to trade down. Right now, the Bills can't afford to.

Bills can't afford to trade down? Not sure I understand why (or maybe you meant to type "up" instead). The Bills have holes at each personnel grouping. To fill as many as possible trading back makes perfect sense. Of course, you need a dance partner.

[Doc]

I think the Bills should absolutely trade down again this year, assuming they find a trade partner. This appears to be a deep draft, what with all the underclassmen declaring.

[TPS]

There will always be a DVC AND there will always be exceptions. In the case of the skins, in their view (and in the view of most) rg3 was an exceptional player. They were willing to go beyond the charts that are based on "averages" to secure an exceptional player. There will always be teams or mike ditkas who covet a player so much the charts are meaningless to them; they will "pay" whatever it takes.

[NoSaint]

OC the chart doesn't just predate the CBA, it dates back to our Super Bowl years. It was created by jimmy johnson in the early 90s for some true perspective on its age, and based on historical data from drafts in the 80s.

 

The league, and draft, have undergone some big changes since then. Sure it's a good cliff notes guide, but I'm not sure pointing out that buddy adhered to it very closely proves all gms do as much as it does that we might have needed to revamp our front office and an analytics department working on a revised value chart might be a worthwhile cause. That said, just cause we were close in one trade doesn't mean we follow it closely across the board.

Edited January 18, 2014 by NoSaint

[26TrapDraw]

It is clear to me that you have put a lot of time and thought into to this post. Let's hope that the FO weigh the options carefully in this draft. On a personal note, I believe that trading down is for teams that can afford to trade down. Right now, the Bills can't afford to.

I disagree. Teams like Buffalo who are not just a player or two away gain value in trading down to mid to late first round and picking up a second. They are in essense hoping for 3 quality players/starters in the first 3 picks. That's how you build a good team. Last year perfect example. Jury still out on EJ but look at Kiko and flash. One starts and one will be very good with more exp.

LV

[KOKBILLS]

I think the Bills should absolutely trade down again this year, assuming they find a trade partner. This appears to be a deep draft, what with all the underclassmen declaring.

 

Agreed...The key is, will there be a player still available at #9 that creates enough interest...Last year Tavon Austin was in demand and that pushed the Rams to deal up...Hopefully that can be repeated in 2014...

[White Linen]

It is clear to me that you have put a lot of time and thought into to this post. Let's hope that the FO weigh the options carefully in this draft. On a personal note, I believe that trading down is for teams that can afford to trade down. Right now, the Bills can't afford to.

 

Did this not prove to beneficial last year? If they can't afford to trade down this year, what changed for the worse from last year?

[OCinBuffalo]

I disagree. Teams like Buffalo who are not just a player or two away gain value in trading down to mid to late first round and picking up a second. They are in essense hoping for 3 quality players/starters in the first 3 picks. That's how you build a good team. Last year perfect example. Jury still out on EJ but look at Kiko and flash. One starts and one will be very good with more exp.

LV

On the flip side of this: trading down is what has destroyed the once-vaunted Patriots Defense, and turned them into a standard AFC, offense-only team. If you never put any first rounders on your team....for years, you're eventually going to hit a talent wall. They have.

 

Perhaps the nicest part of the last game? We drove the ball down the field on them, at will, for 70+ yards, 3 times in a row in the 4th quarter, without our starting QB or #1 WR. Next year is looking just fine for me due to that.

 

Trading down, and not hitting on your extra picks, is the worst of both worlds, and that's precisely what the Patriots have done in the draft, drafting D, on the whole, for the last 7 years prior to last year.

 

Last year, they traded up. And, they got some keepers as a result.

 

However, I think the Dallas guy I referred to above is on to something = high picks value vs. PFF performance aren't necessarily all they are cracked up to be. I wonder if there's a character element to this, since a high pick has typically been coddled in college for the last 3 years at least, if not, for their entire lives?

 

In all cases, I think the #1 driving aspect for trading up/down is: quality of the draft overall. How many 1st rounders are actual 1st rounders, 2nds, 2nds, etc.? How big is the real top tier, and how big is the 2nd teir...and at what point do you enter Just a bunch of Guys?

[OCinBuffalo]

OC the chart doesn't just predate the CBA, it dates back to our Super Bowl years. It was created by jimmy johnson in the early 90s for some true perspective on its age, and based on historical data from drafts in the 80s.

Yes. All true. And, I'm pretty sure we all knew this, but you directed this to me. I assure you I knew this.

The league, and draft, have undergone some big changes since then. Sure it's a good cliff notes guide, but I'm not sure pointing out that buddy adhered to it very closely proves all gms do as much as it does that we might have needed to revamp our front office and an analytics department working on a revised value chart might be a worthwhile cause. That said, just cause we were close in one trade doesn't mean we follow it closely across the board.

I didn't just point out that Buddy followed it. I clearly linked multipled sources that show practically every recent draft trade has followed it. I also accounted for the outliers = Raiders and Skins. No. Enough of the myth. The chart is the chart, and however it may be modified, it's continued use is plain as day.

 

The people who argue against the chart's use....seem to be the same people who say the RG3 trade was a good idea. As if attacking the chart is going to help in some way. No it just compounds the FAIL, especially when, year in and year out almost all draft trades conform to it.

 

RG3 trade fans: the chart isn't your problem....thinking the Redskins know what they are doing in football, after the last 10 years of wild failure? That's your problem.

 

EDIT: And, before you say "well, the Bills...." remember one thing: The Bills aren't a major market team with unlimited resources and an owner who thinks "throw $ at it" = solving problems. You can't have it both ways, either "Ralph is Cheap"^TM or, he isn't. If he is, then comparing the last 10 years of the Redskins with the Bills also = FAIL.

Edited January 18, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[Astrobot]

Yes and No.

 

Yes, the Bills could use #9 to draft a potential star player which is always the hope. But it is only one player.

 

No, the trade down scenario is exactly what the Bills could use, as seen last year. Trading down nets you additional players that are at a potentially higher level. It stocks the cupboards in the areas that are extremely thin(see OL and TE). The scenario laid out by Nanker has the Bills netting an additional 2nd and 5th rounder, while still grabbing a quality 1st rounder at 26. The leaves the Bills a total of 4 picks in the top 70 roughly. Thats a nice haul for some quality players at some much needed positions that a horribly thin.

 

They could grab a WR, OL, LB, and TE that they might like all before they even hit the 4th round. I would do that all day every day unless there is a superstar stud, can't miss Hall of Famer sitting there at 9, which is unlikely.

Time for Doug to find the Browns number.

Fully agree, except I don't think they take a OLB; I think they take a ILB.

[Nanker]

Okay, I reworked it. I think this is right.

For The Bills to trade their #1 pick - the 9th pick (worth 1,350 points) in the Draft to Cleveland, Cleveland would have to compensate The Bills thusly:

 

Cleveland's second Round 1 Pick (from Indy) #26 (700 points to Buffalo)

Swap 2 Round picks with The Bills - (net 60 points to Buffalo)

Both their 3rd Round picks (#71 - 235 points and #83 - 175 points to Buffalo)

Their 4th Round pick (#102 - 92 points to Buffalo) and their second 4th Round pick - (#123 - 49 points to Buffalo)

Their 5th Round pick (#133 - 39.5 points to Buffalo)

Total 1350.5 points to Buffalo for their Round 1 #9 spot.

 

That's 5 draft picks for 1 - and a swap of their #2 with ours.

 

How likely is that to happen? Cleveland would want to have whoever is there at #9 really, really badly.

[KD in CA]

I've always thought the draft chart greatly overstates the value of the top picks -- UNLESS you are drafting a 'can't-miss', consensus #1 QB. And IIRC, there have only been 4 or 5 guys like that in the last 30 years.

 

If there's no Luck, Elway, Manning, etc. in the draft, I think valuing the first pick as equal to 6 selections at #40 is crazy talk.

[KGUNBILLS]

I just think that we have not been in the playoffs for a RECORD 14 seasons. I'm sorry but when a team holds a record like that, it is simply an embarrassment. If we had been a consistent playoff team, and maybe were only missing 2-3 key positions, and would for surely make the playoffs if those positions were addressed, then absolutely, trade down. As far as last year, trading down to get EJ, based on what we have seen, Manuel maybe made of glass. Kiko was a huge pickup, but I still feel we could have made a much better choice with our original number 1 pick. Our QB situation this past season was a debacle at best. I will stand by my thoughts that EJ was drafted just to fulfill Buddys promise that he would draft a QB. Better thought process for surely could have been used to draft a franchise QB when there was a much stronger class to choose from. So disagree with me if you wish, but IMO the Bills need to use the 9th pick wisely, unless they can find a dance partner that can give them two first round picks for trading down.