|
Intruder posted:How far down should they be willing to trade? How far down can you trade and still get one of Bridgewater/Bortles/Manziel? Or do you just roll the dice with Mettenberger or Boyd or *shudder* McCarron? Yeah, that's kind of the big question of the exercise - how far down can you go without compromising your ability to target the guys you want. But I was more curious as to how the needs of the other top drafters compete with one another, like who would jump to 1st to make sure they got Clowney/Bridgewater/Matthews/whoever because they'd likely be gone by whatever number they'd draft at.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Yeah, that's kind of the big question of the exercise - how far down can you go without compromising your ability to target the guys you want. But I was more curious as to how the needs of the other top drafters compete with one another, like who would jump to 1st to make sure they got Clowney/Bridgewater/Matthews/whoever because they'd likely be gone by whatever number they'd draft at. It ain't gonna be the Rams, and the Jaguars can sit where they are and still get one of the three QBs or Clowney, so realistically the Browns are the best case scenario. I would assume that if you trade down you'd want to get an extra first in this year's draft as well, which only the Browns and Rams can provide at the moment
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I'd say the Browns but they're surprisingly hard to fleece into trading up. The Jets on the other hand... And the Jets would trade up like 15 spots because?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Goetta posted:And the Jets would trade up like 15 spots because? JOHNNY FOOTBALL http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york-jets/post/_/id/34399/broadway-johnny-jets-should-be-so-lucky
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Woof that is one loving turd of an article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Goetta posted:Woof that is one loving turd of an article. You should see the New York Post one that I was trying to find before I settled on that ESPN blog I'm not sure if the Jets abandon Smith this year but the rookie scale makes it pretty easy for them to take another QB and do some crazy poo poo in order to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
For a team to be plausible to trade into 1-1 they either already have to be drafting really high or have a ton of extra picks, and unfortunately the Jets fit neither bill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
The answer is no, the Jets don't abandon their second round QB after a single 8-8 season.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Goetta posted:The answer is no, the Jets don't abandon their second round QB after a single 8-8 season. I'd put Geno Smith's chances of starting week 1 next season at probably 25-30 percent. And I feel that might be generous because that's mostly nightmare scenarios where they whiff on everyone in free agency and the draft. They're looking at the very least for a caretaker/competition player and they've given plenty of quotes reflecting as such. Geno Smith was probably the worst starting quarterback in the league outside of the guys that only start a couple of games and even the Jets appear to recognize this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
The Jets will likely have 12 picks in the draft but 4 of them will be un-tradebale comp picks. If you figure they would offer their 1st, TB's 3rd rounder, and next year's 1st... that would still only likely get them value-wise into the pick 6-7 range, where Manziel and Bridewater would already be gone. It's not happening nor should it. I think they sign a Vick or Schaub and roll with them as the main competition to Geno.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Edit: Also the draft back then was super unscientific and the scouts involved didn't have nearly the same technology that we have access to. I doubt many front offices even saw Rice play before the draft. I looked this up so I could see if the draft has gotten "better" at grading wide receivers. Obviously pro-football-references Approximate Value isn't the best, but it is the easiest to sort by. This is a list of wide receivers that "For combined seasons, from 1970 to 2000, played WR, requiring Approximate Value >= 0 and Receptions >= 500, sorted by descending Approximate Value." http://goo.gl/lm9fpV The top of the list is Jerry Rice, Steve Largent, James Lofton, Andre Reed, Henry Ellard, Michael Irvin. Out of all of those receivers the average draft position is 76. The only top 10 picks were Rob Moore Irving Fryar Cris Carter James Lofton Tim Brown Sterling Sharpe Herman Moore Al Toon Now here are the receivers from 2000 - current. Granted there are less than the previous list. But the average draft position is 68. Not that much higher but there is a difference. Also, I'm not good at stats so there are pretty big outliers that are ruining the average. Also, this has a minimum of 500 catches. http://goo.gl/ALtPZs Top Ten Picks: Keyshawn Johnson Calvin Johnson Andre Johnson Larry Fitzgerald Torry Holt Plaxico Burress Here is a google spreadsheet with the data http://goo.gl/av4bWh
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Ozu posted:The Jets will likely have 12 picks in the draft but 4 of them will be un-tradebale comp picks. If you figure they would offer their 1st, TB's 3rd rounder, and next year's 1st... that would still only likely get them value-wise into the pick 6-7 range, where Manziel and Bridewater would already be gone. It's not happening nor should it. I think they sign a Vick or Schaub and roll with them as the main competition to Geno. I wish they would offer that to Tampa for our 7th. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
This is from a couple of pages back, but I think goons are overvaluing draft picks a bit. I think maximizing your impact players is the most effective way to win a championship. Every free agency period, there are tons of players who can be had to fill your roster out at great deals. Just on the Bears, DJ Williams, Matt Slauson, James Anderson were solid, cheap signings. Only one of those guys cost $1 million. Dumervil was signed at a great deal also. I understand that you build depth from the draft, but I think saavy free agent signings can be just as effective in building a roster. Getting impact players on rookie contracts is the goal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:For a team to be plausible to trade into 1-1 they either already have to be drafting really high or have a ton of extra picks, and unfortunately the Jets fit neither bill. I'd buy Atlanta dropping their high 1st and something else to get a pass rusher. Sataere posted:This is from a couple of pages back, but I think goons are overvaluing draft picks a bit. I think maximizing your impact players is the most effective way to win a championship. Every free agency period, there are tons of players who can be had to fill your roster out at great deals. Just on the Bears, DJ Williams, Matt Slauson, James Anderson were solid, cheap signings. Only one of those guys cost $1 million. Dumervil was signed at a great deal also. There's literally like 1 good WR in this free agency and a billion rookies coming in. Past that, you should not expect to make a value-cap gain in FA unless you're need is much more than the rest of the market (like say, Houston a few years back for DB). Even then, the FA winners likely are facing the winner's curse effects of being the team that's most overvaluing a player, rather than valuing them the most. Dumervil's deal isn't so great, considering he ate a franchise tag for a million less than his yearly. His position is just cheap like most defenders because defenders are cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
RE: How To Draft Wasn't there a rudimentary study done awhile ago that suggested teams like the Packers that consistently draft above the average aren't doing so due to superior scouting but due to collecting more draft picks? Essentially it was suggesting that they are winning the lotto more not because they know how to guess the numbers but because they are buying more tickets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:I'd buy Atlanta dropping their high 1st and something else to get a pass rusher. But it isn't like wide receiver is the only position you can get in free agency. My point is that building your rosters depth via free agency is a viable plan if you approach the draft appropriately. Take a look at the signings that happen about two weeks into free agency. Once the dust settles, there are always a ton of guys that everything thinks was undervalued. I am not advocating trading up every draft. What I am saying is that you should always target the players in each draft that you feel will have the greatest impact on your team and then do whatever it takes to get them. Also, you have to be right in those assessments or you end up being the Browns.  Hell, I would probably fluctuate from year to year on trading up or down depending on the talent. It isn't set in stone. EDIT: DupaDupa posted:RE: How To Draft To use an example from that very team, the one time in recent memory the Packers did trade up in a draft, it was to get Clay Matthews. Easily the most important player on their defense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
The patriots have tons of draft picks and they whiff as much as anyone. Miami used to stockpile 2nd and 3rds because we love to waste them on the shittiest qbs WRs big baby tackles and wife beating defensive ends
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:There's literally like 1 good WR in this free agency and a billion rookies coming in. Past that, you should not expect to make a value-cap gain in FA unless you're need is much more than the rest of the market (like say, Houston a few years back for DB). Even then, the FA winners likely are facing the winner's curse effects of being the team that's most overvaluing a player, rather than valuing them the most. Eric Decker Jeremy Maclin Hakeem Nicks Julian Edelman Golden Tate James Jones Anquan Boldin Emmanuel Sanders Jerricho Cotchery Kenny Britt
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Ozu posted:I don't disaggree that the FA crop lacks top end talent but which one is the good WR? They're all sort of WR2/3 guys. I considered Boldin a #2 until this year and I think he's a low 1 now, if that makes sense. I think specifically he'd be a good 1 for the Niners or Carolina, and maybe a team like the Jets but I don't know them very well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Who takes a chance on Britt? He has steal potential but I wonder if he's going to try to price himself out of anything realistic
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
DupaDupa posted:RE: How To Draft There's a paper on it by Massey and Thaler looking at the value of a given player drafted vs. the next best player taken in the draft at that same position that shows that the chance of that player outperforming the next guy is close to 50/50, suggesting that the draft is primarily a crap shoot (certain factors excluded) and that teams have a higher chance of winning the lottery by buying more tickets. The better example of this is the Pats, who always seem to be trading down. There are natural exceptions of course, but for the most part even the best, surefire, can't miss prospects can get injured. Teams get the most value out of trading for future picks, since bad teams (and the prevailing wisdom) continually devalues next year's picks compared to picks this year. I would venture that a team taking a long-term approach to building in the draft is actually best-served by trading picks for future picks rather than later ones, at least initially.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:I considered Boldin a #2 until this year and I think he's a low 1 now, if that makes sense. I think specifically he'd be a good 1 for the Niners or Carolina, and maybe a team like the Jets but I don't know them very well. Do you mean #1 as in the primary target or #1 as in the speed target? Boldin can definitely be a primary guy, but he has the skillset of a possession reciever. He's probably the best #2 in the league.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Intruder posted:Who takes a chance on Britt? He has steal potential but I wonder if he's going to try to price himself out of anything realistic
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
San Diego needs corners and offensive linemen really bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
DupaDupa posted:RE: How To Draft That's one way to look at it. The two examples I use the most of an amazing draft are the Giants 07 and Eagles 02 drafts. In 07 the Giants used 8 picks (two seventh rounders) to get seven people who contributed to the Super Bowl run, and in 02 the Eagles used their first four picks to field an entire secondary and a top 5 RB. Both were arguably the among the best drafts in the 00' decade and both didn't involve any significant trades to pull off. I mean really the best way to look at it is that the draft isn't a science and to try to predict it is pretty drat hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
ROSS MY SALAD posted:San Diego needs corners and offensive linemen really bad Also, Gilchrist is probably having migraines and harsh light sensitivity somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
I don't really like a draft that's based solely on Super Bowl victories
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Miko posted:Fluker is my favorite. Fluker rules, but Dunlap (while he had a good year) isn't the answer at LT, Chad Rhinehart was good but missed a lot of time, Hardwick is getting up there in years, and Clary is a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:There's a paper on it by Massey and Thaler looking at the value of a given player drafted vs. the next best player taken in the draft at that same position that shows that the chance of that player outperforming the next guy is close to 50/50, suggesting that the draft is primarily a crap shoot (certain factors excluded) and that teams have a higher chance of winning the lottery by buying more tickets. The better example of this is the Pats, who always seem to be trading down. I guess the biggest issue I have with this line of thinking is that it implies that drafting is dumb luck. To me, scouting is a major factor. If a guy is drafted after someone at the same position, and manages to perform better, that is a failure on your scouting department. While scouting is not an exact science, there is no doubt some teams do it better than others. Trading for more picks just for the sake of acquiring more picks is an implication that you don't trust your ability to evaluate talent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Dumb luck isn't the same as educated guessing, and when you make more educated guesses then you're more likely to be correct about one of them
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Do you mean #1 as in the primary target or #1 as in the speed target? Boldin can definitely be a primary guy, but he has the skillset of a possession reciever. Primary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
I like the use of 'Primary' target. Better than catchy and speedy. Although they have very dangerous threats in Davis and Crabtree as well. drat you, 49ers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Also, just hypothetically if I thought everyone else was drafting dumb but *I* was relatively excellent at valuing prospects, it would be optimal to trade down to get as many picks as possible. But really based on what teams in the past have received in return I think it's best to trade down for the same reasons everyone else does, i.e. teams over-value earlier picks and over-estimate the steepness in the prospect-decline over the course of the draft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
What the Packers do in addition to collecting picks is group players into talent groups. If you rate 15 players at the same level, you can move down and still pick a talented player. Packers trading down and still getting Lacy is a good example of this. Also why they traded up for Clay because they judged him to be way more talented than who was left in the draft. You are trusting your scouting while getting more pulls at the slot machine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:What the Packers do in addition to collecting picks is group players into talent groups. If you rate 15 players at the same level, you can move down and still pick a talented player. And that is absolutely how you should approach the draft. I think Ted Thompson is the best GM in the NFL when it comes to valuing value relative to position. I just think it is insane to think you can continue to trade down and down, accumulating picks, and get the same caliber of player. In today's NFL, top round picks have a much higher success rate than lower picks, and there is a reason for that. pangstrom posted:Also, just hypothetically if I thought everyone else was drafting dumb but *I* was relatively excellent at valuing prospects, it would be optimal to trade down to get as many picks as possible. And I maintain that it isn't as clear-cut as "this is the optimal strategy." In a vacuum this makes sense, but every draft is different and every situation is different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Also, just hypothetically if I thought everyone else was drafting dumb but *I* was relatively excellent at valuing prospects, it would be optimal to trade down to get as many picks as possible. Pretty much. I think the pitfall currently is that middle of the first round teams feel as though their a few major pieces away from the playoffs so they creep their valuations up in favor of need, whereas playoff teams a) know they're in their window and b) will always have some guys who have slipped through the middle land in their lap. But that is very possibly just narrative. In 2011, first year under new rules, the only team to draft a pro bowlers from the bottom half of the first round was the Saints, who followed that great move up by trading away a first rounder + for Ingram, which again made sense at the time. In 2012 Bucs drafted Martin at the end of the first (and Lavonte David in the second, who got snubbed this year for the pro bowl but is a first team all pro because fan voting is silly sometimes. Alshon Jeffery also gets nabbed high second because fat). Personally for the Saints, there's only like 12 people on the team I'm ok with not cutting if we get handed a nice talent falling down the board, so basically anything other than a QB, DE, or DT is fair game. I'd say we'd almost certainly go DB but Armstead got much better much faster than people hoped so expectations are that he's the LT from here on out, so maybe a RT to replace a FA Strief or to let the two fight it out if we re-sign him. Looking at Draft boards I'm guessing I should be watching out for Kouandjio, Clinton-Dix, Dennard, and especially Trent Murphy who reads like a great find for what we need.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Shrine Game practices started today. Here are some relevant Twitter feeds to follow: https://twitter.com/OptimumScouting https://twitter.com/JoshNorris https://twitter.com/dpbrugler
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Sataere posted:I guess the biggest issue I have with this line of thinking is that it implies that drafting is dumb luck. To me, scouting is a major factor. If a guy is drafted after someone at the same position, and manages to perform better, that is a failure on your scouting department. While scouting is not an exact science, there is no doubt some teams do it better than others. Trading for more picks just for the sake of acquiring more picks is an implication that you don't trust your ability to evaluate talent. I guess the biggest issue I have with this line of thinking is that it implies that prospect success is based solely on smart scouting. To me, luck is a factor. Players succeed and fail for many different reasons, from scouting to system to coaching to environment to just bad luck (injuries, non-football issues, etc). Scouting is not an exact science, and it is not the same as drafting. Some teams may draft better or claim to scout better, but when you actually look at the results, this isn't necessarily the case, since teams draft the "right" guy about 50% of the time compared to the next guy. Even the good teams. Trading for more picks implies that a smart GM knows that his ability to evaluate talent doesn't guarantee success and so he will maximize his chances of getting strong talent by buying himself more opportunities. By your logic, teams shouldn't bother to keep strong depth around since stockpiling strong back-ups just for the sake of having depth is an implication that you don't trust your starters to stay healthy or play well all season. Additionally it's pretty telling that pundits and armchair experts can predict with a high degree of accuracy who the top 32/64 players are with regard to the draft without attending every game or watching hundreds of hours of footage. Some teams may have better information than others, but come May they're all pretty much looking at the same guys. Sataere posted:And that is absolutely how you should approach the draft. I think Ted Thompson is the best GM in the NFL when it comes to valuing value relative to position. I just think it is insane to think you can continue to trade down and down, accumulating picks, and get the same caliber of player. In today's NFL, top round picks have a much higher success rate than lower picks, and there is a reason for that. Hard to argue that the Packers are doing a better job than the Pats, given that the latter team is in its third consecutive AFC championship game despite tons of injuries and a slapdash group of receivers while the Packers backed into the playoffs and a first round exit as a result of a terrible defensive unit. It's an optimal strategy in the long-term. Similar to 4th down strategies of going for it--they don't win you a specific game, they win you extra games over the long term compared to not going for it. You will still lose games (and whiff on picks), but long-term you're ending up with more capable starters. TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Melton also tweets about the shrine game alot https://twitter.com/TMeltonScouting
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/RoadToRadioCity/lists/shrine-game
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:50
|
|