OP
OP
kearly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 15,975
- Reaction score
- 0
Trading down in the first feels pretty likely.
Bill Barnwell - Get more picks; draft is mostly a crapshoot
- Thread starter kearly
- Start date
OP
OP
kearly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 15,975
- Reaction score
- 0
Here are some reasons (some more valid than others) why teams can justify trading up.
Reason #1. Many teams, particularly teams with mediocre GMs who struggle in the mid-to-late rounds, value quality over quantity. For example, Tim Ruskell mostly sucked with day three picks, so he was eager to move up in rounds two and three. Ruskell averaged only 7.4 total picks per draft, opting for early round quality since his late round gem finding was not a strong suit of his.
Reason #2. GMs fall in love with a player and feel that they have to have them.
Reason #3. Sometimes teams are desperate to fill a need and believe that a trade up is their only option to get a starter caliber player to fill that big need. This is why the Rams traded up to the #1 pick, a top QB was very unlikely to reach their #15 pick.
Reason #4. Teams picking early in the 2nd round might trade up into the back of the 1st round to secure a 5th year option.
It can also be a combination of these reasons. When Seattle dealt up for Tyler Lockett it was a mixture of reasons #2 and #3.
Reason #1. Many teams, particularly teams with mediocre GMs who struggle in the mid-to-late rounds, value quality over quantity. For example, Tim Ruskell mostly sucked with day three picks, so he was eager to move up in rounds two and three. Ruskell averaged only 7.4 total picks per draft, opting for early round quality since his late round gem finding was not a strong suit of his.
Reason #2. GMs fall in love with a player and feel that they have to have them.
Reason #3. Sometimes teams are desperate to fill a need and believe that a trade up is their only option to get a starter caliber player to fill that big need. This is why the Rams traded up to the #1 pick, a top QB was very unlikely to reach their #15 pick.
Reason #4. Teams picking early in the 2nd round might trade up into the back of the 1st round to secure a 5th year option.
It can also be a combination of these reasons. When Seattle dealt up for Tyler Lockett it was a mixture of reasons #2 and #3.
TeamoftheCentury
Well-known member
Mtjhoyas":ymyl5j6t said:
Thanks. But, you could have saved yourself some time and simply asked for clarification. I stand by my comments. What I meant was how I like that the Patriots are able to negotiate the draft to get good value back for their trades in terms of draft currency. I wasn't commenting on how well their picks turned out. I don't follow the Patriots (even though my Dad grew up there and is a fan.) So, again, I'm impressed how they are able to make trades and get more picks. I think they do a masterful job of that.
Now, if they only had John Schneider and talent evaluators like the Seahawks, right? Still, I'm always shaking my head in amazement how they're able to accumulate picks. Without going into deeper evaluation about how that has served to make their team better and keep them winning, it's about acquiring players to compete for spots and they do that well... getting numbers into camp and ultimately ending up with a roster that wins.
TeamoftheCentury":ii6kmswb said:
I mostly agree with your point here but you left out the part when it comes to the Pats success that they had one of the all time greats at QB during this time.
I do think in this draft trading back and maximizing quantity in the first 2 days could produce the best outcome. It still requires lots of luck tho.
TeamoftheCentury
Well-known member
What does Tom Brady have to do with the Patriots organization continually and masterfully trading back to acquire more picks?penihawk":3crmkvtc said:I mostly agree with your point here but you left out the part when it comes to the Pats success that they had one of the all time greats at QB during this time.
I do think in this draft trading back and maximizing quantity in the first 2 days could produce the best outcome. It still requires lots of luck tho.
TeamoftheCentury
Well-known member
Ok. I think we're talking about a couple of different things here. My point is purely the Patriots work surrounding the draft - pulling off trades, acquiring more picks (regardless of how they turn out.) What they do on the field is another conversation. You've got good points, but I never disagreed with them.penihawk":2d6sulua said:He's the part that makes it masterful and not a failure.
If you regularly watch the draft, you'll remember the commentators on either network that airs the thing astonished when the Patriots are able to trade down, get picks the next year, etc. I'm not making things up here. It's in the recent history of the draft. What I think is masterful is how they are able to keep churning their selection positions in the draft so that on draft day they're going into the next year's draft with additional picks. I'm quite envious of that. Other teams do it, but I think the Patriots do it more and probably better than any other team. (Again, just in terms of acquiring more draft currency - not speaking to the success of their selections.)
If the Hawks were able to wheel and deal as well, just think about how many more gems JS could find and add to the mix. But, JS is (or seems) usually more than fair in trade dealings. I know he does that to maintain what relationships he says he has. But, when teams like the Pats are getting more in return than perhaps they should, I'm envious of their ability to continually do that. It's not like teams are saying, "We're not going to call them anymore." On the contrary, they know the Patriots will deal. But, they also know they've got to come with an offer they can't refuse or be willing to give up more than they want to trade up to get their guy. Supply and demand. The Patriots work that well almost every recent draft to my recollection.
No harm, no foul my man. We are on the same team here. I understand where you are coming from now, but I'd counter with the notion that Schneider hasn't been immune to terrible drafts. 2013 and 2014 were awful.
Let me say this...I think there is a good middle ground on this conversation. Perhaps...the ideal is maintaining 1s and 2s and turning 3s and 4s into a bunch of 5s. That might be the most ideal.
I would certainly say that JS is an amazingly skilled GM, but there is a lot of luck involved, no matter how good you are, to turn a 3rd rounder and a 5th rounder into Generational Talents at their respective positions (RW & Sherman).
RE: Mtjhoyas... WINNING teams ARE trading down and getting good value later in the draft. Not every team is doing that. I am continually amazed at how masterfully the Patriots go about trading back and keep winning. [/quote]
I totally agree that the Patriots keep winning, but the Patriots haven't done that well drafting in the last few years, outside of a few players.....
My intention isn't to be snarky on this. I truly mean that. It's really meant to show that the Patriots have been handed this reputation of masters of the draft, when realistically; they have the best QB of all time, one of the best coaches, and some great hits in the 1st and 2nd round. Outside of that, I'd argue that their drafting has been pretty meh.[/quote]
Thanks. But, you could have saved yourself some time and simply asked for clarification. I stand by my comments. What I meant was how I like that the Patriots are able to negotiate the draft to get good value back for their trades in terms of draft currency. I wasn't commenting on how well their picks turned out. I don't follow the Patriots (even though my Dad grew up there and is a fan.) So, again, I'm impressed how they are able to make trades and get more picks. I think they do a masterful job of that.
Now, if they only had John Schneider and talent evaluators like the Seahawks, right? Still, I'm always shaking my head in amazement how they're able to accumulate picks. Without going into deeper evaluation about how that has served to make their team better and keep them winning, it's about acquiring players to compete for spots and they do that well... getting numbers into camp and ultimately ending up with a roster that wins.[/quote]
Let me say this...I think there is a good middle ground on this conversation. Perhaps...the ideal is maintaining 1s and 2s and turning 3s and 4s into a bunch of 5s. That might be the most ideal.
I would certainly say that JS is an amazingly skilled GM, but there is a lot of luck involved, no matter how good you are, to turn a 3rd rounder and a 5th rounder into Generational Talents at their respective positions (RW & Sherman).
RE: Mtjhoyas... WINNING teams ARE trading down and getting good value later in the draft. Not every team is doing that. I am continually amazed at how masterfully the Patriots go about trading back and keep winning. [/quote]
I totally agree that the Patriots keep winning, but the Patriots haven't done that well drafting in the last few years, outside of a few players.....
My intention isn't to be snarky on this. I truly mean that. It's really meant to show that the Patriots have been handed this reputation of masters of the draft, when realistically; they have the best QB of all time, one of the best coaches, and some great hits in the 1st and 2nd round. Outside of that, I'd argue that their drafting has been pretty meh.[/quote]
Thanks. But, you could have saved yourself some time and simply asked for clarification. I stand by my comments. What I meant was how I like that the Patriots are able to negotiate the draft to get good value back for their trades in terms of draft currency. I wasn't commenting on how well their picks turned out. I don't follow the Patriots (even though my Dad grew up there and is a fan.) So, again, I'm impressed how they are able to make trades and get more picks. I think they do a masterful job of that.
Now, if they only had John Schneider and talent evaluators like the Seahawks, right? Still, I'm always shaking my head in amazement how they're able to accumulate picks. Without going into deeper evaluation about how that has served to make their team better and keep them winning, it's about acquiring players to compete for spots and they do that well... getting numbers into camp and ultimately ending up with a roster that wins.[/quote]
purpleneer
New member
I'm not sure the Pats have been any better at getting more in trade-downs than other teams, outside of a couple early ones where a particularly eager team gives up a future 1st. They've been the most willing team team to trade down because they understand the market has overvalued some early picks, but when other teams do drop, it's not like they don't generally get comparable value to what the Pats would get.
And either way, the results of those extra picks do matter. If the added volume were that much of an advantage in finding the gems (admitting that they have been bad at turning pick value into player value in turn admits that it's anything but a crapshoot), the Pats would have more gems and fewer major weaknesses. The Pats have gotten more benefit from a bad division as any team has. And their draft strategy doesn't look as bad as it is due to Brady, their pro scouting, and Bellichick's extraordinary willingness to adapt what he does and go against faulty conventional "wisdom."
And either way, the results of those extra picks do matter. If the added volume were that much of an advantage in finding the gems (admitting that they have been bad at turning pick value into player value in turn admits that it's anything but a crapshoot), the Pats would have more gems and fewer major weaknesses. The Pats have gotten more benefit from a bad division as any team has. And their draft strategy doesn't look as bad as it is due to Brady, their pro scouting, and Bellichick's extraordinary willingness to adapt what he does and go against faulty conventional "wisdom."
OP
OP
kearly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 15,975
- Reaction score
- 0
I once heard a professional poker player say that the game of poker is 85% luck. And yet, there are still professional poker players... still guys who make it to the final rounds repeatedly.
That's basically how I feel about the NFL draft. The best drafting teams are probably only able to create their own luck maybe 15% of the time. The rest of the process is up to chance. Yet in an environment as competitive as the NFL, a 15% edge is enormous. And if you happen to have that edge AND get a little lucky, a dynasty is created.
That's basically how I feel about the NFL draft. The best drafting teams are probably only able to create their own luck maybe 15% of the time. The rest of the process is up to chance. Yet in an environment as competitive as the NFL, a 15% edge is enormous. And if you happen to have that edge AND get a little lucky, a dynasty is created.
