Bill Barnwell - Get more picks; draft is mostly a crapshoot

kearly · Apr 14, 2016

http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2016/story/ ... volume-nfl

Solid article by Barnwell and his points are largely true. He fails to acknowledge player development, coaching, and organizational support though.

Stone Cold · Apr 14, 2016

He would probably argue he eluded to that stuff by including the examples he did (Ravens, Pats, Seahawks), but it does seem to be a bit shortsighted in terms of organizational context. And this isn't exactly new with his articles. He focuses on macro level trends and can miss pretty basic stuff, especially when digging into individual teams.

Not saying I don't like Barnwell. Everyone has blind spots. And in this case it probably does pay to trade down, most of the time. But, for example, he derided the Seahawks for months about the Locket trade in the name of hoarding picks, and in retrospect he was wrong. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong about this in general, and often anecdotal evidence is bullshit, but it also doesn't mean there is a "right" way to go on draft day for every team. Context matters.

Pretty funny that it was put out the same day as the Rams-Titans trade.

sutz · Apr 15, 2016

Stone Cold":27pn282b said:
He would probably argue he eluded to that stuff by including the examples he did (Ravens, Pats, Seahawks), but it does seem to be a bit shortsighted in terms of organizational context. And this isn't exactly new with his articles. He focuses on macro level trends and can miss pretty basic stuff, especially when digging into individual teams.

Not saying I don't like Barnwell. Everyone has blind spots. And in this case it probably does pay to trade down, most of the time. But, for example, he derided the Seahawks for months about the Locket trade in the name of hoarding picks, and in retrospect he was wrong. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong about this in general, and often anecdotal evidence is bullshit, but it also doesn't mean there is a "right" way to go on draft day for every team. Context matters.

Pretty funny that it was put out the same day as the Rams-Titans trade.

Well, one of the things about stockpiling picks is that you have those available as capital when you do want/need to trade up to get a guy. As for the "right" way to draft, I'd say that the only right way is to be flexible about what you do and how so you can work the board to your advantage. Going by hard, locked in stone rules seems to me to be a quick way to screw it up. Bad place to get all ideological. Schnieder seems to have good instincts, and isn't afraid to move quickly if he sees a player that will help the team, but he has the nerves of steel it took to wait til the 3rd round to grab Wilson, who's looking like a steal for the ages.

Stone Cold · Apr 15, 2016

It was a real steel/steal situation

Northwest Seahawk · Apr 15, 2016

Seattle has a lot of picks already it's time to keep our first round draft choice.

Scottemojo · Apr 15, 2016

Stone Cold":1u5rgrze said:
He would probably argue he eluded to that stuff by including the examples he did (Ravens, Pats, Seahawks), but it does seem to be a bit shortsighted in terms of organizational context. And this isn't exactly new with his articles. He focuses on macro level trends and can miss pretty basic stuff, especially when digging into individual teams.

Not saying I don't like Barnwell. Everyone has blind spots. And in this case it probably does pay to trade down, most of the time. But, for example, he derided the Seahawks for months about the Locket trade in the name of hoarding picks, and in retrospect he was wrong. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong about this in general, and often anecdotal evidence is bullshit, but it also doesn't mean there is a "right" way to go on draft day for every team. Context matters.

Pretty funny that it was put out the same day as the Rams-Titans trade.

But is he wrong?
Scot McCloughan spun those Tyler Lockett picks into at least 3 really good players and a third who appears to have a bright future. Matt Jones has the makings of a beast at RB, Kyshoen Jarrett looks like a steal at safety and played a lot late in the year, and the guard from Alabama, Kouandjio, has a lot of potential. So, in that respect, Barnwell isn't wrong about hoarding picks.

It is possible for both teams to win a trade. If the Rams get a franchise QB, the cost in draft picks is next to nothing. How many wins does that Rams team have in 2015 with Russell or Carson Palmer? 12? 13? 14?

Sidepoint, if I wanted to know who to take from rounds 3-7, I would bug Scot McCloughan's phone, car, hotel room, and beer cans.

Mtjhoyas · Apr 15, 2016

It's a good read and I agree with a lot but would caution on one central point.

Here's the analogy I have for the notion of constantly trading down to acquire picks. It's like having a $20 bill and you keep trying to break it down. You get a couple 10s. Then a few 5s. Then you break that into 1s. Then you break that into quarters, etc. At some point, you have watered down the value of that original $20 because while you may have $20 in total value, it's broken down into less valuable forms of currency and you tend to treat is as such. *Notice how you can waste $10 rather easily when you are dealing with 1s and quarters*

So what's my point? While volume drafting is incredibly important in a crap shoot like the NFL Draft, you also have to caution about not taking value when it presents itself. There is a reason that 1st round picks are valued so highly. Your chances of grabbing a difference making talent, are that much better. If this wasn't true, then every team would would simply keep turning 1s and 2s into a bunch of 4th and 5th round picks.

While the Seahawks have had immense success in the late rounds, let's not forget that they have had some drafts (void of higher picks) in which they have got close to nothing. I fully expect the Seahawks to take the guy they want/like at 26. If nobody they like/want is at 26, they will trade back. The Hawks already have an incredible amount of picks and limited spots in which these rookies can actually make the team. I'd rather see the guys draft 6 guys they really want over 11 guys they kinda like.

Just my opinion, of course.

TeamoftheCentury · Apr 15, 2016

Hey,
Good discussion points. I've enjoyed reading the contributions in this thread. 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.

The Seahawks say they don't care if players are a 1st or 7th round pick. They will all compete and best player plays. But, yes... they're looking to acquire the best players to compete for spots. Rather pick sooner than later to get their guys, I'm sure.

I'll say that I think the Seahawks are leaning toward hoping to find a trade partner to trade down. If they can't, they're doing their due diligence to find a player they would deem worthy if they have to use that pick. Not thinking they just simply want to acquire more picks, but more draft currency. Loved how Schneider acquired picks to trade for Lockett. At the time, it was sort of deflating because I like a lot of prospects and enjoy seeing who the Hawks might pick. So, there were suddenly less of those. Tyler Lockett quickly made me forget about all that once on the field.

Anyway, I think we could see a similar thing this year... trading back hopefully somewhere in the top 1/3 of the 2nd round and then using the currency to trade up for another player. I don't think ONE 1st round pick and whatever is left in the late 2nd round is going to address the needs of the Hawks. They have 4 picks in the first 3 rounds. If some maneuvering could result in 5 picks in the 2nd-3rd round range, they could add several quality players that would seriously address roster needs. They may not have to choose between a couple of players, but possibly get both.

Scottemojo is right. That was a win-win trade. But, I think the Hawks got a heckuva player in Lockett. I think he will have a longer career in the league than any of those picks.

But, with as much as any of us talk about where the article falls short, I think it was excellent. I really appreciated the gist of it.

Mtjhoyas · Apr 15, 2016

TeamoftheCentury...

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.

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 (Chandler Jones, Nate Solder, Donte Hightower, Jamie Collins). Notice a theme with those "hits"? If they didn't have Tom Brady or play in an awful division, do you think you'd view these drafts as "masterful?" It's a sincere question, once you see the last 5 drafts in one sitting.

2015:
RD SEL # PLAYER POSITION SCHOOL
1 32 Malcom Brown DT Texas
2 64 Jordan Richards SAF Stanford
3 97 Geneo Grissom LB Oklahoma
4 101 Trey Flowers DE Arkansas
4 111 Tre Jackson G Florida State
4 131 Shaq Mason C Georgia Tech
5 166 Joe Cardona LS Navy
6 178 Matt Wells LB Mississippi State
6 202 A.J. Derby TE Arkansas
7 247 Darryl Roberts CB Marshall
7 253 Xzavier Dickson OLB Alabama

2014:
RD SEL # PLAYER POSITION SCHOOL
1 29 Dominique Easley DT Florida
2 62 Jimmy Garoppolo QB Eastern Illinois
4 105 Bryan Stork C Florida State
4 130 James White RB Wisconsin
4 140 Cameron Fleming T Stanford
6 179 Jon Halapio G Florida
6 206 Jemea Thomas DB Georgia Tech
7 244 Jeremy Gallon WR Michigan

2013:
RD SEL # PLAYER POSITION SCHOOL
2 52 Jamie Collins OLB Southern Mississippi
2 59 Aaron Dobson WR Marshall
3 83 Logan Ryan CB Rutgers
3 91 Duron Harmon SS Rutgers
4 102 Josh Boyce WR Texas Christian
7 226 Michael Buchanan DE Illinois
7 235 Steve Beauharnais ILB Rutger

2012:
RD SEL # PLAYER POSITION SCHOOL
1 21 Chandler Jones DE Syracuse
1 25 Dont'a Hightower LB Alabama
2 48 Tavon Wilson FS Illinois
3 90 Jake Bequette DE Arkansas
6 197 Nate Ebner DB Ohio State
7 224 Alfonzo Dennard CB Nebraska
7 235 Jeremy Ebert WR Northwestern

2011:
RD SEL # PLAYER POSITION SCHOOL
1 17 Nate Solder T Colorado
2 33 Ras-I Dowling DB Virginia
2 56 Shane Vereen RB California
3 73 Stevan Ridley RB LSU
3 74 Ryan Mallett QB Arkansas
5 138 Marcus Cannon T Texas Christian
5 159 Lee Smith TE Marshall
6 194 Markell Carter LB Central Arkansas
7 219 Malcolm Williams DB Texas Christian

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.

bjornanderson21 · Apr 15, 2016

Mtjhoyas":3p9mgkxr said:
It's a good read and I agree with a lot but would caution on one central point.

Here's the analogy I have for the notion of constantly trading down to acquire picks. It's like having a $20 bill and you keep trying to break it down. You get a couple 10s. Then a few 5s. Then you break that into 1s. Then you break that into quarters, etc. At some point, you have watered down the value of that original $20 because while you may have $20 in total value, it's broken down into less valuable forms of currency and you tend to treat is as such. *Notice how you can waste $10 rather easily when you are dealing with 1s and quarters*

So what's my point? While volume drafting is incredibly important in a crap shoot like the NFL Draft, you also have to caution about not taking value when it presents itself. There is a reason that 1st round picks are valued so highly. Your chances of grabbing a difference making talent, are that much better. If this wasn't true, then every team would would simply keep turning 1s and 2s into a bunch of 4th and 5th round picks.

While the Seahawks have had immense success in the late rounds, let's not forget that they have had some drafts (void of higher picks) in which they have got close to nothing. I fully expect the Seahawks to take the guy they want/like at 26. If nobody they like/want is at 26, they will trade back. The Hawks already have an incredible amount of picks and limited spots in which these rookies can actually make the team. I'd rather see the guys draft 6 guys they really want over 11 guys they kinda like.

Just my opinion, of course.

For a team like Seattle who has had trouble drafting good offensive linemen, i would say we have a MUCH better chance of drafting a longtime quality starter with 3 3rd rounders instead of 1 1st rounder. It would also give us the chance to have 2 more starters or backups.

The draft isn't just a crapshoot because of teams incorrectly evaluating someone's talent, it's a crapshoot because some players respond to improved competition better than others, some stay healthy while others suffer multiple injuries, some have off-field issues, and others just aren't motivated.

Even if a team keeps drafting the higher rated players on their board there are plenty of ways for those players to turn out worse than the lower rated players.

Your analogy of breaking down a $20 all the way to pennies doesn't really apply because no team is going to acquire practically the entire 7th round. In this analogy, trading back with 1sts and 2nds to acquire more 2nds, 3rds, 4ths, and fifths would be just like breaking a $20 into a 10, a 5, and five 1s.

Would all the draft picks make the team? No. But it's not about how many don't make the team, it's about how many do make the team and how good they are. History shows there is PLENTY of talent left on the board in the 3rd and 4th round.

bjornanderson21 · Apr 15, 2016

Mtjhoyas":9to7yqkz said:
TeamoftheCentury...

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.

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 (Chandler Jones, Nate Solder, Donte Hightower, Jamie Collins). Notice a theme with those "hits"? If they didn't have Tom Brady or play in an awful division, do you think you'd view these drafts as "masterful?" It's a sincere question, once you see the last 5 drafts in one sitting.

2015:
RD SEL # PLAYER POSITION SCHOOL
1 32 Malcom Brown DT Texas
2 64 Jordan Richards SAF Stanford
3 97 Geneo Grissom LB Oklahoma
4 101 Trey Flowers DE Arkansas
4 111 Tre Jackson G Florida State
4 131 Shaq Mason C Georgia Tech
5 166 Joe Cardona LS Navy
6 178 Matt Wells LB Mississippi State
6 202 A.J. Derby TE Arkansas
7 247 Darryl Roberts CB Marshall
7 253 Xzavier Dickson OLB Alabama

2014:
RD SEL # PLAYER POSITION SCHOOL
1 29 Dominique Easley DT Florida
2 62 Jimmy Garoppolo QB Eastern Illinois
4 105 Bryan Stork C Florida State
4 130 James White RB Wisconsin
4 140 Cameron Fleming T Stanford
6 179 Jon Halapio G Florida
6 206 Jemea Thomas DB Georgia Tech
7 244 Jeremy Gallon WR Michigan

2013:
RD SEL # PLAYER POSITION SCHOOL
2 52 Jamie Collins OLB Southern Mississippi
2 59 Aaron Dobson WR Marshall
3 83 Logan Ryan CB Rutgers
3 91 Duron Harmon SS Rutgers
4 102 Josh Boyce WR Texas Christian
7 226 Michael Buchanan DE Illinois
7 235 Steve Beauharnais ILB Rutger

2012:
RD SEL # PLAYER POSITION SCHOOL
1 21 Chandler Jones DE Syracuse
1 25 Dont'a Hightower LB Alabama
2 48 Tavon Wilson FS Illinois
3 90 Jake Bequette DE Arkansas
6 197 Nate Ebner DB Ohio State
7 224 Alfonzo Dennard CB Nebraska
7 235 Jeremy Ebert WR Northwestern

2011:
RD SEL # PLAYER POSITION SCHOOL
1 17 Nate Solder T Colorado
2 33 Ras-I Dowling DB Virginia
2 56 Shane Vereen RB California
3 73 Stevan Ridley RB LSU
3 74 Ryan Mallett QB Arkansas
5 138 Marcus Cannon T Texas Christian
5 159 Lee Smith TE Marshall
6 194 Markell Carter LB Central Arkansas
7 219 Malcolm Williams DB Texas Christian

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.

I don't ever see articles about how great the Pats are at drafting, only how good they are at MANIPULATING the draft, and they have earned their reputation.

They have also done very well with trading away players for picks, while also making some very good trades for players. They tend to make quality veteran FA signings which make it worth it to lose out on comp picks.

Overall they have done better with trades than any team in the NFL.

If they had a top-10 scouting department they would've probably won 7 or 8 of the last 10 Super Bowls.

bjornanderson21 · Apr 15, 2016

I strongly agree with the article and I'm glad Seattle was used as an example.

Basically the same methodology that brought us our awesome drafts early in the PC/JS era also brought us the bad drafts of 2013 and 2014.

The huge swing in quality of draft classes indicates that "luck" however you want to define it is a big part of it.

Just like the article states, if you want a better chance of winning the lottery then you need more tickets.

Our successes have mostly been in the mid-to-late rounds anyway, so trading back in the early rounds would not have ruined our awesome drafts, while it quite clearly would've improved the 2013 and 2014 drafts where it appears the team mostly whiffed on the players they chose.

More picks also means a better chance of drafting players at all the positions you need. You want your draft picks to make the team? Increase your odds by getting players at positions you need. No more walking out of a draft without addressing needed positions because "the draft board didn't fall our way".

1st round talent with serious injury concerns? It's a lot easier to spend a 5th when you have 3 5ths.

1st/2nd round talent with off-field issues? It's a lot easier to spend a 4th when you have 3 4ths.

Interesting backup QB option? It's a lot easier to use a pick when you know you have a bunch of other picks to address other needs.

With this draft strategy a team would always have a big influx of cheap young players, allowing more cap space to be used targeting specific FAs for any positions that haven't been taken care of through the draft (draft is always #1).

kearly · Apr 15, 2016

JS made an interesting comment in his interview from the other thread where he said that he doesn't see players as 1st rounders, 2nd rounders, etc. He just simply sees players as roster upgrades.

chris98251 · Apr 15, 2016

kearly":1t489wi3 said:
JS made an interesting comment in his interview from the other thread where he said that he doesn't see players as 1st rounders, 2nd rounders, etc. He just simply sees players as roster upgrades.

But he is acutely aware of the price per round, I think your right about the upgrades and evaluation aspect, sometimes you fall in love with a method and ignore some flags or some positives that may make a player a fit due to trying to fit a player into a mold. I think we will be a bit more flexible this year. SPARQ, but some is he a player, does he have that always in the play type mentality and make things happen. Is his football IQ high, is he a guy that pushes himself every day.

First the fall off is more flat, meaning the separation of players will be more subtle.

Second less predictability about where players will go because the evaluation process is going to be more a crapshoot depending on how other teams look at them.

bjornanderson21 · Apr 15, 2016

kearly":1ja0a87h said:
JS made an interesting comment in his interview from the other thread where he said that he doesn't see players as 1st rounders, 2nd rounders, etc. He just simply sees players as roster upgrades.

Someone else had mentioned in another thread that they look at how much of an improvement a player might be at a position (which is what a team SHOULD do, and same thing as upgrade) and that is another way of saying "drafting for need" except you allow yourself to draft a non-needed position if the talent is too good to pass on.

Positions where you are weakest provide the most opportunity to upgrade, while the positions where you are strongest are more likely to just be added depth.

kearly · Apr 15, 2016

bjornanderson21":2sr9bm3j said:
kearly":2sr9bm3j said:

JS made an interesting comment in his interview from the other thread where he said that he doesn't see players as 1st rounders, 2nd rounders, etc. He just simply sees players as roster upgrades.

Click to expand...

Someone else had mentioned in another thread that they look at how much of an improvement a player might be at a position (which is what a team SHOULD do, and same thing as upgrade) and that is another way of saying "drafting for need" except you allow yourself to draft a non-needed position if the talent is too good to pass on.

Positions where you are weakest provide the most opportunity to upgrade, while the positions where you are strongest are more likely to just be added depth.

All of that is true. However, the tone in John Schneider's response carried an additional connotation. Basically, it is his belief that we shouldn't bust his balls if he drafts a guy with a 2nd round grade in round 1, because he simply doesn't care about draft grades. He ONLY cares about roster upgrade.

Tech Worlds · Apr 16, 2016

We got like 19 picks this year. If we trade down and get more picks, they better be for next year.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

kearly · Apr 16, 2016

Seattle currently has 9 picks. JS has averaged 9 ⅓ picks per draft. If JS is being truthful about this being a very good draft with very few ledges my guess is that he'll shoot for 10+ picks.

AgentDib · Apr 16, 2016

This sort of discussion often misses the very important point that it takes two to make a deal. If trading down was always superior than why would the team trading up not offer less capital in return? Any open market trends towards equilibrium provided that there is competition and no distorting incentives. There can be no dominant strategies when the other trade party is free to offer any terms they want.

I can, however, think of a few incentives to cause teams to trade up and smart teams could work around to find an advantage. Short sighted owners may push for the acquisition of star players to further their brand. Similarly, GM's on the hot seat may push for the acquisition of star youth that will need to developed for a few years as a way of clutching onto their failing position for another year. Trading down may be a net advantage for a team where either of these factors come into play for the other team.

One of the reasons why I think this is an important distinction is that a lot of the credit for the well run organizations belongs to leadership at the top that has a long-term view. A handful of franchises in the NFL have been successful at sustaining themselves over a long period of time by building through the draft and stockpiling picks each year. However, if you put the same GMs who get much of the credit for that on a team with a short-term minded owner then they will probably not be able to replicate that success.

I suppose that's just a too wordy way of saying that many teams would like to have the luxury of trading down but there are a lot of front offices feeling the heat from impatient owners who have to worry about politics as much as they have to worry about football evaluations. Telling them to "get more picks" misses the real problems they're having.

titan3131 · Apr 16, 2016

kearly":2qm44m00 said:
Seattle currently has 9 picks. JS has averaged 9 ⅓ picks per draft. If JS is being truthful about this being a very good draft with very few ledges my guess is that he'll shoot for 10+ picks.

Kearly what trade down is most likely

Down from 1st rd net a 3rd?
Down from 2nd net a 4th and 5th?

Bill Barnwell - Get more picks; draft is mostly a crapshoot

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Similar threads