|
02-25-2015, 12:47 PM | #271 |
He's Mahomie!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Jax, FL
|
Thanks for moving my thread mods. Sorry for the double thread.
|
Posts: 17,387
|
02-25-2015, 04:05 PM | #272 |
Fire Controlman Vet
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: By the Sea
|
Put me in there as trading down as well, we should have a decent pick if we are looking for DT, and most of the OT are projected as moving to OG anyway.
If we cannot land one of top 3 WOs there is not going to be much of a difference maker at 18th spot we can about the same 4 to 5 picks later. If I am the GM I would be talking up some players RBs WOs, pash rushers that fall within 18th spot and hope we can hook in team for a extra 3rd draft pick. That would give us say 4 picks in the top 100 players to chose off the big board OL/DB/DT/WO/. Pray same teams has their hooks on some player and will take him at 18th. Last edited by redshirt32; 02-25-2015 at 09:53 PM.. Reason: spelling of course |
Posts: 5,340
|
02-26-2015, 11:29 AM | #273 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
Most GMs don't believe it though. They have too much confidence in their ability to pick players to do this. New England is the only team that appears to do this on a somewhat regular basis (as far as I have noticed)...hasn't worked out too badly for them. I remember reading about this a while back. It occurs to me that this might work for the first round, but I'm sure there are diminishing returns and a point where you might even want to start trading up. |
|
Posts: 2,454
|
02-26-2015, 11:30 AM | #274 |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Trading down hasn't really worked out that we'll for the Pats either. Until recent drafts, they've been shitty drafters
|
Posts: 82,640
|
02-26-2015, 11:32 AM | #275 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
I wouldn't say they've done too badly. http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/ful...3200&type=team |
|
Posts: 2,454
|
02-26-2015, 11:34 AM | #276 |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
More picks does statistically equal more chances, but those chances diminish when the round of the pick is lower.
A first rounder is going to have a higher chance of success than 2 5th rounders combined |
Posts: 82,640
|
02-26-2015, 11:36 AM | #277 |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Los Angeles
|
You're right..but a first rounder is not going to have a higher chance of success than 2 2nd rounders. Remember you're not going to trade out of a 1st round for 2 5ths.... unless maybe you're the Raiders or Washington.
|
Posts: 2,454
|
02-26-2015, 11:37 AM | #278 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
If youre at the end of th first round, I'd agree more. At 18, I wouldn't want to trade back too far. but ultimately, it's always a good idea |
|
Posts: 82,640
|
02-26-2015, 11:42 AM | #279 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
Early on, the statistic favor trading down more strongly. Meaning the smartest thing you can do with the 1-1 pick is trade. Even if Manning is there. Because you don't know if he is going to be Manning, Alex Smith, David Carr, or Jamarcus Russell. I'm not familiar enough with the study to know what the actual breakeven point is. |
|
Posts: 2,454
|
02-26-2015, 11:50 AM | #280 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
With the new wage scale, it's changed that as well, with the franchise crippling of a bust not as high |
|
Posts: 82,640
|
02-26-2015, 12:04 PM | #281 |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Los Angeles
|
And that's the argument that GMs make. The statistics argue that NO GM is smart enough to win out using that info over the statistics in the long run.
|
Posts: 2,454
|
02-26-2015, 12:08 PM | #282 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
QB is still a multiplier. If you can get a great one like manning, the chance you have to take and the picks you have to give up are worth it. This is speaking of qbs though, in terms of other picks, it wouldn't matter. But again, trading down takes 2 to tango, so it isn't always as simple as saying "I want to trade down". |
|
Posts: 82,640
|
02-26-2015, 12:30 PM | #283 | |
MVP
Join Date: Aug 2011
|
Quote:
If you draft shitty, you ABSOLUTELY want more picks - because that's just more chances of getting lucky. |
|
Posts: 12,802
|
02-26-2015, 12:32 PM | #284 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
maybe if that's the case, improve your drafting? |
|
Posts: 82,640
|
02-26-2015, 12:33 PM | #285 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Los Angeles
|
Quote:
You keep pointing out to context vs stats. Stats suggest that no GM is smart enough to pick out the context. Example Eli Manning. Context at the time said he was the next Peyton. He's a solid QB, but certainly not Peyton. Now look at what he was traded for: Philip Rivers, Shawne Merriman and Nate Kaeding. No question in my mind that SD came out ahead with this deal. Manning might be slightly better than Rivers...might...but the rest of the trade goes to SD. Instead of trading up the Giants could have stayed put and gotten Big Ben. If you look at every trade ever made in the 1st round in the history of the NFL you will find that the majority of the "winners" were the ones trading down. That nullifies the value of the GM's smarts. |
|
Posts: 2,454
|
|
|