This is the end of the draft trade value chart debate.

[OCinBuffalo]

....by the player personnel guy on your team, sot that when a trade comes in, you don't even have to think about it." Also, "there can't be chaos in the war room". Etc.

 

Those of you saying that the trade chart is no longer relevant/should be thrown out/whatever: It's over.

 

You are wrong because of the NECESSITY that the trade/draft value chart addresses. Understand, the trade/draft value chart doesn't exist to destroy your dopey "we could have, therefore, should have, traded up/down because I heard it on internet, therefore, Ralph is cheap/Buddy asleep/the team is moving to LA" threads. It does a fine job of that, but that is not it's primary purpose.

 

It's primary purpose has just been defined in the direct quote above.

 

This also means: the RG3 trade was horrible, as was the Sanchez trade. Simple reason: how much draft value did it cost to get the top 10 QBs in the league, and how much did RG3 cost? And, you are telling me that RG3, right now, is 3X better than all of those, including 4 HOF locks, and 2 more probables? How will anyone ever be 3X better than Aaron Rodgers? Peyton Manning? Is zombie Otto Graham coming back to start for the Browns? Never mind that RG3 is taking 3 expected/potential starters off your roster? Not

 

 

ever.

 

There's opinion, and then, there's opinion based on the Redskins/Jets drafting history. You are entitled to either, but the second one gets you laughed at.

 

(MOD: hey I have no problem if you smush this into another thread....as long as you change the title of that thread to accurately reflect reality)

Edited April 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[peterpan]

Maybe the chart is a constantly living changing chart, and the new rookie wage scale is making higher picks more valuable, ie the Cleveland and Rams trades the last two years. Per the chart both overpaid. Did the Player Personal on the Falcons and Skins not memorize their chart well enough?

 

I still use the chart when thinking of potential trades, but if a team wants to move up or down, they will give up more or less depending on how much they want to move up or down. And with top talent now much much cheaper, thats more incentive to give up more in a trade up or demand more in a trade down. That chart isnt set in stone at all.

Edited April 25, 2012 by peterpan

[jjmac]

I get the feeling that we don't need to worry about Chaos in a Buddy Nix-led war room, but Polian raises some good points.

[34-78-83]

Having "A Chart" I'm sure is of high importance.

Using Jimmy Johnson's outdated chart from the late 80's as your bible is likely not a very good plan, as many factors have changed since then.

So, certainly not the end of the debate in my opinion.

Using Jimmy's dated chart seems to be a bit foolish in 2012.

[jjmac]

Having "A Chart" I'm sure is of high importance.

Using Jimmy Johnson's outdated chart from the late 80's as your bible is likely not a very good plan, as many factors have changed since then.

So, certainly not the end of the debate in my opinion.

Using Jimmy's dated chart seems to be a bit foolish in 2012.

 

Why is it outdated? What has changed?

[34-78-83]

Why is it outdated? What has changed?

 

The Salary bracketing has changed big time.

Free Agency also has changed vastly from 1989 (were we even in "plan B" yet?)

Both I would think would be major factors.

I'm sure every team has a chart for this, but thinking that it hasn't changed , possibly even drastically is probably short-sighted.

[Tommy]

I saw the Sportscenter Special last night where I believe you obtained that quote from Bill Polian. What I took out of it was that every team probably has A chart, but that doesn't mean all teams use the same chart. In other words, Polian was saying that due to the time crunch, you need someone to quickly evaluate if a potential trade is fair or not based on YOUR team's chart. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were some differences between the trade value charts that each team uses.

[section122]

....by the player personnel guy on your team, sot that when a trade comes in, you don't even have to think about it." Also, "there can't be chaos in the war room". Etc.

 

Those of you saying that the trade chart is no longer relevant/should be thrown out/whatever: It's over.

 

You are wrong because of the NECESSITY that the trade/draft value chart addresses. Understand, the trade/draft value chart doesn't exist to destroy your dopey "we could have, therefore, should have, traded up/down because I heard it on internet, therefore, Ralph is cheap/Buddy asleep/the team is moving to LA" threads. It does a fine job of that, but that is not it's primary purpose.

 

It's primary purpose has just been defined in the direct quote above.

 

This also means: the RG3 trade was horrible, as was the Sanchez trade. Simple reason: how much draft value did it cost to get the top 10 QBs in the league, and how much did RG3 cost? And, you are telling me that RG3, right now, is 3X better than all of those, including 4 HOF locks, and 2 more probables? How will anyone ever be 3X better than Aaron Rodgers? Peyton Manning? Is zombie Otto Graham coming back to start for the Browns? Never mind that RG3 is taking 3 expected/potential starters off your roster? Not

 

 

ever.

 

There's opinion, and then, there's opinion based on the Redskins/Jets drafting history. You are entitled to either, but the second one gets you laughed at.

 

(MOD: hey I have no problem if you smush this into another thread....as long as you change the title of that thread to accurately reflect reality)

Jeez man your vendetta is kind of ridiculous. The thread (which I started) was based off of a link to Peter King's monday morning qb article. The person who said the trade chart was irrelevant was a club official. Which sparked the conversation. For those interested it can be found here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/144884-throw-out-the-trade-value-chart/

 

The trade chart was made over 20 years ago! The fact that it needs to be updated or has been updated should not be surprising. In the original thread Icansleepwhenimdead posted an excellent link/article that talks about trade value. Is it possible that some teams prefer to look at it from that point of view rather than something Jimmy Johnson had one of his lackeys come up with?

 

I also will question (since you keep referring to it) who says this?

Understand, the trade/draft value chart doesn't exist to destroy your dopey "we could have, therefore, should have, traded up/down because I heard it on internet, therefore, Ralph is cheap/Buddy asleep/the team is moving to LA" threads. It does a fine job of that, but that is not it's primary purpose.

It certainly isn't me hasn't, been me, and I don't think it has been anyone else who was having the civil discussion about it in that thread.

 

Lastly, no one (including you) knows whether or not the trade for RG3 was a bad one yet. We know the trade for sanchez was a bad one because he's not a good player. QB remains the most important position in the game. If he turns out to be a stud it changes the discussion of how much was to much. Jay Cutler not that long ago went for 2 #1 picks if RG3 turns out better does it still make it a bad trade? Your discussion of needing to be 3x beeter than rodgers and manning made no sense to me so please explain that further until then... lay off the coffee man sheesh

Edited April 25, 2012 by section122

[OCinBuffalo]

Maybe the chart is a constantly living changing chart, and the new rookie wage scale is making higher picks more valuable, ie the Cleveland and Rams trades the last two years.

As I have said: you need to modify the chart to reflect change. But, that's true with every single model, statistical, economic, financial, accounting, weather, whatever. What you don't do? Throw out your entire model and replace it with nothing, as has been suggested here, so that the jackass opinion that Jackass Trade #1 can't be challenged. That makes no sense, because like all models, the need to interpret data quickly, and turn it into actionable information, drives their creation.

 

Yeah, those trades are foolish. Cleveland and the Rams stole picks, period. The draft chart, and common sense, have both made that clear. The only thing that remains: eventual confirmation on the field. I've thought of creating a long-term draft value vs. actual play wager system. Basically an over/under.

Per the chart both overpaid. Did the Player Personal on the Falcons and Skins not memorize their chart well enough?

Yes, and yes. Both teams have a lot more historical draft idiocy than smarts. And, that's the point: do you want to hang your hat on the Skins football decision making ability to prove your point? Please, don't let me stop you: I can always use the lulz. Ok, I will stop you: look a the long term patterns of perennial draft losers. Shooting from the hip, departing from your big board, and ignoring the value chart are the behaviors you will find consistently.

 

The argument you should be making: Sometimes owners like Dan Snyder, who can't stand being in a division...room...elevator...where he isn't the most important person, use the draft to assuage other needs besides helping the football team. He needs headlines, because that's how he tries to keep the Skins relevant in an area that has the Ravens. Sometimes owners like Jerry Jones, misguidedly believe that the draft is for selling tickets, not building football teams. Now, hey, it's their business, and they have the right to run it however they like. However, we have the right to mock them for it.

I still use the chart when thinking of potential trades, but if a team wants to move up or down, they will give up more or less depending on how much they want to move up or down. And with top talent now much much cheaper, thats more incentive to give up more in a trade up or demand more in a trade down. That chart isnt set in stone at all.

Yeah...that's pretty much WTF the chart tells us. Again, it may need to be modified for the 1st round....but what about rounds 2-7? NOTHING has changed there. Now, we have to see if the modifications necessary in round 1....mean that the rest has to be adjusted. I assume they do, as the chart appears to be based on relative measure.

 

The only thing that is set in stone: teams needs a fast way to evaluate draft trades when they are on the clock. Until something better comes along....that means the current draft chart, however modified, is set in stone as well.

Edited April 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[peterpan]

As I have said: you need to modify the chart to reflect change. But, that's true with every single model, statistical, economic, financial, accounting, weather, whatever. What you don't do? Throw out your entire model and replace it with nothing, as has been suggested here, so that the jackass opinion that Jackass Trade #1 can't be challenged. That makes no sense, because like all models, the need to interpret data quickly, and turn it into actionable information, drives their creation.

 

Yeah, those trades are foolish. Cleveland and the Rams stole picks, period. The draft chart, and common sense, have both made that clear. The only thing that remains: eventual confirmation on the field. I've thought of creating a long-term draft value vs. actual play wager system. Basically an over/under.

 

Yes, and yes. Both teams have a lot more historical draft idiocy than smarts. And, that's the point: do you want to hang your hat on the Skins football decision making ability to prove your point? Please, don't let me stop you: I can always use the lulz. Ok, I will stop you: look a the long term patterns of perennial draft losers. Shooting from the hip, departing from your big board, and ignoring the value chart are the behaviors you will find consistently.

 

The argument you should be making: Sometimes owners like Dan Snyder, who can't stand being in a division...room...elevator...where he isn't the most important person, use the draft to assuage other needs besides helping the football team. He needs headlines, because that's how he tries to keep the Skins relevant in an area that has the Ravens. Sometimes owners like Jerry Jones, misguidedly believe that the draft is for selling tickets, not building football teams. Now, hey, it's their business, and they have the right to run it however they like. However, we have the right to mock them for it.

 

Yeah...that's pretty much WTF the chart tells us. Again, it may need to be modified for the 1st round....but what about rounds 2-7? NOTHING has changed there. Now, we have to see if the modifications necessary in round 1....mean that the rest has to be adjusted. I assume they do, as the chart appears to be based on relative measure.

 

The only thing that is set in stone: teams needs a fast way to evaluate draft trades when they are on the clock. Until something better comes along....that means the current draft chart, however modified, is set in stone as well.

 

I don't know why you came after me like a big bad crazy tiger! I was just posting for some discussion. Whats up your butt today? (I know its not me....butt I'd like to be )

Edited April 25, 2012 by peterpan

[NoSaint]

obviously every team has a handy reference tool like this to help break things down. frankly id assume it changes not just from team to team, but potentially even year to year based on where people see value in players or position groups they are targeting.

 

ultimately, this cowboys value chart is good for fans, and probably puts some pressue on GMs to not be too far out of line with but..... its not an authority.

[OCinBuffalo]

Jeez man your vendetta is kind of ridiculous.

I make each post worthy of those that will read it. Therefore, my posts are no more or less ridiculous than the subject matter/posters involved.

The thread (which I started) was based off of a link to Peter King's monday morning qb article. The person who said the trade chart was irrelevant was a club official. Which sparked the conversation. For those interested it can be found here: http://forums.twobil...de-value-chart/

 

The trade chart was made over 20 years ago! The fact that it needs to be updated or has been updated should not be surprising. In the original thread Icansleepwhenimdead posted an excellent link/article that talks about trade value. Is it possible that some teams prefer to look at it from that point of view rather than something Jimmy Johnson had one of his lackeys come up with?

Something can't be obsolete, or irrelevant, and need to be updated at the same time. Words mean things.

 

Yes, it's possible that some teams, like the Redskins, have a 10 years running Dan Synder pattern of f'ing up in the draft. It's possible that owners like Jerry Jones, or even Ralph Wilson when it comes to RBs , are willing to throw away a year's worth of analysis, because their gut? tells them to go another way. IF you look at who does what, over the long term, it's no surprise why teams like the Ravens/Steelers draft well, and teams like...well the Bills, have drafted poorly.

I also will question (since you keep referring to it) who says this?

Understand, the trade/draft value chart doesn't exist to destroy your dopey "we could have, therefore, should have, traded up/down because I heard it on internet, therefore, Ralph is cheap/Buddy asleep/the team is moving to LA" threads. It does a fine job of that, but that is not it's primary purpose.

It certainly isn't me hasn't, been me, and I don't think it has been anyone else who was having the civil discussion about it in that thread.

As I already said: this isn't about you. As I already said: you can choose to make it about you, but I doubt you'll like that.

Lastly, no one (including you) knows whether or not the trade for RG3 was a bad one yet. We know the trade for sanchez was a bad one because he's not a good player. QB remains the most important position in the game. If he turns out to be a stud it changes the discussion of how much was to much. Jay Cutler not that long ago went for 2 #1 picks if RG3 turns out better does it still make it a bad trade? Your discussion of needing to be 3x beeter than rodgers and manning made no sense to me so please explain that further until then... lay off the coffee man sheesh

No.

 

RG3 is not going to be 3X the player Peyton Manning is. Look at the draft chart: you add up the value, and then compare that to the value that was required to obtain Manning, Rodgers, etc. (I'm not even gonna bother with Brady, because that is an outlier) RG3 costs you 3-4 times what these lock HOFers did. Now, is he 3X more valuable than Peyton Manning? No. In fact, due to the limitations of the human body, and physical science....it is a practical impossibility to be 3X better than Manning.

 

So, in all cases, I know right now that there's no way in hell the RG3 trade makes any sense at all. When we add in the fact that having RG3 means you take 2 probable and one likely starter off your roster? Now it makes -sense. This is the football equivalent of dividing by zero.

[section122]

What you don't do? Throw out your entire model and replace it with nothing, as has been suggested here, so that the jackass opinion that Jackass Trade #1 can't be challenged. That makes no sense, because like all models, the need to interpret data quickly, and turn it into actionable information, drives their creation.

This is not what was said again here is my post from the last topic:

I think you guys are taking to literally the statement of throwing out the old draft value chart. I took it as the numbers were useless not so much that the tool was useless if that makes sense. All picks still have value but the number value of those picks are not the same, therefore the picks to trade would be different, therefore the old chart doesn't mean much. A trade value chart has a use just not the old one with the old numbers.

it is post 22 in the thread and not edited so please stop with the witch hunt or at least spew facts while on it. You definitely seem to be on a rampage, maybe your lonely? Peter Pan has offered to be company maybe that'll calm you down a bit!

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't know why you came after me like a big bad crazy tiger! I was just posting for some discussion. Whats up your butt today? (I know its not me....butt I'd like to be )

Dude, look at my sig: I come after everybody. If you take it personally, that's your problem. I've stated my objective multiple times: I don't want to see 1000 "we could have traded up/down" threads next week, based on nothing but BS.

 

So, this year, I decided to be proactive, and pre-bash people who refuse to base their posts on reason, data, and confirmed information. Some "league source" is probably an agent, who is doing his job spinning things to get deals for his players. I have no problem with him. I do have a problem with the people that listen to him and start telling us our team sucks because we didn't buy in to his intentional BS.

 

Again, I ask: how many times did Mario Williams leave Buffalo? Who were the "sources" on that "story"?

 

What you don't do? Throw out your entire model and replace it with nothing, as has been suggested here, so that the jackass opinion that Jackass Trade #1 can't be challenged. That makes no sense, because like all models, the need to interpret data quickly, and turn it into actionable information, drives their creation.

This is not what was said again here is my post from the last topic:

I think you guys are taking to literally the statement of throwing out the old draft value chart. I took it as the numbers were useless not so much that the tool was useless if that makes sense. All picks still have value but the number value of those picks are not the same, therefore the picks to trade would be different, therefore the old chart doesn't mean much. A trade value chart has a use just not the old one with the old numbers.

it is post 22 in the thread and not edited so please stop with the witch hunt or at least spew facts while on it. You definitely seem to be on a rampage, maybe your lonely? Peter Pan has offered to be company maybe that'll calm you down a bit!

Once more, you are tempting fate trying to make this about you. Go ahead. I am sure the board can use the lulz.

 

Dude, you literally used the words "throw out the trade value chart" in the title of your dopey thread.

 

Words...mean....things.

 

Now, you are backing off those words. Keep backpedaling, Deion, and you might just cover your ass on this topic.

[playman]

without reading the previous posts:

 

RG3 was a case of absolutely making sure to have a better offer on the table than cleveland.

 

mission accomplished. so its a good trade.

 

as of now.........

[section122]

 

Something can't be obsolete, or irrelevant, and need to be updated at the same time. Words mean things.

 

ummm yes something can be obsolete and need to be updated. I won't argue language with you as this is a football board, however obsolete and irrelevant are exactly things you would want to update to make them current and relevant.

 

 

As I already said: this isn't about you. As I already said: you can choose to make it about you, but I doubt you'll like that.

 

and yet you keep trying to twist my words to fit your argument. So who exactly are you going at? Random people who may or may not be reading these threads that start all of the trade threads that you bemoan so much?

 

 

RG3 is not going to be 3X the player Peyton Manning is. Look at the draft chart: you add up the value, and then compare that to the value that was required to obtain Manning, Rodgers, etc. (I'm not even gonna bother with Brady, because that is an outlier) RG3 costs you 3-4 times what these lock HOFers did. Now, is he 3X more valuable than Peyton Manning? No. In fact, due to the limitations of the human body, and physical science....it is a practical impossibility to be 3X better than Manning.

 

So, in all cases, I know right now that there's no way in hell the RG3 trade makes any sense at all. When we add in the fact that having RG3 means you take 2 probable and one likely starter off your roster? Now it makes -sense. This is the football equivalent of dividing by zero.

 

Peyton Manning was selected without a trade being made as was Rodgers. SO this doesn't really work for your argument. If the redskins had stayed put they would not have had a shot at rg3. For your argument you need to address qbs that were traded for in their position and as I already stated we know the sanchez trade was a bad one because he is a bad player. Where do you fall on the Jay Cutler trade? He was traded for essentially the same thing as rg3 (2 #1's and a #3 as well as a starting qb in orton). The only difference being a #2 instead of a #3 and they didn't give up a qb. Your argument doesn't really pertain to the draft chart at all. To be 3 times the player (or the trade to have 3x the value) as the Manning pick the Redskins needed to trade the #1 overall pick not just first round picks. What if he ends up being 3x the player Tim Couch or Jamarcus Russell was? They too were #1 overall picks.

[LynchMob23]

Dude, look at my sig: I come after everybody. If you take it personally, that's your problem. I've stated my objective multiple times: I don't want to see 1000 "we could have traded up/down" threads next week, based on nothing but BS.

 

So, this year, I decided to be proactive, and pre-bash people who refuse to base their posts on reason, data, and confirmed information. Some "league source" is probably an agent, who is doing his job spinning things to get deals for his players. I have no problem with him. I do have a problem with the people that listen to him and start telling us our team sucks because we didn't buy in to his intentional BS.

 

Again, I ask: how many times did Mario Williams leave Buffalo? Who were the "sources" on that "story"?

And some of those WGR guys were in on that, "I heard from sources he left too", so even the locals cannot be trusted.

[KRC]

Is zombie Otto Graham coming back to start for the Browns?

 

That would be cool.

[section122]

 

Once more, you are tempting fate trying to make this about you. Go ahead. I am sure the board can use the lulz.

 

Dude, you literally used the words "throw out the trade value chart" in the title of your dopey thread.

 

Words...mean....things.

 

Now, you are backing off those words. Keep backpedaling, Deion, and you might just cover your ass on this topic.

You mean the thread created on the premise that the old chart was no longer relevant and a new one needed to be created? What is so hard for you to understand about that? If you have a ratty old couch and need to get rid of it (throw it out) does that mean then that you can no longer have a couch? Or does it mean that you can go buy a new one and therefore still have a couch just not the one you used to have?

[OCinBuffalo]

Section 122:

ummm yes something can be obsolete and need to be updated. I won't argue language with you as this is a football board, however obsolete and irrelevant are exactly things you would want to update to make them current and relevant.

Yes, but when we use the words "throw out the draft value chart" they don't mean "update and make it current" now do they? Don't blame me if you can't express yourself properly.

 

Peyton Manning was selected without a trade being made as was Rodgers. SO this doesn't really work for your argument. If the redskins had stayed put they would not have had a shot at rg3.

 

It is seminal to my argument. The problem here appears to be: you don't understand my argument. RG3 doesn't exist in a vacuum. And, pretending that RG3 is worth 3 times the draft value of Manning, and taking 3 starters off your team, is ludicrous.

 

For your argument you need to address qbs that were traded for in their position and as I already stated we know the sanchez trade was a bad one because he is a bad player. Where do you fall on the Jay Cutler trade? He was traded for essentially the same thing as rg3 (2 #1's and a #3 as well as a starting qb in orton). The only difference being a #2 instead of a #3 and they didn't give up a qb. Your argument doesn't really pertain to the draft chart at all. To be 3 times the player (or the trade to have 3x the value) as the Manning pick the Redskins needed to trade the #1 overall pick not just first round picks. What if he ends up being 3x the player Tim Couch or Jamarcus Russell was? They too were #1 overall picks.

 

So if RG3 is 3x0...which is what Couch and Russell ending up being worth....doesn't that still = 0?

 

My argument is based absolutely on the draft chart, as both are relative to the opportunity cost of giving away picks. You are acting as if the RG3 trade happened independently of this draft, and the next 2. Nope. That's now how it works. It is how it works if you are Dan Snyder, and now you won't be drafting in the 1^st for the next 2 years. What happens if there is a #1 all time great DE, or WR, or hell, another QB, in those 2 years? Now, somebody else gets them, because Synder has given away the opportunity to draft them.

 

That, is the other reason why the draft chart exists.

Edited April 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo