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

[section122]

 

 

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.

 

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

 

no I don't understand your argument at all. Manning was the #1 pick and was obtained without making a trade. For RG3 to have to be 3x better than Peyton the trade would have to have been for 3 #1 overall picks that were equal to Peyton. How many times does that happen?

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.

What if the Redskins make the playoffs each of the next 2 years what if those picks aren't top 10 picks but mid 20's? They would already miss on those "all time great players." All I'm saying is it to early to judge the trade because we don't know the value of RG3 or who the picks they traded away will end up being. The old draft chart was created before free agency and before rookie salary wages so is it really that shocking that the chart may need to be updated? We will see in the future what picks the Rams end up even getting and it may change your tune a bit or it may change mine I'm just saying it is to early to tell.

[PaattMaann]

I always enjoy your posts OCinBuffalo, and our chats in the shout box as well....getttt emmmmm'

[OCinBuffalo]

What if the Redskins make the playoffs each of the next 2 years what if those picks aren't top 10 picks but mid 20's?

What if you woke up tomorrow and found a gold nugget in your ass? Jesus. Now it's "what if"? There's an easy answer to your question: go look at the draft chart, and do an analysis. Then, come back here, and we'll see if your analysis is any good. Perhaps you could look at the last 5 years of players drafted in the "mid 20's" and see if it's worth losing 2 of them, and a guy drafted in the top 10 of the second round.

They would already miss on those "all time great players."

How? What if their mid 20's pick is another Clay Matthews(#26)? See, I can do "what if", too.

All I'm saying is it to early to judge the trade because we don't know the value of RG3 or who the picks they traded away will end up being. The old draft chart was created before free agency and before rookie salary wages so is it really that shocking that the chart may need to be updated? We will see in the future what picks the Rams end up even getting and it may change your tune a bit or it may change mine I'm just saying it is to early to tell.

I've said it enough, update it, fine. Throw it out, especially as way to make life more convenient for dopey thread posters? No.

 

There's no way in hell. And, you can't base this solely on the Rams. Who the Redskins trade with is irrelevant(Edit: within the division is more relevant). The only thing that matters is: the opportunity cost they gave up. That's because, there's no way in hell that the Redskins would have drafted exactly who the Rams end up drafting with the picks they stole.

 

Edit:

Although, you could look at it this way: The Redskins are better off not having those draft picks, as they would likely draft busts and generate more negative headlines. But then, headlines, positive or negative, is what Snyder wants. Nah, it's better that the Rams get to use them, since the Redskins have such a sterling record when it comes to FA accquistions. Who need the draft?

Edited April 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[K-9]

Ironically, Polian never would have made the trade for Bennett if he had that value chart in '87. Two 1st and a 2nd? For an OLB? That's a lot of 'opportunity cost.'

 

He's damn glad he did it anyway, though.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited April 25, 2012 by K-9

[OCinBuffalo]

Ironically, Polian never would have made the trade for Bennett if he had that value chart in '87. Two 1st and a 2nd? For an OLB? That's a lot of 'opportunity cost.'

 

He's damn glad he did it anyway, though.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Heh.....I've been waiting for somebody to bring this up.....for the last 6 weeks. Of course it took a TSW heavyweight to finally do it. I was really starting to wonder if this would ever be brought up. But, then I remembered which board I was on.

 

Anyway, this = The exception that proves the rule. Hey, RG3 could be this as well....but the batting average on these trades?

 

You say Bennett...and I say: Ricky Williams....which was my standard response to when Bennett was brought up...for the last 6 weeks.

Edited April 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[NoSaint]

Heh.....I've been waiting for somebody to bring this up.....for the last 6 weeks. Of course it took a TSW heavyweight to finally do it. I was really starting to wonder if this would ever be brought up. But, then I remembered which board I was on.

 

Anyway, this = The exception that proves the rule. Hey, RG3 could be this as well....but the batting average on these trades?

 

You say Bennett...and I say: Ricky Williams....which was my standard response to when Bennett was brought up...for the last 6 weeks.

 

The realistic thing that you keep leaving out in your 3 starters argument, which i believe is worth discussing is that teams tend to bat at what, about .500-600 on first rounders? just pulling a rough guestimate there, but i think you can at least get on board for the fact that with 3 picks, getting 2 starters would be considered successful.

 

of course on the flip, theres no promise rg3 doesnt end up more ryan leaf than manning. if you are REALLY confident though, id say that elite qb is easily worth two very good other players if you have to trade for him instead of having him fall in your lap.

[K-9]

Heh.....I've been waiting for somebody to bring this up.....for the last 6 weeks. Of course it took a TSW heavyweight to finally do it. I was really starting to wonder if this would ever be brought up. But, then I remembered which board I was on.

 

Anyway, this = The exception that proves the rule. Hey, RG3 could be this as well....but the batting average on these trades?

 

You say Bennett...and I say: Ricky Williams....which was my standard response to when Bennett was brought up...for the last 6 weeks.

 

I've brought it up countless times in the past. Several times in that long RG3 thread when we were discussing what it would take to trade up and get him. Glad you could 'snag' a sucker, though.

 

Here's the thing. It doesn't matter what the opportunity cost is/was to the Redskins this year or to the Saints in '99 or the Bills in '87.

 

Worth is always about what you're willing to pay at the time. Clearly Polian, Ditka, and Allan/Shanahan think the price was worth the investment. One of the things I always like about Polian was that he preached if you really like a player, then take him. Knowing how irascible Polian was, he probably would have slugged the guy trying to tell him you're giving up too much for Bennett. I just think that's ironic.

 

Anyway, the Redskins think he is worth it on and off the field. Snyder's gonna make a nice buck on jersey sales alone. If he turns that franchise around, few are gonna care what the Redskins gave up.

 

If you want to make an interesting study of it, follow the careers of those players selected with the picks the Redskins gave up. It's a bit subjective because we can't know for sure who the 'Skins would have selected, but it's a start.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[OCinBuffalo]

The realistic thing that you keep leaving out in your 3 starters argument, which i believe is worth discussing is that teams tend to bat at what, about .500-600 on first rounders? just pulling a rough guestimate there, but i think you can at least get on board for the fact that with 3 picks, getting 2 starters would be considered successful.

 

of course on the flip, theres no promise rg3 doesnt end up more ryan leaf than manning. if you are REALLY confident though, id say that elite qb is easily worth two very good other players if you have to trade for him instead of having him fall in your lap.

The value chart helps to remove the guesswork. Especially when you apply draft grades, trade costs later on, and actual play on the field. I keep saying this would be an easy OLAP(data warehousing) task. Perhaps some day I will be pissed off enough, and have enough time, to just do it myself....but that would also require me to cut into my boozing time, and I doubt I will ever be...really...pissed off enough...so it's not likely.

 

What you are forgetting: what is the opportunity cost of not being able to draft next year's RG3? I mean, come on, it's not like we don't hear how awesome QBs rated 1-3 are going to be almost every year. The fact is, you can't quantify a single pick. However, you can get pretty close if you value it relative to other picks, over a...for the sake of argument...10 year period. Now, as has been stated the CBA probably plays hell with the precision of that model. But that's why we hire production support people.

 

Yeah...I'm really tempted to start working on the data model for that warehouse now. Perhaps I will have it ready by next year. It has to be funny though...or I won't bother. Need to have some prefabbed way, or probably, multiple ways, of grading players in the league objectively and getting that data into a technical format. I have no time to do that myself.

[DefenseWinzChampionshipz]

The trade value chart needs to be traded.

[OCinBuffalo]

The trade value chart needs to be traded.

 

yeah...just like Drew Stafford, right?

[K-9]

... Yeah...I'm really tempted to start working on the data model for that warehouse now. Perhaps I will have it ready by next year. It has to be funny though...or I won't bother. Need to have some prefabbed way, or probably, multiple ways, of grading players in the league objectively and getting that data into a technical format. I have no time to do that myself.

 

Good luck with that. If that project didn't cut into your drinking, it would cause you to start drinking in the first place.

 

It's too ambitious. Because those grades would be lacking the context required to accurately grade the player. For that, you'd need access to coaches and some highly guarded secrets regarding playbooks, etc.

 

What I mean to say is that on every play in a game, there are literally other little plays that determine the outcomes. What we're left to see, without the context, is whether or not some measurable stat is generated (completed pass, sack, INT, fumble/recovery, etc. etc.). But you'd have to know the blocking schemes and protection calls to know for sure if an OLman made his play properly or not, for example.

 

Here's a common scenario in the game: an LB drops into a zone to take away a pass option, the QB needs to go to a second read, but this delay allows the SS to tip the ball and it's intercepted by a CB who was actually not in the proper coverage scheme at the snap. The CB is gonna get credit for a measurable stat and it'll look good come contract time. But what made that play possible? It was the LB making his play within the play.

 

Anyway, good luck.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[OCinBuffalo]

Good luck with that. If that project didn't cut into your drinking, it would cause you to start drinking in the first place.

 

It's too ambitious. Because those grades would be lacking the context required to accurately grade the player. For that, you'd need access to coaches and some highly guarded secrets regarding playbooks, etc.

 

What I mean to say is that on every play in a game, there are literally other little plays that determine the outcomes. What we're left to see, without the context, is whether or not some measurable stat is generated (completed pass, sack, INT, fumble/recovery, etc. etc.). But you'd have to know the blocking schemes and protection calls to know for sure if an OLman made his play properly or not, for example.

 

Here's a common scenario in the game: an LB drops into a zone to take away a pass option, the QB needs to go to a second read, but this delay allows the SS to tip the ball and it's intercepted by a CB who was actually not in the proper coverage scheme at the snap. The CB is gonna get credit for a measurable stat and it'll look good come contract time. But what made that play possible? It was the LB making his play within the play.

 

Anyway, good luck.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Of course...that's why i said "multiple ways". Multiple ways, averaged, weighted and averaged, etc., is the best way to say it. And, the pro personnel scouts have to have some way of grading players, to determine who to go after in FA, and who to trade for, etc.? Right? Also, perhaps you don't need to put every single player and every single play into the context that you accurately described? We don't necessarily care about UDFAs, because this is about actual draft value, and they...weren't.

 

In terms of determining draft value, perhaps some categories:

Stud

Plays better than expected

Plays as expected

JAG

FAIL/cut/traded for bag of balls, etc.

would be all you need to classify play on the field? Ultimately all you are looking for is a way to determine whether a pick was a good one, relative to where they were drafted.

 

Also, another way to attack it is: use the same method the QBR uses = outcome of play vs. outcome of same play for all other QBs, all time. The assumption is that the data regresses accurately once you are dealing with ALL data. We could also set an arbitrary baseline expectation for each draft pick, and then measure the actual player against the pick. That probably has an inherent bias, as the best players won't live up to the standard consistently, and, the 7th rounders who stick will outperform their expectation consistently.

 

I will think about the problems you posed....and see if I can figure a way through, around, etc. But...only at the bar.

[OCinBuffalo]

I've brought it up countless times in the past. Several times in that long RG3 thread when we were discussing what it would take to trade up and get him. Glad you could 'snag' a sucker, though.

 

Here's the thing. It doesn't matter what the opportunity cost is/was to the Redskins this year or to the Saints in '99 or the Bills in '87.

 

Worth is always about what you're willing to pay at the time. Clearly Polian, Ditka, and Allan/Shanahan think the price was worth the investment. One of the things I always like about Polian was that he preached if you really like a player, then take him. Knowing how irascible Polian was, he probably would have slugged the guy trying to tell him you're giving up too much for Bennett. I just think that's ironic.

 

Anyway, the Redskins think he is worth it on and off the field. Snyder's gonna make a nice buck on jersey sales alone. If he turns that franchise around, few are gonna care what the Redskins gave up.

 

If you want to make an interesting study of it, follow the careers of those players selected with the picks the Redskins gave up. It's a bit subjective because we can't know for sure who the 'Skins would have selected, but it's a start.

 

GO BILLS!!!

What was Ricky Williams worth? Who should Ditka have slugged, besides himself?

 

Worth is not solely about what YOU are willing to pay...it's about what the market as a whole is willing to pay.

 

If you are paying 3x times the market price, an no one else is, it doesn't matter what it's worth to you, you are still an idiot.

 

Oh, and I didn't see anything about Bennett, but. I wasn't around here much for the original trade...working, not drinking.

Edited April 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[K-9]

What was Ricky Williams worth? Who should Ditka have slugged, besides himself?

 

Worth is not solely about what YOU are willing to pay...it's about what the market as a whole is willing to pay.

 

If you are paying 3x times the market price, an no one else is, it doesn't matter what it's worth to you, you are still an idiot.

 

Oh, and I didn't see anything about Bennett, but. I wasn't around here much for the original trade...working, not drinking.

 

That may make me an idiot but it doesn't change the fact that I felt it was worth it.

 

I'm not sure Ditka was able to punch himself given all the fists already in the way.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Juror#8]

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.

 

 

The last person to use "assuage" in conversation and in context was Abe Lincoln. I was there but not the topic of conversation. He used muliebrity, olid and griseous in the same sentence and about the previous evening's entertainment.

 

Anyhow, one issue with your thought process concerning draft value and draft charts - it presumes that draft picks have a certain liquidity or a bankable, articulated value. You use the example that RG3 is not worth 3X Aaron Rogers presumably because of what Washington gave up to get the 2nd overall pick in order to draft RG3.

 

But who knows how well those draft picks will perform vis-a-vis RG3. If he is 4 times the player that each of those traded picks are in the aggregate but still not 3X as good as Aaron Rogers, what then?

 

My point is, Washington isn't just trading value...they're unloading uncertainty. Who knows who would have remained after the ____ picks before them had picked or what teams would have traded ahead of them. Who knows who would have been available. And who knows how well the heretofore unknown individual would have performed for them, in their system, etc.

 

Washington didn't just trade a bounty of picks to draft RG3. They also traded for the certainty of getting exactly who they wanted and avoided betting on an unknown quantity and a variety of hypothetical outcomes. There is value and a pecuniary quality to that certainty.

 

I don't think that you took account of that in your post.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Juror#8

[K-9]

The last person to use "assuage" in conversation and in context was Abe Lincoln. I was there but not the topic of conversation. He used muliebrity, olid and griseous in the same sentence and about the previous evening's entertainment.

 

Anyhow, one issue with your thought process concerning draft value and draft charts - it presumes that draft picks have a certain liquidity or a bankable, articulated value. You use the example that RG3 is not worth 3X Aaron Rogers presumably because of what Washington gave up to get the 2nd overall pick in order to draft RG3.

 

But who knows how well those draft picks will perform vis-a-vis RG3. If he is 4 times the player that each of those traded picks are in the aggregate but still not 3X as good as Aaron Rogers, what then?

 

My point is, Washington isn't just trading value...they're unloading uncertainty. Who knows who would have remained after the ____ picks before them had picked or what teams would have traded ahead of them. Who knows who would have been available. And who knows how well the heretofore unknown individual would have performed for them, in their system, etc.

 

Washington didn't just trade a bounty of picks to draft RG3. They also traded for the certainty of getting exactly who they wanted and avoided betting on an unknown quantity and a variety of hypothetical outcomes. There is value and a pecuniary quality to that certainty.

 

I don't think that you took account of that in your post.

 

Well, of all the high-fallutin' ways of saying "they thought he was worth it", this is the best by far.

 

I almost wept when I saw the highlighted sentence.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[mEAz]

OCinBuffalo, on 24 April 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

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

 

 

I want zombie Otto Graham in next years Madden!

[DefenseWinzChampionshipz]

yeah...just like Drew Stafford, right?

 

Who is that? The only drews I know are Barrymore and (dj mix) blicky blicky bledsoe...

Oh and Brees...

Edited April 25, 2012 by DefenseWinzChampionshipz

[OCinBuffalo]

The last person to use "assuage" in conversation and in context was Abe Lincoln. I was there but not the topic of conversation. He used muliebrity, olid and griseous in the same sentence and about the previous evening's entertainment.

I save up the most arcane for the most absurd.

Anyhow, one issue with your thought process concerning draft value and draft charts - it presumes that draft picks have a certain liquidity or a bankable, articulated value. You use the example that RG3 is not worth 3X Aaron Rogers presumably because of what Washington gave up to get the 2nd overall pick in order to draft RG3.

 

But who knows how well those draft picks will perform vis-a-vis RG3. If he is 4 times the player that each of those traded picks are in the aggregate but still not 3X as good as Aaron Rogers, what then?

Read further, where I said: "The fact is, you can't quantify a single pick. However, you can get pretty close if you value it relative to other picks, over a...for the sake of argument...10 year period."

My point is, Washington isn't just trading value...they're unloading uncertainty. Who knows who would have remained after the ____ picks before them had picked or what teams would have traded ahead of them. Who knows who would have been available. And who knows how well the heretofore unknown individual would have performed for them, in their system, etc.

 

Washington didn't just trade a bounty of picks to draft RG3. They also traded for the certainty of getting exactly who they wanted and avoided betting on an unknown quantity and a variety of hypothetical outcomes. There is value and a pecuniary quality to that certainty.

 

I don't think that you took account of that in your post.

Yes, I am sure that Washington is relieved....in freeing themselves from further draft F ups going forward.

 

Now, they don't have to defend their moronic picks in the 1st and 2nd this year, and the moronic 1st rounds for the next 2 years. I suppose if you look at it that way....it's liberating...like running around in prison without no pants on. You know you're screwed anyway, but for those 30 seconds...you are freeeeeee!

Edited April 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[spartacus]

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.

 

with the reduction of asinine contracts for the top 10 draft picks, the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart is again the proper measure of value