Never Trade Up -- Here's Why

[cage]

With all the talk of trading up I thought I would take a look at how well teams pick at the top half of the draft.  I looked at just the top 15 pics over a decade 2005-2015 (11 years).  I graded each pick as HIT / SO-SO / BUST.  I defined HIT as someone who had their 5th year option picked up, was re-signed by team drafting them or signed a big FA contract once their rookie deal was up.  For those still on their rookie contract they had to be full-time starters from year 1 and made the Pro-bowl.  That's what you'd expect from a top 15 pick.

 

Here are the results by position:

 

Position	Hit	So-so	Bust
QB	26%	32%	42%
RB	31%	38%	31%
WR	39%	17%	44%
OL	38%	38%	24%
DL	43%	26%	31%
LB	57%	17%	26%
DB	33%	38%	29%
Offense	34%	32%	34%
Defense	44%	27%	29%
Total	39%	29%	32%

 

Other than at LB the drafting success of the entire league scouting system for the top 15 picks of the draft is less than a coin flip.  These should be the most sure-fire perennial Pro Bowlers.  If the league's collective wisdom can't be above 50% with these pics, why would you ever trade up?  Much less, for a QB, which is the worst performing position.

 

I further looked at QBs in just the top 5 in the same period.  The HIT rate "rises" to 38%,... certainly uninspiring.  With at least 4 QBs projected in the top 15 pics, we should expect that at least 2 of them will be BUSTs.

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by cage

[Peace Frog]

You should seriously send a copy of this to McDermott and Beane.  Seriously.

[Casmo]

Interesting.  Seems like we need more picks and not trade up. Wonder if that is true for every round or did it by team?

[papazoid]

the biggest problem with trading up is the risk of injury by having all your eggs ($$) in one basket 

 

one Top 10 first round pick can average $4 - 7 mil/yr against the cap

 

for the same money you could have two seconds and two third round picks......spreading the risk of injury over 4 players

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Stats are nice but we need to trade up for QB,he may bust but the top 3 guys are much better than the next 3 guys.

 

 

[CajunBillsBacker]

Regardless of past draft stats, if there’s a QB that McBeane likes, then they have to do what it takes to get him.

Right now, both the Jets and Dolphins are thinking franchise QB, and if not this year, soon the Patriots will be looking for Brady’s successor. The division is about to go through a transition and we have to do what it takes to beat them to the punch.

Now that all depends on who they fall in love with. That just may be Jackson and Rudolph, who knows. But if it’s Rosen, Darnold, or Mayfield, we have to jump the gun.

[jr1]

LBs the safest bet. Interesting 

[26CornerBlitz]

This statistical analysis means nothing.  Assess individual players based on who they are and how their respective abilities translate to the NFL.  No one is going to look at the past in order to determine whether any particular player is worthy of sacrificing additional draft capital. 

Edited March 3, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[Green Lightning]

Tell that to Philadelphia and then ask yourself if Cleveland would have liked to had that trade back.

[RochesterRob]

27 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

Stats are nice but we need to trade up for QB,he may bust but the top 3 guys are much better than the next 3 guys.

 

 

  Stats like that will be thrown around when the "savior" busts 2-3 years down the road.  Some say it is worth the risk to roll the dice but will they be as understanding when things do not work out.  The same people banging their fists today will be the first to post threads about how it was a big mistake, how crippled the team will be, and how the FO was incompetent when the new QB fails.  I could tolerate the risk better if we were higher in the draft order and the cost AT THE MOST would be two 1st's and a second.  Myself and others have noted that the compensation to move up into the top 4 will potentially be double that or even more.

[Pbomb]

But if you hit with a top  qb you are set for the next decade atleast. Some teams get lucky but if you have good scouting and a good gm it will raise your percentages to "hit".

 

[cage]

11 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

This statistical analysis means nothing.  Assess individual players based on who they are and how their respective abilities translate to the NFL.  No one is going to look at the past in order to determine whether any particular player is worthy of sacrificing addition draft capital. 

 

Every one of the players that I analyzed had the exact analysis that you're suggesting performed on them.  None of these players were selected on a whim.  They all had the most thorough analysis of player capabilities, team fit, psychological testing, face-to-face interviews, speaking to college coaches.  What do you think would be blown off on these guys?  And any of them who weren't picked in the top 15, would have been picked as "steals" in the next 15 and still would have been first rounders.

[26CornerBlitz]

2 minutes ago, cage said:

 

Every one of the players that I analyzed had the exact analysis that you're suggesting performed on them.  None of these players were selected on a whim.  They all had the most thorough analysis of player capabilities, team fit, psychological testing, face-to-face interviews, speaking to college coaches.  What do you think would be blown off on these guys?  And any of them who weren't picked in the top 15, would have been picked as "steals" in the next 15 and still would have been first rounders.

 

Yet teams will trade up for players they covet in this draft just as they will in future drafts.  You somehow think you have come up with something personnel departments should consider that will bring teams to a conclusion to never trade up and that's certainly not the case.   

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, cage said:

With all the talk of trading up I thought I would take a look at how well teams pick at the top half of the draft.  I looked at just the top 15 pics over a decade 2005-2015 (11 years).  I graded each pick as HIT / SO-SO / BUST.  I defined HIT as someone who had their 5th year option picked up, was re-signed by team drafting them or signed a big FA contract once their rookie deal was up.  For those still on their rookie contract they had to be full-time starters from year 1 and made the Pro-bowl.  That's what you'd expect from a top 15 pick.

 

Here are the results by position:

 

Position	Hit	So-so	Bust
QB	26%	32%	42%
RB	31%	38%	31%
WR	39%	17%	44%
OL	38%	38%	24%
DL	43%	26%	31%
LB	57%	17%	26%
DB	33%	38%	29%
Offense	34%	32%	34%
Defense	44%	27%	29%
Total	39%	29%	32%

 

Other than at LB the drafting success of the entire league scouting system for the top 15 picks of the draft is less than a coin flip.  These should be the most sure-fire perennial Pro Bowlers.  If the league's collective wisdom can't be above 50% with these pics, why would you ever trade up?  Much less, for a QB, which is the worst performing position.

 

I further looked at QBs in just the top 5 in the same period.  The HIT rate "rises" to 38%,... certainly uninspiring.  With at least 4 QBs projected in the top 15 pics, we should expect that at least 2 of them will be BUSTs.

 

Good work.    How did you define "so so"?

 

I like your criterion of 5th year option.  It's very practical.  I'm not sure either "full time starter from year one" and Pro Bowl are good criteria for drafting success.  I don't think the Pro Bowl means a lot, and the best QB in the league today were NOT full time starters from year one. 

 

So, for example, if you were looking at Brady, Brees, and Rodgers on their rookie contracts, you would score them as "busts" as I understand it? or perhaps at best "so so"?

 

 

[cage]

17 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Yet teams will trade up for players they covet in this draft just as they will in future drafts.  You somehow think you have come up with something personnel departments should consider that will bring teams to a conclusion to never trade up and that's certainly not the case.   

 

Its a matter of managing risk.  I think moving up 3-5 picks to get a certainly player is OK, but moving up 10+ slots would be too expensive given the risk.  That's not to say that every pick is the same risk.  I don't have the time, but would love to see how this risk varies by team (or GM) to quantify how much skill there is drafting.  The Cleveland Brown traded out of the Carson Wentz spot and then a year later out of the DeShaun Watson spot.  Increasing their odds for high draft picks hasn't improved them yet and they still don't have their QB.  Also the Bills traded down last year and passed on both Mahomes and Watson as well.  

 

I'm not saying don't take your shot and make your picks as best you can... my primary argument is not to make a big trade-up.

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Good work.    How did you define "so so"?

 

I like your criterion of 5th year option.  It's very practical.  I'm not sure either "full time starter from year one" and Pro Bowl are good criteria for drafting success.  I don't think the Pro Bowl means a lot, and the best QB in the league today were NOT full time starters from year one. 

 

So, for example, if you were looking at Brady, Brees, and Rodgers on their rookie contracts, you would score them as "busts" as I understand it? or perhaps at best "so so"?

 

 

 

I mainly defined HIT and then BUST was also easy to define.  Players out of the league or cut/traded before their rookie contract was done.  If you give up on a top 15 pick inside of a couple years, there's a problem.   I started in 2015, so those players have been in the league at least 3 seasons.  I made a few subjective adjustments.  For example, I rated Jadeveon Clowney as a HIT even though he didn't fully fit the criteria I stated.  Everyone who wasn't a HIT or BUST was put in the SO-SO bucket.

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by cage

[BuffaloBillyG]

Ok, so during that time what's the % of "hits, so-so and bust" for the ones that were traded for Vs rest of the players in an NFL draft? Are the ones traded for significantly lower than the players that weren't the product of a trade?

 

While you have put in some good work without the counter point to balance it it is really just a small sample size that doesn't tell the whole story. This just seems like cherry picked analysis to me.

Edited March 3, 2018 by KelsaysLunchbox

[cage]

1 minute ago, KelsaysLunchbox said:

Ok, so during that time what's the % of "hits, so-so and bust" for the rest of the players in an NFL draft? Are the ones traded for significantly lower than the players that weren't the product of a trade?

 

While you have put in some good work without the counter point to balance it it is really just a small sample size that doesn't tell the whole story. This just seems like cherry picked analysis to me.

 

I would imagine the HIT rate drops as you go further down the draft.  That's certainly true.  We all probably know the draft is some level of crapshoot, but this just attempts to quantify that.  There's a lot of people want us to go big, up into the top 5 to get a QB and I'm just trying to put that into some perspective based on real results.

 

Its not cherry picked analysis.  I'm not picking/choosing what to include, I'm using the entire population of top 15 pics, so I'm not just selecting out BUSTs to highlight.  Also, all of these players had similar volumes of exhaustive background analysis that we see every day leading up to draft day.  

 

[26CornerBlitz]

21 minutes ago, cage said:

 

Its a matter of managing risk.  I think moving up 3-5 picks to get a certainly player is OK, but moving up 10+ slots would be too expensive given the risk.  That's not to say that every pick is the same risk.  I don't have the time, but would love to see how this risk varies by team (or GM) to quantify how much skill there is drafting.  The Cleveland Brown traded out of the Carson Wentz spot and then a year later out of the DeShaun Watson spot.  Increasing their odds for high draft picks hasn't improved them yet and they still don't have their QB.  Also the Bills traded down last year and passed on both Mahomes and Watson as well.  

 

I'm not saying don't take your shot and make your picks as best you can... my primary argument is not to make a big trade-up.

 

I mainly defined HIT and then BUST was also easy to define.  Players out of the league or cut/traded before their rookie contract was done.  If you give up on a top 15 pick inside of a couple years, there's a problem.   I started in 2015, so those players have been in the league at least 3 seasons.  I made a few subjective adjustments.  For example, I rated Jadeveon Clowney as a HIT even though he didn't fully fit the criteria I stated.  Everyone who wasn't a HIT or BUST was put in the SO-SO bucket.

 

 

It all depends on the circumstances of where the team is as well as the player and position involved.  I have a feeling that the Falcons aren't regretting the decision to trade up for Julio Jones and KC will be ecstatic if Mahomes turns out to be an excellent QB.

[CommonCents]

Just posting these statistics and then attaching "never trade up" ignores the obvious. "Never put yourself in a situation where you need to trade up" should be what this tells you. Trading up is a risky move usually made out of desperation but when you have a need at QB and your coach and GM find their guy, they need to go get him.

 

This pile of statistics better shows a team that HAS a QB how to manage its drafts and continue to draft QBs, see NE. Never leave the cupboard bare because the calendar quickly turns to March and ain't nobody wanna see Tyrod Taylor and Nathan Peterman 1 and 2 on the depth chart.

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Good topic. You have come up with perhaps some decision rules yourself.....teams know them already. Saying that you should NEVER trade up is a huge leap though.

 

Do you need a QB in the NFL? Of course and the record shows that moving up into the TOP 5 is the best way to get one. On occasion you might get very lucky in the first 2-3 rounds or with Brady later. But, in the last 10 years name another QB who was picked after the 75th pick (Wilson)? Another decision rule may be you only do it for a QB or a franchise changing player who is that one player you need.

 

As for the risk management argument, if you trade back enough you minimize your risk but end up with all 7th round picks. At some point you need to get some skin in the game and try to get that guy. Guaranteed success? No, but it doesn't send your team to bankruptcy and kill it. It sets you back perhaps and you move on.

 

You can hedge your bet by taking a second QB a year or two later in the first 3 rounds. 

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by horned dogs

[SoTier]

34 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

This statistical analysis means nothing.  Assess individual players based on who they are and how their respective abilities translate to the NFL.  No one is going to look at the past in order to determine whether any particular player is worthy of sacrificing additional draft capital. 

 

While this is true, the reality is that the draft is such a crap shoot, even at the top, that trading up is probably not going to be a winning proposition for most teams that do it even for a QB.  QBs who are the consensus #1 pick are about as close to "can't miss" picks as possible; they hit at about 80% since 2000.  Even QBs drafted in positions 2-4 fail almost 50% of the time while QBs from 5-32 hit at about 25%.  Except for Wentz, teams trading up for QBs outside the #1 pick have found duds instead of studs over the last 15 years, including JP Losman (2004), Mark Sanchez (2009), and Robert Griffin III.

 

This year there's not even a consensus #1 QB, so drafting a QB is even more dicey, and trading up is nothing but a crap shoot.

 

58 minutes ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

Stats are nice but we need to trade up for QB,he may bust but the top 3 guys are much better than the next 3 guys.

 

 

 

This is the attitude that has resulted in the Bills' failure to find a good QB for a quarter of a century.   Drafting a QB in the first round just to draft one is a flawed strategy because sometimes there just isn't a good one available (EJ Manuel in 2013).  Trading up to do that is even stupider (JP Losman in 2004).   The Bills need to approach drafting a QB with the primary goal of winning football games, not to placate fans to sell tickets, which is what they've done in the past.

 

25 minutes ago, Green Lightning said:

Tell that to Philadelphia and then ask yourself if Cleveland would have liked to had that trade back.

 

The Bills missed on a trade up in 2004, the Jests missed on a trade up in 2009, and Washington missed on a trade up in 2012.

 

20 minutes ago, Pbomb said:

But if you hit with a top  qb you are set for the next decade atleast. Some teams get lucky but if you have good scouting and a good gm it will raise your percentages to "hit".

 

 

Well, if I win the top prize in Powerball, I'm set for life, too.

 

[Canadian Bills Fan]

While I understand where you are coming from, I have no problem trading up and going for it when it comes to finding a franchise QB.

 

I'd rather strike out swinging than sitting there waiting for the perfect pitch that may never come

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

This statistical analysis means nothing.  Assess individual players based on who they are and how their respective abilities translate to the NFL.  No one is going to look at the past in order to determine whether any particular player is worthy of sacrificing additional draft capital. 

 

Signed,

 

   All the GMs that produced those statistics.....

[BringBackOrton]

3 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

While this is true, the reality is that the draft is such a crap shoot, even at the top, that trading up is probably not going to be a winning proposition for most teams that do it even for a QB.  QBs who are the consensus #1 pick are about as close to "can't miss" picks as possible; they hit at about 80% since 2000.  Even QBs drafted in positions 2-4 fail almost 50% of the time while QBs from 5-32 hit at about 25%.  Except for Wentz, teams trading up for QBs outside the #1 pick have found duds instead of studs over the last 15 years, including JP Losman (2004), Mark Sanchez (2009), and Robert Griffin III.

 

This year there's not even a consensus #1 QB, so drafting a QB is even more dicey, and trading up is nothing but a crap shoot.

 

 

This is the attitude that has resulted in the Bills' failure to find a good QB for a quarter of a century.   Drafting a QB in the first round just to draft one is a flawed strategy because sometimes there just isn't a good one available (EJ Manuel in 2013).  Trading up to do that is even stupider (JP Losman in 2004).   The Bills need to approach drafting a QB with the primary goal of winning football games, not to placate fans to sell tickets, which is what they've done in the past.

 

 

The Bills missed on a trade up in 2004, the Jests missed on a trade up in 2009, and Washington missed on a trade up in 2012.

 

 

Well, if I win the top prize in Powerball, I'm set for life, too.

 

If the Bills never drafted a QB, they'd find a good QB?

 

Solid analysis.

[Lurker]

1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:

If the Bills never drafted a QB, they'd find a good QB?

 

Solid analysis.

 

His point is about trading up to get one.  If your guy falls to you, that's a win as you don't deplete draft capital....

[JMF2006]

1 hour ago, Peace Frog said:

You should seriously send a copy of this to McDermott and Beane.  Seriously.

 

Don't you think they already have the analytics?

 

I don't see them forcing their hand for a player.

 

They have too many needs/holes to fill.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

47 minutes ago, cage said:

I mainly defined HIT and then BUST was also easy to define.  Players out of the league or cut/traded before their rookie contract was done.  If you give up on a top 15 pick inside of a couple years, there's a problem.   I started in 2015, so those players have been in the league at least 3 seasons.  I made a few subjective adjustments.  For example, I rated Jadeveon Clowney as a HIT even though he didn't fully fit the criteria I stated.  Everyone who wasn't a HIT or BUST was put in the SO-SO bucket.

 

I think it's fine to describe "Bust" as players out of the league or traded before their rookie contract was done

 

But I think the "everyone else" concept is giving you both false negatives and false positives.  There are some guys I think we would all call "busts" (as top 15 picks) who played out their rookie contracts and resigned elsewhere.  While not a top 15 pick, EJ Manuel would fall into that category. 

 

The bottom line conclusion is sound though: trading up carries both tremendous potential reward, and tremendous risk.

[napmaster]

The OP analysis is spot on, but the statistics are almost irrelevant.

 

The real statistic is that every year, only 12 of 32 teams make the playoffs.  That means 20 GMs are on the hot seat each and every year.  If I were one of those GMs, I would go all in with a trade up and take my shot.  25% chance to hit on my franchise QB - I'll take it. 

[Foxx]

3 hours ago, cage said:

With all the talk of trading up I thought I would take a look at how well teams pick at the top half of the draft.  I looked at just the top 15 pics over a decade 2005-2015 (11 years).  I graded each pick as HIT / SO-SO / BUST.  I defined HIT as someone who had their 5th year option picked up, was re-signed by team drafting them or signed a big FA contract once their rookie deal was up.  For those still on their rookie contract they had to be full-time starters from year 1 and made the Pro-bowl.  That's what you'd expect from a top 15 pick.

 

Here are the results by position:

 

Position	Hit	So-so	Bust
QB	26%	32%	42%
RB	31%	38%	31%
WR	39%	17%	44%
OL	38%	38%	24%
DL	43%	26%	31%
LB	57%	17%	26%
DB	33%	38%	29%
Offense	34%	32%	34%
Defense	44%	27%	29%
Total	39%	29%	32%

 

Other than at LB the drafting success of the entire league scouting system for the top 15 picks of the draft is less than a coin flip.  These should be the most sure-fire perennial Pro Bowlers.  If the league's collective wisdom can't be above 50% with these pics, why would you ever trade up?  Much less, for a QB, which is the worst performing position.

 

I further looked at QBs in just the top 5 in the same period.  The HIT rate "rises" to 38%,... certainly uninspiring.  With at least 4 QBs projected in the top 15 pics, we should expect that at least 2 of them will be BUSTs.

 

 

 

right. because the team that just won the SuperBowl, traded up into the top 2, 2 years ago.  

[cage]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think it's fine to describe "Bust" as players out of the league or traded before their rookie contract was done

 

But I think the "everyone else" concept is giving you both false negatives and false positives.  There are some guys I think we would all call "busts" (as top 15 picks) who played out their rookie contracts and resigned elsewhere.  While not a top 15 pick, EJ Manuel would fall into that category. 

 

The bottom line conclusion is sound though: trading up carries both tremendous potential reward, and tremendous risk.

 

There are some subjective adjustments in the assessment.  If 5 of us did the analysis the numbers might move around a little bit, but we'd probably only re-classify 3-5 players out of 165 picked over the span that I looked at.  I already gave the example of Clowney, who I subjectively classified as a HIT.  Another example would be Sammy Watkins, who was traded before his rookie contract was up.  I subjectively rated him as SO-SO, not a BUST.

Edited March 3, 2018 by cage

[Chuck Wagon]

What is the hit rate for QBs drafted after pick 20?

 

Just a hunch, but you aren't getting anywhere near 26%

[Pbomb]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

 

While this is true, the reality is that the draft is such a crap shoot, even at the top, that trading up is probably not going to be a winning proposition for most teams that do it even for a QB.  QBs who are the consensus #1 pick are about as close to "can't miss" picks as possible; they hit at about 80% since 2000.  Even QBs drafted in positions 2-4 fail almost 50% of the time while QBs from 5-32 hit at about 25%.  Except for Wentz, teams trading up for QBs outside the #1 pick have found duds instead of studs over the last 15 years, including JP Losman (2004), Mark Sanchez (2009), and Robert Griffin III.

 

This year there's not even a consensus #1 QB, so drafting a QB is even more dicey, and trading up is nothing but a crap shoot.

 

 

This is the attitude that has resulted in the Bills' failure to find a good QB for a quarter of a century.   Drafting a QB in the first round just to draft one is a flawed strategy because sometimes there just isn't a good one available (EJ Manuel in 2013).  Trading up to do that is even stupider (JP Losman in 2004).   The Bills need to approach drafting a QB with the primary goal of winning football games, not to placate fans to sell tickets, which is what they've done in the past.

 

 

The Bills missed on a trade up in 2004, the Jests missed on a trade up in 2009, and Washington missed on a trade up in 2012.

 

 

Well, if I win the top prize in Powerball, I'm set for life, too.

 

Ya cause drafting a qb and winning the powerball are totally related.

You can scout , research, and choose who you draft.

[skibum]

So, what are the odds of hitting on a QB if you never pick one?

[Albany,n.y.]

The main reason why I prefer trading up to trading down is when a team trades up it is for a specific player who their scouts have graded high enough to make the trade.  When a team trades down, they have no idea who will be in the spot they traded into unless it's only 1 or 2 picks down.  

The best trade up that I remember is when SF traded up with NE & drafted Jerry Rice.  Just 2 years ago the Rams & Eagles traded up for QBs and they both helped turn around each of the 2 franchises.  

If you want a specific player ALWAYS trade up if you can.  Especially if the player is a QB not named JP.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Albany,n.y.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

13 minutes ago, cage said:

 

There are some subjective adjustments in the assessment.  If 5 of us did the analysis the numbers might move around a little bit, but we'd probably only re-classify 3-5 players out of 165 picked over the span that I looked at.  I already gave the example of Clowney, who I subjectively classified as a HIT.  Another example would be Sammy Watkins, who was traded before his rookie contract was up.  I subjectively rated him as SO-SO, not a BUST.

 

The point I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to make is that, in evaluating the success of the draft, I think you have a problem with your SO-SO category.  It's a grab bag of players most people would call successes (although they didn't make the pro-bowl or start in their first year) and most people would call busts (even if they re-upped or signed as FA).

 

And it's a big enough number that it influences how one perceives the value of trade-up.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

What is the hit rate for QBs drafted after pick 20?

 

Just a hunch, but you aren't getting anywhere near 26%

 

Based on numeric (play-linked) criteria I used (I don't have a "maybe" category, just "yes he can play well" or "no he can't", at the top 2 picks the hit rate is more like 65-75%, 50% in the top 5 picks, falls to 20% overall pick 6-32 and stays there through 2nd round.

 

It actually may be lower from 6-10 than 11-20 then lowest from 21-32, but the sample size is small.

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, jmc12290 said:

If the Bills never drafted a QB, they'd find a good QB?

 

Solid analysis.

 

That's not what I said at all.  I said drafting a first round QB was risky, but that drafting a QB who was the #1 consensus pick was a pretty safe bet.  I also said that trading up to draft a first round QB, especially in a year like 2018 where there's no clear consensus best QB, is even riskier.  I also said that the Bills have drafted QBs in the first rounds in the last quarter century for the wrong reason: to put butts in the seats -- and that's cost them big time, primarily in the lost opportunities to draft QBs who could have actually helped them win games: Aaron Rodgers (2005), Jay Cutler (2006), Joe Flacco (2008), Teddy Bridgewater (2014), and Derek Carr (2014) -- all useful QBs who were better than Losman or Manuel.  Keep in mind that when a team drafts a first round QB, they aren't going to draft another first round QB for about 4 years unless said QB is a bust like a JaMarcus Russell or Johnny Manziel.

 

1 hour ago, JMF2006 said:

 

Don't you think they already have the analytics?

 

I don't see them forcing their hand for a player.

 

They have too many needs/holes to fill.

 

I hope you are right.  Like the OP, I'm not opposed to trading up a few spots to take Mayfield, but I don't think it's possible for the Bills to get into the Top 4 short of sacrificing too much for a QB who's more likely to bust than not, which would likely be Rosen.  If Jackson was available at #21, I'd take him (not at #22!).  I don't know if I'd spend a first rounder on Allen or Rudolph.

 

16 minutes ago, Foxx said:

right. because the team that just won the SuperBowl, traded up into the top 2, 2 years ago.  

 

In case you missed it, that team was so good it overcame numerous injuries to key players, including their starting QB, and won the SB with a backup QB.  .

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 minutes ago, skibum said:

So, what are the odds of hitting on a QB if you never pick one?

 

Exactly.  You never hit the shot you don't take.

 

[Lurker]

Good reads....

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/history-says-trading-up-for-a-first-round-quarterback-is-generally-a-terrible-idea/

 

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/the-comprehensive-guide-to-10-years-of-first-round-trades/

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by Lurker

[Chuck Wagon]

10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The point I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to make is that, in evaluating the success of the draft, I think you have a problem with your SO-SO category.  It's a grab bag of players most people would call successes (although they didn't make the pro-bowl or start in their first year) and most people would call busts (even if they re-upped or signed as FA).

 

And it's a big enough number that it influences how one perceives the value of trade-up.

 

 

 

Based on numeric (play-linked) criteria I used (I don't have a "maybe" category, just "yes he can play well" or "no he can't", at the top 2 picks the hit rate is more like 65-75%, 50% in the top 5 picks, falls to 20% overall pick 6-32 and stays there through 2nd round.

 

It actually may be lower from 6-10 than 11-20 then lowest from 21-32, but the sample size is small.

 

I can fully believe the hit rate being lower from 6-10 than 11-20.

 

6-10 you are basically talking about bad teams forcing a pick and putting it into a bad situation. The "elite" QB prospects are almost always gone before 6, so it's a slightly lower tier, but still coming in with high expectations. 11-20 you are looking at more teams that maybe swooned a bit one year or are otherwise built up but just need a QB.  All in all, better run teams.

 

21-32 you are starting to get into the territory where bad teams are moving up from round 2, especially the Browns.

[MAJBobby]

4 hours ago, cage said:

With all the talk of trading up I thought I would take a look at how well teams pick at the top half of the draft.  I looked at just the top 15 pics over a decade 2005-2015 (11 years).  I graded each pick as HIT / SO-SO / BUST.  I defined HIT as someone who had their 5th year option picked up, was re-signed by team drafting them or signed a big FA contract once their rookie deal was up.  For those still on their rookie contract they had to be full-time starters from year 1 and made the Pro-bowl.  That's what you'd expect from a top 15 pick.

 

Here are the results by position:

 

Position	Hit	So-so	Bust
QB	26%	32%	42%
RB	31%	38%	31%
WR	39%	17%	44%
OL	38%	38%	24%
DL	43%	26%	31%
LB	57%	17%	26%
DB	33%	38%	29%
Offense	34%	32%	34%
Defense	44%	27%	29%
Total	39%	29%	32%

 

Other than at LB the drafting success of the entire league scouting system for the top 15 picks of the draft is less than a coin flip.  These should be the most sure-fire perennial Pro Bowlers.  If the league's collective wisdom can't be above 50% with these pics, why would you ever trade up?  Much less, for a QB, which is the worst performing position.

 

I further looked at QBs in just the top 5 in the same period.  The HIT rate "rises" to 38%,... certainly uninspiring.  With at least 4 QBs projected in the top 15 pics, we should expect that at least 2 of them will be BUSTs.

 

 

 

 

Only tells half the story. What are the percentages of late 1sts and mid round picks used to trade Up??

 

 

GO GET YOUR QB

Edited March 3, 2018 by MAJBobby