Draft Trade Simulator...something useful from the Buffalo News!

[K D]

Nick Veronica‏Verified account @NickVeronica

FollowFollow @NickVeronica

More

The NFL Draft is a month away. What would it cost the #Bills (or any team) to trade up for a top pick? Use the @TheBuffaloNews' trade value calculator to plug in a deal and see how it grades out: http://buffalonews.com/2018/03/27/play-nfl-draft-pick-trade-simulator-calculator-darnold-rosen-allen-value-jimmy-johnson-chart/ …

7:00 AM - 27 Mar 2018

 

http://buffalonews.com/2018/03/27/play-nfl-draft-pick-trade-simulator-calculator-darnold-rosen-allen-value-jimmy-johnson-chart/

Edited March 28, 2018 by kdiggz

[BillsFan130]

I would do that trade in a heartbeat. Even throw in the 53rd if you have to

Edited March 28, 2018 by billsfan11

[K D]

1 minute ago, billsfan11 said:

I would do that trade in a heartbeat. Even throw in the 53rd if you have to

Keep in mind that we would surely need to overpay like the Jets did. I'm sure teams will look at the charts and see how much extra the Jets gave and want a deal similar to that

[Chuck Wagon]

Giving up 12 / 22 for 2 is a "losing" deal in 2 of the 3 models....

Edited March 28, 2018 by Chuck Wagon

[BillsFan130]

Just now, kdiggz said:

Keep in mind that we would surely need to overpay like the Jets did. I'm sure teams will look at the charts and see how much extra the Jets gave and want a deal similar to that

Ya exactly. I’m hoping next years first won’t be involved but I have a strong feeling it would

[folz]

Thinking a moment from the Giants perspective...the above trade would give them 7 picks in the top 69. 2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 3 thirds. For a team that needs to restock their roster (and with a new GM) that would seem hard to pass up.

 

And if they are in love with someone at pick 2: Barkley, Chubb, QB; I wonder if their fans are asking the same thing we are about moving up for a QB (in reverse). Is say staying put and taking Barkley worth giving up an extra 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks---or more (which you could have in the trade with the Bills)?

Edited March 28, 2018 by folz

[Like A Mofo]

38 minutes ago, folz said:

Thinking a moment from the Giants perspective...the above trade would give them 7 picks in the top 69. 2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 3 thirds. For a team that needs to restock their roster (and with a new GM) that would seem hard to pass up.

 

And if they are in love with someone at pick 2: Barkley, Chubb, QB; I wonder if their fans are asking the same thing we are about moving up for a QB (in reverse). Is say staying put and taking Barkley worth giving up an extra 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks---or more (which you could have in the trade with the Bills)?

 

 

While I agree with your thoughts here: When you have a 37 year old QB that has been up and down for 5 years now, and you have a chance to take a guy like Josh Rosen and groom him, I feel if you are the Giants you have to take this opportunity to do so.  All the Giants have to do is look at teams like Buffalo that struggle so hard because of the QB position.

[NextYear'sTheOne]

I have a feeling we're going to two trade our way up there. Three if you count the trade to get to 12

[MTBill]

More and more - the realization hits me...  sometimes you just can't move down because you have more needs than looking "smart" getting draft capital.

 

I think Beane is likely to just sit where we're at and pick best available need - and we'll avoid these "gotta have" QB XY or Z.  I also think I'm OK with that.  I know it won't be popular to not trade up with many fans - and certainly not with the media who is paid to think(overthink) things - but has no real skin in the game.  No analyst is losing his job because we muff a pick they tell us we "HAVE" to make - but if Beane moves up and gets another Ryan Leaf/Jamarcus Russell - he's not going to succeed as a GM.

 

My point is - if you're the Giants - I think you sort of need to use that pick for yourselves - more than acquire more capital that isn't going to help you as much as using that opportunity does.  If you're the Bills - I think you have to sort of evaluate what it will cost you to move up - and how much are you willing to risk?  For the Giants, it's no real risk if they use that pick on a dud - because they didn't have to trade a bunch of picks to get that.  But if we spend 5+ picks getting a dud, we're so much further behind.

 

Yes - low risk = low reward.  Putting all your eggs(picks) in one basket you sure better hit a homerun or you'll be set back even further for longer.  Just think of how long we lamented the Sammy pick and what it cost.  That will be nothing compared to what it will cost us to get to #2.

 

[Dr. Who]

10 minutes ago, MTBill said:

More and more - the realization hits me...  sometimes you just can't move down because you have more needs than looking "smart" getting draft capital.

 

I think Beane is likely to just sit where we're at and pick best available need - and we'll avoid these "gotta have" QB XY or Z.  I also think I'm OK with that.  I know it won't be popular to not trade up with many fans - and certainly not with the media who is paid to think(overthink) things - but has no real skin in the game.  No analyst is losing his job because we muff a pick they tell us we "HAVE" to make - but if Beane moves up and gets another Ryan Leaf/Jamarcus Russell - he's not going to succeed as a GM.

 

My point is - if you're the Giants - I think you sort of need to use that pick for yourselves - more than acquire more capital that isn't going to help you as much as using that opportunity does.  If you're the Bills - I think you have to sort of evaluate what it will cost you to move up - and how much are you willing to risk?  For the Giants, it's no real risk if they use that pick on a dud - because they didn't have to trade a bunch of picks to get that.  But if we spend 5+ picks getting a dud, we're so much further behind.

 

Yes - low risk = low reward.  Putting all your eggs(picks) in one basket you sure better hit a homerun or you'll be set back even further for longer.  Just think of how long we lamented the Sammy pick and what it cost.  That will be nothing compared to what it will cost us to get to #2.

 

If they are really enamored with a qb and he doesn't go 1 to Cleveland, I think they are going to spend a lot to get 2.  I'm not arguing good or bad, this is what I think they will do.  I think they may like Allen more than most on this board do.  To me, the middle path is a smaller trade up after five to grab one of the top four if available.

[Bill Murray]

trade #22, #53, and #56 to get #2 overall w the Giants works under both the Harvard and FP models...  having #2 and #12 would be pretty cool. 

 

Too bad these models are useless . . . . . . .  

 

[bufrock j]

2 hours ago, billsfan11 said:

I would do that trade in a heartbeat. Even throw in the 53rd if you have to

really ? yer nutz.

[BillsFan130]

22 minutes ago, bufrock j said:

really ? yer nutz.

It’s a steep price but if they truly think Rosen is the franchise guy then they should make the trade 

[BuffaloHokie13]

Not very useful, in my opinion anyway, as the pick values have premiums associated with them that do not appear to be factored in.

[ganesh]

3 hours ago, folz said:

Thinking a moment from the Giants perspective...the above trade would give them 7 picks in the top 69. 2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 3 thirds. For a team that needs to restock their roster (and with a new GM) that would seem hard to pass up.

 

And if they are in love with someone at pick 2: Barkley, Chubb, QB; I wonder if their fans are asking the same thing we are about moving up for a QB (in reverse). Is say staying put and taking Barkley worth giving up an extra 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks---or more (which you could have in the trade with the Bills)?

The Giants may never get back to this position to draft a Franchise QB without having to throw away their draft picks.  If there is a Franchise QB you always take one no matter what draft picks others will throw at your face.  That is the value of a potential franchise QB

[JoshBarnett]

Thanks for posting this. We are happy with how it turned out and the work put in. 

 

Beyond the scenario that Nick outlined above, you can work out trades for any team with any other team for any picks. 

 

During the testing process, we have been putting in all different kinds of combinations. It's interesting to see the variations in the value charts. McDermott said yesterday that he has been in some discussions at the meetings and teams take out their variations of the charts to see how things might measure up. That the Johnson chart is still most commonly used -- Beane said he generally still used it -- is interesting when you consider that it was developed before a high level of analytics and a lot of computer models.

 

Anyway, hope you enjoy using the simulator. We will see what happens as draft day gets closer.

 

http://buffalonews.com/2018/03/27/play-nfl-draft-pick-trade-simulator-calculator-darnold-rosen-allen-value-jimmy-johnson-chart/

[MTBill]

3 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

If they are really enamored with a qb and he doesn't go 1 to Cleveland, I think they are going to spend a lot to get 2.  I'm not arguing good or bad, this is what I think they will do.  I think they may like Allen more than most on this board do.  To me, the middle path is a smaller trade up after five to grab one of the top four if available.

 

I think you're probably right that it will be harder to deny if Cleveland passes on our "guy".  I am sort of looking at #4.  Cleveland could have their cake and eat it too.  Get their guy at 1, then acquire even more draft capital with #4.  Beane & Co. will have grades on the players that tell them not to jump up unless the value is right.  It may be that even their #1 guy isn't viewed by them as worth pick #2 - and they'll just wait to see if they are available when they see value.  I think it just such a different thing when you are sitting at 12 and have to pay a lot of picks to move up, than it is to look at the board at 12 and pick the highest guy left on your board (who should be at least valued at 12+).  I would be less shocked to see the bills move up to 4 than I would be to see them spend a ton of picks to get to #2.

 

If you look at these QBs - they may have 1a and 1b - if neither of those go in pick 1, you can almost be certain that at least 1 of those QBs will there at #4 (someone is going to take Barkley or Chubb).  So I think #4 is a real target for the Bills - leap over Denver - and use less picks than it would take to get to #2.  It would be a win-win potentially since it would cost less - and the Browns would still have a very successful draft.  I ran this on that BN site.  Move up 8 slots to 4 and 7 slots in the 4th - for the first 2nd round pick we have.

 

 

I also think any move that is going to be made now - will be made during the draft, they aren't going to make a move right now not knowing who goes at #1.  Which may be why there were discussions with the Colts, but no actual trade because it was setting up for draft day, to see how things play out.

Edited March 28, 2018 by MTBill

[Dr. Who]

1 hour ago, MTBill said:

 

I think you're probably right that it will be harder to deny if Cleveland passes on our "guy".  I am sort of looking at #4.  Cleveland could have their cake and eat it too.  Get their guy at 1, then acquire even more draft capital with #4.  Beane & Co. will have grades on the players that tell them not to jump up unless the value is right.  It may be that even their #1 guy isn't viewed by them as worth pick #2 - and they'll just wait to see if they are available when they see value.  I think it just such a different thing when you are sitting at 12 and have to pay a lot of picks to move up, than it is to look at the board at 12 and pick the highest guy left on your board (who should be at least valued at 12+).  I would be less shocked to see the bills move up to 4 than I would be to see them spend a ton of picks to get to #2.

 

If you look at these QBs - they may have 1a and 1b - if neither of those go in pick 1, you can almost be certain that at least 1 of those QBs will there at #4 (someone is going to take Barkley or Chubb).  So I think #4 is a real target for the Bills - leap over Denver - and use less picks than it would take to get to #2.  It would be a win-win potentially since it would cost less - and the Browns would still have a very successful draft.  I ran this on that BN site.  Move up 8 slots to 4 and 7 slots in the 4th - for the first 2nd round pick we have.

 

 

I also think any move that is going to be made now - will be made during the draft, they aren't going to make a move right now not knowing who goes at #1.  Which may be why there were discussions with the Colts, but no actual trade because it was setting up for draft day, to see how things play out.

Yes, this is very reasonable.  Beane seems like a pretty even-tempered fella, so it might work out that way.  Not everything in the draft is reasonable, though.

[MTBill]

And I suppose it also matters what Pegs says.  If he says, I want to look "good" in the media - and meet some rabid fan expectations - make this move.

[LABILLBACKER]

6 hours ago, billsfan11 said:

I would do that trade in a heartbeat. Even throw in the 53rd if you have to

If Darnold is sitting there @ 2 throw in 53. Just keep next years picks.