An Economist's perspective on the Draft: Always better to trade down, than up
- Thread starter SkapePhin
- Start date
We probably get more combined value out of Odrick and Misi than San Diego gets from Ryan Matthews. However, the fact that Ireland failed to properly evaluate the talent available to recognize Earl Thomas's value flags a bigger problem. It also flags that the Chargers identified the wrong player to sacrifice their 2nd round pick.
After every draft, Ireland said that we nailed it, based on his board. However, for the occasional successful selections, there seems a lot of inaccurate evaluations. Hopefully, Dennis Hickey can correct these problems and make some progress in this area.
phinfan40353
Scout Team
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 2,524
- Reaction score
- 1,702
I think the ability for a GM to identify the "perfect fit" of a player, his coaches, his organization and his support network is probably more valuable than any measurable or on-field performance. I also think this talent is more rare than coaching a team to a Super Bowl win.
I think this is what truly separates the greatest GMs from great GMs. When you make a pick that doesn't consume more resources from your organization than the other 52 guys on the team, your coaches have more time to do the job they are best equipped.
I agree management abilities and player responsibilities exist within everyone in the organization and the player. But let's face it, many times a single player can destroy a team. Who brought him into the organization? There's the real problem.
I'm not saying every factor of acquiring Player X should be predictable. It's impossible. But the GREATEST GMs have the ability to realize Player X is more deficient in certain areas that will create a strain on the organization than Player Y. For all of the talent Player X may have, his tenure with the organization may be less productive than Player Y. And these are the GMs that build teams that are constantly competing for championships and have winning traditions.
On the field excellence is not about one guy. It starts at the top. Super Bowls, championships and real winning start with the hiring process. This is why most teams depend on talent and a few, very few have an organization that can win with just about anyone.
For all that he didn't deliver, Jimmy did build a great organization. It was evident in the fact it took Wanny several years to destroy the team. That's a sign there was a solid core and resources at every level.
Jimmy simply didn't have the desire to see his creation through to completion. So, in that regards, he wasn't great at what he did. And that too is part of it, dedication to a dream.
When occurrences like "Bully Gate" happen, it's not a condemnation of one guy. It's an indication of failure at many levels.
Hickey might be "the guy", but as of right now, Philbin has yet to prove anything to me. So it doesn't matter "how" you draft. If you don't know how to build a team, draft picks, draft value and player ability mean nothing.
I think this is what truly separates the greatest GMs from great GMs. When you make a pick that doesn't consume more resources from your organization than the other 52 guys on the team, your coaches have more time to do the job they are best equipped.
I agree management abilities and player responsibilities exist within everyone in the organization and the player. But let's face it, many times a single player can destroy a team. Who brought him into the organization? There's the real problem.
I'm not saying every factor of acquiring Player X should be predictable. It's impossible. But the GREATEST GMs have the ability to realize Player X is more deficient in certain areas that will create a strain on the organization than Player Y. For all of the talent Player X may have, his tenure with the organization may be less productive than Player Y. And these are the GMs that build teams that are constantly competing for championships and have winning traditions.
On the field excellence is not about one guy. It starts at the top. Super Bowls, championships and real winning start with the hiring process. This is why most teams depend on talent and a few, very few have an organization that can win with just about anyone.
For all that he didn't deliver, Jimmy did build a great organization. It was evident in the fact it took Wanny several years to destroy the team. That's a sign there was a solid core and resources at every level.
Jimmy simply didn't have the desire to see his creation through to completion. So, in that regards, he wasn't great at what he did. And that too is part of it, dedication to a dream.
When occurrences like "Bully Gate" happen, it's not a condemnation of one guy. It's an indication of failure at many levels.
Hickey might be "the guy", but as of right now, Philbin has yet to prove anything to me. So it doesn't matter "how" you draft. If you don't know how to build a team, draft picks, draft value and player ability mean nothing.
BahamaFinFan78
Active Roster
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2010
- Messages
- 7,568
- Reaction score
- 7,727
While Ireland did a bad job in drafting, do you honestly expect ANY GM to come out of a draft saying "We really screwed up, according to our board"?
Good point and I'm sure that he really meant it when he said - "nailed it", each year. However, it strikes me that there was such a big variance between the expectations and the reality 2 - 3 years later, we never got any explanations.
BEANTOWNFINFAN
Active Roster
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 576
- Reaction score
- 1,264
yesterday on 98.5 in Boston they went back 10 years and looked at the number of draft picks they considered "hits" and Misses" for rounds 1,2, & 3 of the Patriots. The pats hit on 80% of their first round picks, 40% of their 2nd round picks and 28% of their 3rd round picks. Isn't it about getting the best player that is going to help you at the end of the day? Its only better to have a lot of later round picks if your selecting the right player... doesn't mean crap if you continually pick the wrong guy. Odds are in your favor that your going to "hit" on a pick in the first round.
BahamaFinFan78
Active Roster
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2010
- Messages
- 7,568
- Reaction score
- 7,727
But if you have only one first round pick, you are wrong 20% of the time. With only one second, you will be wrong 60% of the time. But if have two second round picks, you chances of "hitting" on one player increases. If you have three second round picks, your chances of "hitting" on one player increases even more.
So Be
Club Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 16,572
- Reaction score
- 2,216
I get the stats over a number of drafts averaging out but, each draft in different in overall depth and depth at a position. For example, if you need a QB this is not a good year and little reason to go up to get one. Because of all the underclassmen coming in, players in this year's draft would have been higher rated in last year's draft, etc.
roy_miami
2020 cant get here soon enough
I want to hate the article because I think their 'proof" is more connecting the dots but I definitely agree with the sentiment. Value is value though and while its true that the trader upper generally has gotten the poor end of the deal there has to be a sweet spot there somewhere. For me though I would tend to trade up for QBs and nothing else, in the first anyway, but like Awsi says I would do everything I could to make a trade that nets me another early second.
Think of it this way: if first round picks are coin flips and second and third rounders are a roll of a six sided dice then you are better off trading 2 rolls of the dice for one coin flip. And in this particular draft I think the first round value is going to extend well into the second round.
Think of it this way: if first round picks are coin flips and second and third rounders are a roll of a six sided dice then you are better off trading 2 rolls of the dice for one coin flip. And in this particular draft I think the first round value is going to extend well into the second round.
JJ is vastly overrated by many. While he hit on a number of picks on the defense, he was whiffed repeatedly on offense. in 96 he made 12 picks. From those only 2 were big contributors (Gardener, Thomas). In 97, 14 picks, 2 (Madison, Taylor) were great. In 98, 10 picks, only Surtain was solid. In 99, 8 picks and zero were very good. The great Jimmy Johnson had 44 picks in 4 years and got 4 pro-bowl players, 1 solid pro. I'll give him credit for drafting 4 all-time Dolphin greats but what about the duds? He drafted 7 RBs in 4 years, none were any good. He didn't draft a single good offensive lineman in 4 years. Zero WRs that amounted to anything. No QB to replace Marino.
Is it any wonder why this team has struggled on offense for so long? When you combine the last few years of Shula, up until the present (1993 - 2013), they have drafted these high quality players on offense:
OJ McDuffie (1993)
Chris Chambers (2001)
Vernon Carey (2004)
Jake Long (2008)
Mike Pouncey (2011)
5 players (3 on the OL) in 21 years.