Tannenbombs
Club Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2014
- Messages
- 2,182
- Reaction score
- 131
What do you think is the best way to create surplus value in the draft (and trading draft picks) ?
Best way to create surplus value in draft?
- Thread starter Tannenbombs
- Start date
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 25,626
- Reaction score
- 35,971
I think the value depends on the situation. For example, when Miami traded down to get Jared Odrick and Koa Misi the team missed out on Earl Thomas. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have Thomas. Odrick and Misi aren't bad players, but that doesn't seem like a value for value trade. Thomas is one of the best at his position.
On the other hand, if you have say five players targeted and are able to trade down and get one with additional picks than that is creating value. Dallas and San Francisco used to be masters at getting a lot of draft picks and adding lots of talent. Jimmy Johnson loved trading down for more picks and that sometimes worked well for him.
I like when teams are able to trade off depth or guys who might not make the team for low round picks. That's certainly a potential way to add value. Hardly ever works with veterans. If Miami decided to start trading off guys like Cam Wake and Brandon Albert, for example, they wouldn't get nearly the draft picks many fans would hope for.
Not sure if that's exactly what you are asking.
On the other hand, if you have say five players targeted and are able to trade down and get one with additional picks than that is creating value. Dallas and San Francisco used to be masters at getting a lot of draft picks and adding lots of talent. Jimmy Johnson loved trading down for more picks and that sometimes worked well for him.
I like when teams are able to trade off depth or guys who might not make the team for low round picks. That's certainly a potential way to add value. Hardly ever works with veterans. If Miami decided to start trading off guys like Cam Wake and Brandon Albert, for example, they wouldn't get nearly the draft picks many fans would hope for.
Not sure if that's exactly what you are asking.
*Identify strong positions in the draft, noting whether the strength is top-loaded or depth-oriented. The 2015 CB group was relatively weak at the top, but it featured quality depth. The 2011 draft was stacked at Edge at the top. Houston fell to the 3rd, but he was a top-15 talent (in one of the best top-15's ever) all day. The point is that it's important to know at which points you should target which positions. This scouting should also determine your approach to free agency. If you have needs that you cannot reasonably fill in the draft, you should look for solutions ahead of time.
*Have a philosophy for each position. That's not to say you can't be flexible, but you should have prototypes and requisites for each position. If you break from that, it should be for excellent reasons. Example: I would typically be very hesitant to consider a player with Jarvis Landry's athletic limitations in the first two rounds, but because Landry is such a stud (and his tests were negatively influenced by injury), I had a late-1st/early-2nd RD grade on Landry. I'm also not suggesting that your prototypes have to be based on measurable physical traits, but you should have a clear vision for the way each position influences the entire unit dynamic.
*Be aware of the areas in which you disagree with the consensus. Most of the best teams make picks that make a lot of people scratch their heads. The Patriots and Seahawks routinely receive bottom-tier draft grades, and they routinely compete for the SB. Much of this is the above point, but the benefits to finding success with a different approach should be obvious. If your draft board is nothing like the rest of the NFL's, you effectively have more premium picks. The catch is that it requires talent and a sound approach to be right more often than the group.
*Understand which traits and accomplishments translate and don't translate at each position. Example: I liked Jack Conklin as a strong run-blocker, who should be solid in pass pro as a RT, so heading into the Combine, I viewed him as a late-1st. After he outperformed R. Stanley in every drill, and measured in with 35" arms and 10 3/8" hands, he immediately jumped into my top-15.
*If you have a late-2nd/early 3rd RD pick, and a supreme value isn't sitting in your lap, trade down if you can. After the first 50 picks, the draft becomes a complete **** show, where most GM's show you how clueless they really are. You can take advantage of this in the 3rd, 4th, and even 5th and 6th rounds. Javon Hargrave pick 89, Justin Simmons pick 98, Dak Prescott pick 135, Dean Lowry pick 137, Jordan Howard pick 150, Jatavis Brown pick 175, Cory James pick 194 are examples already making significant contributions.
*But, if you're staring an elite talent in the eyes (SF Dolphin Fan's example of the ET trade is a great example), don't trade down - unless, of course, you're able to trade down to a spot where your assured a comparable talent. As a hypothetical, if you had a chance to draft Eric Berry, but you liked Earl Thomas as much, a trade down would make sense.
*Never draft for need outside of the top 50. Even within the top 50, need should be weighed against talent. If there is a talent disparity, and both players fit your system, you go with the more talented player (regardless of need). If it's relatively even, you can go need. Ideally, you wouldn't, but you can. Outside of that, you look for talents that fit your system or fit within reasonable adjustments to your system. The likelihood of finding high-end talent that also fills a need drops as the draft progresses. If the best player on your board also fills and immediate need, that's gravy, but you can't count on it. The long approach is the right approach, and drafting premium talent trumps plugging holes in a sinking ship.
*Have a philosophy for each position. That's not to say you can't be flexible, but you should have prototypes and requisites for each position. If you break from that, it should be for excellent reasons. Example: I would typically be very hesitant to consider a player with Jarvis Landry's athletic limitations in the first two rounds, but because Landry is such a stud (and his tests were negatively influenced by injury), I had a late-1st/early-2nd RD grade on Landry. I'm also not suggesting that your prototypes have to be based on measurable physical traits, but you should have a clear vision for the way each position influences the entire unit dynamic.
*Be aware of the areas in which you disagree with the consensus. Most of the best teams make picks that make a lot of people scratch their heads. The Patriots and Seahawks routinely receive bottom-tier draft grades, and they routinely compete for the SB. Much of this is the above point, but the benefits to finding success with a different approach should be obvious. If your draft board is nothing like the rest of the NFL's, you effectively have more premium picks. The catch is that it requires talent and a sound approach to be right more often than the group.
*Understand which traits and accomplishments translate and don't translate at each position. Example: I liked Jack Conklin as a strong run-blocker, who should be solid in pass pro as a RT, so heading into the Combine, I viewed him as a late-1st. After he outperformed R. Stanley in every drill, and measured in with 35" arms and 10 3/8" hands, he immediately jumped into my top-15.
*If you have a late-2nd/early 3rd RD pick, and a supreme value isn't sitting in your lap, trade down if you can. After the first 50 picks, the draft becomes a complete **** show, where most GM's show you how clueless they really are. You can take advantage of this in the 3rd, 4th, and even 5th and 6th rounds. Javon Hargrave pick 89, Justin Simmons pick 98, Dak Prescott pick 135, Dean Lowry pick 137, Jordan Howard pick 150, Jatavis Brown pick 175, Cory James pick 194 are examples already making significant contributions.
*But, if you're staring an elite talent in the eyes (SF Dolphin Fan's example of the ET trade is a great example), don't trade down - unless, of course, you're able to trade down to a spot where your assured a comparable talent. As a hypothetical, if you had a chance to draft Eric Berry, but you liked Earl Thomas as much, a trade down would make sense.
*Never draft for need outside of the top 50. Even within the top 50, need should be weighed against talent. If there is a talent disparity, and both players fit your system, you go with the more talented player (regardless of need). If it's relatively even, you can go need. Ideally, you wouldn't, but you can. Outside of that, you look for talents that fit your system or fit within reasonable adjustments to your system. The likelihood of finding high-end talent that also fills a need drops as the draft progresses. If the best player on your board also fills and immediate need, that's gravy, but you can't count on it. The long approach is the right approach, and drafting premium talent trumps plugging holes in a sinking ship.
Tannenbombs
Club Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2014
- Messages
- 2,182
- Reaction score
- 131
I agree with everything that has been said. Miami needs to attack the meat of the draft where one (or more) position is stacked with talent. They did this in 2014 (Ajayi in 5th), but they failed to do so in a deep DT class last year.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 1,664
- Reaction score
- 136
Lose more in the regular season.
Well said.
Thanks Gonzo! Rooting for Miami provides many opportunities to examine better ways to approach the draft :brewskis:
I would also state that if you are going to trade a pick, don't be afraid of gathering future picks. The value exchange always works out for the one trading a pick in the current draft...
Great point!
ckparrothead
Premium Member
To further the point about trading current for future draft picks, there seems to be this rule around the NFL where a current pick is valued the same as a future pick one round higher. I've heard the explanation put that it's because a player taken now can help you, one extra year. I've heard it compared to interest rates and the time value of money.
That valuation exchange rationale is a total fallacy. Draft picks don't have inherent time value or natural interest rates. Teams don't value a win today anymore than they will value a win today one year from now. There can be discrepancies in draft asset values in different times that would be based on roster considerations, perhaps you have constructed your roster with an eye toward being at your talent zenith in a certain year and thus you value assets according to what might put you over the top and give you a championship in that year. That sort of thinking is generally dangerous and doesn't show respect for the lack of certainty in football evaluations, though.
Anyway if you traded every single pick in your arsenal for a future pick one round higher and you did this every year thereafter, the net effect would be giving up one entire draft in order to operate with an extra 1st round pick every year in perpetuity. What an incredible deal that would be. All I have to do is give up this year's draft, and engage the future trade every single year thereafter, and that would mean every single year I end up with a 1st, another 1st, and then the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc...for the next 50 years? Sign me up.
Unfortunately many teams know this is a fallacy and they don't entertain these trades of a current 2nd for a future 1st, etc. There's no bank you can just get the terms on these loans from any time you want. You have to find a team willing to do it. Regardless the lesson from it all is, ANY time a team offers you a pick one round higher in the future for a pick today, you just go ahead and pull the trigger. Don't say no to free resources.
That valuation exchange rationale is a total fallacy. Draft picks don't have inherent time value or natural interest rates. Teams don't value a win today anymore than they will value a win today one year from now. There can be discrepancies in draft asset values in different times that would be based on roster considerations, perhaps you have constructed your roster with an eye toward being at your talent zenith in a certain year and thus you value assets according to what might put you over the top and give you a championship in that year. That sort of thinking is generally dangerous and doesn't show respect for the lack of certainty in football evaluations, though.
Anyway if you traded every single pick in your arsenal for a future pick one round higher and you did this every year thereafter, the net effect would be giving up one entire draft in order to operate with an extra 1st round pick every year in perpetuity. What an incredible deal that would be. All I have to do is give up this year's draft, and engage the future trade every single year thereafter, and that would mean every single year I end up with a 1st, another 1st, and then the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc...for the next 50 years? Sign me up.
Unfortunately many teams know this is a fallacy and they don't entertain these trades of a current 2nd for a future 1st, etc. There's no bank you can just get the terms on these loans from any time you want. You have to find a team willing to do it. Regardless the lesson from it all is, ANY time a team offers you a pick one round higher in the future for a pick today, you just go ahead and pull the trigger. Don't say no to free resources.
ckparrothead
Premium Member
Other than that found money scenario, it's hard not to regard much of this as a crap shoot. It sort of is, and it isn't.
It's like an arms race. It's hard to win, but it's easy to lose.
Everyone are competing so hard for the edge in finding the right talents that it's very difficult, some argue impossible, to establish sustained above-normal returns on your draft picks. You've got evaluators competing with one another and they literally TAKE the good players away from you before you can get a stab at them. And everyone's always working harder than last year, adding different resources, taking advantage of different technologies or analytical techniques. It's basically like spread betting. The "big" winners can only get to like a sustained 55-57% success rate against the spread, and those guys that can do that are like gods.
On the other hand it's really easy to lose out because you're cutting corners or not doing the same quality of work that everyone else in the closed circuit are doing. That's the argument to say that it's not REALLY a crap shoot. The better evaluators around you are going to keep plucking the real talents away from you out of your reach and you're going to be left with the guys you had ranked high that nobody else did, whether it's because they know about something medically or from a character standpoint you didn't, or what. That's the thing about having a draft board that has differences from everyone else's draft board. The way the mechanics work, you're going to end up with a lot of players that have the biggest delta from the rest of the group's evaluation. You've got a bunch of consensus 7th rounders rated 2nd round, you might end up with consensus 1st and 2nd rounder, but the rest of your draft are going to be those guys you had rated way higher than everyone else. That's the way it sorts itself out.
Aside from that, there are all kinds of things that SOUND nice about need and best player available, be willing to differ from everyone else, yadda yadda yadda...but it's all six of one and half-dozen of the other. There's never been one consistent way to "win" in talent evaluation over everyone else unless you temporarily manage to hit on a technique or technological breakthrough that others have yet to catch onto.
I'm tempted to say the best and only way to be enjoy sustained success as a team this way (it won't necessarily look like sustained success purely from the standpoint of hitting on draft picks) is to be extremely finite and detail oriented about your evaluations of different aspects of the players' games and relating it extremely well to both what the team needs from that standpoint, and opportunistically what the team could do with that finite, more reliably identifiable skill. Even when a player becomes a "bust" there are certain things that player probably did well and other things that sort of ruined the equation. But it's easier to get those details right in your evaluations than it is to go up a mile high and say OK that means this player is worthy of a 2nd round pick and will be a successful NFL player.
It's like an arms race. It's hard to win, but it's easy to lose.
Everyone are competing so hard for the edge in finding the right talents that it's very difficult, some argue impossible, to establish sustained above-normal returns on your draft picks. You've got evaluators competing with one another and they literally TAKE the good players away from you before you can get a stab at them. And everyone's always working harder than last year, adding different resources, taking advantage of different technologies or analytical techniques. It's basically like spread betting. The "big" winners can only get to like a sustained 55-57% success rate against the spread, and those guys that can do that are like gods.
On the other hand it's really easy to lose out because you're cutting corners or not doing the same quality of work that everyone else in the closed circuit are doing. That's the argument to say that it's not REALLY a crap shoot. The better evaluators around you are going to keep plucking the real talents away from you out of your reach and you're going to be left with the guys you had ranked high that nobody else did, whether it's because they know about something medically or from a character standpoint you didn't, or what. That's the thing about having a draft board that has differences from everyone else's draft board. The way the mechanics work, you're going to end up with a lot of players that have the biggest delta from the rest of the group's evaluation. You've got a bunch of consensus 7th rounders rated 2nd round, you might end up with consensus 1st and 2nd rounder, but the rest of your draft are going to be those guys you had rated way higher than everyone else. That's the way it sorts itself out.
Aside from that, there are all kinds of things that SOUND nice about need and best player available, be willing to differ from everyone else, yadda yadda yadda...but it's all six of one and half-dozen of the other. There's never been one consistent way to "win" in talent evaluation over everyone else unless you temporarily manage to hit on a technique or technological breakthrough that others have yet to catch onto.
I'm tempted to say the best and only way to be enjoy sustained success as a team this way (it won't necessarily look like sustained success purely from the standpoint of hitting on draft picks) is to be extremely finite and detail oriented about your evaluations of different aspects of the players' games and relating it extremely well to both what the team needs from that standpoint, and opportunistically what the team could do with that finite, more reliably identifiable skill. Even when a player becomes a "bust" there are certain things that player probably did well and other things that sort of ruined the equation. But it's easier to get those details right in your evaluations than it is to go up a mile high and say OK that means this player is worthy of a 2nd round pick and will be a successful NFL player.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 8,252
- Reaction score
- 8,987
This is a great thread with some really good thoughts above.
A few things I would do:
1. I would treat the first two rounds in particular the same way you treat buying a house. Avoid a prospect with a key defect. In the house analogy, someone may really want a pool or to be on a golf course or whatever, such that he or she looks the other way at the tiny kitchen or whatever. Then you have a house with a defect. Honestly, if we wrote down the top 50-60 draft picks, if your question is "who do you think will not bust," you can have pretty good precision with that. There are guys that you can evaluate, and you can be confident (albeit never sure) that the guy will be solid even in a likely worst case scenario. There are other guys that you can get excited about projection, due to frame or athleticism. Guys like Vernon Ghoulston or Barkevious Mingo come to mind. They were not solid picks. Look with a long term vision as you accumulate the solid players. After 4 years, you'd have 7-8 solid players accumulate just from the top two rounds. That should be the goal. If you take chances on upside, instead of 8 solid guys, you could have 3-4. A big part of football is being solid in different phases. How do you get that way? Get a critical mass of solid football players across all units. In 2007, if we asked, who are you sure will be solid, Patrick Willis or Ted Ginn? It's self-explanatory.
2. Do not reach. If you have a positional need, there is no excuse for blowing your first or second round pick on it. There is free agency. Free agency does not mean getting a star or nothing. There are plenty of stopgap acquisitions available that allow you not to force the position. This is easy to say but Miami has reached a lot. Ja'Wuan James at 20 overall? The other issue, your acquisitions need to be with a view toward multiple years out. Right now, as Miami maps out free agency, they need to look at where holes might be in 2018 and so on. Miami continually finds itself with exigent circumstances at a position, because they have dismal planning for the long term.
3. Draft with a long range plan in mind. Once you have some players you like, re-sign them proactively a year ahead of free agency. Self evaluation of your own players is a significant issue. You accumulate your own players, and then build on that. The goal should be to narrow your weaknesses over time. If you continually let draft picks go, by definition, now you will need to re-draft at that position. It's hard enough with injuries or the like to avoid this problem.
4. After the first two rounds, the draft does get tougher. I'd look at players you think are under-rated due to school or level of play. The prospects from the marquee schools tend to be over-weighted and given a free pass over a really nice player at a school not known for being a football factory. Also, some players from marquee schools get over-recruited and do not get a chance to show what they can do. There are nuggets like these. Personally, I would overweight motor and football instincts with fundamental measurables. By this approach, you'd avoid Dallas Thomas, Michael Egnew et al. In my point above about getting 8 solid players in four years, that was just from the first two rounds, where the top players generally reside. But, here, you can find some steals. I would definitely have identified traits that I would focus on. If you are using analytics, you can figure out what you're looking for, e.g., the SPARQ approach. You get a critical mass of certain traits and you can have synergy as they play together.
5. I would draft a QB in frequent years in rounds 3-7. You keep your mind open, and you may just find a Dak Prescott. You increase your competition but also potentially land a tradeable asset. Matt Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks, Matt Schaub and others come to mind. NE has done this. Not just Brissett and Garrappolo. It did not work out great, but Mallet was in that category. Before that, look at Cassel. Frankly, Brady came in when they already had Bledsoe. I would totally follow this strategy.
Miami has done all of the above wrong. Take chances with high picks, leaving them without enough solid players. Pat White says hello. Miami does not re-sign enough of the picks who do pan out, creating more holes and preventing the team from solving another issue. Miami is not good at planning acquisitions with a multi-year look such that they constantly have emergent needs and they are panic-filling the roster. They have not drafted enough quarterbacks. The team lacks enough alpha male, high motor guys across all units.
A few things I would do:
1. I would treat the first two rounds in particular the same way you treat buying a house. Avoid a prospect with a key defect. In the house analogy, someone may really want a pool or to be on a golf course or whatever, such that he or she looks the other way at the tiny kitchen or whatever. Then you have a house with a defect. Honestly, if we wrote down the top 50-60 draft picks, if your question is "who do you think will not bust," you can have pretty good precision with that. There are guys that you can evaluate, and you can be confident (albeit never sure) that the guy will be solid even in a likely worst case scenario. There are other guys that you can get excited about projection, due to frame or athleticism. Guys like Vernon Ghoulston or Barkevious Mingo come to mind. They were not solid picks. Look with a long term vision as you accumulate the solid players. After 4 years, you'd have 7-8 solid players accumulate just from the top two rounds. That should be the goal. If you take chances on upside, instead of 8 solid guys, you could have 3-4. A big part of football is being solid in different phases. How do you get that way? Get a critical mass of solid football players across all units. In 2007, if we asked, who are you sure will be solid, Patrick Willis or Ted Ginn? It's self-explanatory.
2. Do not reach. If you have a positional need, there is no excuse for blowing your first or second round pick on it. There is free agency. Free agency does not mean getting a star or nothing. There are plenty of stopgap acquisitions available that allow you not to force the position. This is easy to say but Miami has reached a lot. Ja'Wuan James at 20 overall? The other issue, your acquisitions need to be with a view toward multiple years out. Right now, as Miami maps out free agency, they need to look at where holes might be in 2018 and so on. Miami continually finds itself with exigent circumstances at a position, because they have dismal planning for the long term.
3. Draft with a long range plan in mind. Once you have some players you like, re-sign them proactively a year ahead of free agency. Self evaluation of your own players is a significant issue. You accumulate your own players, and then build on that. The goal should be to narrow your weaknesses over time. If you continually let draft picks go, by definition, now you will need to re-draft at that position. It's hard enough with injuries or the like to avoid this problem.
4. After the first two rounds, the draft does get tougher. I'd look at players you think are under-rated due to school or level of play. The prospects from the marquee schools tend to be over-weighted and given a free pass over a really nice player at a school not known for being a football factory. Also, some players from marquee schools get over-recruited and do not get a chance to show what they can do. There are nuggets like these. Personally, I would overweight motor and football instincts with fundamental measurables. By this approach, you'd avoid Dallas Thomas, Michael Egnew et al. In my point above about getting 8 solid players in four years, that was just from the first two rounds, where the top players generally reside. But, here, you can find some steals. I would definitely have identified traits that I would focus on. If you are using analytics, you can figure out what you're looking for, e.g., the SPARQ approach. You get a critical mass of certain traits and you can have synergy as they play together.
5. I would draft a QB in frequent years in rounds 3-7. You keep your mind open, and you may just find a Dak Prescott. You increase your competition but also potentially land a tradeable asset. Matt Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks, Matt Schaub and others come to mind. NE has done this. Not just Brissett and Garrappolo. It did not work out great, but Mallet was in that category. Before that, look at Cassel. Frankly, Brady came in when they already had Bledsoe. I would totally follow this strategy.
Miami has done all of the above wrong. Take chances with high picks, leaving them without enough solid players. Pat White says hello. Miami does not re-sign enough of the picks who do pan out, creating more holes and preventing the team from solving another issue. Miami is not good at planning acquisitions with a multi-year look such that they constantly have emergent needs and they are panic-filling the roster. They have not drafted enough quarterbacks. The team lacks enough alpha male, high motor guys across all units.
Last edited by a moderator: