Study of Draft Value

[ZOD]

If you can read all of this and your head doesn't :dolphins: You are a better man than me.

If you are interested I advise reading .....

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2005/04/economics_of_nf.html

and here....

http://www.yaleeconomicreview.com/fall2005/loserscurse.php

Before you dive into this 59 page study...

http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~cadem/bio/massey & thaler - loser's curse.pdf

They say that the most valuable picks (eg. yards per dollar) are between picks #25 and #75, and the most valuable pick in the entire draft depends on the year but should be between #41 and #52.

 

[4evaFinz]

:eek:

 

[LarryFinFan]

All the statiscal analysis of the draft doesn't mean squat. More is found out about a player at any position once he is in a game than all the other stuff combined. Favre didn't set the world on fire in Atlanta, Delhomme I think was a undrafted QB, Brady...6th round, Unitas...with about 3 teams before becoming arguably the best QB of all time. Peyton Manning didn't set the world afire in his first season...and I only am mentioning QBs...

Its just not a 'science' as some want to make it...it's a gamble and sometimes it works and sometimes not....

 

[ckparrothead]

All the statiscal analysis of the draft doesn't mean squat.

I like how you can make that judgment without even having read the papers.

 

[Dolphalou]

I always thought that trading down was the best strategy during the first two rounds of the NFL draft. I'm glad that economics & math proved it...

Thank for the article, great read.

 

[ckparrothead]

Yeah I find it to be interesting but what you should keep in mind is that this study is not telling anyone how they should build a football team. The scope of this study pretty much lies in finding out if there is a widening variance between performance value and salary value at any certain parts of the draft, which would make one particular area of the draft better "bang for the buck" than other areas.

But, since performance bang for your buck is not the lone input for a super bowl winning team, the guy on Coyote Blog makes an erroneous assumption that a team should be willing to trade a top 15 pick for a second round pick straight up. Having a roster full of second rounders that perform better than their salaries would indicate is nice, and it helps a team immensely, but it doesn't constitute a winning team. You still need star power at certain positions to win championships. I've always found that the best way to run a team is to effectively balance the premium that you pay for star power, with the cost savings you get on guys who are still on rookie contracts and playing better than their salary indicates. That way the reality ends up being that you are using this spike in bang for your buck in order to discount the premium you're paying for guys who are going to (hopefully) lead your team to a super bowl victory.

If you don't have any stars to help your team get that championship, your team ends up with a bit of a headless look.

 

[PhinstiGator]

"Overvaluation is the most extreme at the top".

The loser's curse is self-propogating. Hopefully, we won't fall prey to that mentality. If last years draft is indicative of Saban's M.O., He will continue to value "value".