Debating the ‘Value’ Of David Montgomery

[soulman]

9 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

Day 3 picks are easily recouped. I am never going to lose my mind about losing them. If Pace wants to use those picks to ensure better top end players in the draft I am okay with that.

I'm of a similar mind.

When Jerry Angelo began trading down to acquire more picks few even made the team.  If there's a player on your board you rank far ahead of other choices spend the picks and get him.

The media often can't think beyond their next deadline.  What's being discounted is the probability that we will begin to acquire more compensatory picks as we shed higher cost vets and replace them with younger less expensive players.  Those picks can now be traded as well so going forward the reality is we aren't all that likely to end up "pick poor".

And even with only 5 picks in 2019, and none before round three, IMHO we scored at least 3 players who can contribute in 2019 and possibly all five.

[dll2000]

37 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

Day 3 picks are easily recouped. I am never going to lose my mind about losing them. If Pace wants to use those picks to ensure better top end players in the draft I am okay with that.

PFF says because everyone drafts poorly statistically you should always have as many picks as possible to expand hit rate.  They say ego causes people to trade up.  

Bathing in statistics can rot your brain I think.  Always full of half truths pretending to be full truths.

 

 

[abstract_thought]

The issue with that reasoning is that drafting is not necessarily random and treating it as such ignores the contextual stuff that heavily influences the success of a pick.

With that said, it's obvious that draft picks are one of NFL teams' limited resources and that consistently trading away your limited resources can have negative consequences. To make this clear, imagine a team trading away 2 drafts worth of picks for the #1 overall. Even if the player turns into an All Pro, the team will be severely limited when trying to build out the rest of the roster.

I think the thoughtful critics of Ryan Pace view his team-building strategy as something which may result in a short-term contender but which will not create a sustainably good team. The most important unanswered question is whether a sustainable team-building strategy exists in the modern NFL and if teams that employ alternative strategies (e.g. accumulating resources) see longer competitive windows.

[soulman]

38 minutes ago, abstract_thought said:

The issue with that reasoning is that drafting is not necessarily random and treating it as such ignores the contextual stuff that heavily influences the success of a pick.

With that said, it's obvious that draft picks are one of NFL teams' limited resources and that consistently trading away your limited resources can have negative consequences. To make this clear, imagine a team trading away 2 drafts worth of picks for the #1 overall. Even if the player turns into an All Pro, the team will be severely limited when trying to build out the rest of the roster.

I think the thoughtful critics of Ryan Pace view his team-building strategy as something which may result in a short-term contender but which will not create a sustainably good team. The most important unanswered question is whether a sustainable team-building strategy exists in the modern NFL and if teams that employ alternative strategies (e.g. accumulating resources) see longer competitive windows.

NE would seem to offer some confirmation of accumulating picks being a sustainable long term strategy although I'd be far more comfortable accepting that if they were without Brady.

If there is a single NFL QB who seems to consistently make his supporting cast better playing with him than without he seems to be it.

It's tough to know just how Pace's strategies will hold up in the long haul but in the here and now with a roster with so few openings and the combination of a scouting staff who finds good UDFA prospects coupled with a coaching staff who develops some of them his strategy for this draft was spot on.  More picks in day three would not have helped all that much.

And as for what we gave up to obtain Mack and draft Miller last year it would be pretty foolish for anyone to argue against those moves.

[dll2000]

44 minutes ago, abstract_thought said:

The issue with that reasoning is that drafting is not necessarily random and treating it as such ignores the contextual stuff that heavily influences the success of a pick.

With that said, it's obvious that draft picks are one of NFL teams' limited resources and that consistently trading away your limited resources can have negative consequences. To make this clear, imagine a team trading away 2 drafts worth of picks for the #1 overall. Even if the player turns into an All Pro, the team will be severely limited when trying to build out the rest of the roster.

I think the thoughtful critics of Ryan Pace view his team-building strategy as something which may result in a short-term contender but which will not create a sustainably good team. The most important unanswered question is whether a sustainable team-building strategy exists in the modern NFL and if teams that employ alternative strategies (e.g. accumulating resources) see longer competitive windows.

Philly and LA quickly recovered from multitude of picks they gave up for Wentz and Goff and both went to super bowl.  Thinking at time was they were screwed as they wouldn't be able to build around the young QBs because they lacked draft capital.

Conversely it was thought Titans and Cleveland would take off be certain contenders with the haul.  Especially Titans who already had their QB in place.  That didn't happen.

Patriots lost several high round picks to scandals and because of on field success were drafting at end of every round for nearly 2 decades.  They have found alternative ways to build their team.

Team building can be accomplished in different ways.  

 

 

[dll2000]

As a reminder:

Philly traded No. 8, 3rd, 4th.  Next year 1st, 2nd.   They got back conditional 5th. 

Rams traded No. 15, two 2nds, 3rd.  Next year 1st and 3rd.  They got back a 4th and a 6th.  

 

[dll2000]

Bears traded 2019, 1, 6 and 2020 1 and 3.  They got back 2020 2nd and conditional 5th.

Bears 2019 was a low first rounder and 2020 looks to be as well.  

Getting back 2nd was huge.  

With savy FA and UDFA acquisitions it looks like Philly and Rams Bears are going to get their man and not really miss much of a beat on overall team talent.

For Redskins RGIII was disaster, but they drafted poorly and did worse in FA in trying to recover or build their team.  

Like Titans and Cleveland (who didn't) it is unclear if Oakland is going to capitalize on their draft haul and turn into a contender based on those picks.  

Cleveland may have turned it around, but that is based on continuing to draft 1 overall each round, other trades and FA acquisitions, not from their one big trade for picks which they largely squandered.  

 

[beardown3231]

25 minutes ago, soulman said:

NE would seem to offer some confirmation of accumulating picks being a sustainable long term strategy although I'd be far more comfortable accepting that if they were without Brady.

If there is a single NFL QB who seems to consistently make his supporting cast better playing with him than without he seems to be it.

It's tough to know just how Pace's strategies will hold up in the long haul but in the here and now with a roster with so few openings and the combination of a scouting staff who finds good UDFA prospects coupled with a coaching staff who develops some of them his strategy for this draft was spot on.  More picks in day three would not have helped all that much.

And as for what we gave up to obtain Mack and draft Miller last year it would be pretty foolish for anyone to argue against those moves.

My guess would be that the Pats sustainability comes from Brady, McDaniels and Belichick, not draft picks. Look at their last few drafts. Pretty average, if not poor, all things considered. 

[abstract_thought]

1 hour ago, dll2000 said:

Philly and LA quickly recovered from multitude of picks they gave up for Wentz and Goff and both went to super bowl.  Thinking at time was they were screwed as they wouldn't be able to build around the young QBs because they lacked draft capital.

Conversely it was thought Titans and Cleveland would take off be certain contenders with the haul.  Especially Titans who already had their QB in place.  That didn't happen.

Patriots lost several high round picks to scandals and because of on field success were drafting at end of every round for nearly 2 decades.  They have found alternative ways to build their team.

Team building can be accomplished in different ways.  

 

 

We don't know yet about Philly and LA. They've had short windows of contention so far but we can't say whether it will be sustainable.

The question here isn't whether giving away assets can build a competitive team. We've seen it done several times already. The bigger question is whether the competitive window of a team built in this way is shorter than one built by accumulating more assets.

This also applies to the Mack trade. When evaluated in years 1 and 2 it will obviously look great. The question is whether the draft picks and salary cap money given up for Mack will prevent the Bears from building a competitive team 4-5 years from now.

[soulman]

2 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

My guess would be that the Pats sustainability comes from Brady, McDaniels and Belichick, not draft picks. Look at their last few drafts. Pretty average, if not poor, all things considered. 

Pretty much why I feel the in order to actually validate sustainability you'd have to subtract the "Brady Factor" at the very least.

To be honest if it eventually proves out Pace's model may be one more team follow.  He's scored well with it so far.

[Sugashane]

5 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Bathing in statistics can rot your brain I think.  Always full of half truths pretending to be full truths.

 

 

That is pretty much sig worthy. 

 

 

[Heinz D.]

30 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

That is pretty much sig worthy. 

 

 

If only we could have them...

[beardown3231]

1 minute ago, Heinz D. said:

If only we could have them...

We can

[Heinz D.]

4 minutes ago, beardown3231 said:

We can

Really? I thought we were prohibited. Did something change, or did I misread something? 

[beardown3231]

11 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

Really? I thought we were prohibited. Did something change, or did I misread something? 

They don't show up on mobile devices but on a desktop/laptop they show up.

I have one and so does @Sugashane. Perhaps others do also, but I was looking on this page only.