Why not always trade up in the draft?

[OneTwoSixFive]

This doesn't address the point @CWood21  made. Look at who the Packers could have had with the picks you didn't like and would like to give up. This is more to do with who a GM chooses to pick in those rounds. Also relevant is that for many previous years (those years that lead to you wanting to always trade up)  the Packers have drafted under TT, who did not do well in his later years, while we are now under (relatively) new management with Gutekunst.

An Associated Press analysis of Super Bowl champions over the past seven years revealed that title teams shed an average of 20.4 players off their 53-man rosters from the Super Bowl to Week 1 of the next season. That’s 38.5 per cent. 
While a Superbowl team might lose slightly more players than other teams (in the Associated Press coment above), it is still a telling figure on roster turnover.

Most teams lose players that account for between 20% and 35% of the snaps taken in the previous year. That means the GM must keep adding guys to the roster, enough of them to replace the snaps AND overcome new additions that are busts. While many of the replaced snaps might come from ascending players already on the roster, there is still the same amount of need for acquiring new guys to ascend in future years.

So,
Roster turnover demands lots a new players on the team, with the draft (and rookie fa) supplying most of the new influx.

Trading down gets more players, trading up means less but higher picks. Which you do is more situational than a hard and fast philosophy.

Rookies are relatively cheap and teams need a bunch of cheap players to afford the bigger contracts.

Veteran players are more expensive, the better ones cost a huge amount more and the poorer ones are still on more than most rookies earn.

Managing the cap well is a big factor in how capable a team is in competing at a high level. The more players you have that outplay their contracts, the better the team generally tends to do (and no, I am not advocating an extreme version of this where you trade down for a huge bunch of 7th rounders just so they can outplay their contract).

'Credit card' cap management (pushing salary money into future years) is very bad when overdone. The bills always become due later (barring cap-free years). Relying more heavily on veteran acquisitions puts more stress on the cap and you must still account for acquired vets that do not play well.

Pro-Bowl invites are an awful way to express team talent. A better (but still far from perfect) indicator might be the PFF top 100 players (and the Packers have 5 guys in there, Rodgers, Clark, Adams, A.Jones, D.Adams).

Edited February 11, 2020 by OneTwoSixFive

[Brit Pack]

58 minutes ago, spilltray said:

They aren't replaceble if you don't have draft picks. Replacement level veterans are going to be significantly higher cap hits. 

Well if we look at those nine, five of them barely made any meaningful contribution and you could argue actually ate up cap space really, those being: Jace Sternberger, Oren Burks, Mo Adams, Josh Jackson, Jason Spriggs.

Then we got Lowry who is not cheap at 3.6m cap hit last year with a pff of 63. Could easily be replaced by a Mike Pennel who played for $800k last season and had a 72.2pff.

MLB an RBs are interchangeable anyway hence why we never put too much draft stock in to them. And Kyler Fackrell is Kyler Fackrell. All very replaceable with similar level FA contracts for bottom end roster guys which these guys are.

[Brit Pack]

1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

This doesn't address the point @CWood21  made. Look at who the Packers could have had with the picks you didn't like and would like to give up. This is more to do with who a GM chooses to pick in those rounds. Also relevant is that for many previous years (those years that lead to you wanting to always trade up)  the Packers have drafted under TT, who did not do well in his later years, while we are now under (relatively) new management with Gutekunst.

An Associated Press analysis of Super Bowl champions over the past seven years revealed that title teams shed an average of 20.4 players off their 53-man rosters from the Super Bowl to Week 1 of the next season. That’s 38.5 per cent. 
While a Superbowl team might lose slightly more players than other teams (in the Associated Press coment above), it is still a telling figure on roster turnover.

Most teams lose players that account for between 20% and 35% of the snaps taken in the previous year. That means the GM must keep adding guys to the roster, enough of them to replace the snaps AND overcome new additions that are busts. While many of the replaced snaps might come from ascending players already on the roster, there is still the same amount of need for acquiring new guys to ascend in future years.

So,
Roster turnover demands lots a new players on the team, with the draft (and rookie fa) supplying most of the new influx.

Trading down gets more players, trading up means less but higher picks. Which you do is more situational than a hard and fast philosophy.

Rookies are relatively cheap and teams need a bunch of cheap players to afford the bigger contracts.

Veteran players are more expensive, the better ones cost a huge amount more and the poorer ones are still on more than most rookies earn.

Managing the cap well is a big factor in how capable a team is in competing at a high level. The more players you have that outplay their contracts, the better the team generally tends to do (and no, I am not advocating an extreme version of this where you trade down for a huge bunch of 7th rounders just so they can outplay their contract).

'Credit card' cap management (pushing salary money into future years) is very bad when overdone. The bills always become due later (barring cap-free years). Relying more heavily on veteran acquisitions puts more stress on the cap and you must still account for acquired vets that do not play well.

Pro-Bowl invites are an awful way to express team talent. A better (but still far from perfect) indicator might be the PFF top 100 players (and the Packers have 5 guys in there, Rodgers, Clark, Adams, A.Jones, D.Adams).

I don't disagree with you but these bottom of the roster players can be replaced with cheap vets. BJ Goodson cost $730k, Oren Burks $836k. I haven't looked, but how many more snaps did BJ have over Burks?  Robert Tonyan $570k and we got 100 yards out of him, Jace (yes he was injured) but we only got three post season catches for 15 yards and he cost $966k on average per year. Tyler Ervin $720k while Dexter Williams marginally less average annual salary of $671k.  Jason Spriggs $1.59m in 2019, Jared Veldheer $831k.

I mean our cheap free agent trio of GMO, Jake Kumerow and Lazzard have outlasted our 4th round pick J'mon Moore.

 

[squire12]

2 hours ago, Brit Pack said:

In response to some valid points around what would the roster look like without 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks and to give a larger sample size of what happens to our draft picks here is some data.

The roster we had for the 2019 season was comprised of the following:
5 x 1st rounders
5 x 2nd rounders
4 x 3rd rounders
10 x 5th to 7th rounders
7 x UDFAs
22 x FAs (these being street free agents and big money ones too)

So we are currently looking at 13 players who in my mind we would possibly be without if we played my game of trade up these picks. Those players are: 
Blake Martinez, Jamaal Williams, David Bakhitari, Dean Lowry, Jace Sternberger, Kyler Fackrell, Oren Burks, Mo Adams, Elgton Jenkins, Kevin King, Davante Adams, Josh Jackson, Jason Spriggs

How many of those players would you say are quite replaceable??? I would say 9 of them are for me.

As David Bakhitari is the oldest of that group and was drafted in 2013 let's look since then to now how many picks were made in that period on 2nd, 3rd and 4th round players by the Packers
2013 - 4 picks - 1 still on roster
2014 - 4 picks - 1 still on roster
2015 - 3 picks - 0 on roster
2016 - 4 picks - 1 re-signed, other three probably won't
2017 - 5 picks - 3 still on the roster
2018 - 3 picks - 2 still on the roster
2019 - 2 picks - 2 still on the roster

That's a total of 25 picks. 

Out of those 25 picks 10 are still on the roster (assuming Martinez, Fackrell and Spriggs don't re-sign)
Of those 10, 2 are Pro Bowlers. Which fits my initial stat that outside of the first round 10% of players selected will be Pro Bowlers.

Point being if we traded up those picks into first rounders we could of potentially (IF we could of found trade partners and have the right ammo to move that far up) have had 7 first round picks and if half of those busted we would potentially have 3.5 Pro Bowl players vs the 2 we currently have. I know no GM would do this but I just find it interesting and looking at draft history more and more makes me realise how the odds of getting a blue chip player out of the 1st round are really small.

Like I said before, if nothing else it makes me want to trade away our mid round picks for proven vets in trade deals e.g Emanuel Sanders etc... 





 

How far up in the first does trading a 2nd, 3rd and 4th round pick get you?  Let's say it is pick 20 in each round.   Fringe playoff slot.

Pick 52 = 380

Pick 84 = 170

Pick 120 = 54 ( approximated due to comp picks)

Total 604 which is pick 31

So a team would have 1 shot to add a quality player vs 3 shots.  And by previous posts, that 1 shot has a small chance to make the pro bowl vs 3 shots that that have and somewhat equally small chance to make the probowl.

Now if you are also adding the 20th pick to move up further, you can get to top 12ish area.  So now we need to factor in losing the first round picked players from the discussion.

Clark, king, alexander

[squire12]

32 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

Well if we look at those nine, five of them barely made any meaningful contribution and you could argue actually ate up cap space really, those being: Jace Sternberger, Oren Burks, Mo Adams, Josh Jackson, Jason Spriggs.

Rookie contracts from the 2-7 round are not big cap space eaters.  They are the definition of cheap contracts

32 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

Then we got Lowry who is not cheap at 3.6m cap hit last year with a pff of 63. Could easily be replaced by a Mike Pennel who played for $800k last season and had a 72.2pff.

 

How is the draft so inexact, yet signing FA so exact in having a high hit rate?  

32 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

MLB an RBs are interchangeable anyway hence why we never put too much draft stock in to them. And Kyler Fackrell is Kyler Fackrell. All very replaceable with similar level FA contracts for bottom end roster guys which these guys are.

So now Fackrell has an easily replaced contract when earlier it was a cap space eater?

[squire12]

14 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

I don't disagree with you but these bottom of the roster players can be replaced with cheap vets. BJ Goodson cost $730k, Oren Burks $836k. I haven't looked, but how many more snaps did BJ have over Burks?  Robert Tonyan $570k and we got 100 yards out of him, Jace (yes he was injured) but we only got three post season catches for 15 yards and he cost $966k on average per year. Tyler Ervin $720k while Dexter Williams marginally less average annual salary of $671k.  Jason Spriggs $1.59m in 2019, Jared Veldheer $831k.

I mean our cheap free agent trio of GMO, Jake Kumerow and Lazzard have outlasted our 4th round pick J'mon Moore.

 

And knile Davis sucked. Vernand morency, Cedric Benson 

Darius Shepard, Alex Light were not good.

The success rate on UDFAand UFA is far less than the 100% level you are using as examples 

[Brit Pack]

Just now, squire12 said:

And knile Davis sucked. Vernand morency, Cedric Benson 

Darius Shepard, Alex Light were not good.

The success rate on UDFAand UFA is far less than the 100% level you are using as examples 

But the point is you don't give up draft capital to acquire them!!!

[Brit Pack]

10 minutes ago, squire12 said:

So a team would have 1 shot to add a quality player vs 3 shots.  And by previous posts, that 1 shot has a small chance to make the pro bowl vs 3 shots that that have and somewhat equally small chance to make the probowl.

Not quite true. On average 27 Pro Bowl players in any year. 45% will come from the 1st round of 32 players i.e 12.5 players (not quite sure about the half player)
And there is 220 players selected between rounds 2 - 7 out of which 14.5 Pro Bowlers will emerge i.e a 6.6% chance of getting a Pro Bowl player.
So the chances in round 1 are dramatically higher.

[spilltray]

You are being disenginuous using Lowry's contract. He got a 2nd deal that's different from the peanuts he was playing on. 

Also Sternberger... A rookie who got hurt. As of right now he could easily be the #1 TE going into the season at a ridiculously cheap rate.

 

Other picks may not have worked but still could and have a better success rate than UDFA. Look at all the guys from those rounds that DID hit. The Packers aren't going to replace contributors they've had on rookie deals with UDFA and finding vets would be too expensive.

[coachbuns]

5 minutes ago, spilltray said:

You are being disenginuous using Lowry's contract. He got a 2nd deal that's different from the peanuts he was playing on. 

Also Sternberger... A rookie who got hurt. As of right now he could easily be the #1 TE going into the season at a ridiculously cheap rate.

 

Other picks may not have worked but still could and have a better success rate than UDFA. Look at all the guys from those rounds that DID hit. The Packers aren't going to replace contributors they've had on rookie deals with UDFA and finding vets would be too expensive.

Agree.  If you want to round out the bottom few of your roster with UDFA … ok.  When the Packers drafted well, they won a lot of games.  When they didn't, they lost a lot of games.  It isn't rocket science by any means.  Playing on dirt cheap contracts for a chosen few helps offset the bloated salaries of others.  Finding vets for filling a roster is great and I'm all for it if reasonable.  That being said,  even a "cheap" vet at $2 million is expensive if you have to pay 3 of them compared to drafting in filling roster spots.  The key as always is hitting the draft … it's a crapshoot that has to be on target. 

[squire12]

On 2/8/2020 at 5:30 PM, Brit Pack said:

2012 draft  
253 players selected 
36 pro bowlers 
14 came from the 1st round 
8 of them came in the top 15 picks 

2013 draft 
254 players selected 
29 Pro bowlers 
12 in the 1st round 
4 of them in top 15 picks 

2014 draft 
256 players 
27 pro bowlers 
17 in the 1st round 
11 came in the top 15 picks 

2015 draft 
256 players selected 
23 pro bowl players 
10 in the 1st round 
8 came in the top 15 picks 

2016 draft 
253 players selected 
27 pro bowl players 
11 in the 1st round 
8 came in the top 15 picks 

2017 draft 
253 players selected 
22 pro bowl players 
10 in the 1st round 
7 came in the top 15 picks 

 

1 hour ago, Brit Pack said:

Not quite true. On average 27 Pro Bowl players in any year. 45% will come from the 1st round of 32 players i.e 12.5 players (not quite sure about the half player)
And there is 220 players selected between rounds 2 - 7 out of which 14.5 Pro Bowlers will emerge i.e a 6.6% chance of getting a Pro Bowl player.
So the chances in round 1 are dramatically higher.

Using your numbers.

2012 6 pro bowlers from the 16-32 picks 6/17

2013 8/17

2014 6/17

2015 2/17

2016 3/17

2017 3/17

Total  28 out of 102 total picks were probowlers.  So 28% chance to hit on a pro bowler vs 3 shots to find 1.   

This is also neglecting the concept that finding a high level starter in the rounds of 2-4

[spilltray]

Aaron Jones

Jamal Williams

David Bakhtiari

Blake Martinez

Kyler Fackerell

Corey Linsley

Dean Lowry

Mason Crosby

 

All of these guys were contributors on their rookie deals. How do you afford to replace that production?

The answer is you need to draft better. The better you draft, the better your team, but you need a mix of high picks and volume of picks to make it work.

 

Edit: And that's just 4th rounders or later still on the roster. Not even counting guys like Casey Hayward and Micah Hyde who were contributors on rookie deals but left in FA for good contracts.

Edited February 11, 2020 by spilltray
addintonal comment

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

Aaron Jones

Jamal Williams

David Bakhtiari

Blake Martinez

Kyler Fackerell

Corey Linsley

Dean Lowry

Mason Crosby

 

All of these guys were contributors on their rookie deals. How do you afford to replace that production?

The answer is you need to draft better. The better you draft, the better your team, but you need a mix of high picks and volume of picks to make it work.

 

Edit: And that's just 4th rounders or later still on the roster. Not even counting guys like Casey Hayward and Micah Hyde who were contributors on rookie deals but left in FA for good contracts.

This list illustrates the secret of drafting in the middle rounds. Don't look for stars and don't look for premiums. The one exception is Bakhtiari who was looked at to play Center by most teams.

[Brit Pack]

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

Aaron Jones

Jamal Williams

David Bakhtiari

Blake Martinez

Kyler Fackerell

Corey Linsley

Dean Lowry

Mason Crosby

 

All of these guys were contributors on their rookie deals. How do you afford to replace that production?

The answer is you need to draft better. The better you draft, the better your team, but you need a mix of high picks and volume of picks to make it work.

 

Edit: And that's just 4th rounders or later still on the roster. Not even counting guys like Casey Hayward and Micah Hyde who were contributors on rookie deals but left in FA for good contracts.

Like I said some of that production is replaceable by cheap vets. See previous posts. 3 of those guys listed are 5th rounders and I'm not into trading 5th round picks away.  You are also taking only the good players over a number a 7 year period and also not showing what you could get in return but we could never show that because it is purely hypothetical.

That's why the reverse of the argument and a real example is what I'm advocating for, 2009 we gave up three picks a 2nd round and two 3rd rounder or Clay Matthews. Would you want Clay Matthews or the potential of three additional picks and the production they would bring? Personally, I would like to see more of the same. Trade up always to try and get a blue chip player.

This year I really like Jeudy, would I trade our 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th to move up in the draft and get him if he was still available at the 15th spot? Absolutely!

With regards to drafting better, the Packers are above average when it comes to drafting. That is my main point the draft does not lend itself well to hitting on players the further back you go. So for me the logical thing is to get as high up as you can in the 1st and go for a stud. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders are not as valuable as we think they are.

[OneTwoSixFive]

Looking at thedraftmetwork database, Jeudy is ranked 9th, so you are banking on some luck for him to be available at #15, not insane levels of luck, but a decent chunk.

You then have to get the team sitting at #15 to trade with you at an even value trade, not easy when the other team (Denver) has to drop all the way to pick 30. That takes another big chunk of luck. You also have to hope that a 192lb receiver can stay relatively healthy (that's another sizeable chunk of luck).

The question isn't so much about Jeudy being good, it is more about:
"Is he SO good he is worth more than (for example) WR Shenault at #30 (whose value is probably somewhere between pick 25 and 45) AND a 2nd rounder AND a third rounder AND a fourth rounder".

I'll agree you need some luck to hit on the 2nd/3rd/4th rounders (or at least some of them), but no more than the luck you needed, not only to be able to get Jeudy in the first place, but also to have good usage from him for many years. I know Jeudy was just an example, but he was the example you chose yourself. Too may eggs in one basket (in this case Jeudy) leaves you more susceptible to a total wipeout year from injury.......and it hurts more than the multiple pick approach because you are placing more reliance on just one player being the difference.

While I agree with your take on other things as often as I disagree with it, on this I am with what seems to be the majority, in not agreeing with your premise.

Edited February 11, 2020 by OneTwoSixFive