Why not always trade up in the draft?

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, Brit Pack said:

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.

Except it isn't.  At least not guys who are going to improve your current roster.  Sure, you might be able to find some cheapish vets who will play league average, but you're not going to improve your roster by signing those guys.  And guys who will improve your roster aren't signing for cheap.

[CWood21]

2 hours ago, Brit Pack said:

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.

That still doesn't change the fact that you're still going to need to draft the right player.  Let's say you deal our 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks to move up.  According to the TVC, those picks are worth ~45th overall pick.  How much better are the odds at the 45th pick as opposed to the 60th pick?  Not that much.

[Brit Pack]

11 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Except it isn't.  At least not guys who are going to improve your current roster.  Sure, you might be able to find some cheapish vets who will play league average, but you're not going to improve your roster by signing those guys.  And guys who will improve your roster aren't signing for cheap.

Improvement is a different argument than replacing for sure. The concept I'm prorogating is a roster is improved by having as many bluechip players as possible and the best chance of getting such a player is in the first round. A Z'Smith changed our defence, a Jaire changes our defence, a Kenny Clark changes our defence. Kevin King doesn't necessarily, Dean Lowry certainly doesn't, Tyler Lancaster doesn't either. That production is replaceable for me and I willing to scarafice what could be had in the middle rounds to go up and get a game changer ala what we did to get Clay

[CWood21]

Just now, Brit Pack said:

Improvement is a different argument than replacing for sure. The concept I'm prorogating is a roster is improved by having as many bluechip players as possible and the best chance of getting such a player is in the first round. A Z'Smith changed our defence, a Jaire changes our defence, a Kenny Clark changes our defence. Kevin King doesn't necessarily, Dean Lowry certainly doesn't, Tyler Lancaster doesn't either. That production is replaceable for me and I willing to scarafice what could be had in the middle rounds to go up and get a game changer ala what we did to get Clay

The problem is you're making the assumption that trading up ensures a chance to select a gamechanger.  When the reality is that the trade up you're suggesting isn't as likely you are trying to make it seem.

[Brit Pack]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

The problem is you're making the assumption that trading up ensures a chance to select a gamechanger.  When the reality is that the trade up you're suggesting isn't as likely you are trying to make it seem.

Not ensures but the probabilities certainly increase without a doubt and the higher up you can get the higher those probabilities become. As you stated earlier the hardest part of this is finding someone willing to dance with you and the fact that you will have to pay over the odds i.e future picks to make it happen.

I think my mind is of the opinion that rosters are comprised of a small number of well paid players (about 12) who are either marquee FAs or second and third contract players and they account for approximately 70% of the cap. The remainder of the players are rookies, UDFA's, street free agents etc. If you can push that number of ;top players' on your team to 15 or 16 it changes the complexion more dramatically than having more players average to good players filling out your roster. I'm willing to put more eggs in that basket to find those studs as I feel they will drastically change a team. 

[spilltray]

Even mid level vets are going to be way more of a cap burden than rookie contracts. It's not a feasible cap option. Those players are all going to be rookies. Also I was only looking at 4+, is losing all those 2/3/4 round guys really worth the cost? I don't even think it's close. Keep the picks. 

 

I'm not saying never move up, but you have to pick your spots and be pretty sure about the guy you are going to get.

[Shanedorf]

31 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

I'm willing to put more eggs in that basket to find those studs as I feel they will drastically change a team. 

What's the hit rate for studs ? Take a cruise through 1st rounds from 2012- 2017 and see what happens to your eggs and baskets

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/years/

Let's look at 2015 as an example - lots of whiffs in the first round.

https://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/years/2015

J.Winston, M.Mariota, D Fowler, Leonard Williams, Kevin White, Vic Beasley, Gurley got hurt, Melvin Gordon was a trade- up, Kevin Johnson, Marcus Peters was traded, Agholor, Shane Ray, Stephone Anthony, Damarius Norm Randall would all be considered players who didn't live up to their draft position for a variety of reasons. That's a pretty lousy hit rate for the supposedly higher chances of drafting a stud

Your conceptual thinking isn't unsound, but reality is VERY different than a theory when it comes to projecting how young athletes will do in the NFL
Your plan only works IF you consistently get it right and nobody has figured out how to consistently get it right despite the investment of millions of dollars and thousands of hours of study by the smartest brains in the industry.

[Norm]

25 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Damarius Norm Randall

Lol

Agreed on the end part, I totally understand WHERE he's coming from, I'm just not sure it's at all realistic

Edited February 11, 2020 by Norm

[Brit Pack]

38 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Your plan only works IF you consistently get it right and nobody has figured out how to consistently get it right despite the investment of millions of dollars and thousands of hours of study by the smartest brains in the industry.

I don't understand why the Packers front office wastes countless man hours, money and energy when they could just read this forum instead and get it right every time...I mean who would draft Gary??? Really!!!

[mikemike778]

12 hours ago, Brit Pack said:

 

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... 
 

These trades are valued wrongly though.  Is Sanders better than the players you get with a 3rd and 4th pick ?   Yes probably. But that's isn't the point.

You have to pay his salary which is 11m a year. You can use that to sign Bulaga whereas the 3rd and 4th round picks will be on relatively cheap contracts. So you aren't trading Sanders for the players you get from the picks. You are trading Sanders for Bulaga, and a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick.

And this is where the mid draft picks have their value. If (and its a big if) you nail them then you win the salary cap game. For all his faults Martinez was a decent starter - if we could have him back on his rookie contract, I'm sure everyone would run to sign that contract. If you hit on this type of pick that frees up your money to make the free agent splashes. And that's where you get your blue chip players.  The goal with the non first rounders isn't to pick pro-bowl players (well it sort of is but ..) its to get your solid roster players that save you money to your stars elsewhere.

[Brit Pack]

Go with me on this, based on a true story. SO this evening I was playing chess with my son. It made me recall that American Football is often described as chess with athletes. As the game I played with my son unfolded I had the upper hand, I had taken all of his minor pieces and some of his major pieces too but he still had his queen. I made a silly mistake and lost mine. Suddenly the game turned and bit my bit my advantage was eroded till finally I was checked mated and lost. 

The moral of the story is pawns in the right position can be powerful but are largely replaceable and do not seriously affect the outcome of a game. The minor pieces, the bishops and knights are akin to good players and they can win you games. However, a queen is dominant and even if you face many good pieces a queen can take over a game.

In this analogy a queen is a game changer player, you have to account for them at all times as an opponent. Having one or multiple ones on your team makes other pieces or players better. If you have to account for Devante Adams Lazzard is a little more open.

When I look at the Packers we have 4 possibly 6 'queens' on our offence: Rodgers (an ageing queen..), Devante, Bakh, Aaron Jones, possibly  Bulaga and Jenkins could grow into one. On defence we have Kenny, Z'Smith, P Smith, Jaire and if he takes it up a notch Amos. That is 8 in total with 3 a notch below,. These players have to be accounted for and can seriously affect the outcome of the game. What if we had 13 such players? That's what makes you a dominant team.

When we had an electric offence in 2011 so many 'queens' Rodgers in his prime, Jordy, Jennings, Bulaga, Wells, Lang, Sitton and Finley These 8 guys were the queens. Driver, Cobb and James Jones were not queens but good pieces too. Then the defence you had Woodson, Tramon, Raji, Matthews and Sam Shields. That is 13 complete studs. If we can retain Bulaga and get a couple more piece we are very close to being dominant once again.

Look at the Niners, how many 'queens' they got on defence Bosa, Armstead, Sherman, Buckner, Dee Ford, Jimmy Ward and Fred Warner. On offence they got Kittle, Debo is emerging as is Mostert, Juszczyk, an ageing Joe Staley, and debateably Jimmy G.  

Get the 'queens' and the rest of the team takes care of itself. Do whatever it takes to get them in and of course the whole point of this thread is player acquisition through free agency or the draft is an inaccurate science, so go and get the best you can in the draft by trading up as much as you can and go and bag a queen...

With that I leave you. 

[JAF-N72EX]

On 2/8/2020 at 10:33 PM, Outpost31 said:

That said, I am a fan of getting rid of 5th-7th round picks any way you can in order to move up.  There's probably analytics to support that 5th-7th aren't a whole lot different than undrafted. 

Your cut-off line (and idea/perception) is terribly flawed here on many levels.

Since 2015, there has only been 1 undrafted player who was 1 first-team all-pro (Deonte Harris) and 4 other (mostly) special team players with 4 combined 2nd team all pros.

Conversely, there have been 5 players who were drafted in the 5th round that was named 1st team all-pro at least one time with a combined 6 first-team all-pros and 2 combined second-team all-pro. 

You're putting a singular value on each player based only when they were drafted and not what GMs, coaches, and scouts drafted them for.

Teams draft players based on the player's ability as they see it and how they would fit into their system, not where they are drafted. A lot of players fall further in the draft based on attributes outside of their ability (size, injuries, character concerns, personal issues outside of football, etc) and this doesn't make them any less worthless than what they were/are perceived to be at the time of the draft

Also, with that in mind, whats constitutes as a fifth-round pick? I'm assuming that you mean by any player who was drafted in the 5th round, right? Well, then what is the difference between the last 4th round pick in a draft vs the first pick in the 5th round? You don't see a problem with this cut-off....

Not only that, but trading up not only costs more and is also lowering your chances of finding key depth/situational players as well, which are usually found in the 4th-7th rounds.

GB has drafted zero 1st team-all-pro players, zero 2nd team all-pro players, and only 1 pro-bowl player (if you count PBs) in the last 5 years. This is a problem with management, not the system.

[CWood21]

16 hours ago, Brit Pack said:

Look at the Niners, how many 'queens' they got on defence Bosa (#2 overall), Armstead (#17 overall), Sherman (FA signing), Buckner (#7 overall), Dee Ford (#23rd overall), Jimmy Ward (#30 overall) and Fred Warner (#70 overall). On offence they got Kittle (#146 overall), Debo is emerging as is Mostert (#36 overall), Juszczyk, an ageing Joe Staley (#28 overall), and debateably Jimmy G (traded for #43 overall).

Put some numbers in there for context.  That's the 49ers draft picks going back to 2014 for the defense.  They've got three former top 20 picks on their DL, they've got another three top 32 picks on top of that.  Let's compare that to the Packers who have only had TWO top 20 picks since 2010.  It's called parity.  You suck, you get higher picks.

[coachbuns]

38 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Put some numbers in there for context.  That's the 49ers draft picks going back to 2014 for the defense.  They've got three former top 20 picks on their DL, they've got another three top 32 picks on top of that.  Let's compare that to the Packers who have only had TWO top 20 picks since 2010.  It's called parity.  You suck, you get higher picks.

This.  As mentioned before in a different post, the 49ers sucked badly the last 5 years going 25-55.  That gets them a whole lot of really, really high picks in every round.  Compare that to the Packers last 5 years at 45-34-1.  Granted, they have to hit on those picks but the chances of getting a pro bowl type player drafting in the top 15 year after year in every round gives a heck of a lot higher chance in doing so.  That's they way it's set up … parity rules in the NFL.

 

[Norm]

33 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

This.  As mentioned before in a different post, the 49ers sucked badly the last 5 years going 25-55.  That gets them a whole lot of really, really high picks in every round.  Compare that to the Packers last 5 years at 45-34-1.  Granted, they have to hit on those picks but the chances of getting a pro bowl type player drafting in the top 15 year after year in every round gives a heck of a lot higher chance in doing so.  That's they way it's set up … parity rules in the NFL.

 

I'm not disagreeing with either of you, you're on point, but isn't he saying

"If you don't suck enough to get premium picks, then trade what else you have to get them."

That's obviously a flawed argument but he's not arguing that we had equal draft capital. He's saying sell off your later picks for those higher ones. It's a different argument, yeah?