Green19 Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 3 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: Packers should have just gotten Moore if all the jets could get was a trade up from 73 to 43 for him. That's like early 4th round value for Moore? Would do that in a heartbeat Didn’t Moore talk mess about LaFleur’s brother in NY? I don’t believe Matt wants that in his team. Like Moore wanted to be traded because of the OC and QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 17 minutes ago, VonKarman said: And according to Fitzgerald-Spielberger 42+43=5 (Ben Baldwin has a similar value). I have pick 42+43 as worth about the same as the #1 overall pick looking at the value of the rookie deal + 5th year option only Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 9 minutes ago, beekay414 said: According to that TV chart (OTC) you can get the #1 pick for 3 non-top 40 picks. Yeah. EDIT - Hell, if you had 48, 49 and 50, you could get #1! Not sure you CAN get it, just that in the long run, over many drafts, you'd get roughly equivalent value from those two options. Obviously a team targeting a franchise QB prospect at 1 ain't gonna trade it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 4 minutes ago, Green19 said: Didn’t Moore talk mess about LaFleur’s brother in NY? I don’t believe Matt wants that in his team. Like Moore wanted to be traded because of the OC and QB. This is true - he was publicly handling team business through the media. Wasn't a good look but he wanted to be traded. Def not a culture fit for GB, but man, that's a bit of a weakness in GB culture if you can't bring in a player like him on a cheap deal for a 4th round pick. MLF would use the slot player if he had a slot player. Moore would be a good fit in any offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 1 minute ago, incognito_man said: Not sure you CAN get it, just that in the long run, over many drafts, you'd get roughly equivalent value from those two options. Obviously a team targeting a franchise QB prospect at 1 ain't gonna trade it Analytically, sure. In reality? No. That's why TVC's should only be used as reference points and not something to build a trade off of. 42 and 43 wouldn't get God himself into the top 5 of a draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 1 minute ago, incognito_man said: Not sure you CAN get it, just that in the long run, over many drafts, you'd get roughly equivalent value from those two options. Obviously a team targeting a franchise QB prospect at 1 ain't gonna trade it it's a definite shortcoming of most of these draft charts - how do you measure the value of the player selected without using PFR Approximate Value? Having an AV that didn't get impacted by number of starts would be a good starting point - there's too much bias there - high picks get starts until they bomb low picks don't get starts until they've earned it twice over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 @Packerraymond If we do the deal and end up with Corey Davis.....can we re-do that deal to make it more friendly? We need a vet WR in that room. He's a vet that was with MLF and was good enough to earn a big payday when leaving Tennessee. He's got the large body type and I feel like he can block. Like maybe he can be "Lazard like" with a little more receiving upside. Can we make that contract work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green19 Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: This is true - he was publicly handling team business through the media. Wasn't a good look but he wanted to be traded. Def not a culture fit for GB, but man, that's a bit of a weakness in GB culture if you can't bring in a player like him on a cheap deal for a 4th round pick. MLF would use the slot player if he had a slot player. Moore would be a good fit in any offense. But the human side… would you want a guy that basically put your brother on blast? I think GB would prefer a bigger slot and just draft Hyatt out of Tennessee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 1 minute ago, beekay414 said: Analytically, sure. In reality? No. That's why TVC's should only be used as reference points and not something to build a trade off of. 42 and 43 wouldn't get God himself into the top 5 of a draft. of course not in today's NFL - but the point is that maybe teams should value picks in the 40s a lot higher than they do - after all - in your average draft these picks are high quality and top picks are not bust-proof. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonKarman Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 (edited) 16 minutes ago, beekay414 said: According to that TV chart (OTC) you can get the #1 pick for 3 non-top 40 picks. Yeah. EDIT - Hell, if you had 48, 49 and 50, you could get #1! It's not the chart that GMs usually use for trades, but it's based in the value they produce. I think that the only GM who has used that chart (or a similar one) is KAM in the trade the Vikings did with the Lions. It has one caveat though, it is thought for non-QB players (trade into a top 5 pick usually assumes that you are going after a QB and therefore it's gonna cost you more). Edited March 22, 2023 by VonKarman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 1 minute ago, VonKarman said: It's not the chart that GMs usually use for trades, but it's based in the value they produce. I think that the only GM who has used that chart (or a similar one) is KAM in the trade the Vikings did with the Lions. It has one caveat though, it is based for non-QB players (trade into a top 5 pick usually assumes that you are going after a QB and therefore it's gonna cost you more). I understand the concept of it. It has good analytical use/value but it doesn't really translate fully to the reality of 1st round draft pick trading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 3 minutes ago, vegas492 said: @Packerraymond If we do the deal and end up with Corey Davis.....can we re-do that deal to make it more friendly? We need a vet WR in that room. He's a vet that was with MLF and was good enough to earn a big payday when leaving Tennessee. He's got the large body type and I feel like he can block. Like maybe he can be "Lazard like" with a little more receiving upside. Can we make that contract work? Yes, easily. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 5 minutes ago, beekay414 said: I understand the concept of it. It has good analytical use/value but it doesn't really translate fully to the reality of 1st round draft pick trading. It doesn't, but should it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 9 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: it's a definite shortcoming of most of these draft charts - how do you measure the value of the player selected without using PFR Approximate Value? Having an AV that didn't get impacted by number of starts would be a good starting point - there's too much bias there - high picks get starts until they bomb low picks don't get starts until they've earned it twice over. I think using career AV smooths this out. The cream will rise to the top over the course of careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 3 minutes ago, incognito_man said: It doesn't, but should it? I mean...you can make a case both ways. Would depend on each individual draft class. If it's a class that's weak outside of the, say, top 15 guys, then it shouldn't carry much weight. If it's a super strong deep class and there's no real discernable difference after a certain point early in the 1st, sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.