Rodgers to the Jets Trade Discussion

[incognito_man]

9 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

So saying it's an absolute that you should follow the chart does not mean you're going to extract the better value if you can't do your job in scouting department

Nobody is saying that. 

I thought it was pretty clear that you need both to succeed at maximal efficiency: a good big board and a good understanding of how that big board is MOST LIKELY to result in NFL value.

You continue to claim you only need the former. I'm pointing that the latter adds objective value. 

You've yet to show how it doesn't. Whereas the chart is LITERALLY build around the entire dataset of drafted players and their career value. It's a map. It's the curve. It tells you that if you get more value than you give AND USE THE SAME EXACT BIG BOARD YOU'D HAVE USED OTHERWISE, you are more likely to get more AV from your picks you acquired. 

If 2023 is going to be significantly different than the cumulative data from every other year, you'll need a very convincing argument as to why.

Edited March 22, 2023 by incognito_man

[incognito_man]

A good debate to have (that @skibrett15 points out) is what metric to use to measure value. 

AV is the best I'm aware of, but definitely open to better measuring sticks to plot draft position against if they exist.

[incognito_man]

A better debate to have is to include the "value over replacement" rather than just value.

10 guys acquired with an AV of 10 are not nearly as valuable as 1 guy acquired with an AV of 100. Because you can sign 10 UDFAs that will give you an AV of 9 (or whatever).

So you definitely have to determine value over replacement rather than just gross value.

But not using the data at all is irresponsible. 

[beekay414]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Nobody is saying that. 

I thought it was pretty clear that you need both to succeed at maximal efficiency: a good big board and a good understanding of how that big board is MOST LIKELY to result in NFL value.

You continue to claim you only need the former. I'm pointing that the latter adds objective value. 

You've yet to show how it doesn't. Whereas the chart is LITERALLY build around the entire dataset of drafted players and their career value. It's a map. It's the curve. It tells you that if you get more value than you give AND USE THE SAME EXACT BIG BOARD YOU'D HAVE USED OTHERWISE, you are more likely to get more AV from your picks you acquired. 

If 2023 is going to be significantly different than the cumulative data from every other year, you'll need a very convincing argument as to why.

No, see, this is where you've taken what I've said and interpreted how you wanted to. I've not said one thing that denies what you just stated. I've simply stated that the human element affects that roadmap and it's not a be-all, end all. You can use past data to determine what a pick SHOULD be worth but that's not necessarily what it's going to end up being worth in your current draft. Not all picks are created equal. 

I've literally made posts about how the TVC should alter based on strengths of big boards and not carry a consistent value because not every pick is the same nor is every draft. Pick 42 in a strong draft is not the same as pick 42 in a weak one so how can we carry a similar value on it from one draft to the next? It's not black and white. Its data that's there to be interpreted but it doesn't indicate success nor actual value of what you're pick will end up being. 

Why can't there ever be middle ground with you? 

[beekay414]

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

But not using the data at all is irresponsible. 

Point out, in this entire argument, where I said that. You can't. You just chose to crop my posts and make it look that way. I've never once said you only need the scouting and you can ignore the data. Be better.

Edited March 22, 2023 by beekay414

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

No, see, this is where you've taken what I've said and interpreted how you wanted to. I've not said one thing that denies what you just stated. I've simply stated that the human element affects that roadmap and it's not a be-all, end all. You can use past data to determine what a pick SHOULD be worth but that's not necessarily what it's going to end up being worth in your current draft. Not all picks are created equal. 

I've literally made posts about how the TVC should alter based on strengths of big boards and not carry a consistent value because not every pick is the same nor is every draft. Pick 42 in a strong draft is not the same as pick 42 in a weak one so how can we carry a similar value on it from one draft to the next? It's not black and white. Its data that's there to be interpreted but it doesn't indicate success nor actual value of what you're pick will end up being. 

Why can't there ever be middle ground with you? 

The overall strength of a class wouldn't impact trades conducted inside of it. It's just an offset added to every pick. The thing that would cause a delta from historical drafts would be a significantly different distribution of talent. i.e. the ratio of 7+ graded players relative to 6+ (or whatever). Absolutely, adding THAT data to the existing underlying trend strengthens it even more. 

But we as fans don't have access to that level of data. We don't have that granularity. Would be cool if we did so you can adjust the curve for a particular class. However, I doubt it would be very significant. 

[NFLGURU]

I'm not sure Gute is done yet with the Jets with these 2nd round picks, first round flip and Davis.  He may have told them "That's a start, let's go"

Edited March 22, 2023 by NFLGURU

[Norm]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I use this every day

[beekay414]

2 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

The overall strength of a class wouldn't impact trades conducted inside of it. It's just an offset added to every pick. The thing that would cause a delta from historical drafts would be a significantly different distribution of talent. i.e. the ratio of 7+ graded players relative to 6+ (or whatever). Absolutely, adding THAT data to the existing underlying trend strengthens it even more. 

But we as fans don't have access to that level of data. We don't have that granularity. Would be cool if we did so you can adjust the curve for a particular class. However, I doubt it would be very significant. 

I'm trying to figure out how the strength of the class wouldn't impact it. Not the overall collected data, the value of the pick itself. I just don't see how a class where your board says there are 50 1st round grade guys compared to a year where you have 15 guys with 1st round grades doesn't impact the value of the 40th pick in the draft. It doesn't carry the same TVC weight in a draft with weaker talent. 

[Brit Pack]

 

[HokieHigh]

Interesting that pack value browns 2nd round pick more than more but the browns dont

[VegasDan]

1 minute ago, beekay414 said:

I'm trying to figure out how the strength of the class wouldn't impact it. Not the overall collected data, the value of the pick itself. I just don't see how a class where your board says there are 50 1st round grade guys compared to a year where you have 15 guys with 1st round grades doesn't impact the value of the 40th pick in the draft. It doesn't carry the same TVC weight in a draft with weaker

7 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

The overall strength of a class wouldn't impact trades conducted inside of it. It's just an offset added to every pick. The thing that would cause a delta from historical drafts would be a significantly different distribution of talent. i.e. the ratio of 7+ graded players relative to 6+ (or whatever). Absolutely, adding THAT data to the existing underlying trend strengthens it even more. 

But we as fans don't have access to that level of data. We don't have that granularity. Would be cool if we did so you can adjust the curve for a particular class. However, I doubt it would be very significant. 

 

So every player is 1 increment better if it's a more talented draft? 

Fans put way to much in trade value charts. It assumes that all players are ranked 1 to 300; all drafts are the same; and all teams have the players ranked the same.   This is all ridiculous.

It's an interesting guideline to use, but more of a reference for us fans that don't have access to the player grades.  Think about it, if the Packers see a player they have HOF grade on sitting there at 14, wouldn't it make sense to trade up 1 spot with their 2nd round pick? Or if they have 5 players at their pick with the same grade, why not trade back 4 spots and pick up a 4th? Trade value chart be damned! Of course you are probably sacrificing positional value.

[coachbuns]

12 hours ago, HokieHigh said:

Sometimes in business you just do the diligence so all options can be considered

True enough but bringing Rodgers back to the Packers isn't ... isn't going to happen.  

[incognito_man]

18 minutes ago, beekay414 said:

I'm trying to figure out how the strength of the class wouldn't impact it. Not the overall collected data, the value of the pick itself. I just don't see how a class where your board says there are 50 1st round grade guys compared to a year where you have 15 guys with 1st round grades doesn't impact the value of the 40th pick in the draft. It doesn't carry the same TVC weight in a draft with weaker talent. 

You're describing what I called distribution. If your big board is SIGNIFICANTLY different one year in grade distribution, yes, you should apply adjustments to the underlying curve.

I'm not convinced the distribution differences are that significant, however. I'd be curious to see plots of cumulative AV from every class though for sure 

 

[BlaZeN37]

3 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

Yes, easily.

Would just like to point out that this means he provides at least SOME value in a trade. I know @CWood21has been adamant about the fact that he provides no value. I don’t think it’s much, but it’s not nothing.