2018 NFL Draft Discussion

[Mr. Fussnputz]

I would only be happy with a trade down if the Packers had already brought in some difference makers in FA or by trade. They need difference makers.

[cooters22]

5 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

A strong arm is the most common reason for QBs to get overdrafted and fail miserably. Give me one that can read the field (the whole field, not half-field reads). If you cannot do that in the NFL, you fail.

 

Kid has talent. End of story. I don't know how good or not good he is. He is a top ten talent based off of what experts are saying. If he has a good work ethic and coaching then he may become something. He isn't a scrub! He will go somewhere in the first round, I normally don't watch Wyoming at all, so I have no idea how good or bad he looks. Yes in the footage I've seen he does tend to look at one guy a bit too much, ok where is his coaching? Give the kid a break. And the kid you described as being Johnny Looking all over the field sounds to me how they use to describe a Christian Ponder coming out, so buyer beware on all these kids. 

[cooters22]

6 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

A strong arm is the most common reason for QBs to get overdrafted and fail miserably. Give me one that can read the field (the whole field, not half-field reads). If you cannot do that in the NFL, you fail.

 

I'm not even disagreeing with you, but the kid isn't that bad. 

[TransientTexan]

45 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

I would only be happy with a trade down if the Packers had already brought in some difference makers in FA or by trade. They need difference makers.

just because you trade down does not mean you have a lesser shot at getting a difference-maker. it depends on the trade return. for instance, if the trade #14 for 2 picks (say #24 and #50) you have to factor in the chance of either of the 2 lower picks becoming a difference-maker vs. the single higher pick's chance. 

[OneTwoSixFive]

39 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

I would only be happy with a trade down if the Packers had already brought in some difference makers in FA or by trade. They need difference makers.

'Difference Makers'. At the front of the line to be the most quoted phrase on football forums. 

Don't get me wrong, they're great, but Green Bay is just one of 32 teams that need as many of them as they can get. If you have one you do your damndest to keep him, because these are the guys that can suddenly tilt the field your way, so they are hard to trade for.

How many difference makers will come out of this draft - the whole draft - 256 players ?  Let's be generous and say 8 true difference makers come from this draft. That is just one guy for every four teams............these guys are rare.

Although it doesn't sound as sexy as 'difference makers', perhaps a better (and more realistic) way of getting better, is to try and maximise the number of upper-tier regular players, guys ranked in the top half of the league, among those that play that position.

Maybe another way of saying that is to ask how good your 53rd player is, a solid indicator of a teams depth - and all teams need that, through the season.

Is one $15m per year difference maker and two scrubs, better than three solid $5m guys ? An interesting question that conventional wisdom says "certainly" - I'm not so sure.

[Lodestar]

7 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

just because you trade down does not mean you have a lesser shot at getting a difference-maker. it depends on the trade return. for instance, if the trade #14 for 2 picks (say #24 and #50) you have to factor in the chance of either of the 2 lower picks becoming a difference-maker vs. the single higher pick's chance. 

To your point, some "difference-makers" taken around the 50th pick recently: Le'veon Bell, Alvin Kamara, Travis Kelce, Michael Thomas, Davante Adams, Allen Robinson, Jarvis Landry, Kawann Short, Deion Jones, Jamie Collins, Tyrann Mathieu, Kevin Byard

Obviously the chances of getting one are less, but they're there for the taking.

[blankman0021]

16 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Taking the top 53 from the current roster including those who finished the season on IR, which 12 would you cut to make room for the 12 draft choices? 

I think most of those spots come from upcoming injuries, free agent loses, and positional upgrades. 

I like our CB prospects. They're fast and have upside, but lack experience. If we draft 2-3 I could see us cutting the back half of our corner group. Joe Thomas at MLB if we upgrade early. The last few guys or one guy at OLB, OL, QB, RB. It is too variable to say at this point since players like Joe Thomas or Marwin Evans are good reserves to have, but are also susceptible to cut if you upgrade. 

Im also counting developmental players drafted, cut, and re-signed to the PS, and factoring in the possibility we cut a late draft pick and he goes on to play on a different 53 or different PS. Just saying that trading up doesn't always equal a more talented player, and that swings at the plate in the draft do matter. Trading peanuts for slightly larger peanuts are still getting you peanuts. And to continue that analogy... you might like what you open up the shell or you might see you got the shell without anything in it and you wasted multiple picks on a crap player with good draft hype.

Does that clarify my stance or did I miss your question? 

[Mr. Fussnputz]

1 hour ago, Lodestar said:

To your point, some "difference-makers" taken around the 50th pick recently: Le'veon Bell, Alvin Kamara, Travis Kelce, Michael Thomas, Davante Adams, Allen Robinson, Jarvis Landry, Kawann Short, Deion Jones, Jamie Collins, Tyrann Mathieu, Kevin Byard

Obviously the chances of getting one are less, but they're there for the taking.

No argument from me that difference makers can be found any where, but I would argue that the closer to the top the pick is, the better chances of getting a difference maker. I like playing the percentages. Like you stated, the chances go down as you slide down the draft board, so the opposite must be true too, right? As scouting has gotten better, there are fewer sleepers (i.e., surprises). In other words, now a days, you pretty much get what you pay for, with some exceptions both ways. If Chubb slides out of the top 5, I hope BG works the phones to see about a trade up. I have no idea what the draft choice value chart looks like, but looking at some of our recent 2nd and 3rd round choices makes me want to do it. (Rollins, R. Rodgers, Thornton, that DT from Michigan St., Sprigs). That's three 2nds and 2 3rds we've gotten virtually nothing out of, and Sprigs and R. Rodgers could have been replaced with some mid-level FA signings, like Kendricks. I'd trade our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd this year for Chubb. Give me Chubb!

[TransientTexan]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Like you stated, the chances go down as you slide down the draft board, so the opposite must be true too, right? 

yes, but you're ignoring the value of the 2nd pick you'd be receiving in your trade-down.

for instance, say hypothetically that your #14 pick has:

50% chance of being a "difference maker"
30% chance of being average
20% chance of being bad

and you trade it for the following:

#24 pick which has:
40% chance of being a "difference maker"
35% change of being avg
25% change of being bad

and 

#50 pick which has:

30% chance of being a "difference maker"
40% change of being avg
30% change of being bad

then you'd have a 58% chance that 1 of your 2 picks becomes a 'difference maker' vs. the 50% chance of the single original pick becoming a 'difference maker'. 

[Haha21]

What would it cost to move up to 3 with the Colts? And would you do it for Chubb? There's a "rumor" that they want to move out of that spot. I would be tempted but, but after what the Bears gave up to move just one spot last year the Colts would probably ask for all our picks in the next two drafts.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

OMG, statistics. As I recall from stats class, the chance of both of them being a difference maker would be (using your numbers, and I'm combining aver./bad, because we're looking for difference makers): .4 X .3 = .12 or 12%. The chances of them both missing would be: .6 X .7 = .42 or 42% The chance of #24 hitting but missing with #50 would be: .4 X .7 = .28 or 28%. The chances of #50 hitting, but missing with #24 would be: .3 X .6 = .18 or 18%. 

So you're right. We'd  have a 50% chance at #14 and a 58% chance with a trade down, but are your numbers OK? Has anyone actually looked at the real percentages of hitting a difference maker at those spots? I'd still rather trade up for Chubb!

[Mr. Fussnputz]

13 minutes ago, Haha21 said:

What would it cost to move up to 3 with the Colts? And would you do it for Chubb? There's a "rumor" that they want to move out of that spot. I would be tempted but, but after what the Bears gave up to move just one spot last year the Colts would probably ask for all our picks in the next two drafts.

The Bears were targeting a QB. Anyone out there know, based on the value charts, how far up we could move with out 1,2, and 3?

[Kenrik]

1 hour ago, Haha21 said:

What would it cost to move up to 3 with the Colts? And would you do it for Chubb? There's a "rumor" that they want to move out of that spot. I would be tempted but, but after what the Bears gave up to move just one spot last year the Colts would probably ask for all our picks in the next two drafts.

It would take our 1st, 2nd, 3rd(Non comp) and next years 2nd. 

tempted but, but after what the Bears gave up to move just one spot last year the Colts would probably ask for all our picks in the next two drafts.

It would take our 1st, 2nd, 3rd(Non comp) and next years 2nd. 

Possibility:

1.Cleveland-Darnold -Highly Possible

2.Giants-Rosen -Highly Possible

3.Colts-Barkley/T 50/50

4.Cleveland-Minkah -Highly Possible

5.Denver-Allen/Mayfield -Highly Possible

6.Jets-TRADE GB 1st & 2nd

 

I think the biggest hurdle would be the Colts not taking Chubb BUT they really need a tackle and could fall in love with Barkley. I think TB takes Chubb if he is there so we have to get him before 7. The Jets need a QB and I could see them trading up to Colts pick to get in front of Denver BUT lets say their QB they wanted is gone. They'll trade back because no one outside of Washington needs a QB before GB pick. I'm fairly confident most fans would give up a first and second for Chubbs.

[TransientTexan]

22 minutes ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

So you're right. We'd  have a 50% chance at #14 and a 58% chance with a trade down, but are your numbers OK? 

No, I didn't get those numbers from anywhere. The exercise was just to show that you can have a situation with the characteristics of a draft board where successively lower picks have successively lower odds, yet still have a scenario where a pair of 2 lower picks outweighs 1 higher pick. Does #24/#50 outweigh #14 in reality? maybe/maybe not. But we can all agree that #15/#16 outweighs #14 obviously, so there'd be some combination of lower picks between #15/#16 and #24/#50 that would be equal in hit rate to the #14. 

I presume NFL front offices actually research the data to get real percentages for these types of discussions and that's how the trade market eventually came to follow the nfl draft pick value sharts to one extent or another. 

I have studied the rates a bit, which I might post later. The most recent one I looked at all the players drafted #14-18 between 1998 and 2017. Basically, for that range, there is a 35% chance that the player makes at least one pro bowl or 1st-team all-pro. There is a 26% chance that the player will be a starter in fewer than half of the available games in his career, whether due to injuries or poor play. So that leaves about 39% of players who are in the middle, starting most of the games, but not making pro bowl. Of course there can be a wide range in caliber of player even in that 39%. Some might be pretty good players of the Morgan Burnett variety, or others might be Marshall Newhouse. 

[CWood21]

17 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

yea that might not be a bad strategy, esp since alot of players have declared for the draft. that could make it a deeper class than usual. of course the senior bowl & combine could re-order things and change the situation.

For me, it's all about the flexibility.  IF you stay at 14 and pick there, moving up from our original 2nd round pick means we're likely coughing up one of our 3rd round picks.  That's not a HUGE deal in itself since we still have the compensatory pick, but that means we're going almost 60+ picks without making a selection.  What happens if that next tier dries up before our compensatory pick?  We're not really in a position to make a second move.