2018 NFL Draft Discussion

[CWood21]

On 1/30/2018 at 6:13 PM, squire12 said:

Using a lower capital pick and allow it to gain "interest" over a few years and then cash it in.  You could have 2 or 3 of these picks acquiring value at different points and keep an every other year extra 1st or 2nd round pick.   Just need to target those teams that are going to be picking at the top of the round when you want it to reach maximum "maturity"

Because it's really something that's more of a concept that works in theory rather than practice.  First off, you have to be comfortable with your own job security to make that deal.  Secondly, you have to find a team willing to do that.  That's not very often that you have those line up together.

[CWood21]

23 hours ago, JBURGE25 said:

I thought the Washington trading for Smith would be cool for us because it would mean they are looking for a QB. Then they gave him $71m guaranteed over the next 5 years....... oh. washington now a threat to draft someone we want, but hopefully they go WR

Honestly really doesn't change much of anything for us.  Washington was probably on the outside looking in if they were in the market for a QB.  Unfortunately, they butchered the whole situation with Kirk Cousins, but that's not my problem.  It'll be interesting to see if they try and tag and trade him.  I'd anticipate the Jets will put out all the stops for him.

[squire12]

15 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Because it's really something that's more of a concept that works in theory rather than practice.  First off, you have to be comfortable with your own job security to make that deal.  Secondly, you have to find a team willing to do that.  That's not very often that you have those line up together.

Its a philosophical concept that takes another team to partake in for sure.   GB has 12 picks this year, likely 4 in round 5.  Trading 1 of those 2015 5th round picks for a 2019 4th.   Try to repeat that with that 2019 4th and get a 2020 3rd.  It likely would never become a 1st round pick, but you could move it up a few rounds after a couple of years.  

[OneTwoSixFive]

6 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Because a pick this year is infinitely more valuable than a pick next year, and thats not going to change.  Not to mention, the Patriots are probably the only franchise where the GM/coach have the job security that they do.  The Patriots could go 0-16 next year, and the Hoodie will be back next year.  Can you make that argument for any other franchise?  Probably not.  Teams don't do that for that reason, but there is also the variable of what happens if a team does really poorly?  Let's say the Titans trade their 1st round pick in 2019 to acquire a late 1st/early 2nd this year, what happens if their team flops and they end up giving up a top 5 pick?  There's just too much inherent risk, which is why most teams avoid it like the plague.

It isn't so black and white, because it should be a lower pick this year for a higher one next year. It is the uncertainty of exactly which pick you will get the following year that makes GMs nervous of this deal, which is understandable given how teams can rise or fall against expectations the previous April. The value of a pick this year IS much more valuable than one next year (a higher one), at that time , but  In the long term you are likely to get better value trading it away.

I do understand the desire to use all the picks you have, there are always many holes to plug and depth to bolster. I also understand how fans don't like it, many have spent months looking forward to having as many of their team's problem areas as possible, solved. I still think it is a valid tactic, especially if you want to position yourself for a high pick the following year, like for your next QB.

Also, I don't think the Patriots did what they did because of a one-of-a-kind job security, they did it because they thought it was a good idea. The Packers org of the past several years was never on such a hot seat that they could'nt have chosen to do this, if they wished - they were a very stable franchise.

[Leader]

What are Smith’s strengths?

“Smith has a nose for the football, doesn’t get fooled by eye-candy in the backfield and when he hits you, he makes it hurt,” Sallee said. “He’s a freak athlete who combines pure athleticism with a football IQ that’s through the roof.”

What about his weaknesses?

“He doesn’t have any. From the moment he took the field as a freshman to the moment he stepped out of Mercedes-Benz Stadium, he’s been the one guy who opposing offensive coordinators always feared and schemed away from.”

https://lombardiave.com/2018/01/31/packers-2018-draft-roquan-smith/

[Leader]

2 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

It isn't so black and white, because it should be a lower pick this year for a higher one next year. It is the uncertainty of exactly which pick you will get the following year that makes GMs nervous of this deal, which is understandable given how teams can rise or fall against expectations the previous April. The value of a pick this year IS much more valuable than one next year (a higher one), at that time , but  In the long term you are likely to get better value trading it away.

I do understand the desire to use all the picks you have, there are always many holes to plug and depth to bolster. I also understand how fans don't like it, many have spent months looking forward to having as many of their team's problem areas as possible, solved. I still think it is a valid tactic, especially if you want to position yourself for a high pick the following year, like for your next QB.

Also, I don't think the Patriots did what they did because of a one-of-a-kind job security, they did it because they thought it was a good idea. The Packers org of the past several years was never on such a hot seat that they could'nt have chosen to do this, if they wished - they were a very stable franchise.

Concept understood 1265 and I like it as it can afford a team a "rolling" draft option over multiple drafts. Alot depends on the teams current roster depth and draft slot versus projected draft class talent.

Say - we were to trade Cobb for a projected bottom feeder's 2019 2nd round pick - done because we feel a replacement already exists on the roster or can be drafted in the current year without damaging the overall production greatly. That extra "value" pick can then be bartered in the preceding draft. 

I like the flexibility and increased bargaining power it affords - especially if you're routinely selecting at the bottom of the draft based on W-L records. We just do it very often (that I can remember at least).  

[CWood21]

5 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

It isn't so black and white, because it should be a lower pick this year for a higher one next year. It is the uncertainty of exactly which pick you will get the following year that makes GMs nervous of this deal, which is understandable given how teams can rise or fall against expectations the previous April. The value of a pick this year IS much more valuable than one next year (a higher one), at that time , but  In the long term you are likely to get better value trading it away.

I do understand the desire to use all the picks you have, there are always many holes to plug and depth to bolster. I also understand how fans don't like it, many have spent months looking forward to having as many of their team's problem areas as possible, solved. I still think it is a valid tactic, especially if you want to position yourself for a high pick the following year, like for your next QB.

Also, I don't think the Patriots did what they did because of a one-of-a-kind job security, they did it because they thought it was a good idea. The Packers org of the past several years was never on such a hot seat that they could'nt have chosen to do this, if they wished - they were a very stable franchise.

Except it is.  It's no different than the time value of money.  A 1st round pick is worth more than a 1st round pick next year.  It's not a crazy concept.  At what point does a future pick outweigh a present pick?  That's up for more discussion.  I've generally used the value that if you're trading for a future pick you devalue it by a full round, and assume it's the last pick of the round.  So if you're trading for a team's future 1st round pick, you must value it at 64 or 270 points.

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, Leader said:

I like the flexibility and increased bargaining power it affords - especially if you're routinely selecting at the bottom of the draft based on W-L records. We just do it very often (that I can remember at least).

In theory, it sounds like a fantastic concept but the practicality of it doesn't have as much basis.  LIS, it's a perfect storm scenario.

[Leader]

35 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

In theory, it sounds like a fantastic concept but the practicality of it doesn't have as much basis.  LIS, it's a perfect storm scenario.

You got me with "LIS"

[CWood21]

Just now, Leader said:

You got me with "LIS"

Like I said.

[Leader]

Just now, CWood21 said:

Like I said.

Well - I dont know. I think it can work if the conditions I mentioned (or LIS to get shorthanded about it) are in place

[JBURGE]

14 hours ago, CWood21 said:

On 1/30/2018 at 10:51 PM, JBURGE25 said:

I thought the Washington trading for Smith would be cool for us because it would mean they are looking for a QB. Then they gave him $71m guaranteed over the next 5 years....... oh. washington now a threat to draft someone we want, but hopefully they go WR

Honestly really doesn't change much of anything for us.  Washington was probably on the outside looking in if they were in the market for a QB.  Unfortunately, they butchered the whole situation with Kirk Cousins, but that's not my problem.  It'll be interesting to see if they try and tag and trade him.  I'd anticipate the Jets will put out all the stops for him.

I mean, Alex Smith is a much better QB than Kirk Cousins. I don't love the contract they gave him, but that's what you pay for a top 7 (or so) QB. 

But yeah, I would like to see Cousins on the Jets or Browns

[OneTwoSixFive]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Except it is.  It's no different than the time value of money.  A 1st round pick is worth more than a 1st round pick next year.  It's not a crazy concept.  At what point does a future pick outweigh a present pick?  That's up for more discussion.  I've generally used the value that if you're trading for a future pick you devalue it by a full round, and assume it's the last pick of the round.  So if you're trading for a team's future 1st round pick, you must value it at 64 or 270 points.

I don't understand most of this post, both in the details of the post, and the certainty you have that this thing is black and white obvious.

I don't get what you mean by the time value of money.
 I never said anywhere that a first rounder (position unspecified) next year is somehow worth more than a first rounder (position unspecified)  this year.
I don't understand how you value a first round pick. On the Harvard chart I'm looking at the 32nd pick is worth 200.3, while on the JJ chart, it is 590.
I also don't see why you assume the pick next year will be the last pick in the round. Why should you take the worst case scenario ? You need to KNOW what the floor is, but there is no need to assume you will get a worse case scenario. Making a guess at where the pick will be next year, is part of the overall calculation. This is never going to be an exact science due to the uncertainty of your future pick, but if the circumstances are right, it can be a perfectly valid gamble.

[CWood21]

22 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I don't understand most of this post, both in the details of the post, and the certainty you have that this thing is black and white obvious.

I don't get what you mean by the time value of money.
 I never said anywhere that a first rounder (position unspecified) next year is somehow worth more than a first rounder (position unspecified)  this year.
I don't understand how you value a first round pick. On the Harvard chart I'm looking at the 32nd pick is worth 200.3, while on the JJ chart, it is 590.
I also don't see why you assume the pick next year will be the last pick in the round. Why should you take the worst case scenario ? You need to KNOW what the floor is, but there is no need to assume you will get a worse case scenario. Making a guess at where the pick will be next year, is part of the overall calculation. This is never going to be an exact science due to the uncertainty of your future pick, but if the circumstances are right, it can be a perfectly valid gamble.

Let me ask you this, would you rather have a $100 right now or $100 a year from now?  The answer is always now.  You can google the concept if you want, it's a discussion that's been well explained.  That same concept can be applied to draft picks.  Is a 2nd round pick this year worth more, less, or the same as a 1st round pick next year?

And why do you take the worst case scenario as an example?  Let's say that the Jaguars traded their 2018 1st in order to move back into the draft.  The team acquiring the pick is believing they're getting a top 10 pick, but instead of receiving a top 10 pick they're actually getting the 29th pick.  That's why you don't take where you expect it to fall, you take it where it might fall.

[Stevein2012]

27 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Let me ask you this, would you rather have a $100 right now or $100 a year from now?  The answer is always now.  You can google the concept if you want, it's a discussion that's been well explained.  That same concept can be applied to draft picks.  Is a 2nd round pick this year worth more, less, or the same as a 1st round pick next year?

And why do you take the worst case scenario as an example?  Let's say that the Jaguars traded their 2018 1st in order to move back into the draft.  The team acquiring the pick is believing they're getting a top 10 pick, but instead of receiving a top 10 pick they're actually getting the 29th pick.  That's why you don't take where you expect it to fall, you take it where it might fall.

Why stop at next year?  Why not go over the next 4-5 years which is the length of the contract that you are acquiring them for.  How about is a 2nd round pick this year for the next 4 years worth more than a 1st round pick next year for potentially the next 5 years?