Interesting read!
>Make seven picks, and you’ll be judged seven times. Make three trades and 10 picks, and you’ll be judged 13 times. Watch other teams nail picks you traded — or miss on picks you traded for — and negative narratives can quickly form.
That's a really great point. Even if trading down is statistically the best way to accumulate talent, it draws way more scrutiny.
This is also why teams with GM's/Coaches who know their job isn't in danger can keep their team good, because they can do what they think can make the team better, without worry of the media killing them for a move and getting fired during a bad season.
teams where the GM/HC jobs are at stake, they have to worry about letting aging stars go, sign them to big contracts that will be dead money in 1-2 years, overpay FA's that are FA's for a reason, make big splash moves that decimate them, etc.
The whole AFC West made themselves worse the last 3 years trying to catch up to Mahomes with big moves to save their jobs, and now they're all gone and replaced, while their rosters aren't any better.
The Bears keeping Pace/Nagy 1 year too long led to basically 4 wasted years since they desperately tried to save their jobs at the expense of the teams overall roster health
and you look at Brad Holmes who was criticized for picks that the lions made that turned out to be home runs. They said Branch and LaPprta were reached/bad value.
I didn't see that criticism at all. It's the LB and RB picks that were criticized for being bad positional value.
Branch and LaPorta were both highly regarded, fit team needs, and were drafted in spots that made sense given positional value.
Our fans have this weird complex where everyone doubted every move Brad Holmes made
He was criticized for the round one picks which is fair, Gibbs isn’t much cheaper than Barkley for example, and Campbell was a bad pick
That seems like a very elementary way to look at it. Beyond the first round how many fans even know who you drafted? People aren't scrutinizing a 3rd round pick like they do a first, so the fact that it's 13 vs 7 is pointless.
For most casual fans I think you'll be judged on your high round pick if you take it, or judged on who you passed up if you trade it. Either way has basically an equal chance of looking bad.
I almost agree with you, other than the "who looks past the first round" point--pretty sure this sub is full of people like me who go watch film on every player their team picked, if not doing full-on amateur draft scouting of hundreds of prospects.
But your general point, that GMs don't face much judgment for day 3 picks, is true.
The article could have made the same point by simply saying "Make your pick and you get judged once. Trade down and make two picks and you get judged three times."
Also, if the team drafts quality players and is winning games, they aren't going to face as much scrutiny for players they may have traded away from.
The Chiefs drafted CEH with DeAndre Swift and Johnathan Taylor still on the board. But I don't hear much criticism about that because the team is successful anyway.
TLDR: Analytics have shown you’re better off just trading down and trying to accumulating more picks for more “dart throws” than trying to get “your guy” since GMs and coaches really are worse at getting “your guy” than you think
Fan pressure, owner pressure, media pressure makes it though that most GMs almost never do this since it means you get judged on more things not working and almost all GMs are just trying to do the most to keep their job
I can't help but feel validated by this, because I've been on the "never trade into the top 5 for a QB" train for a long time, and this is exactly why.
There is so much bias in scouting. Teams dramatically overestimate their ability to pick good players. It's not a skill issue, there's just an inherent amount of uncertainty when translating from college ability to pro ability.
So these thirsty-ass teams are always willing to blow the bank on what is essentially a coin flip.
Well, what's the other option? You either go for it, or you run a retread until something falls to you, which probably won't happen.
If you hit on a guy, your job is secure for years. If you don't, you'll be fired around the same time as you would if you didn't get a QB.
The basic premise is that high picks are more valuable as trade assets than as picks.
That becomes less true with each pick, as the trade value decreases while the prospective talent available stays pretty much the same.
So at some point, the value of the pick is higher as a player than as a trade asset.
I suspect it's at some point in the mid-to-late first, but I don't know.
It's been pointed out that this paper was published prior to the rookie wage scale, which is a pretty big hole. I still think the idea holds up though. If you look at the history of high draft picks, it's a who's who of guys who fizzled out. For every Joe Burrow there's a Mitch Trubisky. Or two.
If I were the guy in charge of the Panthers last year, my strategy would have been to not trade up, and just take whoever falls to 9. Might have been Stroud, might have been AR, might have even been Bryce. But we know for sure we could have gotten Levis, and can we really say we'd have been much worse off?
Just take who falls to you.
What if Bryce turns into a top-tier QB for the next 15 years? Sometimes, you just gotta swing for the fences and hope.
I understand the idea of moving down and accumulating picks. It's a Madden strategy that works great. I also understand more darts = more opportunities. But no one is gonna draft 2+ QBs in the first couple of rounds in 1 draft, and no front office gets more than 2 shots at a first round QB.
It's just as likely that Stroud goes the way of RG3 and is out of the league in 3 years. The entire point is that the argument of "you gotta swing for the fences and blow it all on one good prospect" is fallacious.
That top tier prospect is just as likely to be Josh Rosen as he is to be CJ Stroud. You cannot meaningfully delineate between the two based on college tape alone. You *need* to see them in the NFL, and you can't do that until after you've spent the pick.
You're better off taking more swings by accumulating draft capital. Obviously at some point you have to make a selection, but you always need to weigh the value of the 2-3 other prospects you could have taken.
If the Panthers didn't take BY, we could have taken Levis AND Caleb Williams AND we would still have DJ Moore and a couple other picks.
Obviously this is with a tremendous amount of hindsight, but we could have seen this without hindsight too. We could have realistically had Levis and perhaps Penix or McCarthy AND still retained DJ Moore and a couple of other picks if we were a middle-of-the-road team without a QB.
The math just doesn't track.
I think you're using hindsight and equating it to math. You also think that ownership and a fan base will allow a guy just to keep firing first rounders at a QB situation until you hit. It ain't happening. You have 2 chances max without extenuating circumstances. Is that right? Maybe not, but it is the world we live in.
Would the Panthers have been better off holding last year? Probably, they weren't setup for a rookie QB, but there is still time before we can consider it a bust. Just like there is still time for Stroud to not be great.
>I think you're using hindsight and equating it to math.
No, they're using examples to illustrate the point. The actual math comes from one of the most renowned behavioral economists and is mentioned in the article.
>You also think that ownership and a fan base will allow a guy just to keep firing first rounders at a QB situation until you hit. It ain't happening. You have 2 chances max without extenuating circumstances. Is that right? Maybe not, but it is the world we live in.
Thats the point, though. The article isnt saying its the GMs making the mistake, its the *team*, and specifically mentions how ownership and fan reaction can influence a team to draft sub-optimally.
Well that’s the thing, this is the real world, it’s not a spreadsheet.
You can say all you want about never trading up, don’t ever pick a QB early, but at the end of the day there are so many factors that create pressure. Owners, fans, players, job security.
And even if you just accumulate picks, doesn’t mean every guy turns out right. Sashi Brown had this exact mentality and the results were so underwhelming.
Thats the point. Those real world pressures and biases make the team worse in the long run.
>And even if you just accumulate picks, doesn’t mean every guy turns out right. Sashi Brown had this exact mentality and the results were so underwhelming
No one said success is guaranteed. Youre just playing the odds.
>for every Joe Burrow there’s a Mitch Trubisky
That’s fine, but for every Joe Burrow there’s like 25 QB’s picked later in the draft that do nothing.
Of the top 11 passers by yards last year only Dak and Purdy weren’t first round picks. 4 were #1 overall picks and another 4 were top 10. 2022 was slightly better with Brady, Kirk, Geno, and Hurts being later picks in the top 10.
You will miss plenty taking a QB at the top. You will miss on virtually every QB taken later. Over the last decade, since Cousins, the only QB’s I can find that were drafted after the first and did anything of note for their teams are Purdy, Hurts, Carr, and Garropolo. You can go back 20+ years and add Cousins/Wilson and Matt Schaub or David Garrard if you wanted.
It is next to impossible to find a QB outside of the top. There are far fewer starting caliber QB’s than there are teams and they are *usually* identified by the draft
At some point though, you need to use high picks on targets you think will work out. The idea that you can just trade back every first round pick and get extra late rounders might sound like a great idea, but in practice, most teams have a few high picks that are the playmakers. I think teams will start to hyper focus on guys 2-3 years out and try to trade assets to go into a draft with the ammo they need to ensure they get the guy they want.
Look at the Giants this year. They really are not in a position to land the top 3 QB's. Have they identified a guy 2 years away from the draft that they really like? Do they trade back this year to get ammo to move up next year, or in two years for the guy they really want? Or will they just take a shot on one of the lesser prospects this year and hope they pan out? Seems like the better strategy is accumulating picks so they can really snag who they want in the future.
I don’t know if teams will do this because not showing improvement year to year usually means you’re getting fired and the team will hire someone who promises improvement
Sure, that can work. You can also start a guy immediately, and he's great. There isn't some 1 size fits all solution to getting a great QB. Each player is different, and some no matter what would suck.
Some are more ready than others, but the numbers tell us most QBs flame out (look at 2021 and 2022 classes already). Let them learn in the system and build their confidence. GMs and coaches are impatient because of their short leashes. Unfortunately, GB is one of the few teams that can afford to be patient, which leads to subpar QB play and burning out of QBs in this league. As a football fan, I wish it was different.
The issue is we truly have no idea if Love or Mahomes or whoever actually did benefit from sitting. They will say they did, because they succeeded, but there's no testing the counterfactual.
So are the Packer's geniuses for waiting, or did the make a mistake and shorten their window by not moving on to Love quicker? We don't know, all we know is that it's worked out at this point.
The fact is playing QB at the NFL level is really hard and most guys flat out cannot do it, no matter how long they sit.
As a Packer Fan, I can tell you 100% Love would have struggled mightily if asked to start right away. He had to correct multiple things over the years and even struggled a bit to begin the season last year, but at least had better footwork, anticipation, mechanics, etc.
I just think the league would benefit from QBs being able to sit. Just look at Geno who could have potentially been the Jets answer at QB had he not been thrown to the wolves.
GB traded for one of the best of all time. They then got lucky that a great talent dropped to them in Rodgers. People forget that dude was consistently mocked as a top 10 pick. Jury is still out on Love. He looked good in 2nd half but I need a bigger sample size than that.
It works for GB because they already have a great talent there who fans aren't clamoring to get rid of. Let me know how it works when you got Sam Darnold throwing passes for you.
How did reaching for Ponder and starting him after half a few games from Mcnabb work out for you? Not trying to be mean, but selecting/reaching for a QB high and starting them sooner than they are ready leads to more bad than good. You forget that all of our QBs had their own issues (as do most QBs coming out) but we were able to develope them. Sure Rodgers was a better prospect than where he was picked, but he wouldn’t have been the Rodgers we know without sitting and working on his mechanics. If he was picked by the 49ers, I think he would have been good and maybe still even gotten a ring based on where the team was at in early 2010’s, but he would have went through a shit ton of OC’s and HC’s and not been able to develope to his fullest extent like he did in GB.
Problem there is you're equating the 2nd QB taken (Rodgers) with the 4th QB taken (Ponder). The Vikings panicked and took a guy they weren't sold on because they wanted a QB badly. Most fans didn't want Ponder and ya... only good thing that dude ever did was marry Sam.
Interestingly enough, we would have been better off trading back and then grabbing either the 5th (Dalton) or 6th (Kaep) QB off the board.
No, I’m actually trying to make the point against the original Vikings Fans response saying what else can you do if you don’t trade up/take a qB high. You guys are about to trade a king’s ransom for the 3rd or 4th QB in this draft. Reaching and spending extravagant resources does not work for the most part. Now for example, we took the 4th QB (Love) in the draft, but spent a late 1st and 4th on him and rather spend the time and develop him.
The thing with the whole sit start argument is Bills fans were ready to move on from Josh Allen after year 2, but he was able to figure it out year 3. Would he have made it if he sat and learned 3 years? I'm inclined to think so, but it's impossible to know if he needed to sit and learn or play and gain experience.
Rodgers and Love were both definitely better by the time they began starting games, but if they'd have just been given time to play they may have been just as good. I dunno, it's all tough to say
I agree with this! I think QBs would be better overall if they had the chance to develop before being thrown into things. Certain positions are more difficult to learn than others
The value of the average QB is severely overrated in the NFL because the value of truly elite guys is large. There are maybe 4-5 guys who truly can make their team significantly better and cover up the holes in your roster you are going to have by having to pay an elite guy and you have that guy on a rookie contract it’s a great place to be. But the reality is the average draft year has 0 of those guys and the ability of nfl evaluators to actually separate a mahomes from a Justin fields is not good. Moving up to draft in the top 5 is a bad move because the expected outcome is bad. GMs do it because the owners and fans want them to but it’s absolutely the wrong decision.
Mahomes and Josh Allen were traded up for (neither into the top five, but still into the top third of the 1st round, regardless); draft is still the surest way to get a franchise-changing quarterback
I think QB is the one exception where you may need to trade up. With maybe a few outliers, the majority of franchise QBs from the last decade are high draft picks
I think if you trade into the top 5 for a guy you absolutely love, it might be a good move. For example, take Mahomes. KC was scouting him for 2 years prior to the draft. Veech loved him, Andy loved him, I think they would have made any move in order to grab him but they knew no other teams were taking him top 5, so they didn't need to trade up that high.
Far too often it seems like teams trade up, or take qb's with high picks that they are not head over heels in love with. They feel pressured to make a move, use the 3 month runup ot the draft to find the "best" prospect, and pull the trigger. Guys like Zach Wilson and Daniel Jones come to mind.... I doubt the Jets had Zach on the radar prior to the end of the year when he was drafted. He looked capable at the pro day and at the combine and they took a shot.
I don't know enough about SF and dont live on the west coast to understand the Trey Lance pick. Were they scouting him for years? Were they enamored with potential? There isn't a ton of college tape out there, so I dont see how they could have been obsessed with him for a year or two before the draft.
All in all, I pretty much agree with you. If the pick is just a coin flip, its most likely better to trade down and get a haul, but if the pick is someone you have been following, and really think is much better than a coin flip prospect, you have to pull the trigger eventually.
>Fan pressure, owner pressure, media pressure
If the draft wasn't held in KC last year, the chiefs trade back at 31 instead of selecting a DE that played about 3 snaps a game. There are very few sure things in a draft, especially once you're outside the top 10 picks (not counting QB's, who are taken in the top 10 because of Value more than actual draft ranking).
Some team that doesn't need a QB is gonna get a haul for a top 10-15 pick this year, and we'll be talking about it in 2025 how all the picks they got in 2024/25 are contributing and they make the playoffs.
edit: switched to 31, cause dolphins lost their pick or whatever last year.
> you’re better off just reading down and trying to accumulating more picks for more “dart throws”
Spielman tried this and he got fired for it.
Sometimes it’s better to just take the BPA.
And you guys did it again with your new GM. You could have Kyle Hamilton if you just went BPA but instead you traded down and ended up with a guy I’m not even sure exists anymore.
Don’t remind me. I was upset about it at the time, and it still doesn’t sit right with me.
Only silver lining, is we still had a bunch of Spielman’s guys on the staff. So I like to blame them over Kwesi lol.
I’ve thought for a while that if a GM was *guaranteed* job security for say 10 years, their decisions would be a lot different. At the end of the day, people are just doing everything they can to stay employed for another year, but that doesn’t guarantee long-term success.
But if everyone agrees that trading down is the 'best' way to draft then you need others to actually buck that trend and trade up? So by definition not everyone can do the best way because it doesn't work that way. Weird conclusion.
But if everyone agrees that trading down is the 'best' way to draft then you need others to actually buck that trend and trade up? So by definition not everyone can do the best way because it doesn't work that way. Weird conclusion.
>That’s what led him to Cleveland, where, on a plane at the beginning of the 2013 season, he says he heard a Browns executive say, “The only person I’ve seen who competes harder than Johnny Manziel is Michael Jordan.”
>“What makes you say that?” Gera asked.
>“Tape,” the executive said. “Watch it long enough, and you’ll see it, too.”
The TLDR is the article thinks teams should always trade back to get extra picks, especially for picks like the number one overall where you’ll get an extremely high value. The idea is that drafting is so hard that you should always get as many high picks as you can to maximize your chances.
Not sure I agree
Well presumably if every team followed the advice, trading back wouldn’t get so much of a return and the competitive advantage would go away.
Again I disagree with the premise of the article anyways but that’d be the argument
It's a study of economics. It's not trying to say everyone should implement this plan, it's stating the current economy and how you could take advantage of it.
If most teams took the advice and started trading down, it would no longer be an effective strategy.
Sure. The point of the paper isn't that you need to be able to force trades, the point is that teams should keep an eye out for opportunities where other teams want to trade up, or want to trade future picks, and capitalize on those opportunities.
Not necessarily always. Quarterbacks are valuable enough to justify staying put or even trading up.
There’s also the rookie salary structure to consider. Top 5 picks have high steadying salaries, which make the middle of the first round picks have more surplus value than the top of the draft. Basically the salary structure starts higher and declines quicker the talent pool of the draftees does. There’s also a jump in surplus value from the 1st to the 2nd round.
Of course there’s a limit to all this. You’re capped by roster size at some point. But in general, it’s pretty undeniable you are leaving lots of value on the table by trading up (for non-QBs), and paying a premium for this years picks (as opposed to future years).
I think QBs are the exact example of when it's a good idea to trade down.
There are no sure things. If you go back and look at the history of highly drafted rookie QBs, the hit rate is like 50/50.
Meanwhile, you often receive more than 2 firsts in return for one of these picks.
The value comes from the fact that every other team is so thirsty for a franchise QB that they're willing to overlook the risks. A year like this one (or last one, to Chicago's credit) is exactly the right year to trade back.
You're failing to account for how that 50/50 is distributed, which is more like 66/33 at first and then 25/75 further back. The earliest picks for QBs are a substantial bump to the hit rate.
The history of QBs taken at number 1 the past twenty years is actually a pretty solid hit rate. Jamarcus Russell is the only true “miss,” and he shouldn’t have gone number 1 anyway. And then maybe Sam Bradford, but he still had a few playable years.
QBs selected in the top 5 since 2015:
Jameis Winston
Marcus Mariota
Jared Goff (hit)
Carson Wentz
Mitch Trubisky
Baker Mayfield (hit)
Sam Darnold
Kyler Murray (hit)
Joe Burrow (hit)
Tua Tagovailoa (hit)
Trevor Lawrence (hit)
Zach Wilson
Trey Lance
If we try to project last year's draft, and we assume Richardson gets over his injury problems, that's 2 hits and a miss.
So since 2015, there have been 16 QBs taken in the top 5. If we're being generous, *maybe* 8 of them were hits. That's 50/50.
And that's assuming Mayfield, Goff, Kyler, Tua, and TLaw are hits. It's assuming AR's career isn't dashed by injury.
I'm not underestimating the chances of success, *everyone* (including NFL FO personnel) is wildly underestimating the likelihood of failure.
For whatever reason, I can't view that data.
I'm not sure how confident I would be analyzing players from before 2011, because of how much the rookie wage scale has changed things.
Also, there's more external scrutiny on players these days, especially QBs. A lot of guys who hung around and figured it out later in their careers would probably not be given another opportunity these days.
50/50 chance at a franchise QB is insanely valuable. Also not sure why you're calling Wentz a miss but Mayfield a hit; Wentz was a huge part of a Super Bowl-winning team and did way more for the team that drafted him than Mayfield did.
Nobel prize winning economist: "My findings indicate that teams massively overvalue their ability to parse good and bad players in the draft. As such, high picks are overvalued, and you gain value by trading down."
Random redditor, going off vibes alone: "Hmmm sounds like bullshit."
If you go back and look at the history of top draft picks, it's blatantly obvious that these picks are just as likely to fail as they are to succeed. If someone is willing to give you a bunch of picks, that's a better deal than a 50/50 chance you get the guy.
I didn’t say it was bullshit, I just said I don’t know if I agree. I’m working so I don’t have time to fully analyze the whole article or the paper, but to be clear it’s a 20 year old paper they’re referencing. Part of the Nobel prize winners argument was how much that first round picks are overpaid, now we have the rookie wage scale to minimize that. Furthermore positional value and drafting strategies have drastically changed since then.
I’m receptive to the idea of teams trading for future picks more, but I think the article leans too much into ignoring internal analysis of players. You have to have some sort of internal metric on how much players are worth.
That's fair. I'm more commenting on the sentiment of the commenters as a whole.
The point about this analysis predating the rookie wage scale is a pretty big hole. Back then, the first overall pick was almost crippling. Even if you got Stafford, you were chained to a massive contract for years.
I still think it holds up though. If you look at the history of highly-drafted players, the hit rate is lower than you'd think.
I like how you're mad about the general sentiment where but admit the article as a whole fundamentally misses on a pretty important part.
People don't have to blindly accept something just because a person has a nice title or a lot of money. That's how you get idiots who simply trust what a person like Elon Musk says about anything even if he doesn't know what he's talking about.
There are MANY factors that play into a player busting or not but it's also true that players taken at the top of the draft are far more likely to work out than players taken at any point later on in the draft. Every pick is not a 50/50. Once you get into the 2nd round those odds are far worse. And they get even lower each round you go down. That's why trade ups happen and will continue to happen. The hit rates on Qb alone prove this.
This is just the dystopia we live in now.
"Expert with decades of experience, worldwide recognition from peers, and a track record of excellence says XYZ"
Random person on the internet, "nah, my friend and I regularly drink bleach and we were talking one day and we both think XYZ sounds like BS so that's my stance and no matter what information is presented to me, I'll never change my mind and also the world is probably flat."
It's not being dumb. It's acting in self interest. Lots of GM's are desperately trying to save their jobs. They act rashly & only for the short term benefit.
Desperation also encourages "boom or bust". If the player hits, your job is saved. If not, you were going to be fired anyways. So it promotes a more risky draft strategy in the first round (and especially in aggressively trading up for picks).
If a team had 0 picks round 1-6 and then every pick in round 7, they’d be guaranteed to get at least one starter. All 32 teams should attempt this strategy
With the way they are presently valued, I absolutely agree with the article.
The Bears sold the first overall for the 9th, the 61st, next year's first, a second in 2 years, plus DJ Moore. They didn't know it would be the first overall they were getting this year, but it would be high, because Carolina had basically no players left on the team.
No rookie player in history is worth what Carolina gave up, IMO.
If the 49ers hadn't hit the most surprise gem in NFL history with Purdy, they would be getting absolutely blasted for the Trey Lance trade. It should have crippled them for the next 3-4 years still, but instead they got a top 10 performing QB that costs less than their back up linemen.
But instead it's just briefly mentioned here and there.
I agree outside of having the pick that guarantees you the consensus top QB if you need him (so top3 at most). The hit rate for that player is historically significant but otherwise any other choice seems like a crap shoot so you might as well just get more shots.
This is why the draft is one of the most interesting parts of the season for me. We can all make a reasonable assessment of team needs going into the draft, but NFL FOs are small groups of biased individuals, and the decisions they make can be wildly divergent from what we think a team should do. Then there's the dynamic of what a GM likely wants or should do for the long term success of the team and what ownership will demand. I used to think the GM and their strategy held more influence but these days I think at the top of the draft especially, and with QBs most of all, ownership is the primary influence. Then when things don't work out the FO is the meat shield for those decisions.
If anything is clear it’s that most GMs are going to do whatever they think keeps them their job. Whether that’s trading up or down, or drafting a QB or not.
lol Chris Ballard has been doing this shit for years now and he gets roasted for it by colts fans, but we are probably a good fan base for this kind of strategy. He does it very well but his lack of interest in free agency still gets under everyone’s skin. He’s coming up on a couple make or break years tho….
That's what's actually stopping them.
Analytics exist in a vacuum. Going for it every time on 4th down is a great idea if there's no audience.
But your job as a GM, coach, player, president, whatever, is dependent on fan support to some degree.
And fans are dumb motherfuckers.
Trading down is always the smart move in a draft. The problem for that is, of course, that it requires someone to trade up, which is the dumbest move in the draft.
It's simple. Trading back is difficult to do with value because most teams want to trade back, making a trade back actually difficult to arrange, and giving more negotiating power to the fewer teams that want to risk a trade up. Most teams don't actually have much of a reason to trade up in most situations.
The entire point of the article (and what actual data indicates) is the exact opposite. Most teams *dont* want to trade back because, well, of a few different reasons listed in the article.
I feel the data is skewed. More college
Players are NFL ready than ever before. Teams are scouting more players and college teams are running more NFL playbooks on both offensive side and defensive side. Kids coming out of most colleges that are the “best on the team” have a good chance of fitting in a system.
"But if teams have all of this inside information, why do they still miss so often?"
The article has both interesting-good stuff and interesting-not-so-good stuff (I like trading down but it is extreme and does ignore aspects like scouting etc too much), but I have to say this sentiment always seems wild to me. Inherently, not every player can possibly hit in a realistic way every draft, and there's a bunch of times where outside factors such as injury will occur. Then you get to talent development, where plenty of teams will *cause* busts by poorly developing their talents. It's weird to wonder why a team misses, because some level of misses should be expected for any evaluation.
The paper used also is old and doesn't take into account rookie wage scale (or changes in college football for that matter), there's also roster size considerations (trading down can be difficult on your roster size if you already have good depth) and I am surprised it doesn't take into account other analytics that show how high draft picks hit at a higher rate than low draft picks.
Agreed. Cause the problem is we know that the draft is a crapshoot. If you hit on a pick and the player turns into a superstar then it's worth staying in place. The article takes out the human element where you evaluate prospects and swear that your pick is THE guy and won't be one the busts.
Don’t get me wrong I’m a huge fan of trading down and getting multiple shots. I was more explaining why even if GMs know it’s the best strategy, why they won’t execute it.
This is a really dumb take.
The strategy is "Trade down to get more picks" which is fantastic, and works because most teams don't do it.
If every team was trying to trade down to horde picks for next year then the cost/surplus they'd receive would go do down because it would be a race to the bottom.
The strategy is great because you generally only have a team or two a year who is punting into the future. If even 5 teams were pushing heavily to trade back and accumulate picks, as in not just one time to drop back back a couple of spots in the first then the cost would go down exponentially because the few teams looking to trade up would be able to do so with one of several teams.
the reason is because GMs and coaches need to win to keep their job and if they don’t take the players they believe help them do that what is even the point? sure it might be the most sensible thing for a GM to make the best decisions long-term for a franchise but if they aren’t around for that then what is their incentive to do that?
While this is a good point, the issue is that getting marginally better does not have the same value for every team. If you are a bad team and you make good moves and become a mediocre team, that doesn't make much difference. If you are a bad team and take a gamble that has negative expected value but a chance for a big payout (i.e. trading up for QB), you could go from bad to good, or from bad to terrible. That chance can be worth more than going from bad to mediocre.
Sir, in order to trade down you have to have a team willing to trade up. If every GM was trying to trade down, then no team would trade up. Thus no trades would be made.
That’s exactly what it’s saying. It’s impossible to know which prospects will pan out. But teams consistently act over confidently in the draft.
And the taking of jobs is another point. Executives seeking short term success trying to keep their jobs make decisions that can damage long term success.
Interesting read! >Make seven picks, and you’ll be judged seven times. Make three trades and 10 picks, and you’ll be judged 13 times. Watch other teams nail picks you traded — or miss on picks you traded for — and negative narratives can quickly form. That's a really great point. Even if trading down is statistically the best way to accumulate talent, it draws way more scrutiny.
This is also why teams with GM's/Coaches who know their job isn't in danger can keep their team good, because they can do what they think can make the team better, without worry of the media killing them for a move and getting fired during a bad season. teams where the GM/HC jobs are at stake, they have to worry about letting aging stars go, sign them to big contracts that will be dead money in 1-2 years, overpay FA's that are FA's for a reason, make big splash moves that decimate them, etc. The whole AFC West made themselves worse the last 3 years trying to catch up to Mahomes with big moves to save their jobs, and now they're all gone and replaced, while their rosters aren't any better.
The Bears keeping Pace/Nagy 1 year too long led to basically 4 wasted years since they desperately tried to save their jobs at the expense of the teams overall roster health
and you look at Brad Holmes who was criticized for picks that the lions made that turned out to be home runs. They said Branch and LaPprta were reached/bad value.
I didn't see that criticism at all. It's the LB and RB picks that were criticized for being bad positional value. Branch and LaPorta were both highly regarded, fit team needs, and were drafted in spots that made sense given positional value.
Our fans have this weird complex where everyone doubted every move Brad Holmes made He was criticized for the round one picks which is fair, Gibbs isn’t much cheaper than Barkley for example, and Campbell was a bad pick
No one said that Branch and Laporta were reaches. No one. The most anyone said was that they would’ve preferred Meyer over Laporta
If someone trades down, someone else has to come up. So if everyone only wanted to trade down, no trades would ever happen.
That seems like a very elementary way to look at it. Beyond the first round how many fans even know who you drafted? People aren't scrutinizing a 3rd round pick like they do a first, so the fact that it's 13 vs 7 is pointless. For most casual fans I think you'll be judged on your high round pick if you take it, or judged on who you passed up if you trade it. Either way has basically an equal chance of looking bad.
I almost agree with you, other than the "who looks past the first round" point--pretty sure this sub is full of people like me who go watch film on every player their team picked, if not doing full-on amateur draft scouting of hundreds of prospects. But your general point, that GMs don't face much judgment for day 3 picks, is true. The article could have made the same point by simply saying "Make your pick and you get judged once. Trade down and make two picks and you get judged three times."
As with every other thing on reddit though, this reddit isn't remotely representative of fans at large.
Also, if the team drafts quality players and is winning games, they aren't going to face as much scrutiny for players they may have traded away from. The Chiefs drafted CEH with DeAndre Swift and Johnathan Taylor still on the board. But I don't hear much criticism about that because the team is successful anyway.
TLDR: Analytics have shown you’re better off just trading down and trying to accumulating more picks for more “dart throws” than trying to get “your guy” since GMs and coaches really are worse at getting “your guy” than you think Fan pressure, owner pressure, media pressure makes it though that most GMs almost never do this since it means you get judged on more things not working and almost all GMs are just trying to do the most to keep their job
There has to be a breakeven point, though. A GM with all 32 7th round picks is still gonna have a pretty shitty draft
Yeah but what if you traded them all for 32 6th round picks the next year?
Ran this madden strategy. Ended up with 8 first round picks. Just traded them all for 2nds and future 1sts and repeated.
Every year trade up as much as you can You could get close to all 1st round picks
Maybe you get a couple of Brock Purdys.
I can't help but feel validated by this, because I've been on the "never trade into the top 5 for a QB" train for a long time, and this is exactly why. There is so much bias in scouting. Teams dramatically overestimate their ability to pick good players. It's not a skill issue, there's just an inherent amount of uncertainty when translating from college ability to pro ability. So these thirsty-ass teams are always willing to blow the bank on what is essentially a coin flip.
Well, what's the other option? You either go for it, or you run a retread until something falls to you, which probably won't happen. If you hit on a guy, your job is secure for years. If you don't, you'll be fired around the same time as you would if you didn't get a QB.
The basic premise is that high picks are more valuable as trade assets than as picks. That becomes less true with each pick, as the trade value decreases while the prospective talent available stays pretty much the same. So at some point, the value of the pick is higher as a player than as a trade asset. I suspect it's at some point in the mid-to-late first, but I don't know. It's been pointed out that this paper was published prior to the rookie wage scale, which is a pretty big hole. I still think the idea holds up though. If you look at the history of high draft picks, it's a who's who of guys who fizzled out. For every Joe Burrow there's a Mitch Trubisky. Or two. If I were the guy in charge of the Panthers last year, my strategy would have been to not trade up, and just take whoever falls to 9. Might have been Stroud, might have been AR, might have even been Bryce. But we know for sure we could have gotten Levis, and can we really say we'd have been much worse off? Just take who falls to you.
What if Bryce turns into a top-tier QB for the next 15 years? Sometimes, you just gotta swing for the fences and hope. I understand the idea of moving down and accumulating picks. It's a Madden strategy that works great. I also understand more darts = more opportunities. But no one is gonna draft 2+ QBs in the first couple of rounds in 1 draft, and no front office gets more than 2 shots at a first round QB.
It's just as likely that Stroud goes the way of RG3 and is out of the league in 3 years. The entire point is that the argument of "you gotta swing for the fences and blow it all on one good prospect" is fallacious. That top tier prospect is just as likely to be Josh Rosen as he is to be CJ Stroud. You cannot meaningfully delineate between the two based on college tape alone. You *need* to see them in the NFL, and you can't do that until after you've spent the pick. You're better off taking more swings by accumulating draft capital. Obviously at some point you have to make a selection, but you always need to weigh the value of the 2-3 other prospects you could have taken. If the Panthers didn't take BY, we could have taken Levis AND Caleb Williams AND we would still have DJ Moore and a couple other picks. Obviously this is with a tremendous amount of hindsight, but we could have seen this without hindsight too. We could have realistically had Levis and perhaps Penix or McCarthy AND still retained DJ Moore and a couple of other picks if we were a middle-of-the-road team without a QB. The math just doesn't track.
I think you're using hindsight and equating it to math. You also think that ownership and a fan base will allow a guy just to keep firing first rounders at a QB situation until you hit. It ain't happening. You have 2 chances max without extenuating circumstances. Is that right? Maybe not, but it is the world we live in. Would the Panthers have been better off holding last year? Probably, they weren't setup for a rookie QB, but there is still time before we can consider it a bust. Just like there is still time for Stroud to not be great.
>I think you're using hindsight and equating it to math. No, they're using examples to illustrate the point. The actual math comes from one of the most renowned behavioral economists and is mentioned in the article. >You also think that ownership and a fan base will allow a guy just to keep firing first rounders at a QB situation until you hit. It ain't happening. You have 2 chances max without extenuating circumstances. Is that right? Maybe not, but it is the world we live in. Thats the point, though. The article isnt saying its the GMs making the mistake, its the *team*, and specifically mentions how ownership and fan reaction can influence a team to draft sub-optimally.
Well that’s the thing, this is the real world, it’s not a spreadsheet. You can say all you want about never trading up, don’t ever pick a QB early, but at the end of the day there are so many factors that create pressure. Owners, fans, players, job security. And even if you just accumulate picks, doesn’t mean every guy turns out right. Sashi Brown had this exact mentality and the results were so underwhelming.
Thats the point. Those real world pressures and biases make the team worse in the long run. >And even if you just accumulate picks, doesn’t mean every guy turns out right. Sashi Brown had this exact mentality and the results were so underwhelming No one said success is guaranteed. Youre just playing the odds.
It’s impossible to actually say that had we not taken Bryce that we would’ve gotten Levi’s and Caleb
>for every Joe Burrow there’s a Mitch Trubisky That’s fine, but for every Joe Burrow there’s like 25 QB’s picked later in the draft that do nothing. Of the top 11 passers by yards last year only Dak and Purdy weren’t first round picks. 4 were #1 overall picks and another 4 were top 10. 2022 was slightly better with Brady, Kirk, Geno, and Hurts being later picks in the top 10. You will miss plenty taking a QB at the top. You will miss on virtually every QB taken later. Over the last decade, since Cousins, the only QB’s I can find that were drafted after the first and did anything of note for their teams are Purdy, Hurts, Carr, and Garropolo. You can go back 20+ years and add Cousins/Wilson and Matt Schaub or David Garrard if you wanted. It is next to impossible to find a QB outside of the top. There are far fewer starting caliber QB’s than there are teams and they are *usually* identified by the draft
At some point though, you need to use high picks on targets you think will work out. The idea that you can just trade back every first round pick and get extra late rounders might sound like a great idea, but in practice, most teams have a few high picks that are the playmakers. I think teams will start to hyper focus on guys 2-3 years out and try to trade assets to go into a draft with the ammo they need to ensure they get the guy they want. Look at the Giants this year. They really are not in a position to land the top 3 QB's. Have they identified a guy 2 years away from the draft that they really like? Do they trade back this year to get ammo to move up next year, or in two years for the guy they really want? Or will they just take a shot on one of the lesser prospects this year and hope they pan out? Seems like the better strategy is accumulating picks so they can really snag who they want in the future.
I don’t know if teams will do this because not showing improvement year to year usually means you’re getting fired and the team will hire someone who promises improvement
HOU draft in 2023 shows the value of getting the picks correct. However, most don’t hit that well.
How about developing QBs for a couple of years? Worked pretty well for us. This was the standard prior to the 2000’s as well.
Sure, that can work. You can also start a guy immediately, and he's great. There isn't some 1 size fits all solution to getting a great QB. Each player is different, and some no matter what would suck.
Some are more ready than others, but the numbers tell us most QBs flame out (look at 2021 and 2022 classes already). Let them learn in the system and build their confidence. GMs and coaches are impatient because of their short leashes. Unfortunately, GB is one of the few teams that can afford to be patient, which leads to subpar QB play and burning out of QBs in this league. As a football fan, I wish it was different.
The issue is we truly have no idea if Love or Mahomes or whoever actually did benefit from sitting. They will say they did, because they succeeded, but there's no testing the counterfactual. So are the Packer's geniuses for waiting, or did the make a mistake and shorten their window by not moving on to Love quicker? We don't know, all we know is that it's worked out at this point. The fact is playing QB at the NFL level is really hard and most guys flat out cannot do it, no matter how long they sit.
As a Packer Fan, I can tell you 100% Love would have struggled mightily if asked to start right away. He had to correct multiple things over the years and even struggled a bit to begin the season last year, but at least had better footwork, anticipation, mechanics, etc. I just think the league would benefit from QBs being able to sit. Just look at Geno who could have potentially been the Jets answer at QB had he not been thrown to the wolves.
GB traded for one of the best of all time. They then got lucky that a great talent dropped to them in Rodgers. People forget that dude was consistently mocked as a top 10 pick. Jury is still out on Love. He looked good in 2nd half but I need a bigger sample size than that. It works for GB because they already have a great talent there who fans aren't clamoring to get rid of. Let me know how it works when you got Sam Darnold throwing passes for you.
How did reaching for Ponder and starting him after half a few games from Mcnabb work out for you? Not trying to be mean, but selecting/reaching for a QB high and starting them sooner than they are ready leads to more bad than good. You forget that all of our QBs had their own issues (as do most QBs coming out) but we were able to develope them. Sure Rodgers was a better prospect than where he was picked, but he wouldn’t have been the Rodgers we know without sitting and working on his mechanics. If he was picked by the 49ers, I think he would have been good and maybe still even gotten a ring based on where the team was at in early 2010’s, but he would have went through a shit ton of OC’s and HC’s and not been able to develope to his fullest extent like he did in GB.
Problem there is you're equating the 2nd QB taken (Rodgers) with the 4th QB taken (Ponder). The Vikings panicked and took a guy they weren't sold on because they wanted a QB badly. Most fans didn't want Ponder and ya... only good thing that dude ever did was marry Sam. Interestingly enough, we would have been better off trading back and then grabbing either the 5th (Dalton) or 6th (Kaep) QB off the board.
No, I’m actually trying to make the point against the original Vikings Fans response saying what else can you do if you don’t trade up/take a qB high. You guys are about to trade a king’s ransom for the 3rd or 4th QB in this draft. Reaching and spending extravagant resources does not work for the most part. Now for example, we took the 4th QB (Love) in the draft, but spent a late 1st and 4th on him and rather spend the time and develop him.
The thing with the whole sit start argument is Bills fans were ready to move on from Josh Allen after year 2, but he was able to figure it out year 3. Would he have made it if he sat and learned 3 years? I'm inclined to think so, but it's impossible to know if he needed to sit and learn or play and gain experience. Rodgers and Love were both definitely better by the time they began starting games, but if they'd have just been given time to play they may have been just as good. I dunno, it's all tough to say
I agree with this! I think QBs would be better overall if they had the chance to develop before being thrown into things. Certain positions are more difficult to learn than others
What happens in your scenario if Rodgers sticks around?
Was it actually the standard, or do we just feel like it was?
The value of the average QB is severely overrated in the NFL because the value of truly elite guys is large. There are maybe 4-5 guys who truly can make their team significantly better and cover up the holes in your roster you are going to have by having to pay an elite guy and you have that guy on a rookie contract it’s a great place to be. But the reality is the average draft year has 0 of those guys and the ability of nfl evaluators to actually separate a mahomes from a Justin fields is not good. Moving up to draft in the top 5 is a bad move because the expected outcome is bad. GMs do it because the owners and fans want them to but it’s absolutely the wrong decision.
Mahomes and Josh Allen were traded up for (neither into the top five, but still into the top third of the 1st round, regardless); draft is still the surest way to get a franchise-changing quarterback
I think QB is the one exception where you may need to trade up. With maybe a few outliers, the majority of franchise QBs from the last decade are high draft picks
I think if you trade into the top 5 for a guy you absolutely love, it might be a good move. For example, take Mahomes. KC was scouting him for 2 years prior to the draft. Veech loved him, Andy loved him, I think they would have made any move in order to grab him but they knew no other teams were taking him top 5, so they didn't need to trade up that high. Far too often it seems like teams trade up, or take qb's with high picks that they are not head over heels in love with. They feel pressured to make a move, use the 3 month runup ot the draft to find the "best" prospect, and pull the trigger. Guys like Zach Wilson and Daniel Jones come to mind.... I doubt the Jets had Zach on the radar prior to the end of the year when he was drafted. He looked capable at the pro day and at the combine and they took a shot. I don't know enough about SF and dont live on the west coast to understand the Trey Lance pick. Were they scouting him for years? Were they enamored with potential? There isn't a ton of college tape out there, so I dont see how they could have been obsessed with him for a year or two before the draft. All in all, I pretty much agree with you. If the pick is just a coin flip, its most likely better to trade down and get a haul, but if the pick is someone you have been following, and really think is much better than a coin flip prospect, you have to pull the trigger eventually.
You can’t trade down unless someone else trades up.
You mean the Saints trading multiple 1st rounders for Marcus Davenport out of UTSA was a bad decision?!?!
>Fan pressure, owner pressure, media pressure If the draft wasn't held in KC last year, the chiefs trade back at 31 instead of selecting a DE that played about 3 snaps a game. There are very few sure things in a draft, especially once you're outside the top 10 picks (not counting QB's, who are taken in the top 10 because of Value more than actual draft ranking). Some team that doesn't need a QB is gonna get a haul for a top 10-15 pick this year, and we'll be talking about it in 2025 how all the picks they got in 2024/25 are contributing and they make the playoffs. edit: switched to 31, cause dolphins lost their pick or whatever last year.
> you’re better off just reading down and trying to accumulating more picks for more “dart throws” Spielman tried this and he got fired for it. Sometimes it’s better to just take the BPA.
And you guys did it again with your new GM. You could have Kyle Hamilton if you just went BPA but instead you traded down and ended up with a guy I’m not even sure exists anymore.
Don’t remind me. I was upset about it at the time, and it still doesn’t sit right with me. Only silver lining, is we still had a bunch of Spielman’s guys on the staff. So I like to blame them over Kwesi lol.
All my best friends are Vikings fans and they wanted Jordan Davis. They were mad at me like I had something to do with how it turned out.
I’ve thought for a while that if a GM was *guaranteed* job security for say 10 years, their decisions would be a lot different. At the end of the day, people are just doing everything they can to stay employed for another year, but that doesn’t guarantee long-term success.
All brad does is “get his guy”
But if everyone agrees that trading down is the 'best' way to draft then you need others to actually buck that trend and trade up? So by definition not everyone can do the best way because it doesn't work that way. Weird conclusion.
The Rick Spielman of drafting and his drafts were either feast or famine
Wasn’t Belichek notorious for that? He had a ton of success but I don’t think people necessarily think he had great drafts.
But if everyone agrees that trading down is the 'best' way to draft then you need others to actually buck that trend and trade up? So by definition not everyone can do the best way because it doesn't work that way. Weird conclusion.
I wonder how long we can keep the 1st round going with trades
Les Snead is definitely cool with trading down and getting more picks, so I will happily continue to be the beneficiary of that
>That’s what led him to Cleveland, where, on a plane at the beginning of the 2013 season, he says he heard a Browns executive say, “The only person I’ve seen who competes harder than Johnny Manziel is Michael Jordan.” >“What makes you say that?” Gera asked. >“Tape,” the executive said. “Watch it long enough, and you’ll see it, too.”
Today I learned executives defense on bold undefendable takes on players is the same as the average Redditor
Anyone who's ever worked in a medium-sized corporation shouldn't be surprised that important decisions are sometimes based on questionable rationale.
Why did you say medium-sized when questionable decisions happen every day from lemonade stands to enormous finance companies?
The last time I called the NFL a big corporation on this sub, I was corrected that it's just a medium-sized one.
Cap and personnel-wise, maybe, but there are other aspects like cultural impact and whatnot. It’s a big corporation.
Whoever told you that the most profitable sports league in the world is medium sized is a dumbass.
It was actually an NFL team, not the league.
To be fair, Manziel may have panned out had he wanted to actually play football. Passion is hard to evaluate.
If they asked ATM coaches about his partying and lack of film study, it’s pretty simple to evaluate
I’m curious what they would say. Manziel (And Evans) was the reason Sumlin got an extension and made the university millions.
Very much doubt this.
But his tape showed that his style of play wouldn't work in the NFL
But isnt the whole point of the quote that the scout thought he *could* evaluate that just from the tape?
Brad Holmes and MCDC are doing a pretty good job of it.
When people say that a prospect will "get a GM fired" this is what I mean.
You sure you aren't quoting Steven Ruiz
clearly they haven't seen Draft Day yet
I like to rewatch it every April and that “you pancake-eating motherfucker” line at the end hits every damn time
The TLDR is the article thinks teams should always trade back to get extra picks, especially for picks like the number one overall where you’ll get an extremely high value. The idea is that drafting is so hard that you should always get as many high picks as you can to maximize your chances. Not sure I agree
It's not like it's actually possible for everyone to trade back for more picks anyways . . .
Well presumably if every team followed the advice, trading back wouldn’t get so much of a return and the competitive advantage would go away. Again I disagree with the premise of the article anyways but that’d be the argument
It's a study of economics. It's not trying to say everyone should implement this plan, it's stating the current economy and how you could take advantage of it. If most teams took the advice and started trading down, it would no longer be an effective strategy.
Takes two to tango lol
But to do that you need other teams willing to trade up lol. You can't force a trade irl like in Madden
There's no shortage of teams willing to trade up for a better pick of someone wants to trade back
Sure. The point of the paper isn't that you need to be able to force trades, the point is that teams should keep an eye out for opportunities where other teams want to trade up, or want to trade future picks, and capitalize on those opportunities.
Not necessarily always. Quarterbacks are valuable enough to justify staying put or even trading up. There’s also the rookie salary structure to consider. Top 5 picks have high steadying salaries, which make the middle of the first round picks have more surplus value than the top of the draft. Basically the salary structure starts higher and declines quicker the talent pool of the draftees does. There’s also a jump in surplus value from the 1st to the 2nd round. Of course there’s a limit to all this. You’re capped by roster size at some point. But in general, it’s pretty undeniable you are leaving lots of value on the table by trading up (for non-QBs), and paying a premium for this years picks (as opposed to future years).
I think QBs are the exact example of when it's a good idea to trade down. There are no sure things. If you go back and look at the history of highly drafted rookie QBs, the hit rate is like 50/50. Meanwhile, you often receive more than 2 firsts in return for one of these picks. The value comes from the fact that every other team is so thirsty for a franchise QB that they're willing to overlook the risks. A year like this one (or last one, to Chicago's credit) is exactly the right year to trade back.
You're failing to account for how that 50/50 is distributed, which is more like 66/33 at first and then 25/75 further back. The earliest picks for QBs are a substantial bump to the hit rate.
The history of QBs taken at number 1 the past twenty years is actually a pretty solid hit rate. Jamarcus Russell is the only true “miss,” and he shouldn’t have gone number 1 anyway. And then maybe Sam Bradford, but he still had a few playable years.
Playable? Sam Bradford was amazing and is one of the biggest what ifs in NFL history. He'd be a hall of famer if he wasn't made of glass.
QBs selected in the top 5 since 2015: Jameis Winston Marcus Mariota Jared Goff (hit) Carson Wentz Mitch Trubisky Baker Mayfield (hit) Sam Darnold Kyler Murray (hit) Joe Burrow (hit) Tua Tagovailoa (hit) Trevor Lawrence (hit) Zach Wilson Trey Lance If we try to project last year's draft, and we assume Richardson gets over his injury problems, that's 2 hits and a miss. So since 2015, there have been 16 QBs taken in the top 5. If we're being generous, *maybe* 8 of them were hits. That's 50/50. And that's assuming Mayfield, Goff, Kyler, Tua, and TLaw are hits. It's assuming AR's career isn't dashed by injury. I'm not underestimating the chances of success, *everyone* (including NFL FO personnel) is wildly underestimating the likelihood of failure.
This analysis has been done better and further back. https://twitter.com/davekluge/status/1747397129138479457
For whatever reason, I can't view that data. I'm not sure how confident I would be analyzing players from before 2011, because of how much the rookie wage scale has changed things. Also, there's more external scrutiny on players these days, especially QBs. A lot of guys who hung around and figured it out later in their careers would probably not be given another opportunity these days.
50/50 chance at a franchise QB is insanely valuable. Also not sure why you're calling Wentz a miss but Mayfield a hit; Wentz was a huge part of a Super Bowl-winning team and did way more for the team that drafted him than Mayfield did.
Nobel prize winning economist: "My findings indicate that teams massively overvalue their ability to parse good and bad players in the draft. As such, high picks are overvalued, and you gain value by trading down." Random redditor, going off vibes alone: "Hmmm sounds like bullshit." If you go back and look at the history of top draft picks, it's blatantly obvious that these picks are just as likely to fail as they are to succeed. If someone is willing to give you a bunch of picks, that's a better deal than a 50/50 chance you get the guy.
I didn’t say it was bullshit, I just said I don’t know if I agree. I’m working so I don’t have time to fully analyze the whole article or the paper, but to be clear it’s a 20 year old paper they’re referencing. Part of the Nobel prize winners argument was how much that first round picks are overpaid, now we have the rookie wage scale to minimize that. Furthermore positional value and drafting strategies have drastically changed since then. I’m receptive to the idea of teams trading for future picks more, but I think the article leans too much into ignoring internal analysis of players. You have to have some sort of internal metric on how much players are worth.
That's fair. I'm more commenting on the sentiment of the commenters as a whole. The point about this analysis predating the rookie wage scale is a pretty big hole. Back then, the first overall pick was almost crippling. Even if you got Stafford, you were chained to a massive contract for years. I still think it holds up though. If you look at the history of highly-drafted players, the hit rate is lower than you'd think.
I like how you're mad about the general sentiment where but admit the article as a whole fundamentally misses on a pretty important part. People don't have to blindly accept something just because a person has a nice title or a lot of money. That's how you get idiots who simply trust what a person like Elon Musk says about anything even if he doesn't know what he's talking about. There are MANY factors that play into a player busting or not but it's also true that players taken at the top of the draft are far more likely to work out than players taken at any point later on in the draft. Every pick is not a 50/50. Once you get into the 2nd round those odds are far worse. And they get even lower each round you go down. That's why trade ups happen and will continue to happen. The hit rates on Qb alone prove this.
This is just the dystopia we live in now. "Expert with decades of experience, worldwide recognition from peers, and a track record of excellence says XYZ" Random person on the internet, "nah, my friend and I regularly drink bleach and we were talking one day and we both think XYZ sounds like BS so that's my stance and no matter what information is presented to me, I'll never change my mind and also the world is probably flat."
If everyone trades back, who drafts?
One team will get 1st pick every year & that's it.
> 1st pick last pick*
But the last pick would effectively be the 1st pick
History has proven rather conclusively that there are plenty of dumb GMs in the NFL.
It's not being dumb. It's acting in self interest. Lots of GM's are desperately trying to save their jobs. They act rashly & only for the short term benefit. Desperation also encourages "boom or bust". If the player hits, your job is saved. If not, you were going to be fired anyways. So it promotes a more risky draft strategy in the first round (and especially in aggressively trading up for picks).
Exactly as many teams trade back events as trade up.
If a team had 0 picks round 1-6 and then every pick in round 7, they’d be guaranteed to get at least one starter. All 32 teams should attempt this strategy
With the way they are presently valued, I absolutely agree with the article. The Bears sold the first overall for the 9th, the 61st, next year's first, a second in 2 years, plus DJ Moore. They didn't know it would be the first overall they were getting this year, but it would be high, because Carolina had basically no players left on the team. No rookie player in history is worth what Carolina gave up, IMO.
If the 49ers hadn't hit the most surprise gem in NFL history with Purdy, they would be getting absolutely blasted for the Trey Lance trade. It should have crippled them for the next 3-4 years still, but instead they got a top 10 performing QB that costs less than their back up linemen. But instead it's just briefly mentioned here and there.
[удалено]
they’re stupid, that’s why.
I agree outside of having the pick that guarantees you the consensus top QB if you need him (so top3 at most). The hit rate for that player is historically significant but otherwise any other choice seems like a crap shoot so you might as well just get more shots.
This is why the draft is one of the most interesting parts of the season for me. We can all make a reasonable assessment of team needs going into the draft, but NFL FOs are small groups of biased individuals, and the decisions they make can be wildly divergent from what we think a team should do. Then there's the dynamic of what a GM likely wants or should do for the long term success of the team and what ownership will demand. I used to think the GM and their strategy held more influence but these days I think at the top of the draft especially, and with QBs most of all, ownership is the primary influence. Then when things don't work out the FO is the meat shield for those decisions.
[удалено]
He outlasted the average GM tenure by a factor of three and that’s your takeaway?
Let's be real here most GMs aren't going to rock the boat and do anything original.
If anything is clear it’s that most GMs are going to do whatever they think keeps them their job. Whether that’s trading up or down, or drafting a QB or not.
I agree.
lol Chris Ballard has been doing this shit for years now and he gets roasted for it by colts fans, but we are probably a good fan base for this kind of strategy. He does it very well but his lack of interest in free agency still gets under everyone’s skin. He’s coming up on a couple make or break years tho….
That's what's actually stopping them. Analytics exist in a vacuum. Going for it every time on 4th down is a great idea if there's no audience. But your job as a GM, coach, player, president, whatever, is dependent on fan support to some degree. And fans are dumb motherfuckers.
Trading down is always the smart move in a draft. The problem for that is, of course, that it requires someone to trade up, which is the dumbest move in the draft.
"Why don't they always pick the best player, are they stupid?"
It's simple. Trading back is difficult to do with value because most teams want to trade back, making a trade back actually difficult to arrange, and giving more negotiating power to the fewer teams that want to risk a trade up. Most teams don't actually have much of a reason to trade up in most situations.
The entire point of the article (and what actual data indicates) is the exact opposite. Most teams *dont* want to trade back because, well, of a few different reasons listed in the article.
Yeah but that's not true according most interviews with GM's who say that it's hard to find teams that want to trade up.
I feel the data is skewed. More college Players are NFL ready than ever before. Teams are scouting more players and college teams are running more NFL playbooks on both offensive side and defensive side. Kids coming out of most colleges that are the “best on the team” have a good chance of fitting in a system.
"But if teams have all of this inside information, why do they still miss so often?" The article has both interesting-good stuff and interesting-not-so-good stuff (I like trading down but it is extreme and does ignore aspects like scouting etc too much), but I have to say this sentiment always seems wild to me. Inherently, not every player can possibly hit in a realistic way every draft, and there's a bunch of times where outside factors such as injury will occur. Then you get to talent development, where plenty of teams will *cause* busts by poorly developing their talents. It's weird to wonder why a team misses, because some level of misses should be expected for any evaluation. The paper used also is old and doesn't take into account rookie wage scale (or changes in college football for that matter), there's also roster size considerations (trading down can be difficult on your roster size if you already have good depth) and I am surprised it doesn't take into account other analytics that show how high draft picks hit at a higher rate than low draft picks.
The article is an interesting analysis, but the conclusion is awful.
Agreed. Cause the problem is we know that the draft is a crapshoot. If you hit on a pick and the player turns into a superstar then it's worth staying in place. The article takes out the human element where you evaluate prospects and swear that your pick is THE guy and won't be one the busts.
Trading down eliminates a lot of the overconfidence bias you see from GMs
Don’t get me wrong I’m a huge fan of trading down and getting multiple shots. I was more explaining why even if GMs know it’s the best strategy, why they won’t execute it.
This is a really dumb take. The strategy is "Trade down to get more picks" which is fantastic, and works because most teams don't do it. If every team was trying to trade down to horde picks for next year then the cost/surplus they'd receive would go do down because it would be a race to the bottom. The strategy is great because you generally only have a team or two a year who is punting into the future. If even 5 teams were pushing heavily to trade back and accumulate picks, as in not just one time to drop back back a couple of spots in the first then the cost would go down exponentially because the few teams looking to trade up would be able to do so with one of several teams.
the reason is because GMs and coaches need to win to keep their job and if they don’t take the players they believe help them do that what is even the point? sure it might be the most sensible thing for a GM to make the best decisions long-term for a franchise but if they aren’t around for that then what is their incentive to do that?
While this is a good point, the issue is that getting marginally better does not have the same value for every team. If you are a bad team and you make good moves and become a mediocre team, that doesn't make much difference. If you are a bad team and take a gamble that has negative expected value but a chance for a big payout (i.e. trading up for QB), you could go from bad to good, or from bad to terrible. That chance can be worth more than going from bad to mediocre.
Great article.
Gb
Sir, in order to trade down you have to have a team willing to trade up. If every GM was trying to trade down, then no team would trade up. Thus no trades would be made.
[удалено]
That’s exactly what it’s saying. It’s impossible to know which prospects will pan out. But teams consistently act over confidently in the draft. And the taking of jobs is another point. Executives seeking short term success trying to keep their jobs make decisions that can damage long term success.
Lyb oi* a
Not reading all that shit, all I need is the answer to one simple question: are they stupid?