Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner
 

Archived Thread

The case for trading up in the 1st round

pjcas18 : 3/15/2017 12:49 pm
I know these threads are tedious and people will say it's not Madden and other comments, but one indisputable fact is that success in the NFL, while the definition can vary, is directly correlated to round the player was drafted in as an average. I believe it's furthered the higher up in the first the player is taken but that hasn't been tested in this study. And unlike trading down, which he's never done, Reese does have a track record for trading up.

To agree with this post you have to be willing to accept three things:

1. the draft value chart. I think it's still an accepted guide and most trades involving draft picks are close to it http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/

2. the success of draft pick loosely defined in this blog on a Chiefs fan site. http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

Quote:
Criteria

This post has a simple criteria: How many players were drafted by position and round over the last decade and how many went on to become a starter.

I did not distinguish superstars from regular starters. The determination of a starter comes from whether the player started at least half of their career. Obviously, this will run the gambit from below average to high performing starters. The reality is that if you can start in this league for at least half of your playing career, you are better than most. If you would like to debate the merits of players at a particular position be my guest. However, I found that it would require a lot more work than I was willing to do to put together subjective criteria to determine various levels of starters. This also does not take into consideration undrafted free agent starters in the league.


3. Reese has a terrible track record (with the jury still out on Thompson) in the 3rd round.

Here are Reese's 3rd round picks since he's been GM:

2016: Darian Thompson S
2015: Owamagbe Odighizuwa DE
2014: Jay Bromley DT
2013: Damontre Moore DE
2012: Jayron Hosley CB
2011: Jerrel Jernigan WR
2010: Chad Jones S
2009: Ramses Barden WR (trade up), Travis Beckum TE
2008: Mario Manningham WR
2007: Jay Alford DT

Manningham was not what I'd call a bust, but he was only ever at best the 3rd WR on the team and like I said jury is still out on Thompson (and probably Odi for that matter, but he seems like Wynn and Owkara have passed him or stay ahead of him) So even if you allow for the success of Thompson, Odi and Manningham and discount Chad Jones since hard to blame Reese for that, it makes the case to trade up even more compelling.

So, the point is if a player the Giants covet is available at 17 or in that vicinity the Giants should package their 1st and 3rd and move up for that player.

Here are the by round and position success rates for draft picks (from the blog which studied 10 years of draft history from 2004 to 2014):

Quote:
Historic Success Chart

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)


the numbers are compelling, even if the player in the 1st is not an OL and to remove subjectivity from "success" it's strictly playing time, which IMO inflates the OL stats anyway. OL get longer to be bad IMO than other positions. Especially when drafted early.

Maybe this study will also demonstrate to the poster (Go Terps?) who was advocating for drafting the next franchise QB in the 4th round or later how ridiculously unlikely that really is.
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
No sweat  
Go Terps : 3/15/2017 1:17 pm : link
And I agree with you if that guy is Aaron Rodgers. But too many lesser players are eating up enormous cap space IMO, and that is as bad a management mistake as can be made.

As for trading up in the first round, in a vacuum I'm not really in favor of it...though with our track record in the 1st vs. 3rd rounds I can get behind that.

Generally I'd be in favor with amassing as many picks as possible as they generate the most cost-efficient players.
Generically speaking...  
Capt. Don : 3/15/2017 1:17 pm : link
I do not think this is the draft to trade away mid round picks.

From everything I have read and heard, this draft is much deeper than it is star-studded. Apparently this is specifically true for tight ends, corners, receivers and running backs. All of these are positions that we need competition as a starter or at the very least depth.

Again, that is generically speaking. It all depends on which player has dropped and to what spot.
a whole bunch  
pjcas18 : 3/15/2017 1:20 pm : link
of cost effective Damontre Moore's or Travis Beckum's are a lot less valuable to a team than one Justin Pugh (taken at 19) or JPP (taken at 15) or even Prince Amukamara (taken at 19), nothing is guaranteed, but it's about improving your odds of landing an impact player.
63% of first-round QBs are successful?  
Vanzetti : 3/15/2017 1:25 pm : link
I have a hard time believing that. They must be defining "success" in a way different than most people would.

Think of all the QBs taken number 1 who were busts: Carr, House, George, Harrington. Or Ryan Leaf and Alkili Smith Then throw in all the other guys taken early who had a minimum of success (e.g. Mark Sanchez, Michael Vick).
RE: 63% of first-round QBs are successful?  
pjcas18 : 3/15/2017 1:30 pm : link
In comment 13394015 Vanzetti said:
Quote:
I have a hard time believing that. They must be defining "success" in a way different than most people would.

Think of all the QBs taken number 1 who were busts: Carr, House, George, Harrington. Or Ryan Leaf and Alkili Smith Then throw in all the other guys taken early who had a minimum of success (e.g. Mark Sanchez, Michael Vick).


success is defined strictly by starts. In order to be less subjective.

Quote:
Criteria

This post has a simple criteria: How many players were drafted by position and round over the last decade and how many went on to become a starter.

I did not distinguish superstars from regular starters. The determination of a starter comes from whether the player started at least half of their career. Obviously, this will run the gambit from below average to high performing starters. The reality is that if you can start in this league for at least half of your playing career, you are better than most. If you would like to debate the merits of players at a particular position be my guest. However, I found that it would require a lot more work than I was willing to do to put together subjective criteria to determine various levels of starters. This also does not take into consideration undrafted free agent starters in the league.
RE: 63% of first-round QBs are successful?  
Kevin in Annapolis : 3/15/2017 1:30 pm : link
In comment 13394015 Vanzetti said:
Quote:
I have a hard time believing that. They must be defining "success" in a way different than most people would.

Think of all the QBs taken number 1 who were busts: Carr, House, George, Harrington. Or Ryan Leaf and Alkili Smith Then throw in all the other guys taken early who had a minimum of success (e.g. Mark Sanchez, Michael Vick).


Success criteria was in the OP.
Quote:
This post has a simple criteria: How many players were drafted by position and round over the last decade and how many went on to become a starter.


I did not distinguish superstars from regular starters. The determination of a starter comes from whether the player started at least half of their career. Obviously, this will run the gambit from below average to high performing starters. The reality is that if you can start in this league for at least half of your playing career, you are better than most. If you would like to debate the merits of players at a particular position be my guest. However, I found that it would require a lot more work than I was willing to do to put together subjective criteria to determine various levels of starters. This also does not take into consideration undrafted free agent starters in the league.

You would imagine if you draft a QB in the first round, he will get over 50% of the starts.
Yes  
pjcas18 : 3/15/2017 1:32 pm : link
QB and OL probably skewed somewhat, maybe, because you figure a QB or OL drafted in the 1st get every chance to fail, maybe more than some other positions.

but these days I think every 1st round pick has a chance to fail. You don't see 1st round picks groomed like you used to.
Usually I'd have no problem  
Eman11 : 3/15/2017 1:33 pm : link
With Jerry trading up but this year I'd rather he stand pat. There's some quality depth in this draft especially at CB, DL, and even TE and RB.

I think he can hit on a 3rd round pick this year and I'd rather have another good young player added to the roster. Now if it was giving up a 3 or 4 next year to move up this year, count me in.

RE: The giants  
ryanmkeane : 3/15/2017 1:34 pm : link
In comment 13393977 Old Dirty Beckham said:
Quote:
should be using their 5th rd pick and every 6th and 7th rd pick they are legally allowed to trade to move up in every round of this draft.

Why is that?
I don't think it is good business  
bigblue12 : 3/15/2017 1:35 pm : link
to trade away premium picks in one of the deepest drafts in recent memory.
RE: a whole bunch  
Go Terps : 3/15/2017 1:36 pm : link
In comment 13394009 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
of cost effective Damontre Moore's or Travis Beckum's are a lot less valuable to a team than one Justin Pugh (taken at 19) or JPP (taken at 15) or even Prince Amukamara (taken at 19), nothing is guaranteed, but it's about improving your odds of landing an impact player.


Part of that though has been specifically about our scouting, draft philosophies, and uses of the players after they've been drafted.

Take Travis Beckum. Strange pick from the start: TE/H-Back type in an offense that didn't really utilize one. Or Ramses Barden...did we ever actually try to employ him in a manner that utilized his ability to go up and get the ball (I'd ask that same about Larry Donnell)? And obviously we've had the DE/LB types where we have flopped (Sintim, Odi, the jerking around of Kiwanuka). And wasn't it strange how we did/did not utilize Sinorice Moss and Jerrel Jernigan? Even Andre Williams didn't seem like he was utilized in a way that best fit his style.

My point is that with this franchise there have been some cases of square pegs/round holes in the past decade or so when it comes to the draft. And I wonder how much effort was made to re-shape the holes after we had already drafted the pegs.

Even BB and the Pats tend to trade down  
CT Charlie : 3/15/2017 1:45 pm : link
and accumulate picks rather than trust their ability to identify long-run talent in the draft.
RE: 25%  
WillVAB : 3/15/2017 1:48 pm : link
In comment 13393990 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
success rate for 3rd round WR's in that decade long study and Reese took three of them in those ten years, trading up for one.

27% for DL and Reese took three of them in that decade.

6 picks where league wide in the 3rd they had just a 26% chance of becoming a starter. People view 3rd round as a premium pick still, but your odds are much better in the 1st. The conditions obviously need to be right and you of course need a willing trade partner, but if those two are met get aggresive and move closer in the 1st.


Reese has picked positions in the 3rd that have a lower success rate.

In this draft, need and value could align in the 3rd with an OL or TE -- positions that have a higher success rate statistically in the 3rd.

In a vacuum it's an interesting point, but in this specific draft I don't think it would be smart to give up a 3rd.

pj, I think this is a pretty deep draft, and the more picks you have  
yatqb : 3/15/2017 1:51 pm : link
the better chance you have of landing a player who makes an impact. Imo this question always depends upon who is available when. If there's someone you feel is the missing piece, trade up for him if you can. If you feel that the BPA by far is at a position you don't need, try to trade down (as Dallas did when they ultimately took Frederick).
RE: .  
WillVAB : 3/15/2017 1:51 pm : link
In comment 13393991 Go Terps said:
Quote:
"Maybe this study will also demonstrate to the poster (Go Terps?) who was advocating for drafting the next franchise QB in the 4th round or later how ridiculously unlikely that really is."

I never said this. I'd advocate (after Eli retires) moving away from the franchise QB model altogether.

I have no problem drafting a QB in round 1. I do have a problem with paying a QB (or any other player) 1/8 of the entire cap unless he's a HOF level player. Paying Kirk Cousins or Matt Stafford $20 million+ ain't getting you any closer to a Super Bowl.


This may not be popular but I agree smart teams should move away from the conventional model when it comes to QBs. College just isn't producing The type of cerebral QBs we think of when it comes to franchise QBs.

Look around the league at the "good" young QBs. I'm not impressed.
Go Terps - Couldn't Agree More  
wonderback : 3/15/2017 1:54 pm : link
This isn't baseball. You can't just throw a guy out there and watch him perform. In football, so much is based on scheme, who's next to you, who's behind you and who's in front of you. Many of the players you've stated (IMO) were not given the chance to succeed given their particular set of strengths. The Giants have been guilty of this many times. Kind of like the front office is not talking to the coaching staff or how you put it, drafting the pegs without reshaping the holes. Let's hope they've learned from those mistakes.
Well one thing I never buy into is  
pjcas18 : 3/15/2017 1:55 pm : link
the it's a deep draft or a weak draft commentary.

No one ever remembers these narratives and looks back 3 years later and says "huh, that wasn't as strong a draft as it was supposed to be"

Read up on the 2013 draft if you get some free time.

It was "loaded" with premier pass rushers and OL.

guys like Damontre Moore, Bjorn Werner, Barkevious Mingo, Dion Jordon and Sam Mongtomery.

Luke Joeckel, DJ Fluker, etc.

it turned out to be one of the worst drafts ever (off the top of my head).

So I'd never build my draft strategy based on the media narratives, I'd trust my scouts and if the player and opportunity arises I'd make the move.

but I like the discussion and dissenting opinions.

no one right or wrong way to approach it.
That's a pretty cool study.  
FranknWeezer : 3/15/2017 1:58 pm : link
Remarkable that a 6th Round TE is just as successful as a 2nd Round DT and more successful than a 2nd Round RB. Wow.
Hmm nice job pjcas  
Johnny5 : 3/15/2017 2:12 pm : link
You definitely did your homework and make a compelling argument.
We need starters, from this draft......  
Doomster : 3/15/2017 2:17 pm : link
If there is someone, that is a perfect fit for this team, but could be picked earlier, you have to pull the trigger with a 3rd or 4th round pick.....

I would do the same in the second round.....we need starters...
George Young's "planet" philosophy  
PEEJ : 3/15/2017 2:28 pm : link
There are only so many big men on the planet. Draft them early, cuz they won't be there later
Credence!  
RAIN : 3/15/2017 2:43 pm : link
I've been a huge advocate of drafting OL in 2/3. This backs it up. I'm down for it this year.. the value is in round 2.
Let's Look At The Data Presented For The 3rd Round  
Trainmaster : 3/15/2017 3:40 pm : link
Quote:
3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)


and apply it to Reese's picks:

Quote:
2016: Darian Thompson S - DB (24%)
2015: Owamagbe Odighizuwa DE - DL (27%)
2014: Jay Bromley DT - DL (27%)
2013: Damontre Moore DE - DL (27%)
2012: Jayron Hosley CB - DB (24%)
2011: Jerrel Jernigan WR - WR (25%)
2010: Chad Jones S - DB (24%)
2009: Ramses Barden WR (trade up), Travis Beckum TE - WR (25%)
2008: Mario Manningham WR - WR (25%)
2007: Jay Alford DT - DL (27%)


It seems like Reese has picked a lot positions (DL, CB) that have about a 25% success rate. Maybe 1 of 3 out of the DBs.

The league success rate data are useful.

Collectively, we've probably got 1 of 4 on the DL and 1 of 4 out of the WRs

'trading up in the 1st round'...  
Torrag : 3/15/2017 4:21 pm : link
...not this year. Only reason to trade up and give up assets would be to get a LT. One problem. There isn't one to get got. Stand pat in Round 1 and add as many pieces as we can.
to me, Reese's  
Enzo : 3/15/2017 4:33 pm : link
struggles in the mid to late rounds can be seen as a reason to trade down. It would theoretically give him more chances to pick contributing players and build depth. As we saw in several seasons under TC, the bottom half of your roster can often be needed to play important roles as starters are lost to injury.
Howard is going in top 10  
shelovesnycsports : 3/15/2017 4:39 pm : link
but I can see Reese trading up for Nojoku from Miami since his MO is ex Canes and he wants another big offensive weapon to take more pressure off OBJ. I think Philly wants the same guy so he would have to trade up in front of the Eagles and that would cost more than a 3rd pick.
Agree completely  
Mike from Ohio : 3/15/2017 5:19 pm : link
This regime has done well with 1st round picks, and if there is significant doubt a guy they have a high grade on at a position of need won't be there, lose the 3rd (and 4th) if you need to and go get him.

I would rather have fewer and higher picks than a bunch of 3rd to 5th rounders that provide tons of competition but little in the way of production.
Trade  
AcidTest : 3/15/2017 6:04 pm : link
the whole draft to move up and take Ricky Williams.
Most of the 3rd round draft picks under George Young and Accorsi  
NikkiMac : 3/15/2017 6:31 pm : link
Didn't pan out that well either check it out and see

I think it's a jinx I'd trade that sucker every draft if it was me !!!!
RE: I don't think it is good business  
bigbluescot : 3/15/2017 6:50 pm : link
In comment 13394037 bigblue12 said:
Quote:
to trade away premium picks in one of the deepest drafts in recent memory.


If anything the smart thing in this draft is to acquire 2nd and 3rd round picks because that's where the value is. I'm not adverse to moving out of the 1st if there's decent value in it.
If OJ Howard  
TommyWiseau : 3/15/2017 7:11 pm : link
Is sitting at pick 17 to 19 you move up and get him. Plug him and Ellison in at TE for the next 8 years. You have your Dan Campbell and your Shockey
Franchise QB's  
speedywheels : 3/15/2017 7:12 pm : link
The list of SB winners the last 10 years is filled with Franchise QB's:

Pats (brady)
Broncos (Peyton)
Pats
Seahawks (Wilson)
Ravens (Flacco)
Giants
Packers (Rodgers)
Saints (Brees)
Steelers (Ben)
Giants

Even if you allow the argument that Peyton wasn't really a franchise QB for Denver (fair to say, IMO), that's still quite a list chockful of franchise QB's. Flacco is not, Wilson is, but wasn't paid like one at that time, which allowed them to spend $$ elsewhere.

Otherwise, they are all Franchise QB's.

Heck, even look at the list of QB's who lost - Ben, Brady, Ryan, Cam, Kapernick, Ben, Peyton, Warner. Kap is not, Ryan is debatable, but all the others are Franchise Qb's (Peyton was still elite when the lost to Seattle)

Now, were they the only reason why they won (or even made it to the SB)? Of course not; most of those teams had great skill players and/or defenses.


But this notion that teams can win - or even make it to the game - with a mediocre guy like Dilfer is long gone, and quite silly...

Value based  
pjcas18 : 3/15/2017 7:13 pm : link
drafting like the Patriots used to do isn't as much a thing under the new CBA. Standard 4 year deals and rookie $$ slots take a lot of the albatross potential away from a missed 1st round pick. Compare the extremes Sam Bradford (last #1 on the old CBA 6 year $76M) with the next two: Newton (1st year new CBA): 4 year $22M and Luck (2nd year new CBA): 4 year $22.5M

The Patriots (for example since they're the gold standard of value based drafting and pick accumulation) have only traded out of the 1st once in the new CBA (for draft picks) and in 2012 they actually made two first round picks.

While hitting on a 1st is still crucial, it's not like it used to be like when guys like Jason Smith and Aaron Curry got $60M+ contracts as rookies.
RE: Value based  
Vanzetti : 3/15/2017 7:33 pm : link
In comment 13394490 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
drafting like the Patriots used to do isn't as much a thing under the new CBA. Standard 4 year deals and rookie $$ slots take a lot of the albatross potential away from a missed 1st round pick. Compare the extremes Sam Bradford (last #1 on the old CBA 6 year $76M) with the next two: Newton (1st year new CBA): 4 year $22M and Luck (2nd year new CBA): 4 year $22.5M

The Patriots (for example since they're the gold standard of value based drafting and pick accumulation) have only traded out of the 1st once in the new CBA (for draft picks) and in 2012 they actually made two first round picks.

While hitting on a 1st is still crucial, it's not like it used to be like when guys like Jason Smith and Aaron Curry got $60M+ contracts as rookies.


I think the key to the Patriots success is Brady-Belichik. Not trying to deny the good points people are making on this thread, but somehow I don't think the Patriots model would be quite as successful if say they had Collins-Fassel. Just like the WC offense was unstoppable with Walsh-Montana-Rice but not so much with Mariucci and Jeff Garcia.
RE: RE: Value based  
pjcas18 : 3/15/2017 7:38 pm : link
In comment 13394510 Vanzetti said:
Quote:
In comment 13394490 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


drafting like the Patriots used to do isn't as much a thing under the new CBA. Standard 4 year deals and rookie $$ slots take a lot of the albatross potential away from a missed 1st round pick. Compare the extremes Sam Bradford (last #1 on the old CBA 6 year $76M) with the next two: Newton (1st year new CBA): 4 year $22M and Luck (2nd year new CBA): 4 year $22.5M

The Patriots (for example since they're the gold standard of value based drafting and pick accumulation) have only traded out of the 1st once in the new CBA (for draft picks) and in 2012 they actually made two first round picks.

While hitting on a 1st is still crucial, it's not like it used to be like when guys like Jason Smith and Aaron Curry got $60M+ contracts as rookies.



I think the key to the Patriots success is Brady-Belichik. Not trying to deny the good points people are making on this thread, but somehow I don't think the Patriots model would be quite as successful if say they had Collins-Fassel. Just like the WC offense was unstoppable with Walsh-Montana-Rice but not so much with Mariucci and Jeff Garcia.


Of course that's correct, but regardless as GM Belichick sort of created the value based drafting approach (trade down and accumulate picks). And in NE it drove the media crazy. They still won at a legendary pace, though they experienced a 10 year SB drought, but the roster and personnel decisions were often questionable.

It's been well chronicled the players they had an opportunity to draft but passed on for more "at-bats" in the 2nd - 4th rounds and no one can claim it worked out better than if they had simply drafted a player in their original spot. but...winning cures all and i won't get in that debate again about if you can question anything Belichick has ever done, some people here worship at the altar of Belichick and he's infallible.
RE: Franchise QB's  
Go Terps : 3/15/2017 7:53 pm : link
In comment 13394488 speedywheels said:
Quote:
The list of SB winners the last 10 years is filled with Franchise QB's:

Pats (brady)
Broncos (Peyton)
Pats
Seahawks (Wilson)
Ravens (Flacco)
Giants
Packers (Rodgers)
Saints (Brees)
Steelers (Ben)
Giants

Even if you allow the argument that Peyton wasn't really a franchise QB for Denver (fair to say, IMO), that's still quite a list chockful of franchise QB's. Flacco is not, Wilson is, but wasn't paid like one at that time, which allowed them to spend $$ elsewhere.

Otherwise, they are all Franchise QB's.

Heck, even look at the list of QB's who lost - Ben, Brady, Ryan, Cam, Kapernick, Ben, Peyton, Warner. Kap is not, Ryan is debatable, but all the others are Franchise Qb's (Peyton was still elite when the lost to Seattle)

Now, were they the only reason why they won (or even made it to the SB)? Of course not; most of those teams had great skill players and/or defenses.


But this notion that teams can win - or even make it to the game - with a mediocre guy like Dilfer is long gone, and quite silly...


But no one is trying it any other way. Every team either has, erroneously believes they have, or is trying to get the stereotypical franchise quarterback. There isn't a team out there that treats the QB position more like the other positions on the field.

Everything on every team is built around whether or not they have the franchise QB. That seems odd to me considering they are so hard to get.

Look at our situation in 2004 and the extent to which the planets had to align to get Eli Manning. Collins, Accorsi, Fassel's firing, the spate of injuries that destroyed the 2003 season, the excellent 2004 QB class. All that had to line up just so, and even then it took an enormous trade in order to get the quarterback we wanted.

There has to be a smarter, more efficient method to building a team. There has to be.

RE: Franchise QB's  
WillVAB : 3/15/2017 11:23 pm : link
In comment 13394488 speedywheels said:
Quote:
The list of SB winners the last 10 years is filled with Franchise QB's:

Pats (brady)
Broncos (Peyton)
Pats
Seahawks (Wilson)
Ravens (Flacco)
Giants
Packers (Rodgers)
Saints (Brees)
Steelers (Ben)
Giants

Even if you allow the argument that Peyton wasn't really a franchise QB for Denver (fair to say, IMO), that's still quite a list chockful of franchise QB's. Flacco is not, Wilson is, but wasn't paid like one at that time, which allowed them to spend $$ elsewhere.

Otherwise, they are all Franchise QB's.

Heck, even look at the list of QB's who lost - Ben, Brady, Ryan, Cam, Kapernick, Ben, Peyton, Warner. Kap is not, Ryan is debatable, but all the others are Franchise Qb's (Peyton was still elite when the lost to Seattle)

Now, were they the only reason why they won (or even made it to the SB)? Of course not; most of those teams had great skill players and/or defenses.


But this notion that teams can win - or even make it to the game - with a mediocre guy like Dilfer is long gone, and quite silly...


Yet only one of those QBs is young and he rode the back of an elite defense and running game.

pjcas18 makes a good case  
Gregorio : 3/16/2017 2:48 am : link
for trading up. That historic success chart is a sobering demonstration of how difficult it is to succeed in the NFL.

When you combine Reese’s 3rd round success (or failure) rate with the trade value, it makes sense. Getting a 17th pick in return puts the Giants a little ahead value wise. Pick 23 (value 760) + pick 87 (value 155) = 915. Pick 17 has value 950. By trading those 2 picks the Giants would gain 35 points of value.

The basis of all this is of course statistical analysis. Some support it, and others have trashed using it for decision making. I find it gives a fun way to look into draft possibilities.

Greg
RE: Let's Look At The Data Presented For The 3rd Round  
chopperhatch : 3/16/2017 3:28 am : link
In comment 13394240 Trainmaster said:
Quote:


Quote:


3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)



and apply it to Reese's picks:



Quote:


2016: Darian Thompson S - DB (24%)
2015: Owamagbe Odighizuwa DE - DL (27%)
2014: Jay Bromley DT - DL (27%)
2013: Damontre Moore DE - DL (27%)
2012: Jayron Hosley CB - DB (24%)
2011: Jerrel Jernigan WR - WR (25%)
2010: Chad Jones S - DB (24%)
2009: Ramses Barden WR (trade up), Travis Beckum TE - WR (25%)
2008: Mario Manningham WR - WR (25%)
2007: Jay Alford DT - DL (27%)



It seems like Reese has picked a lot positions (DL, CB) that have about a 25% success rate. Maybe 1 of 3 out of the DBs.

The league success rate data are useful.

Collectively, we've probably got 1 of 4 on the DL and 1 of 4 out of the WRs


To be fair, looking at those names, 5 were utter failures (Barden, Beckum, Hosley, Jerrnigan, Moore), 5 were players most people here would agree are good players that could be a big part of the team, but either are too young to assess (Odi, Bromley, Thompson) or had serious injuries derail their career (alford, Jones). And one unquestioned success in Manningham. Id say 50/50 is an ok ratio for 3rd rounders.
Interesting and well done post  
giantgiantfan : 3/16/2017 4:18 am : link
Playing devils advocate you can argue that trading down and stock piling picks accomplishes the same thing. We've seen the Patriots due this in the past. Collecting additional 2nd, 3rd, and 4th picks thus increasing their chances of a hit in the late rounds.

In the end, Reese has to trust his scouts or fire them. If there is a can't miss talent in round 1, get them. Much like we did with Landon Collins (pick 33 is damn near first round). Otherwise sit pat and trust your scouts can find a guy in round 3. Lets not forget we've hit on many second rounders and even thirds (Tuck) though post-Acorsi it has been dismal.
RE: RE: Let's Look At The Data Presented For The 3rd Round  
adamg : 3/16/2017 4:22 am : link
In comment 13394698 chopperhatch said:
Quote:
In comment 13394240 Trainmaster said:


Quote:




Quote:


3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)



and apply it to Reese's picks:



Quote:


2016: Darian Thompson S - DB (24%)
2015: Owamagbe Odighizuwa DE - DL (27%)
2014: Jay Bromley DT - DL (27%)
2013: Damontre Moore DE - DL (27%)
2012: Jayron Hosley CB - DB (24%)
2011: Jerrel Jernigan WR - WR (25%)
2010: Chad Jones S - DB (24%)
2009: Ramses Barden WR (trade up), Travis Beckum TE - WR (25%)
2008: Mario Manningham WR - WR (25%)
2007: Jay Alford DT - DL (27%)



It seems like Reese has picked a lot positions (DL, CB) that have about a 25% success rate. Maybe 1 of 3 out of the DBs.

The league success rate data are useful.

Collectively, we've probably got 1 of 4 on the DL and 1 of 4 out of the WRs




To be fair, looking at those names, 5 were utter failures (Barden, Beckum, Hosley, Jerrnigan, Moore), 5 were players most people here would agree are good players that could be a big part of the team, but either are too young to assess (Odi, Bromley, Thompson) or had serious injuries derail their career (alford, Jones). And one unquestioned success in Manningham. Id say 50/50 is an ok ratio for 3rd rounders.


And Moore has a ton of talent, first round talent even. He's just a fucking psycho who can't help himself.
I'd argue based on the  
section125 : 3/16/2017 5:28 am : link
success %s, that Reese was league average in the 3rd round which appears to be about 30% ish.

Part of the problem with trading the 3rd'er is the 4th round being moved back as punishment for the walkie talkies. Give up a 3rd round pick and they don't draft for about 80 places.
Your statistics prove the opposite of what you say they do  
Mike in Boston : 3/16/2017 10:20 am : link
Compare the success statistics you quote with the draft pick trade value chart. The trade value declines much more rapidly than the likelihood of success. That is the stats you present show you are better off trading down.

Let's work an example. On the draft trade value chart, a mid first round pick is worth two mid second rounders and a mid third rounder. Now let's say you spent the pick on one or three linebackers. With the first rounder you have a 70% chance of success. With 2 seconds and a third your chance of at least one success is 87% (= 1-.45*.45*.66)

Now obviously, there are some limits, so it isn't completely clean. For example, if you apply this strategy too often, you don't have roster space for all the picks, so you don't really get as many bites at the apple as you want. You might have a better chance of drafting a star with 400 7th round picks that with the #1 overall but 1) there aren't 400 7th round picks and 2) You can't bring that many players to camp.
RE: Your statistics prove the opposite of what you say they do  
pjcas18 : 3/16/2017 10:29 am : link
In comment 13394921 Mike in Boston said:
Quote:
Compare the success statistics you quote with the draft pick trade value chart. The trade value declines much more rapidly than the likelihood of success. That is the stats you present show you are better off trading down.

Let's work an example. On the draft trade value chart, a mid first round pick is worth two mid second rounders and a mid third rounder. Now let's say you spent the pick on one or three linebackers. With the first rounder you have a 70% chance of success. With 2 seconds and a third your chance of at least one success is 87% (= 1-.45*.45*.66)

Now obviously, there are some limits, so it isn't completely clean. For example, if you apply this strategy too often, you don't have roster space for all the picks, so you don't really get as many bites at the apple as you want. You might have a better chance of drafting a star with 400 7th round picks that with the #1 overall but 1) there aren't 400 7th round picks and 2) You can't bring that many players to camp.


What do I say the statistics show? I just presented them.

However, you and i both know should the Giants trade out of the 1st and get a 2nd and 3rd to do it they are not drafting 3 LB's with the two 2nds and a 3rd, so your example is not remotely realistic. Statistically valid? perhaps. Realistic? No.

My other point, which I admitted the study didn't analyze is the higher up in the 1st the higher the likelihood for a successful draft pick. That is the premise on which the trade up is based, as well as last year's draft which saw the Giants top couple rumored targets taken the two picks before the Giants both in trade ups.
Trade up vs down  
Mike in Boston : 3/16/2017 10:51 am : link
Actually, the statistics are even worse within the first round. A while ago (I think it was 15-20 years ago) I took the trouble to look the the top 10 overall picks for a decade. They aren't much better than the mid to late 1st rounders in terms of overall success rate. Yet a #3 overall is worth 2 #14's. The success rates for those picks are not nearly so different.

And it doesn't matter much if you use all the picks at one position or different ones. Suppose in my example you picked an LB with 1 second and the third and a TE with the other second. You'd end up with a 70% chance of a successful LB (the same as the #1) + a 50% of a TE + a 30% of both LB's being successful, with an over 85% chance of at least one success.

Point is, GM's are willing to overpay to move up because they fall in love with particular players. If you recognize that the draft is a crapshoot, you are better off with more picks.
RE: Trade up vs down  
pjcas18 : 3/16/2017 11:03 am : link
In comment 13394978 Mike in Boston said:
Quote:
Actually, the statistics are even worse within the first round. A while ago (I think it was 15-20 years ago) I took the trouble to look the the top 10 overall picks for a decade. They aren't much better than the mid to late 1st rounders in terms of overall success rate. Yet a #3 overall is worth 2 #14's. The success rates for those picks are not nearly so different.

And it doesn't matter much if you use all the picks at one position or different ones. Suppose in my example you picked an LB with 1 second and the third and a TE with the other second. You'd end up with a 70% chance of a successful LB (the same as the #1) + a 50% of a TE + a 30% of both LB's being successful, with an over 85% chance of at least one success.

Point is, GM's are willing to overpay to move up because they fall in love with particular players. If you recognize that the draft is a crapshoot, you are better off with more picks.


Not in terms of high end talent. Take the time and do the study, the best players comes from the early parts of the first round or at worst the first round.

Of course there are exceptions, but in general it's a proven fact. look at the all-pro teams, hall of fame, league leader boards, etc. where are those players coming from?

first round picks overwhelmingly.

HOF by draft round: http://www.profootballhof.com/heroes-of-the-game/hall-of-famers-by-draft-round/

All-pro by draft round: a couple examples:

Just 2012 and 2014, but I expect the pattern sticks

2012 http://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2012/03/30/what-do-all-pro-teams-tell-us-about-nfl-draft


2014:
Quote:
Of the 27 players on the team -- 12 on offense, 12 on defense and three specialists -- 14 were taken in the first round, with one going first overall (defensive end Mario Williams). There were four second-rounders, three third-rounders, one fourth-rounder, one fifth-rounder, one sixth-rounder and one seventh-rounder. Two players began their careers as undrafted free agents.


It's the theory of would you rather have one horse or three ponies. If you trust your scouts and find a player that you really covet it makes a lot of sense to target the player and get the player.

don't forget  
fkap : 3/16/2017 11:04 am : link
that the group dynamic for drafting changed dramatically last year. Prior, the model was for Reese to have the most say in round one, and then the coaching staff had increasingly more say as the rounds progressed. Last year, they publically stated that the HC was getting less say and Reese was getting more say throughout the draft.

First round has typically been good for the Giants under Reese. 3rd and below, we drop off a cliff.

Unless you see a can't miss type player within trade up range in the first, hold on to your mid round picks.
didn't the Giants trade up in round 1  
Jersey55 : 3/16/2017 11:07 am : link
to draft Shockey...
RE: didn't the Giants trade up in round 1  
pjcas18 : 3/16/2017 11:14 am : link
In comment 13395003 Jersey55 said:
Quote:
to draft Shockey...


Yes, but that was Accorsi as GM.
It's not just Reese and the 3rd Round.  
Klaatu : 3/16/2017 11:29 am : link
A couple of years ago I researched every 3rd Round pick the Giants made going back about 25 years. The results were so horrific that I started a thread titled, "The Curse of the 3rd Round."
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner