for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

The argument against trading down

pjcas18 : 4/22/2021 2:30 pm
the thought process behind trading down I have heard articulated on here is usually something to the effect of "the Giants have so many holes they need as many picks as they can get" or they *only* have 6 picks in a 7 round draft. gotta get more picks, more picks, more picks...it's such a silly non data driven concept. the only time I can support a trade down is if it includes next years' first and you will see a later in the thread example it still comes down to making the picks.

Sometimes people feel like if we just get more "at-bats" we're bound to hit on some (or all in some truly bizarre takes).

This thread is not going to list ALL the data for you. It is out there though.

Truth of the matter is - the best players come from the higher part portions of the draft. More pro-bowlers, more all-pro's, better statistics, longer careers (injury not withstanding).

Would it shock anyone to learn in some studies (from 2012 - 2014 for example) more all-pros were selected as UDFA's than 3rd round picks.

We can cherry pick examples where a trade down turned out well, and many (like the one below it was a disaster for the team trading down).

The Patriots are poster children for trading down (24 times the past 10 drafts or something like that - would it surprise you to know they traded up 9 times and the 9 trade ups resulted in better players than the 24 trade downs.)



Quote:
It's been nearly 10 years since the Falcons traded up for Julio Jones..

Cleveland's picks turned into:
DT Phil Taylor
WR Greg Little
FB Owen Maracic
QB Brandon Weeden


One of the most famous trade ups that was criticized, with the benefit of hind sight which would you rather do? trade up and get a HOF WR in Julio or trade down and get "more picks, more picks, more picks"

the bottom line is this you need to make your picks. This thread is also not about W/L there are a lot more variables than just the draft that feed into W/L and the draft is absolutely a part of it, but far from the whole story.

The Giants DO NOT need more picks and they DO NOT need to trade down, they just need to draft good football players - and another topic is position, it's less important than some people think too when drafting. While pure BPA is sort of mythical, drafting the best football player even at a position of redundancy has a lot of merit. I have changed my position on that after seeing some data.
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Examples are always in a vaccuum  
jvm52106 : 4/22/2021 2:58 pm : link
ie. this position turned into this player so it was a bad trade. Except that there is no guarantee the team trading down was going to take the same player.

Either way, we have only a few picks and a tight cap next season based on contracts this year. I would say more picks this year would be welcomed.
great post and very much agree  
Eric on Li : 4/22/2021 3:00 pm : link
good drafts generally get 2 players who are good enough to get multi-year second contracts. Great/all time drafts get more than that.

so 100% agree there is way too much focus on accumulating more picks as opposed to the importance on getting those picks correct. Everyone starts with 3 picks in the top 100 so imo the focus should always be on getting 2 starters out of those first 2 days. Do that and half of your starting roster will be homegrown.

trading down can also work out, as can trading up, as can staying where you are. Or they can not work out. The bottomline is getting the picks right whichever path you choose so I admire teams (GMs) that recognize that and have strong convictions in their picks. "Maximizing draft capital" is like trying to time the stock market as opposed to realizing that's usually a fool's errand and it's better to just buy into the stuff you believe in.
..  
ZogZerg : 4/22/2021 3:00 pm : link
Quote:

Sometimes people feel like if we just get more "at-bats" we're bound to hit on some (or all in some truly bizarre takes).


And these same people are the ones too impatient to allow draft picks from the previous year to develop. LOL
RE: From what I've heard  
Eric on Li : 4/22/2021 3:02 pm : link
In comment 15230160 Rico said:
Quote:
A trade down is unlikely.


Thank you Rico. Given the potential run on QBs it's hard to imagine that they won't get a chance at one of the top handful of position players on their board (whoever they may be). I'd still bet on them selecting 1 of the 3 bama players.
RE: You don’t trade down for “more picks”.  
jvm52106 : 4/22/2021 3:02 pm : link
In comment 15230165 BillT said:
Quote:
You only trade down if there isn’t a player who delivers appropriate value for where you’re selecting. If all the top 10 picks are gone by 11 and what is left is a level down then it might make sense. Otherwise, you take the value.


That is not a correct statement that is a generalized blanket statement. This isn't the first pick in the draft, it is #11. On top of that VALUE is subjective. You don't stay at 11 just because and especially in a year with so MANY question marks at the top.

Slater and Sewell optd out and haven't played in over a year and change. Other possible main targets could already be gone by #11. Parsons has baggage questions and overall scheme fit.

You don't just say 11 is better just because.
the draft is a probability play.  
Producer : 4/22/2021 3:03 pm : link
Get more selections and you increase your chances of hitting on multiple players.
While I definitely agree with the common thought on BBI  
Dinger : 4/22/2021 3:06 pm : link
as to why we should trade down, I believe they should trade down if the players available to not meet the perceived value of the draft position. Or if there is no need, ie, QB or if we have 4 stud Offensive tackles and thats whats available. I also agree there are times when a team is starting from scratch so perhaps getting as many picks as you can is good. IF Cleveland had pick Julio Jones and had no one to throw it to him or an OL that is so porous that the QB doesn't have time to get it to him, is holding onto that pick worthwhile(you could almost say thats what happened with OBJ here).
If a trade down unlikely, they are going after pitts  
Payasdaddy : 4/22/2021 3:08 pm : link
Or think devonta will be there at 11
My issue with DG is although the ER are probably pretty clustered together on giants board ( include paye and parson there too) and that there is a real good chance a couple of them will still be there at 15 or 20 ( me or bears trade), DG just doesn’t take the chance
I still think DG could’ve traded down a few spots and grabbed Thomas last yr ( and I just don’t see how wirfs or wills weren’t closely having same grade) and grabbed picks
Of course d baker probably would’ve been around in 2nd in 2019
Dave gets spooked because he is stubborn
Team needs picks. Jmho
RE: RE: You don’t trade down for “more picks”.  
BillT : 4/22/2021 3:09 pm : link
In comment 15230182 jvm52106 said:
Quote:
In comment 15230165 BillT said:


Quote:


You only trade down if there isn’t a player who delivers appropriate value for where you’re selecting. If all the top 10 picks are gone by 11 and what is left is a level down then it might make sense. Otherwise, you take the value.



That is not a correct statement that is a generalized blanket statement. This isn't the first pick in the draft, it is #11. On top of that VALUE is subjective. You don't stay at 11 just because and especially in a year with so MANY question marks at the top.

Slater and Sewell optd out and haven't played in over a year and change. Other possible main targets could already be gone by #11. Parsons has baggage questions and overall scheme fit.

You don't just say 11 is better just because.

Not really sure what your post had to do with mine. But good work nevertheless.
RE: RE: You don’t trade down for “more picks”.  
BH28 : 4/22/2021 3:12 pm : link
In comment 15230182 jvm52106 said:
Quote:
In comment 15230165 BillT said:


Quote:


You only trade down if there isn’t a player who delivers appropriate value for where you’re selecting. If all the top 10 picks are gone by 11 and what is left is a level down then it might make sense. Otherwise, you take the value.



That is not a correct statement that is a generalized blanket statement. This isn't the first pick in the draft, it is #11. On top of that VALUE is subjective. You don't stay at 11 just because and especially in a year with so MANY question marks at the top.

Slater and Sewell optd out and haven't played in over a year and change. Other possible main targets could already be gone by #11. Parsons has baggage questions and overall scheme fit.

You don't just say 11 is better just because.


I think the point is if all the blue chippers are gone by pick 11 and the next 'cluster' of players are all generally the same grade, a trade down might be appropriate. You get the same guy a few picks later with the addtion of a draft pick.

If a blue chipper is still there at 11, you take it.

Look at what the Dolphins did, essentially traded back from 3 to 6 and picked up additional picks. They are still guaranteed a blue chip player but stayed in the same 'blue chip cluster'.
I concurr  
UConn4523 : 4/22/2021 3:14 pm : link
pounding the table for a trade down, no questions asked, is puzzling to say the least. If we end up trading down hopefully its because our targets are gone and the next group is clustered. But other than that I don't really know what more there is to say on it.

And in the Pats scenario a 3rd just isn't enough to move from 11, IMO. Someone is likely to fall to 11 that won't be there at 15 - Smith, Paye, Surtain, Horn, etc. The extra 3rd we would hypothetically pickup isn't worth it.
I've Always Felt That Trade Down Thinking Among BBIers...  
Jim in Tampa : 4/22/2021 3:19 pm : link
is driven by the fact that to many BBIers, the excitement of the draft means more to them than building a great team.

They would never admit it to themselves of course, but every year they seem to find an excuse to cast their BBI "vote" to trade down, so that they can have more Christmas presents to open on draft day.
imo "the team needs picks" is a pretty overwrought concept  
Eric on Li : 4/22/2021 3:20 pm : link
right now, they have starters pretty locked in at the following positions:

Offense = QB, RB, WR1, WR2, WR3, LT, C, TE1, TE2.
Defense = 2xDL, 1x LB, CB1, CB2, CB3, 3xS.

That's 18 players of 22 starting positions (19/26 if you want to count the full complement of traditional base personnel including FB + nickel DB and the 3rd WR or TE2).

The leaves open both G spots plus RT, which are in competition.
3 LB spots, which do have some in competition.
And 1 DL spot which has some in competition.

I expect them to add at 1-2 bodies to each competition at OL/LB. Possibly starting with the 11th pick if value/need line up. But they have enough picks to do that even if it doesn't and they decide to take a WR or CB.
Nothing wrong with preferring Quality over Quantity.  
Jimmy Googs : 4/22/2021 3:20 pm : link
But difficult to argue that is what this team has been producing from the Draft over the past decade or so.

At some point need to suggest their draft board evaluations are not effective enough and/or they overrate certain players. Sometimes ego is just mistaken for "conviction".

In either case, would take some opportunities on more quantity from time to time if the quality isn't being realized at a higher rate.
RE: the draft is a probability play.  
pjcas18 : 4/22/2021 3:22 pm : link
In comment 15230183 Producer said:
Quote:
Get more selections and you increase your chances of hitting on multiple players.


Is it true, or is that just what you think. I'd like to see data to support that (seriously - not being a dick - just engaging discussion).

Some people think draft picks are like scratch off lottery tickets.

You buy the $20 scratch off, your big prize is the million dollars, but there are decent odds even if you don't win the million you're going to get something.

you trade that $20 scratch off for 4 $5 scratch off the odds of getting nothing are better, and if you don't get something it's a lot less.

anyway, maybe not a perfect analogy, but that's what all the data I have seen shows.
the UDFA vs 3rd rounder data  
wigs in nyc : 4/22/2021 3:24 pm : link
is apples to oranges (I know this is not the crux of the thread.) How many UDFAs are signed each year? 200+? Compare to ~32 players selected in the third round?

It is valuable to say that Pro-Bowlers can come from any round in the draft, but rather than in total numbers it is probably better to compare by rate.
RE: Nothing wrong with preferring Quality over Quantity.  
BillT : 4/22/2021 3:26 pm : link
In comment 15230211 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
But difficult to argue that is what this team has been producing from the Draft over the past decade or so.

While that is true this regime has only had three drafts so far and though there are questions to be answered about them the previous seven or so aren’t really relevant.
RE: RE: the draft is a probability play.  
Producer : 4/22/2021 3:27 pm : link
In comment 15230215 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 15230183 Producer said:


Quote:


Get more selections and you increase your chances of hitting on multiple players.



Is it true, or is that just what you think. I'd like to see data to support that (seriously - not being a dick - just engaging discussion).

Some people think draft picks are like scratch off lottery tickets.

You buy the $20 scratch off, your big prize is the million dollars, but there are decent odds even if you don't win the million you're going to get something.

you trade that $20 scratch off for 4 $5 scratch off the odds of getting nothing are better, and if you don't get something it's a lot less.

anyway, maybe not a perfect analogy, but that's what all the data I have seen shows.


except that typically you are not getting 4 x $5 tickets for a $20 you are getting a $10 and 3 x $5, or something along those lines. But this is also a good draft for us because it is deep in positions we need. So extra 2nd round and 3rd round picks this year can be put to good use.
In An Ideal Scenario  
Trainmaster : 4/22/2021 3:28 pm : link
A team has 4 equally rated players that are all in equally needed positions. A trade down of 4 slots is executed, gaining additional later round and / or next draft picks. Then at least one, possibly more, players are still available and 1 of the 4 is selected.

A Worst Case Scenario:

A team has 3 equally rated players that are all in equally needed positions. There is a major rating / ranking fall off after those 3 players. A trade down of 4 slots is executed, gaining additional later round and / or next draft picks, gambling that at least one will still be available 4 pick later. Then all 3 equally rated players are taken and the trade down resulted in the team missing out on all 3 players for a relatively minor gain in additional draft picks.

RE: the UDFA vs 3rd rounder data  
pjcas18 : 4/22/2021 3:29 pm : link
In comment 15230222 wigs in nyc said:
Quote:
is apples to oranges (I know this is not the crux of the thread.) How many UDFAs are signed each year? 200+? Compare to ~32 players selected in the third round?

It is valuable to say that Pro-Bowlers can come from any round in the draft, but rather than in total numbers it is probably better to compare by rate.


Obviously, but that's why I didn't compare UDFA's to 6th or 7th round picks. 3rd round picks are *supposed* to contribute, my point is often they do not and they miss at a much higher rate than people think.

My point is if you do not have great scouts and solid front office people as the decision makers more picks probably means more misses - of course the sun shines on a dogs ass some days but a lot needs to go right for that to happen and it's not scalable, reliable or how to build a long-term successful team.
I think an understanding  
AcesUp : 4/22/2021 3:29 pm : link
That very few teams have an edge over the rest of the league when it comes to talent evaluation and everybody overrates that fact. John Schneider in Seattle looked like a genius in the early part of last decade with multiple HOFers in a 3 draft stretch and he's been awful since. So if you accept the fact that you are not better than the other professionals among your peers at picking talent the next logical step in seeking an edge would fall in line with maximizing value within the draft. That comes from trading down and acquiring more capital. There's no rule that says that you can't use that capital to trade up again later either, hell we did. It gives you the option to later.

Like I said before, it is case by case. If your target is an edge this year, you should be looking to trade down. If your target is Davonta Smith, you should pick him at 11.
RE: RE: RE: the draft is a probability play.  
pjcas18 : 4/22/2021 3:33 pm : link
In comment 15230228 Producer said:
Quote:
In comment 15230215 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


In comment 15230183 Producer said:


Quote:


Get more selections and you increase your chances of hitting on multiple players.



Is it true, or is that just what you think. I'd like to see data to support that (seriously - not being a dick - just engaging discussion).

Some people think draft picks are like scratch off lottery tickets.

You buy the $20 scratch off, your big prize is the million dollars, but there are decent odds even if you don't win the million you're going to get something.

you trade that $20 scratch off for 4 $5 scratch off the odds of getting nothing are better, and if you don't get something it's a lot less.

anyway, maybe not a perfect analogy, but that's what all the data I have seen shows.



except that typically you are not getting 4 x $5 tickets for a $20 you are getting a $10 and 3 x $5, or something along those lines. But this is also a good draft for us because it is deep in positions we need. So extra 2nd round and 3rd round picks this year can be put to good use.


Still your best odds of a return, and the best return lie with that $20 scratch off. All exchanging it does is dilute the odds not increase them.

There are anomalies in the draft all the time, DK Metcalf, Tom Brady, James Harrison, Kurt Warner, etc. but they're anomalies for a reason and your strategy can't (or shouldn't) be hope you get lucky and land a Brady with your 6th round comp pick because as my boss likes to say "hope is not a strategy"


RE: I think an understanding  
Producer : 4/22/2021 3:33 pm : link
In comment 15230233 AcesUp said:
Quote:
That very few teams have an edge over the rest of the league when it comes to talent evaluation and everybody overrates that fact. John Schneider in Seattle looked like a genius in the early part of last decade with multiple HOFers in a 3 draft stretch and he's been awful since. So if you accept the fact that you are not better than the other professionals among your peers at picking talent the next logical step in seeking an edge would fall in line with maximizing value within the draft. That comes from trading down and acquiring more capital. There's no rule that says that you can't use that capital to trade up again later either, hell we did. It gives you the option to later.

Like I said before, it is case by case. If your target is an edge this year, you should be looking to trade down. If your target is Davonta Smith, you should pick him at 11.


exactly right. evaluating talent is a probability play. We like to think some are better than others at evaluating talent but there is no clear evidence this is true. So if there are four equally rated EDGE's in the draft, let's say Paye, Phillips, Olujari Rousseau, for the sake of argument, it makes sense to trade back, maybe you get an additional 2nd rounder, that could be a premium WR prospect, and instead of getting your pick of all 4 EDGE's maybe you get a pick of the final two. That is maximizing value, imo. Because we don't really know which of those four will be the best.
RE: RE: RE: RE: the draft is a probability play.  
Producer : 4/22/2021 3:35 pm : link
In comment 15230237 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 15230228 Producer said:


Quote:


In comment 15230215 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


In comment 15230183 Producer said:


Quote:


Get more selections and you increase your chances of hitting on multiple players.



Is it true, or is that just what you think. I'd like to see data to support that (seriously - not being a dick - just engaging discussion).

Some people think draft picks are like scratch off lottery tickets.

You buy the $20 scratch off, your big prize is the million dollars, but there are decent odds even if you don't win the million you're going to get something.

you trade that $20 scratch off for 4 $5 scratch off the odds of getting nothing are better, and if you don't get something it's a lot less.

anyway, maybe not a perfect analogy, but that's what all the data I have seen shows.



except that typically you are not getting 4 x $5 tickets for a $20 you are getting a $10 and 3 x $5, or something along those lines. But this is also a good draft for us because it is deep in positions we need. So extra 2nd round and 3rd round picks this year can be put to good use.



Still your best odds of a return, and the best return lie with that $20 scratch off. All exchanging it does is dilute the odds not increase them.

There are anomalies in the draft all the time, DK Metcalf, Tom Brady, James Harrison, Kurt Warner, etc. but they're anomalies for a reason and your strategy can't (or shouldn't) be hope you get lucky and land a Brady with your 6th round comp pick because as my boss likes to say "hope is not a strategy"



I think your assumption is incorrect. If you add up the odds of four (or more) smaller tickets hitting, it may very well exceed the chances of your big ticket hitting.
There isnt a blanket statement that could be used for trading  
Rudy5757 : 4/22/2021 3:46 pm : link
up or down. I mean at #11 the guys the Giants feel are blue chip could be gone so a trade down could be good if they have a bunch of players with a similar value. Lets say aa 11 they have 10 players with a similar grade, they could trade down to 21 and still get a player with the same value.

There have been quite a few times the Giants should have traded down but took a player that was a reach. Justin Pugh comes to mind, Cedric Jones, Thomas Lewis pop in my head. I would have even traded when we picked Barkley. I didnt like the value of the pick at the time and still dont.

I believe that this year there will be a blue chip available to us so we should pick but my preference is to trade down if the opportunity presents itself to the 15-20 range. I feel there are a lot of good players in that range that also fit need. getting an extra pick is a bonus. This is an odd year and a lot of players are being evaluated off of 2019. There will be surprising guys all over this draft in my opinion and we have a lot of good hands on info on the college players from our coaches.
I agree 100%  
River Mike : 4/22/2021 4:03 pm : link
with the OP. There may be a particular situation involving particular players where it may be a good gamble. But in the overall scheme with roster limits etc., get the BEST players you can, not the MOST players you can
RE: the draft is a probability play.  
River Mike : 4/22/2021 4:09 pm : link
In comment 15230183 Producer said:
Quote:
Get more selections and you increase your chances of hitting on multiple players.


And the pool you will be choosing from is smaller and likely poorer.
AcesUp..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 4/22/2021 4:10 pm : link
said it best above that you need to take it on a case-by-case basis. Knowing the slot you have and the value it holds, potential trading partners, and what return is likely in a trade down.

The data is inconclusive on which strategy is better, and in assessing wins and losses of the team trading up or trading down, it is nearly a wash.

Bleacher Report or Football Outsiders or some outlet like that had an article a few years ago talking about how having more dart throws is desirable, but it was more theoretical than anything else. It wasn't analyzing actual trades, but rather looking at the various probabilities of selecting a solid player in different rounds and selections.
Trade down or not  
Payasdaddy : 4/22/2021 4:18 pm : link
Will be disappointed if we don’t come away with a WR in first 3 rds, deep draft and we need depth and a good developmental prospect
Would really like an ER and an interior oline also
The final pick out of fours rounds could be whatever position fits
But as always, no need to force a pick ( Pugh or flowers because of need)
4 good contributing players from the draft, whatever position (except qb and punter/kicker)
RE: RE: Nothing wrong with preferring Quality over Quantity.  
Jimmy Googs : 4/22/2021 4:18 pm : link
In comment 15230225 BillT said:
Quote:
In comment 15230211 Jimmy Googs said:


Quote:


But difficult to argue that is what this team has been producing from the Draft over the past decade or so.


While that is true this regime has only had three drafts so far and though there are questions to be answered about them the previous seven or so aren’t really relevant.


Always confuses me where folks want to pitch their tent for the defense of the Front Office. So this 3-year regime is doing it totally different than the former one that ignored the Maras and the coaches and didn't have the collaborative approach when it came to draft decisions?
The late rd picks this year are very tough  
DavidinBMNY : 4/22/2021 4:24 pm : link
With so many programs not playing a full slate or at all, I don't put value at all in the later rds of the draft this year. I think teams will pretty freely give away late rd picks as well to move it. If you are trading down and late picks are involved get more then 1.

I'd love to see them pick up a pick next year though. Next year should be more back to normal for college and a deeper draft pool since kids have an extra year of eligibility in many cases. It might be a historically deep draft.
Agree pj  
PwndPapi : 4/22/2021 4:29 pm : link
Folks celebrate trade downs because of the perception that players projected to go in rounds 2,3 and 4 will actually be there based on mock drafts they're reading and yet every year we see players drafted much higher than expected. And when those lower picks don't materialize into regular players, they'll simply say, "Well, they should have drafted better players."

The time to trade down is early in a team's rebuild when there are a lot of holes to fill and likely expensive vets you're trying to replace. As the team improves, accruing draft picks provides a diminishing return as it's less and less likely a 4th rounder is going to displace a starter now or down the line.
RE: RE: I think an understanding  
Brown_Hornet : 4/22/2021 5:05 pm : link
In comment 15230238 Producer said:
Quote:
In comment 15230233 AcesUp said:


Quote:


That very few teams have an edge over the rest of the league when it comes to talent evaluation and everybody overrates that fact. John Schneider in Seattle looked like a genius in the early part of last decade with multiple HOFers in a 3 draft stretch and he's been awful since. So if you accept the fact that you are not better than the other professionals among your peers at picking talent the next logical step in seeking an edge would fall in line with maximizing value within the draft. That comes from trading down and acquiring more capital. There's no rule that says that you can't use that capital to trade up again later either, hell we did. It gives you the option to later.

Like I said before, it is case by case. If your target is an edge this year, you should be looking to trade down. If your target is Davonta Smith, you should pick him at 11.



exactly right. evaluating talent is a probability play. We like to think some are better than others at evaluating talent but there is no clear evidence this is true.
You are correct but understand that the probability that you will get equal quality player, regardless of how many picks are added to your draft, later in the draft is very likely lower than having a higher pick.
Every draft is different ....  
Manny in CA : 4/22/2021 6:00 pm : link

1. How deep is it ?

2. What have you been able to accomplish via free agency before draft day ?

3. Where are you picking, if top five; is there a Gold jacket player waiting to be picked ?

4. Are you picking top fifteen ? (several years ago I read that Bill Belichick thinks that's where the drop in talent is most pronounced)

5. Are you just a couple of players away or is the cupboard bare ?
Nice  
AcidTest : 4/22/2021 6:51 pm : link
post, but there are just as many arguments to be made that teams should trade down more often.

My position on this issue is still that each year and round are unique. The Giants shouldn't trade down simply because they haven't done so in any round since the first round in 2006. But it is strange that they have not done so since then, although they apparently had a trade down in place last year if McKinney was not on the board.
If Trading Down is more often than not  
GeoMan999 : 4/22/2021 6:56 pm : link
unsuccessful, that would mean that Trading Up is usually a good move. I am not sure that is true.

In the end, it depends upon who is drafting and how successful they are.

If you're picking true BPA, then  
Tim in VA : 4/22/2021 7:41 pm : link
Your point is true. The reason why a trade down makes the most sense for the Giants is that the guy to be picked at our slot at 11, is likely to fall anyway. So we're in a position where we can just pick player A, or trade for extra picks and STILL get player A.
My argument against trading down: The Giants need help  
Marty in Albany : 4/22/2021 8:08 pm : link
in so many areas that it is very likely that there will be somebody at 11 who has excellent skills in an area of need.

Naturally, they might get an offer that they can't refuse, but they don't have to go looking for an offer.
RE: If Trading Down is more often than not  
Zeke's Alibi : 4/22/2021 8:32 pm : link
In comment 15230590 GeoMan999 said:
Quote:
unsuccessful, that would mean that Trading Up is usually a good move. I am not sure that is true.

In the end, it depends upon who is drafting and how successful they are.


Bingo.

The Steelers have a philosophy of trading up and the Ravens down, both successful drafters. To me on a granular level, trading down makes more sense if you are accumulating 1st and 2nd round picks and up if you are giving up anything else. Talent tends to drop off exponentially after 50 or so picks and lots of data to bear that out.
RE: RE: If Trading Down is more often than not  
pjcas18 : 4/22/2021 8:45 pm : link
In comment 15230731 Zeke's Alibi said:
Quote:
In comment 15230590 GeoMan999 said:


Quote:


unsuccessful, that would mean that Trading Up is usually a good move. I am not sure that is true.

In the end, it depends upon who is drafting and how successful they are.




Bingo.

The Steelers have a philosophy of trading up and the Ravens down, both successful drafters. To me on a granular level, trading down makes more sense if you are accumulating 1st and 2nd round picks and up if you are giving up anything else. Talent tends to drop off exponentially after 50 or so picks and lots of data to bear that out.


How did the Ravens get their QB? (I'll answer for you, it was a trade up). in fact DeCosta in his few drafts has never traded out of the first round.

I think we all need to except that you can pick a shitty player at any position in the draft and you can pick a great player at any position in the draft - those facts should be self evident.

the fact that seems to not be self evident is that the higher the pick in the higher the round gives a better chance of picking a better player. FACT. Statistics over the course of the league history prove this.

and having more chances at getting worse players isn't *always* a sound strategy even if it works out - it could make sense in some situation, but my point was the "trade down, get more picks" approach many fans have is not a real data proven strategy.

bottom line though (also self evident) you have to make your picks no matter if you trade up or down - both could fail or succeed.
Ridiculous Thread  
giantstock : 4/22/2021 10:31 pm : link
Don't think the OP understands you need a team to win. Cna someone explain to the OP that teams win championships?

Tell us what good is it is if Thomas winds up as an all-pro but if our RT sucks and our guards suck? Then it means Barkley will struggle as will Jones. Then what good was Barkley's all-pro rookie year?
PJcas....we clearly agree, but using an anomaly of the Ravens  
Zeke's Alibi : 4/22/2021 11:09 pm : link
draft strategy (moving up to get 5th year control on a QB) isn't really pertinent.

We both agree, it's what you do with the picks. Think the Steelers are mad they traded up for Devin Bush? The Falcons for Julio? There's obviously examples on the other side, but it's all about who you draft. With how advanced scouting is now, the talent general starts to exponentially fall off (at least much more than 3 decades ago) as you move down the order. If you go into the draft in the 70/80's, I bet you see way more busts in the first round than in the last twenty years.
Also  
thomasa510 : 4/22/2021 11:37 pm : link
This is an odd year to evaluate prospects with covid. Getting next year picks may prove invaluable.
Trading down reduces the odds  
Giant John : 4/23/2021 2:50 am : link
Of drafting quality players. The further down you go the worse the odds get. I would need an offer that would blow me away or else forget it. I’d never consider dropping more than 5 spaces. Dropping after the 3rd would be less of a risk but not of much value either. Guess I’m just not much of a drop down trade guy. Always quality over quantity.
RE: Trading down reduces the odds  
giantstock : 4/23/2021 3:17 am : link
In comment 15230960 Giant John said:
Quote:
Of drafting quality players. The further down you go the worse the odds get.


Overall if you get more 2nd rounders in particular, and 3rd rounders you've overall increased the odds of drafting more quality players vs. just staying pat.

And the more quality players you get to fill your holes the better your odds become at winning.
RE: Trading down reduces the odds  
Gatorade Dunk : 4/23/2021 9:28 am : link
In comment 15230960 Giant John said:
Quote:
Of drafting quality players. The further down you go the worse the odds get. I would need an offer that would blow me away or else forget it. I’d never consider dropping more than 5 spaces. Dropping after the 3rd would be less of a risk but not of much value either. Guess I’m just not much of a drop down trade guy. Always quality over quantity.

This thinking relies on three false (IMO) premises:

1) that every team is working off the same board and has identical player rankings; that if you trade down (say from #11 to #15) that the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th players on your own board are the next to get drafted. The odds of this being the case are infinitesimally small.

2) that you are going to get a different (and lesser) player a few picks later than you would have gotten by staying in your original spot.

3) that the Giants (or any team, really) ranks players individually, rather than in rows/tiers.o

If you can separate yourself from those (faulty) assumptions, you can view trading down a bit differently. If the Giants are on the clock at #11 with five players left in the highest remaining tier on their board, and they receive a reasonable offer (the point here is to be agnostic on the return for the moment) to move down to #15, NYG will still be guaranteed a player in that tier no matter what. Fundamentally, if they're in the same tier on the Giants' board, the Giants themselves have determined that they're all roughly equal as prospects, right?

In that scenario, the Giants would not be getting a lesser player as a result of trading down. They'd be getting a comparable prospect and additional picks. They aren't trading their $20 scratch off for four $5 scratch offs; they're getting their same $20 scratch off, but getting a couple of extra scratch-off tickets from the guy behind them in line who is begging to cut the line because he's certain that the next ticket is the big winner, while you feel like any of the next few $20 tickets all have the same odds of being the big prize.

All of that is to say that it obviously depends on how far down a team is asking you to drop, how much they're giving you in return to do so, and what your board looks like at that moment - if you're at the top of a very deep tier, you may not be suffering any loss in quality on your own board, though the other team obviously sees it differently on their board (otherwise they'd have no motivation to move up). It is that inherent variance in teams' scouting that provides those trade opportunities.

So, to the extent that you might end up with a lesser player after a small trade down that lands you in the same tier on your own board, that's a scouting problem, not an actual flaw in the concept of trading down. And if you're unwilling to react to your own board's ebbs and flows, I don't think you can ever really be true to your board, as every single GM will claim to have been after the draft.
RE: Nothing wrong with preferring Quality over Quantity.  
section125 : 4/23/2021 9:47 am : link
In comment 15230211 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
But difficult to argue that is what this team has been producing from the Draft over the past decade or so.

At some point need to suggest their draft board evaluations are not effective enough and/or they overrate certain players. Sometimes ego is just mistaken for "conviction".

In either case, would take some opportunities on more quantity from time to time if the quality isn't being realized at a higher rate.


#1) this isn't the same regime drafting as in the past, so comparing Judge/DG/Pettit to Reese/Ross is nonsensical.

#2) so if you are shitty at evaluating talent you will be better taking more shitty evaluated picks. It that case trade them all for proven NFL players instead of drafting



RE: Ridiculous Thread  
pjcas18 : 4/23/2021 9:53 am : link
In comment 15230861 giantstock said:
Quote:
Don't think the OP understands you need a team to win. Cna someone explain to the OP that teams win championships?

Tell us what good is it is if Thomas winds up as an all-pro but if our RT sucks and our guards suck? Then it means Barkley will struggle as will Jones. Then what good was Barkley's all-pro rookie year?


you seem smart.
It all depends on talent pool, positional strength, and the ability...  
OlyWABigBlue : 4/23/2021 2:47 pm : link
to observe and evaluate talent well. Given the multiple opt-outs, reduced seasons, travel and meeting difficulties as well as no combine, one could make the case that this is one of the most risky drafts in recent memory. Do you want to spread that risk or take it lump sum....just a different way of looking at it.
RE: RE: Nothing wrong with preferring Quality over Quantity.  
Jimmy Googs : 4/23/2021 2:52 pm : link
In comment 15231166 section125 said:
Quote:
In comment 15230211 Jimmy Googs said:


Quote:


But difficult to argue that is what this team has been producing from the Draft over the past decade or so.

At some point need to suggest their draft board evaluations are not effective enough and/or they overrate certain players. Sometimes ego is just mistaken for "conviction".

In either case, would take some opportunities on more quantity from time to time if the quality isn't being realized at a higher rate.



#1) this isn't the same regime drafting as in the past, so comparing Judge/DG/Pettit to Reese/Ross is nonsensical.

#2) so if you are shitty at evaluating talent you will be better taking more shitty evaluated picks. It that case trade them all for proven NFL players instead of drafting




If it makes you feel better, replace "past decade" with past several years.

Should be good to go now...
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner