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.)
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.
There is always a risk to trading down.
That said, I'm greedy. I want the extra picks and the guy they intended to draft. And since I'm not the GM on the hot seat, I have every right to complain! ;)
Good post and is a perfect example of how the “trading down is great” theory is not always correct. Blue chip players are blue chip players. If you have a chance to draft one stay in the top 10-15 picks. The odds drop the further you move down the line.
2/3rds of 3rd rounders aren't on the team entering the final year of their rookie contract. Think about how much money they make, and let that sink in. If Peart develops even into a long term swing tackle, it's a big win. Of course we'd have fans saying how fucking awful the Giants are at drafting if a 3rd round tackle doesn't developed into a 12 year starter, but I digress. Fan expectations are waaaay outta whack with the reality of the draft. Hope springs eternal and all.
There was a good article in overthecap recently that focused on trading up but the idea is the same. This article touches on Julio Jones and also highlights just how awful the Browns are at choosing players (and how great the Ravens are).
Over the Cap article - ( New Window )
Also more picks/players are neccesarily the goal.
Trading back get ammunition...to maneuver ..to strategically target desired player
The draft is a crap shoot...and the further down you go...the worse the odds gets...but how many #1 picks have failed?....the GOAT was a 6th Rd pick.....
hitting on the right players is key.....hitting on the right players at the right location.....maximize value.
Yeah the browns drafted shitty guys. But ask Eric Decosta...
Ravens Drafts - ( New Window )
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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 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.
And the pool you will be choosing from is smaller and likely poorer.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
In the end, it depends upon who is drafting and how successful they are.