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.
Naturally, they might get an offer that they can't refuse, but they don't have to go looking for an offer.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...