View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 2nd, 2014, 10:41 pm



Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Mayhew looking to deal second overall pick 
Author Message
Varsity Captain

Joined: March 7th, 2007, 2:59 pm
Posts: 324
Post 
I think Cleveland holds the cards here, as they can trade with either the Lions or the Bucs without worry of them picking a QB, if that is what they want, and could possibly work both teams against each other to take only a 1st and a 3rd or something similar.

Also they could parlay those 3rds into 2nds and with the depth of the draft if they are not looking for a QB that would make a lot of sense.


March 25th, 2010, 1:51 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9855
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Topweasel wrote:

Doh Found the chart.

Its 3000 #1, 2600 #2, 1500 #7, 235+ 165+ 132 for #72 #85 and number #92 respectively.

So the Browns want a first round swap #7 for #2. That is 1100 points that need to be made up. All the thirds together make 532, that is still 560 some odd points short of value.

To add confusion to it if trading next years pick its usually considered lower in value then the last pick in that round. So a 2011 1st round pick is valued at like 500, 100 for a 2011 second rounder.

So it would be hard without giving up their whole draft, a first next year, or a second this year to move up 5 spots.


Topweasel, don't pay attention to that chart. We had a discussion on this topic earlier. That chart is a general guideline and is rarely followed hardcore.

It all depends on the depth of the draft, the relative value of the player being pursued and the projected rate of return for the team receiving the picks.

For instance, according to the chart Cleveland would have to give up their second and all three third round picks to swap with us.

Our rate of return would likely be getting at least three definite starters and two solid backup players, in the first year alone. Those two backups could become starters by the end of the season, or at least by next season.

So let's say one third rounder flops, another third rounder is strictly a backup player.....we'd still end up with three starters in return for one guy.

I don't see Cleveland making that deal, for any player in this draft.

If Cleveland offered up their first two third rounders and their highest fifth round pick, Mayhew should jump at that offer. With the depth in this draft, we'd get some damn good players, and the contract we'd have to give the player at number 7 vs. number 2 would save the team millions.

Detroit is not one player away from turning this thing around. Getting third round picks in this draft would at least get us some quality depth (now that Millen isn't making the picks) and could net us two additional starters.


March 25th, 2010, 1:51 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: May 20th, 2009, 5:40 pm
Posts: 444
Post 
steensn wrote:
I think the whole point thing is crap. I'd take three thirds to move back to #7. As long as Detroit feels a guy will be there at #7 that can be a star then there is no reason not to. 3rd rounders are more valuable than what those stupid charts say.


I get what your saying but look at the draft as whole.

You have 256 players roughly getting drafted into the NFL. At the #2 you are in theory getting the 99.9th percentile player in NCAA of 5 draft classes (Junior, Senior, RS Jnr Snr and Sophomore). With variance and tending to only being out of three draft classes (Senior, RH Junior and Senior) a 70th percentile player in round 3.

The actual performance output expected out of a 99.9th percentile player and a 70th percentile player can be huge. Like that of a 12 year superstar vs. an 8 year perennial backup cut or traded in 4 yrs.

The average career long starter has probably around a 10 year career with a team having 20 first and second round picks and 22 main starting spots. They then are competing with 40 other picks that are closer in percentile rating to them then they are the first or second round picks, for spots that the first or second round picks don't fill or bust out of. A good team can find more gems in the 3rd-7th round then others but its a lot to ask of a player picked in middle of a group of 250 players (or 1/6th the amount of players Active at the start of the previous year) to come in and compete and take roster spots against player that were drafted upwards of a decade and a half ago considering the fact that in theory a team can dump and reload completely in the draft about 6 years.

A pet project I should start is to see how many 3rd round draft picks from 2006 are still on their original team vs. 1st round picks.


March 25th, 2010, 1:53 pm
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3335
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post 
So lets say we take #7 and their 3 third rounders. Who could we be looking at in the third? Jacoby Ford, Dexter McCluster, John Jerry? Lol all three??

_________________
April 22nd, 2010 @ 7:44p.m. "The Detroit Lions select...Ndamukong Suh". Those are some beautiful words.


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


March 25th, 2010, 2:02 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9855
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Topweasel wrote:
A pet project I should start is to see how many 3rd round draft picks from 2006 are still on their original team vs. 1st round picks.


You can't generalize like that. This draft is considered to be the deepest in talent in recent memory. As such, your projected percentiles based on the round the player is taken does not apply. You have to consider the difference in overall talent between the players. Is there THAT tremendous of a difference between what a player like Suh can give to us, versus the players taken at #7, #71 and #85?

Remember, one player does not a team make. We are not a single player away from being respectable, even after our trades and FA signings. Let's say at 7 we take Derrick Morgan, then get CB Patrick Robinson with our second round pick, then take OG John Jerry with our third round pick, then add RB Ben Tate and OT Jared Veldheer with the 71 and 85 picks. Now we've added a starting RB, and have added a potential starter at LT, if not this year, next year.

The rate of return from just those two picks would be better than just adding Suh. Yes, he may become a perennial Pro Bowler. Odds are he won't. But even if he does, without solid starters around him and quality depth, this team continues to struggle despite his best efforts.

Three third rounders to move down five spots would be highway robbery by the Lions in this draft, in my opinion.


March 25th, 2010, 2:07 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: May 20th, 2009, 5:40 pm
Posts: 444
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
Topweasel wrote:

Doh Found the chart.

Its 3000 #1, 2600 #2, 1500 #7, 235+ 165+ 132 for #72 #85 and number #92 respectively.

So the Browns want a first round swap #7 for #2. That is 1100 points that need to be made up. All the thirds together make 532, that is still 560 some odd points short of value.

To add confusion to it if trading next years pick its usually considered lower in value then the last pick in that round. So a 2011 1st round pick is valued at like 500, 100 for a 2011 second rounder.

So it would be hard without giving up their whole draft, a first next year, or a second this year to move up 5 spots.


Topweasel, don't pay attention to that chart. We had a discussion on this topic earlier. That chart is a general guideline and is rarely followed hardcore.

It all depends on the depth of the draft, the relative value of the player being pursued and the projected rate of return for the team receiving the picks.

For instance, according to the chart Cleveland would have to give up their second and all three third round picks to swap with us.

Our rate of return would likely be getting at least three definite starters and two solid backup players, in the first year alone. Those two backups could become starters by the end of the season, or at least by next season.

So let's say one third rounder flops, another third rounder is strictly a backup player.....we'd still end up with three starters in return for one guy.

I don't see Cleveland making that deal, for any player in this draft.

If Cleveland offered up their first two third rounders and their highest fifth round pick, Mayhew should jump at that offer. With the depth in this draft, we'd get some damn good players, and the contract we'd have to give the player at number 7 vs. number 2 would save the team millions.

Detroit is not one player away from turning this thing around. Getting third round picks in this draft would at least get us some quality depth (now that Millen isn't making the picks) and could net us two additional starters.


Think in terms of projections. Would you give up an All-Pro at one spot for a semi regular Pro-bowler, an adequate starter, and depth. That is why the value chart is used as a rough estimate for trades. The adequate starter and depth are available in FA or through trades of lower round picks evident through the signing of KVB, NB and the trades for Houston and Williams. If you are looking for depth and adequate starting you don't go looking for in in a lottery you look at known quantities.

You trade out of #2 because you get value for that pick compared to the players available. If you don't like the players available there or give them the value that you feel that spot in the draft requires then you take a deal that might seem like a loss in value. Otherwise you don't trade the pick. This isn't about what the Browns would give us its about what the Lions are willing to accept in terms of trade in value to the players they can pick at the spot. The only other reason they do a trade at a loss value wise is money, or they are targeting a player that savings in money make up the value lost by moving back.


March 25th, 2010, 2:07 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: May 20th, 2009, 5:40 pm
Posts: 444
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
Topweasel wrote:
A pet project I should start is to see how many 3rd round draft picks from 2006 are still on their original team vs. 1st round picks.


You can't generalize like that. This draft is considered to be the deepest in talent in recent memory. As such, your projected percentiles based on the round the player is taken does not apply. You have to consider the difference in overall talent between the players. Is there THAT tremendous of a difference between what a player like Suh can give to us, versus the players taken at #7, #71 and #85?

Remember, one player does not a team make. We are not a single player away from being respectable, even after our trades and FA signings. Let's say at 7 we take Derrick Morgan, then get CB Patrick Robinson with our second round pick, then take OG John Jerry with our third round pick, then add RB Ben Tate and OT Jared Veldheer with the 71 and 85 picks. Now we've added a starting RB, and have added a potential starter at LT, if not this year, next year.

The rate of return from just those two picks would be better than just adding Suh. Yes, he may become a perennial Pro Bowler. Odds are he won't. But even if he does, without solid starters around him and quality depth, this team continues to struggle despite his best efforts.

Three third rounders to move down five spots would be highway robbery by the Lions in this draft, in my opinion.



The draft is a structured lottery system. The farther you get from the first pick the less and less predictable the player availability is. You have people and positions in this draft targeted either because of perceived skill or team needs or a mixture of the two. That is not their approach or one a team as badly out of shape like ours should be using.

For this reason you shouldn't assume targeted players will be available, and if you were targeting specific player the practice is to move forward to pick them up not backwards.

You also made assumptions on both the lackluster performance of highly thought of options and increased performance of unknown names of because this is a deep draft. That not what projections say and that is what the draft is, the draft is all projection.

Whether or not the average performance of this draft is increased, or that the top is closer to the middle in comparison to years prior, the percentile ranking of a player still stands. At pick #7 you are still getting a player ranked at least 5 spots less then the options available at #2 and at 71 and 85 players picked after a 4% and 5% NFL replenishment has already taken place out a possible 16% replenishment. Or basically after a third of the draft has taken place. Third round picks are not great picks and you almost have to stockpile them to get a decent option it.

I find it doubtful that Mayhew would covet an unknown player at #7 and a bunch of possible depth at the end of the first third of the draft if he thinks any of the consensus top players are the top players they are thought to be. Really its #7 vs. #2 and unless its about money any player you are targeting at #7 can be picked #2 unless your absolutely sure that player is available with a move back and a collection of depth picks.

I think its both easier, more traditional, and honestly makes more sense to stick with your wall and your value chart (even if changes due to perceived depth in talent this year) either pick your BPA or accept value for the pick. Any other reasons would seem to be about money and making money saving moves in an uncapped season with the future of the franchise on the line would send the wrong signal.


March 25th, 2010, 2:43 pm
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2279
Post 
I am not going to go all into it Top, but I think you've got the entire approach backward.

We would be retarded, as in not fit to run a front office, if we passed up the Highway Robbery that trade would provide (Our 1st rd for Cleveland 1st + all 3 - 3rd rounders).

The Value Chart has been useless for the past decade as payrates of the top 10 rookies has skyrocketed. When it was originally invented, it made a lot of sense.

If we were discussing signing Suh at 6yrs for 10 Million, rather than 6 years for 70 Million, then staying put or demanding more value or equal to the chart makes sense. It may even come back into vogue once a rookie cap is in place. But right now it doesnt.

If you can't see the Financial Ramifications (Not "Oh Noes, they are tyring to be cheap" savings, but how much money it ties up in a specific position slot), you would realize the alternative value of saving money (say in the realm of 30-40 MILLION over 5-6 seasons, maybe 5-6 million per year we could spend on Multiple FAs...), then I don't know if any of us can convine you.

That said, if Cleveland offers that, Mayhew will take it. We like Suh. We think hes going to be good, maybe even 1 of the best. But there are MILLIONS of reasons not to take him at #2 if we can get a great trade down to the 5-7 range, where we still have the pick of 5 different players we might want there - Okung (OT) , Spiller (RB) , Berry (S/CB) , Morgan (DE) , McCoy if he Falls (DT) or even trading back Further.


March 25th, 2010, 6:01 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Walk On

Joined: May 20th, 2009, 5:40 pm
Posts: 444
Post 
I am not doing it wrong I am doing the way its been done the whole time we have been dealing with skyrocketing Rookie salaries. True more teams moving back have actually lost value compared to the chart lately, but you guys are suggesting that in 1 year and a deep draft that all of a sudden the Lions should trade back at all costs and that losing a second round or a 2011 1st round pick in value is a best case scenario and the Lions would be crazy to pass on it. That we should trade to beat Tampa Bay to the punch for a 3rd and a 5th at the loss of almost a whole top 10th-15th pick in value is an even crazier way to think.

Name one first round trade in the last decade that had the team moving back losing over 100 points in value let alone 500. Heck in a Top heavy draft in 2003 we got a 2nd rounder to move back 1 pick. The team has screamed Value in the draft for the last 2 years but for some reason you expect them to completely disregard a value based system because more picks mean more value. That's what doesn't make sense.


March 25th, 2010, 7:58 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9855
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Topweasel wrote:
I am not doing it wrong I am doing the way its been done the whole time we have been dealing with skyrocketing Rookie salaries. True more teams moving back have actually lost value compared to the chart lately, but you guys are suggesting that in 1 year and a deep draft that all of a sudden the Lions should trade back at all costs and that losing a second round or a 2011 1st round pick in value is a best case scenario and the Lions would be crazy to pass on it. That we should trade to beat Tampa Bay to the punch for a 3rd and a 5th at the loss of almost a whole top 10th-15th pick in value is an even crazier way to think.

Name one first round trade in the last decade that had the team moving back losing over 100 points in value let alone 500. Heck in a Top heavy draft in 2003 we got a 2nd rounder to move back 1 pick. The team has screamed Value in the draft for the last 2 years but for some reason you expect them to completely disregard a value based system because more picks mean more value. That's what doesn't make sense.


Who said anything about trading back at all costs? If Cleveland came knocking with just one third rounder, I'd tell them bite me, try again. If Tampa Bay wanted to switch spots, I'd demand no less than their third round pick.

With the impending inclusion of a rookie wage scale in the next CBA, I don't think you'll find too many teams hot to trade their 2011 first rounders this year. You might get one, but I don't think they'll be offered all that much.

Oh...and last season the Jets moved from 17 to 5, depending upon which chart you look at, a near 800 point difference, for a second round pick (value 440) and three players who were nothing special.

In 2008, Jacksonville gave Baltimore two third rounders and a fourth rounder to move up an incredible 18 spots (from 26th to 8th) . There was more than 100 points difference, in favor of Jacksonville, for that trade. The point difference for the two first rounders is 700 points. Even if Jax had the first two picks of the third, and the first pick of the fourth, they'd still be short by around 70 points.

Guess who got screwed on that deal? Jacksonville took Derrick Harvey, who has been a bust so far, hence their needing to sign Aaron Kampman this year.

There are NO guarantees in the draft. So if Cleveland comes knocking with two thirds and a fifth rounder, I'd publicly persecute Mayhew if he turned them down. I'd go absolutely apeshit if he turned down three third rounders to swap.


March 25th, 2010, 11:48 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2631
Post 
Quote:
There are NO guarantees in the draft. So if Cleveland comes knocking with two thirds and a fifth rounder, I'd publicly persecute Mayhew if he turned them down. I'd go absolutely apeshit if he turned down three third rounders to swap.


The problem is that being at 7 sucks.

McCoy, Suh, Berry, and Okung will gone. Both QBs will be gone, so it will be hard to trade the pick.

What are you going to do? Reach for Haden? Take Trent Williams if he's still available?

If the Lions dropped to 7, their probable pick would be Haden, Williams, McClain, or Bulaga and Williams will probably be gone.

Two third rounders should net them one "average" starter and one situational player if not outright bust. I'd rather have Suh than an average starter, a situational player, and Haden/McClain/Bulaga.

The price would have to be at least 3 third rounders, or two and something like a second next year.


March 26th, 2010, 4:17 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9855
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
There are NO guarantees in the draft. So if Cleveland comes knocking with two thirds and a fifth rounder, I'd publicly persecute Mayhew if he turned them down. I'd go absolutely apeshit if he turned down three third rounders to swap.


The problem is that being at 7 sucks.

McCoy, Suh, Berry, and Okung will gone. Both QBs will be gone, so it will be hard to trade the pick.

What are you going to do? Reach for Haden? Take Trent Williams if he's still available?

If the Lions dropped to 7, their probable pick would be Haden, Williams, McClain, or Bulaga and Williams will probably be gone.

Two third rounders should net them one "average" starter and one situational player if not outright bust. I'd rather have Suh than an average starter, a situational player, and Haden/McClain/Bulaga.

The price would have to be at least 3 third rounders, or two and something like a second next year.


Not necessarily our only choices.

So let's say the Rams take Suh, then Cleveland moves up with us to get Bradford, TB goes with McCoy, then Washington takes Okung. Now, the question is, who does KC take? It's obviously between Berry and Bulaga/T. Williams. Scott Pioli is running the show down there, and he's on record as saying he does not like taking safeties high in the draft, let alone with a top five pick. My bet is that KC either looks to deal the pick, or they go with a left tackle.

If KC goes with Bulaga (which is my prediction), then Seattle might get nervous and elect to take Trent Williams. The only LTs left at that point are Anthony Davis (maturity and work ethic issues) or Bruce Campbell (injury and ability issues).

But even if Seattle does take Berry, we are left with Trent Williams, who is better than most people think, Derrick Morgan or Joe Haden.

I don't think McClain is even in the picture for us.

So....I wouldn't assume that Berry is automatically gone. Despite his actually being the second or third best prospect, the position he plays is a detriment for his draft value. That's a reality. Secondly, both KC and Seattle have strong needs or desires to get a franchise LT out of this draft, and beyond round one they simply don't exist. Roger Saffold, Jason Fox and Jared Veldheer have possibilities, but they are a much bigger gamble to take than securing the LT in the top 6.

Oakland likely won't try a move up, but Buffalo potentially could try to trade up to secure Trent Williams, since they are in DESPERATE need of offensive tackles of any kind. They also might want to jump ahead of Oakland to get Jimmy Clausen, who knows?

So, there is a possibility of moving out of the 7th pick. And I would think that Morgan, Williams or Haden would be pretty good for the team.

Superstars are NOT going to make this team better. How much better does Calvin make the team? Without the "average" starters or "situational" and depth players, the superstars wallow and get accounted for by the opposing team quite easily.

Don't get me wrong, I like Ndamukong Suh and if the Lions get him, I'd be quite happy with that. But the only way that Cleveland trades down with us is IF the Rams have already taken him. Otherwise, I don't see a trade with Cleveland happening, the only offer would be from TB for McCoy, I think.


March 26th, 2010, 7:40 am
Profile
Walk On

Joined: May 20th, 2009, 5:40 pm
Posts: 444
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
Topweasel wrote:
I am not doing it wrong I am doing the way its been done the whole time we have been dealing with skyrocketing Rookie salaries. True more teams moving back have actually lost value compared to the chart lately, but you guys are suggesting that in 1 year and a deep draft that all of a sudden the Lions should trade back at all costs and that losing a second round or a 2011 1st round pick in value is a best case scenario and the Lions would be crazy to pass on it. That we should trade to beat Tampa Bay to the punch for a 3rd and a 5th at the loss of almost a whole top 10th-15th pick in value is an even crazier way to think.

Name one first round trade in the last decade that had the team moving back losing over 100 points in value let alone 500. Heck in a Top heavy draft in 2003 we got a 2nd rounder to move back 1 pick. The team has screamed Value in the draft for the last 2 years but for some reason you expect them to completely disregard a value based system because more picks mean more value. That's what doesn't make sense.


Who said anything about trading back at all costs? If Cleveland came knocking with just one third rounder, I'd tell them bite me, try again. If Tampa Bay wanted to switch spots, I'd demand no less than their third round pick.

With the impending inclusion of a rookie wage scale in the next CBA, I don't think you'll find too many teams hot to trade their 2011 first rounders this year. You might get one, but I don't think they'll be offered all that much.

Oh...and last season the Jets moved from 17 to 5, depending upon which chart you look at, a near 800 point difference, for a second round pick (value 440) and three players who were nothing special.

In 2008, Jacksonville gave Baltimore two third rounders and a fourth rounder to move up an incredible 18 spots (from 26th to 8th) . There was more than 100 points difference, in favor of Jacksonville, for that trade. The point difference for the two first rounders is 700 points. Even if Jax had the first two picks of the third, and the first pick of the fourth, they'd still be short by around 70 points.

Guess who got screwed on that deal? Jacksonville took Derrick Harvey, who has been a bust so far, hence their needing to sign Aaron Kampman this year.

There are NO guarantees in the draft. So if Cleveland comes knocking with two thirds and a fifth rounder, I'd publicly persecute Mayhew if he turned them down. I'd go absolutely apeshit if he turned down three third rounders to swap.


The two trades you found one had veterans traded. Those guys as already NFL players have a higher value then where you think you could get players of their caliber in the draft so high third or late 2nd round grade (not that you would give up those picks for the players but in terms of moving up and down the draft that is the kind of value ). Easily making up the 800 points.

A little research into the Baltimore v Jacksonville trade, Baltimore only needed a QB and when Ryan was drafted was desperate to trade back because all they wanted was Flacco at that point but didn't want to reach financially and in value picking Flacco at 8. For Baltimore as long as they got Flacco then it didn't matter what value they were going to get in returns, heck if they didn't find someone willing to take the value rich jump up to the eighth then they probably would have drafted Flacco there. So for them Flacco (their only target outside Ryan) and reduced financial commitment , with a couple of extra picks thrown in, out weighed for them any value in the #8 pick they lost. This is evident by the fact that the trade happened almost instantly at the start of #8 and that the Jaguars spent the rest of the time trying to trade back.

One of these is an exception to the Value rule and only happened because you were dealing with an already established team of almost elite quality that only needed 1 player/position. Jacksonville got screwed because they made a bad pick not because they moved up. This probably had more to do with the little research they did on players at the top of the draft with them not expecting to see any of them by the time they picked.

I don't care what you opinion is of the Lions brass is for not making that trade. It doesn't matter, you have a team with many holes and light on talent. They have done nothing in regards to the draft other then talk about getting value for their picks, whether in talent or in trade offers. They are not going to trade a pick missing almost a late 1st round pick in value. If the Browns want Bradford or Clausen at #2 then they will need to send over a 2nd round pick or next years 1st round pick or everything but their 2nd or players that the Lions want.


March 26th, 2010, 9:39 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9855
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Topweasel wrote:
The two trades you found one had veterans traded. Those guys as already NFL players have a higher value then where you think you could get players of their caliber in the draft so high third or late 2nd round grade (not that you would give up those picks for the players but in terms of moving up and down the draft that is the kind of value ). Easily making up the 800 points.


You're out of your mind if you think ANY of those three players would carry that kind of value in a trade. It would all depend on their age, ability, contract value and contract length left. Those three guys do NOT 'easily' make up 800 points, or 400 points. Kenyon Coleman was the only one who could have been considered a starter. Brett Ratliff and Abram Elam, not even close.

Look at what some players are getting traded for, and tell me any one of those three could have been considered second or third round value. I'd say the three of them together MIGHT constitute third round value. But it would depend on the factors I mentioned, and I don't have that information at hand.

Topweasel wrote:
A little research into the Baltimore v Jacksonville trade, Baltimore only needed a QB and when Ryan was drafted was desperate to trade back because all they wanted was Flacco at that point but didn't want to reach financially and in value picking Flacco at 8. For Baltimore as long as they got Flacco then it didn't matter what value they were going to get in returns, heck if they didn't find someone willing to take the value rich jump up to the eighth then they probably would have drafted Flacco there. So for them Flacco (their only target outside Ryan) and reduced financial commitment , with a couple of extra picks thrown in, out weighed for them any value in the #8 pick they lost. This is evident by the fact that the trade happened almost instantly at the start of #8 and that the Jaguars spent the rest of the time trying to trade back.


Doesn't matter. You made a statement, and I've shown two examples that show that statement was incorrect. Basically, I've shown you that the Draft Trade Value Chart is a general guideline, and that it fluctuates based on many factors. That was my point.

Topweasel wrote:
I don't care what you opinion is of the Lions brass is for not making that trade. It doesn't matter, you have a team with many holes and light on talent. They have done nothing in regards to the draft other then talk about getting value for their picks, whether in talent or in trade offers. They are not going to trade a pick missing almost a late 1st round pick in value. If the Browns want Bradford or Clausen at #2 then they will need to send over a 2nd round pick or next years 1st round pick or everything but their 2nd or players that the Lions want.


Read the statement YOU made that I bolded. This team has little talent and many holes. You expect to fill this roster with talent and plug those holes with one guy?

So what you are saying is that two third round picks and a fifth rounder are not worth one second round pick? While on the value chart that might be true, in reality those picks in this draft would be worth just one second round pick. It has already been said of this draft, just like last years draft, that the best value is to be found in the mid second to the late third round. Remember last year how New England traded back multiple times to gather picks in those rounds? Why? Because the Pats like to get multiple picks, and they like to extract the greatest amount of value they can from their picks. And they are poised to do the same thing this year if other teams come calling. They already have three second round picks this year. And they got three starters out of the four second rounders they selected in Chung, Butler and Vollmer. Ron Brace was taken as an insurance policy against Vince Woolfork leaving this year.
This years draft is even deeper in talent than last years, so starting quality players will be found deep into the third round.

I think you'll find that if you look at the players taken in the third round last year, you'll find a pretty good number of them were either starters by the end of last season, or will be favorites to win a starting job this season on their respective teams.

Football is a TEAM sport, not a sport of superstars being able to overcome all odds despite having crap around them. The existence of Calvin Johnson on an 0-16 and 2-14 team is proof of that. I would much rather have three solid starters, not even Pro Bowlers, just good starters, as opposed to just the one superstar with two other backups forced into a starting role due to lack of talent on this team. This team does need talent, but not at just one position. They need STARTING talent, not necessarily Pro Bowl talent.

And, just so you know, Cleveland has 12 picks in this draft. To expect them to send 10 of them to move up 5 spots is beyond assanine.

I believe that Cleveland's picks 71, 85 and 134 would be a pretty fair exchange. If you want Detroit to rape Cleveland, then they can send all their third round picks (71, 85 and 92), but there's no way you are going to extract the 38th pick from the Browns and Holmgren.

I'd like to get Ndamukong Suh. But the fact is I don't think adding him to this roster will make this team all the much more competitive unless we get even more starters out of the draft in the later rounds. Last year Mayhew and Schwartz pulled it off. Can they do it again? I don't know. But I think it would be best to get them multiple picks to hit on rather than just the one that everyone thinks is going to be a superstar. God help those two men if they take Suh and he becomes a bust, when they could have had a chance to trade down and get multiple picks in return.


March 26th, 2010, 4:25 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: May 20th, 2009, 5:40 pm
Posts: 444
Post 
Quote:
You're out of your mind if you think ANY of those three players would carry that kind of value in a trade. It would all depend on their age, ability, contract value and contract length left. Those three guys do NOT 'easily' make up 800 points, or 400 points. Kenyon Coleman was the only one who could have been considered a starter. Brett Ratliff and Abram Elam, not even close.
What did you value the 3 3rd rounders at? If I remember one adequate starter, one depth, and one bust. Isn't that what the Browns got. But the bonus is there is no bust, and all of these have already been in the NFL making evaluation easier and gives them value over that of a draft pick.
Quote:
Look at what some players are getting traded for, and tell me any one of those three could have been considered second or third round value. I'd say the three of them together MIGHT constitute third round value. But it would depend on the factors I mentioned, and I don't have that information at hand.

The fact is you don't know what a GM would value in the terms of picks they would never receive for players that have NFL experience no matter combined with whatever abilities they present. But this sets a precedent that I already covered about you. You over value third round picks because it is the last round starters are found on any regular basis. I would like to see 3 active players in the NFL actually get traded for 1 third round pick.

Quote:
Doesn't matter. You made a statement, and I've shown two examples that show that statement was incorrect. Basically, I've shown you that the Draft Trade Value Chart is a general guideline, and that it fluctuates based on many factors. That was my point.


Nice tactic no real discussion I was wrong because you found one team with 1 desperate hole that didn't want to reach for the 1 player left out of 248 players left in the draft. Your point is no cap, deep draft, and no 2011 playing year is a reason to devalue early pics and increase value on later ones. On the contrary No cap and no play in 2011 increase the likelihood that teams would reach, move up, and plug those biggest holes first. Deep draft just means the drop off from 1 pick to another in value is decreased, doesn't remove the value and doesn't make the 3rd round the source of 32 starters.

Quote:
Read the statement YOU made that I bolded. This team has little talent and many holes. You expect to fill this roster with talent and plug those holes with one guy?


No We have like 7 picks to plug holes. What I don't expect is to lose value in a pick just for bodies that can be found affordable in FA. You don't trade a superstar for bodies.

Quote:
So what you are saying is that two third round picks and a fifth rounder are not worth one second round pick? While on the value chart that might be true, in reality those picks in this draft would be worth just one second round pick.
If you say so. But then again I would say you might be right if your talking about maybe a late round second. I am not going to disagree with you in that the deepness of this draft shifts value I am just saying you are waaaaay over valuing how big that shift is.

Quote:
It has already been said of this draft, just like last years draft, that the best value is to be found in the mid second to the late third round. Remember last year how New England traded back multiple times to gather picks in those rounds? Why? Because the Pats like to get multiple picks, and they like to extract the greatest amount of value they can from their picks.


I think you miss understand what NE did, sure they were worried about retaining value when moving back. But this is the most well built team of the last decade. Better then the Colts or the Steelers. You can't look at what they are doing after they built their team into a top team, to figure out how to build ours. NE does not have any holes, they have weakness's. They like to have a two prong approach to the draft, first volume, like with Seymour last year, or Samuels the year before, they stockpile mid round picks in those positions hoping one sticks as a starter. Second is flexibility again they only have so many weaknesses, chances are at a given pick that won't have access without reaching a player at one of those positions, stocking draft picks allows them to go get a player they want.

Quote:
And they are poised to do the same thing this year if other teams come calling. They already have three second round picks this year. And they got three starters out of the four second rounders they selected in Chung, Butler and Vollmer. Ron Brace was taken as an insurance policy against Vince Woolfork leaving this year.
This years draft is even deeper in talent than last years, so starting quality players will be found deep into the third round.
I see the problem now, you think 3rd round picks are really 2nd round picks. All three you named were second round picks. Wait sorry missed Ron Brace in there, looking it up. Sorry Ron Brace is also a 2nd round pick.
Quote:
I think you'll find that if you look at the players taken in the third round last year, you'll find a pretty good number of them were either starters by the end of last season, or will be favorites to win a starting job this season on their respective teams.


I would say collect a list of starters or soon to be starters, but we really don't know if StbS are really going to be. Just like if I decided to take a position like LB and split the draft into 14 or 28 pieces and showed the difference in stats per piece for players drafted in 06 over the last three years, all you would say is this draft is deeper automatically means that doesn't count.


Quote:
Football is a TEAM sport, not a sport of superstars being able to overcome all odds despite having crap around them. The existence of Calvin Johnson on an 0-16 and 2-14 team is proof of that. I would much rather have three solid starters, not even Pro Bowlers, just good starters, as opposed to just the one superstar with two other backups forced into a starting role due to lack of talent on this team. This team does need talent, but not at just one position. They need STARTING talent, not necessarily Pro Bowl talent.
All teams need pro bowl talent. We need good starters to. But you start passing on value taking yourself farther and farther from those much needed pro-bowlers it might seem like a small boon early (more fresh players). But as a team gets better its harder and harder to find the PB players, and its even harder to find gems. This why the Draft is set up like it is. Team with worst record gets shot at best players before teams with better records. Getting those really good players when your team sucks does many a thing. Brings Value to the team in terms of FA's, huge increases of talent in the given position, and can be as much of a boonin performance to the team as three 3rd round players who might be starting because the talent level on the team is so poor.

Quote:
And, just so you know, Cleveland has 12 picks in this draft. To expect them to send 10 of them to move up 5 spots is beyond assanine.

I don't expect them to do so. I just stated that the trade you guys came up with a gap of late 1st early 2nd round pick in value, negative to the Lions. Mayhew isn't going to trade the value of another starter away just to move back. Specially if he Like Suh, McCoy, or Okung. They spew the rederict of the very word value every time they open their mouth to a degree I have never heard from another team. Its not going to happen. Now maybe the Browns throw in a player, this years second round pick, or next years first. Then I could see the trade happening.
Quote:
I believe that Cleveland's picks 71, 85 and 134 would be a pretty fair exchange. If you want Detroit to rape Cleveland, then they can send all their third round picks (71, 85 and 92), but there's no way you are going to extract the 38th pick from the Browns and Holmgren.
I am not trying to rape the browns. You can't rape them by using a process Holgrem as a 20 some odd year coach has seen and has used himself. Now if I am wrong and all the coaches and GMs got together and voted that there is no value in the picks or if they are each pick is as valuable as the pick before it maybe even more because its cheaper. Then yeah even those 3 3rd rounders alone would be like rape.

Quote:
I'd like to get Ndamukong Suh. But the fact is I don't think adding him to this roster will make this team all the much more competitive unless we get even more starters out of the draft in the later rounds. Last year Mayhew and Schwartz pulled it off. Can they do it again? I don't know. But I think it would be best to get them multiple picks to hit on rather than just the one that everyone thinks is going to be a superstar. God help those two men if they take Suh and he becomes a bust, when they could have had a chance to trade down and get multiple picks in return.
Suh isn't as important for this year as he is for years 3-5 of the rebuilding phase. AP has already stated that this is a long rebuilding phase. That they are worried more about the future performance of the team with desire to win now, but unwilling to take liberties that could have long lasting affects. If Suh is worth the value picking him #2 then the Lions would have taken a huge liberty by basically setting a second round pick on fire by doing this trade. Remember Delmas, or JL, that is the type of player worth the value that Lions would be throwing away by accepting that pick for what could be 3 Derrick Williams's.


March 27th, 2010, 9:12 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.