Last 5 years - trading - draft day [Archive]

packers11

04-20-2009, 11:00 PM

part of MMQB: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/04/20/draft/2.html

Stat of the Week

This isn't gospel, but it may give you an idea if your team is going to be very active on the trade front this weekend. It's a chart of the number of draft-weekend trades the teams have made in the last five years, and the moral of the story is pretty simple: Don't expect Cincinnati and Arizona to be very fluid.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2qautnc.jpg

The trading up part was mostly Sherman... I only remember T.T. trading up once throughout his drafting (to get Jemery Thompson)...

Look for GB to be very active trading down on draft day... (stating the obvious) :lol:

Interesting Stats though...

Fritz

04-21-2009, 06:41 AM

part of MMQB: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/04/20/draft/2.html

Stat of the Week

This isn't gospel, but it may give you an idea if your team is going to be very active on the trade front this weekend. It's a chart of the number of draft-weekend trades the teams have made in the last five years, and the moral of the story is pretty simple: Don't expect Cincinnati and Arizona to be very fluid.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2qautnc.jpg

The trading up part was mostly Sherman... I only remember T.T. trading up once throughout his drafting (to get Jemery Thompson)...

Look for GB to be very active trading down on draft day... (stating the obvious) :lol:

Interesting Stats though...

What may be instructive is that the teams with the highest propensity to trade up - Detroit, Oakland, Cleveland - are teams that one can confidently say have not done well the past several years.

Hmm. The Fritz Theory of Trading Up.

Rastak

04-21-2009, 06:45 AM

I think it's counterproductive to trade up consistently but if you have a guy you think is going to be special, by all means trade up a few spots and get the player you really want.

sheepshead

04-21-2009, 07:01 AM

I think it's counterproductive to trade up consistently but if you have a guy you think is going to be special, by all means trade up a few spots and get the player you really want.

who's doing that?

sheepshead

04-21-2009, 07:03 AM

Three trades a year-shows me our GM knows what he wants and would give the appearance he's got more on the ball then most. Tells me the guys working right along with the scouts.

Rastak

04-21-2009, 09:20 AM

I think it's counterproductive to trade up consistently but if you have a guy you think is going to be special, by all means trade up a few spots and get the player you really want.

who's doing that?

who's not?

MadScientist

04-21-2009, 09:54 AM

What may be instructive is that the teams with the highest propensity to trade up - Detroit, Oakland, Cleveland - are teams that one can confidently say have not done well the past several years.

Hmm. The Fritz Theory of Trading Up.
Another interesting thing is there is no correlation between trading activity and results.

sheepshead

04-21-2009, 11:41 AM

I think it's counterproductive to trade up consistently but if you have a guy you think is going to be special, by all means trade up a few spots and get the player you really want.

who's doing that?

who's not?

Well, I can read a chart. Do you have some other information? 7 draft choices or more over 5 years, thats at least 35 picks. I dont see anyone doing it consistently.

Guiness

04-21-2009, 11:51 AM

I noticed the Cleveland/Detroit mucho trading up thing too...

wtf with Arizona? did they forget to put a phone in the war room?

HarveyWallbangers

04-21-2009, 12:02 PM

Teams that traded down at least 4 more times than traded up:

Green Bay (+7), Dallas (+6), New England (+5), Tampa Bay (+4)

Teams that traded up at least 4 more times than traded down:

Cleveland (-6), Detroit (-6), Oakland (-5)

RashanGary

04-21-2009, 12:21 PM

I suspect we see fewer trade downs than we're used to. Last year, Ted traded a 7th for a 6th this year. That worked out really well. I could see one or two of those this year. I'd like to see a 3rd traded for next years 2nd. Things like that.

Simply moving back 7 spots, I'd guess a little less of that will happen. If Ted is sitting at 41 and he has 4 players equally rated and someone wants him to move back 4 spots to pick up a 5th round pick, I could see him saying, "no". If the players are OT, QB, RB, WR; I don't think Ted would be as happy if he moved back and got stuck with the QB. Because the team finally has real depth at a few positions, I could see the scenarios where he moves back going down a little. I'm sure it will still happen, I just think it will be a little less than we're used to. I think Ted would me more likely now to take the OT than risk moving back to get stuck with the BPA being a QB. I'm sure there will be situations where several players are equal and a bunch of them are at positions we're not stocked in (anywhere but QB and WR now). We'll still trade back, just a little less. That's what I got out of the presser, anyway.

Partial

04-21-2009, 03:35 PM

I like Ted's theory a lot. I wish the execution of setting up a draft board went better for us. We really need a star to compliment Jennings.

sheepshead

04-21-2009, 04:31 PM

I like Ted's theory a lot. I wish the execution of setting up a draft board went better for us. We really need a star to compliment Jennings.

huh?

Partial

04-21-2009, 07:42 PM

Ted has an excellent way of going about drafting. He needs to improve his rankings and really find another stud.

Fritz

04-21-2009, 08:39 PM

I think it's counterproductive to trade up consistently but if you have a guy you think is going to be special, by all means trade up a few spots and get the player you really want.

Right. I think you can trade up occasionally, but if you do it too much it becomes a negative. See Detroit, Cleveland, Oakland