Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Last 5 years - trading - draft day

  1. #1
    Senior Rat HOFer packers11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    3,407

    Last 5 years - trading - draft day

    part of MMQB: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...0/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.




    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)

    Interesting Stats though...

  2. #2
    Neo Rat HOFer Fritz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Detroitish
    Posts
    20,207

    Re: Last 5 years - trading - draft day

    Quote Originally Posted by packers11
    part of MMQB: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...0/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.




    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)

    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.

  3. #3
    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.

  4. #4
    Smart Ass Rat HOFer sheepshead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chicago's NW Suburbs
    Posts
    5,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Rastak
    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?
    Lombardi told Starr to "Run it, and let's get the hell out of here!" - 'Ice Bowl' December 31, 1967

  5. #5
    Smart Ass Rat HOFer sheepshead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chicago's NW Suburbs
    Posts
    5,805
    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.
    Lombardi told Starr to "Run it, and let's get the hell out of here!" - 'Ice Bowl' December 31, 1967

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by sheepshead
    Quote Originally Posted by Rastak
    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?

  7. #7

    Re: Last 5 years - trading - draft day

    Quote Originally Posted by Fritz
    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.

  8. #8
    Smart Ass Rat HOFer sheepshead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chicago's NW Suburbs
    Posts
    5,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Rastak
    Quote Originally Posted by sheepshead
    Quote Originally Posted by Rastak
    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.
    Lombardi told Starr to "Run it, and let's get the hell out of here!" - 'Ice Bowl' December 31, 1967

  9. #9
    Stout Rat HOFer Guiness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada, eh?
    Posts
    13,533
    I noticed the Cleveland/Detroit mucho trading up thing too...

    wtf with Arizona? did they forget to put a phone in the war room?
    --
    Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...

  10. #10
    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)

  11. #11
    Lunatic Rat HOFer RashanGary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    27,252
    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.

  12. #12
    ? HOFer
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ehh let's not get into that just yet
    Posts
    18,240
    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.

  13. #13
    Smart Ass Rat HOFer sheepshead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chicago's NW Suburbs
    Posts
    5,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Partial
    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?
    Lombardi told Starr to "Run it, and let's get the hell out of here!" - 'Ice Bowl' December 31, 1967

  14. #14
    ? HOFer
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ehh let's not get into that just yet
    Posts
    18,240
    Ted has an excellent way of going about drafting. He needs to improve his rankings and really find another stud.

  15. #15
    Neo Rat HOFer Fritz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Detroitish
    Posts
    20,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Rastak
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •