T.T. should trade up???

[LL2]

I bet NE would trade their pick, but there is still no way TT would trade up to #8. I'm content with GB picking #31 after they win the SB.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Re: T.T. should trade up???

Bill Parcells is expected to try to trade the Dolphins' No. 1 pick.

Parcells is looking to gain multiple early picks, and also wants to avoid paying a high contract to a player who could very likely be a bust. The Dolphins already have four picks in the first two rounds of the draft, but likely will try to add more as they overhaul their 1-14 team.

Source: Palm Beach Post

I know it would never happen, but McFadden would look pretty good in a green bay uniform

Won't happen.

Even if the Packers traded their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks it could not be done. Trading their first three picks could get them to 15th or 16th pick.

Ted's not that kind of guy. Trading the first down into the second round he could pick up a third round pick.

The Ahman Green Compensatory pick should be at least a 4th round and possible a third round pick that cannot be traded.

[Deputy Nutz]

Forget about drafting in the top ten, unless we trade all of our picks.

Everyone else said it, I just thought I would too.

I just don't see TT trading up unless there is a huge drop between players that he has ranked personally.

For example player #23 is a 8.5, player #24 is a 6.5. Then you could possibly see a trade to move up to the bottom tier of the top talent.

[Guiness]

There's a school of thought that says the high picks do more damage than good to a team.

With the amount of money teams are forced to lay out for those high picks, it can do quite a number on the cap...even if the guy ends up a starter, but a pedestrian one.

Look back at how teams with multiple top 10 picks on their roster (Cinncinati in the early '90s, Cleveland in the later '90s) did...you just need a one of those guys to be a bust to really hurt you.

[esoxx]

Then why were some people "happy" b/c the Bears victory just caused them to drop further in the draft?

And why, in 2005, were some people openly wondering if they would like to see the Packers win the last few games on their schedule, since it would only serve to submarine their draft position?

Not a consistent argument.

[sepporepi]

And why, in 2005, were some people openly wondering if they would like to see the Packers win the last few games on their schedule, since it would only serve to submarine their draft position?

Not a consistent argument.

Because those people either do not know/understand the economics of signing a top draft pick or just do not believe in the theories regarding the value of top picks compared to middle and late first round picks.

If you are interested in the matter, i strongly recommend:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=276

The author discusses draft value based on a quite known paper by Massey and Thaler.

[Fritz]

Great link for a good read. Thanks.

Here's my two cents about one aspect of drafting that hasn't been mentioned a whole lot: a few people have mentioned something I agree with - the drop-off in talent levels between the #1 and the #30 pick is not all that great. So the question for me is then why is so much emphasis put on those top ten picks?

The answer is simple. It's in the nature of our society to focus on lists - top ten stories, top ten hottest women (or men, MJ and 007), top ten whatever. The media then focuses on the top ten or fifteen or whatever, and so the perception develops that these players are significantly better than what comes after.

This makes sense, too, if you think about how much reading and listening you have to do in order to really become familiar with the players that will be drafted in, say, the third round. There's only so much information the casual fan is willing to go after - we become saturated with information and can bandy about the merits of the top forty or fifty, maybe, but after that we're done. And even within that range, all the media attention goes to the top ten.

So there'a a perception that the top then players are significantly better. Thus fans clamor all the time (see the many pre-draft posts last year on just about any fan site) for their team to move up to get "that" guy.

GM's, who are not immune to public perception and pressure (some more than others), know that they'll catch hell if they don't get a top ten pick right. If you screw up your seventh round pick and skip Marques Colston, it's not going to get you the heat that skipping Adrian Peterson would get you in the first round. This might explain - in part - why so many GM's seem willing to trade down from the top ten, though of course to justify this they ask for the world. Imagine trading from the #6 overall pick in exchange for a team's #26 pick overall and their second and say fourth rounders. Wouldn't happen. This is despite what seems clear evidence that the difference between the #6 and #26 pick may not be all that significant. So public pressure and perception play a large role in this, I think.

To me, the consequences of this are twofold: first, you need a GM who doesn't flinch in the face of public criticism and pressure. Someone who has the courage of his convictions. Maybe like some gray-haired former journeyman linebacker. He responds to his board, not the boards of Mel Kiper or other teams. James Jones in the third round, anyone? That's why I never understood the term "value pick" that Kiper tosses around so much. To me, that just means a big name who has slid down the board.

The second consequence is obvious but woth stating: it's about the scouting, stupid. No, it doesn't matter if your starters are all from the first three rounds or the last three rounds, but if your team is filled with guys drafted solely in the first three rounds, it's a sign your scouting department isn't good enough to dig out the talent that sits later in a draft. Thus, you are depriving your team of opportunities to improve. Case in point: Matt Millen. The dude has five players on his roster (from seven drafts) that come from rounds later than the third. None of them are starters.

Another point to be made about scouting: The link above brings up the question of pick value in relation to where teams draft over time. The whole theory of the reverse-order draft is that it encourages parity. But for this to happen, the bottom-feeders have to take advantage of their draft position (not just the top picks but the fact they pick early in every round). But if you can't scout the talent well, that won't happen. That's why for long stretches we see the same teams sucking and drafting high: the Lions, the Cardinals, the Saints, the Dolphins, the Bucs, the Jets, the Falcons.

Some of those teams have intermittent success (except the Lions and Cards), which I believe comes in a spurt and doesn't last long (maybe it's partly the impact of a couple of good picks and the impact of a coach). So you might have some big-name front line talent, as the Lions and Cards do, but you have no depth.

Everybody blows some top picks. Ron Wolf did (Jamaal Reynolds, John Michels, Antwan Edwards). But a GM who has a good scouting department and stays true to his board makes up for those with gems he finds later in the draft (Marco Rivera, Donald Driver, Mark Chmura).

So in the end, to me, it comes down to having a GM who knows how to scout, puts a premium on scouting, trusts his scouts, and has the cojones to do what he thinks is right, despite what criticism might come.

[hurleyfan]

Very nice Fritz...

Specially the "top ten" list theory

[Carolina_Packer]

Has any team ever traded up to get the #1 overall pick?

[Lurker64]

Has any team ever traded up to get the #1 overall pick?

Yes. In 2001 the Chargers traded their first round pick (#1 overall) to Atlanta (who chose Ron Mexico) in exchange for: Atlanta's first round pick (#5 overall, used to select LT), Atlanta's third round pick (used to select Tay Cody), Atlanta's Second round pick in 2002 (used to select Reche Caldwell), and Tim Dwight.

I don't know of any cases where someone has traded up double digit spots to get into the #1 overall position, but people have traded into it. As you can see, it took a king's ransom for a small jump and didn't work out for Atlanta.

If it takes two additional first day picks and a serviceable player to trade up from #5 to #1, trading up from #31 to #1 would be nigh-unthinkable.

[sepporepi]

giants traded for eli with the chargers, who took him first overall.
Technically they did not trade for the no. 1 pick, but basically they did.

Gave up a lot: Rivers (4th that year), next years first rounder and some more 2nd and 3rd round picks. (Too lazy to look it up)

[Lurker64]

Gave up a lot: Rivers (4th that year), next years first rounder and some more 2nd and 3rd round picks. (Too lazy to look it up)

In exchange for Eli, the Chargers got: the rights to Phillip Rivers (#4 overall), a 3rd in 2004 (K Nate Kaeiding), a 1st in 2005 (LB Shawne Merriman), and a 5th in 2005 (traded to the Bucs for LT Roman Olben).

Manning's value in this trade was likely somewhat diminished, as he was on record that he would not sign with San Diego if drafted.

[CaliforniaCheez]

When you look at the price tags you can see why Ted hasn't seen a player that was worth the price of trading up.

With small differences in raw talent coaching can add a lot of value to lesser picks. Also the small difference in the value of raw talent can make trading
down very cost effective.

The more you understand the draft the more you understand Ted.

[Tarlam!]

Ted stated in an interview only this weeks there were phonecalls made to see if he could go up and get Marshawn Lynch, but it was impossible.

It takes two to tango, so even if TT wants to trade up, he has to find a player, a trade partner and create a trade value that both teams fell comfortable with.

That's a tall order. That Eli trade is enough to shock me into submission, and the Giants only traded up from 4th to 1st....

[RashanGary]

The more you understand the draft the more you understand Ted.

I agree with this. The more you understand the basic principle of value the more you understand Ted Thompson too. I think value is the driving principle behind how Ted Thompson works and with the way the CBA is structured and the draft, I think "value" is the principle that makes or breaks GM's (whether they realize what they are doing or not). In my opinion, Ted Thompson has it pretty well figured out both in concept and through the wisdom of watching others succeed and fail. I see him as the complete GM package. Well, not complete, he's lacking what people perceive as ideal communication skills and their seminar taught, cookie cutter leadership tactics . Other than that, he's got it all. Just don't tell that to someone who lives thier lives by those leadership seminars. They won't believe it.