NEW TRADE CHART

[woodbuck27]

I do not believe any team uses this chart.
The drop from 5 to 6 is 40, but from 6 to 7 to 8 to 9 to 10 it is 65. From
10 to 11 to 12 it is 55. Then it is 45, but from 15 to 16 it is 30 and 40 afterwards.
The drop from 17 to 18 to 19 to 20 is 30 each time, but from 20 to 21 it is 35.

It makes no sense to me. Why should be the dropoff from 20 to 21 be bigger than from 19 to 20? I can not believe that the contracts make an impact in that area. I understand the devaluation (is this a word ?) of the top picks due to the contracts, but I believe the drop-off shoudl still be monotonic.


The GMs aren't idiots (ok, Millen is ), but maby the pft guys are.

Yes. Is this chart NFL approved?

[Guiness]

first of seen of this, and it is posted by Florio...so I doubt very much it's official! Then again, was the old chart 'official', or just generaly accepted?

Obviously there's a mistake from 5 to 6.

One interesting thing though, moving from, say, #5 to #1 (a la Giants) should only cost your 3rd and 4th...not the rest of your draft, and next year's first! If this chart was used, you might see more movement at the top.

[sepporepi]

Yes. Is this chart NFL approved?

This isn't something the NFL needs or will approve. Obviously it is up the any team/GM how to value the picks. It just makes deals easier if two teams have some common ground for the negotiation. I guess most teams adjust their chart to the specific draft/ the players still available.

TT certainly does, he often traded down and came up short due to the (old) chart.

[red]

I do not believe any team uses this chart.
The drop from 5 to 6 is 40, but from 6 to 7 to 8 to 9 to 10 it is 65. From
10 to 11 to 12 it is 55. Then it is 45, but from 15 to 16 it is 30 and 40 afterwards.
The drop from 17 to 18 to 19 to 20 is 30 each time, but from 20 to 21 it is 35.

It makes no sense to me. Why should be the dropoff from 20 to 21 be bigger than from 19 to 20? I can not believe that the contracts make an impact in that area. I understand the devaluation (is this a word ?) of the top picks due to the contracts, but I believe the drop-off shoudl still be monotonic.


The GMs aren't idiots (ok, Millen is ), but maby the pft guys are.

Yes. Is this chart NFL approved?

the nfl didn't approve the last one either

i think jimmy johnson came up with the other one

its just a guide for teams to use if they all agree with it. otherwise who the hell knows what each pick is worth?

as for the difference in draft values around #5. i'm guessing that those spots are the premium spots that all teams would want. you get a good player, and i think the contracts right around that spot always end up just about the same

[cheesner]

I do not believe any team uses this chart.
The drop from 5 to 6 is 40, but from 6 to 7 to 8 to 9 to 10 it is 65. From
10 to 11 to 12 it is 55. Then it is 45, but from 15 to 16 it is 30 and 40 afterwards.
The drop from 17 to 18 to 19 to 20 is 30 each time, but from 20 to 21 it is 35.

It makes no sense to me. Why should be the dropoff from 20 to 21 be bigger than from 19 to 20? I can not believe that the contracts make an impact in that area. I understand the devaluation (is this a word ?) of the top picks due to the contracts, but I believe the drop-off shoudl still be monotonic.


The GMs aren't idiots (ok, Millen is ), but maby the pft guys are.

You are probably right that no team actually uses a chart.

The chart should vary from team to team depending on their evaluations. Right now, some teams have a higher value on pick 3-5 than No. 1 overall. The top end of the draft has about 5 players who are all about the same. If you draft at 5 you get a guy who is as good as No. 1, for far less money. Teams are actually valuing those picks more than the No. 1. Like a GM said last year when questioned if he was interested in getting the No. 1 overall pick. He stated something like 'it depends on what else the Raiders toss in'.

These charts are nonsense and are only loosly considered by GMs. What do you do if TTs No. 5 overall player is available at 25? Is he now only worth the #25 value on the chart? Hell no. TT would toss in a 2nd to move and get someone he regards that highly.

[The Leaper]

These charts are nonsense and are only loosly considered by GMs. What do you do if TTs No. 5 overall player is available at 25? Is he now only worth the #25 value on the chart? Hell no. TT would toss in a 2nd to move and get someone he regards that highly.

I agree with that.

I think the charts a GM would create and go by reflect prospect values...not pick values. Prospect values change from year to year, and will have different weights at different points of the draft, as you suggest.

[Gunakor]

Re: NEW TRADE CHART

pft.com is reporting that teams are circulation a new pick value trade chart

looks like things have finally changed

heres the new chart

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/15/new-draft-trade-chart/

it now only takes a 4th round pick to move up from the #2 to the #1 spot. it use to take almost a second rounder

Based on that chart TT can package our #30 and #56 and move up to #18 or #30 and #60 and move up to #19. That way we get a solid player.

ie Like any of these fella's?

17. Mike Jenkins CB South Florida

18. Jeff Otah OT Pittsburgh

19. Kenny Phillips S Miami (FL)

20. Devin Thomas WR Michigan St.
21. Gosder Cherilus OT Boston College
22. Limas Sweed WR Texas
23. Chris Williams OT Vanderbilt
24. DeSean Jackson WR California

25. Brian Brohm QB Louisville
26. Felix Jones RB Arkansas
27. Reggie Smith S Oklahoma

Packers Forever!

I will be the first to throw a tomato at TT if he drafts a QB or a RB in the first round. Absolutely no reason for that. The only QB I would say is first round quality is Matt Ryan, and he'll be long gone by the pick we'd get even by trading #30 and #56 together. Brohm and Henne might go in the first, but aren't first round QB's IMO. Regardless of that, they could get a good player at QB in the 4th or 5th rounds to be the backup.

Harvey had a really good idea when he suggested someone like Josh Johnson in the 4th and Kyle Wright in the 7th to be our #3. Josh Johnson could be a quite capable backup IMO. To tell the truth, I don't know if he's the best option as a #2 QB right away this season, but given our coaching staff's incredible ability working with QB's, I think he could develop into a very fine NFL QB. Kyle Wright doesn't impress me, but then again neither does Craig Nall. At least Wright is young enough to improve, whereas Nall is pretty much a lost cause.

[woodbuck27]

A lot of very interesting thoughts in this thread.

Lots of interesting ideas. It seems to me a consensus of opinion says NO to a QB or Offensive tackle in rounds one or two. If a top RB falls to us? Use him "as bait" to grap picks in lower rounds.

We seem to like a defensive player with our #30; then again, trade that #30 for another pick, and grap a CB with value in the second.

Some fans here like a TE in the second round (or early ie third round) as well.

It's all very interesting.

PACKERS FOREVER!