TWO TRADE PARTNERS

[denverYooper]

Joss Whedon LOL

Firefly is one of my favorite sci-fi series.

[Guiness]

We went thru this last year during the draft. People say the old charts are outmoded because, well, they are. The charts, point values, etc are really just window dressing. When you trade up or down, you are making a different bet. You are gambling that your organization and talent evaluation has solid information that goes way beyond the "points". If you have identified player A as an all-pro and franchise player, you will give up points to get in position to grab him.

The solid organizations make better decisions that the weak ones. NE, Pitt, GB and other teams with good scouting and drafting organizations often make trades that have their team appear to get hosed by the charts and point values. The Cleveland and Jax's of the world tend to make shit draft deals because they don't know what the hell they are doing.

The teams that have expertise always "leave points on the board". They do so to make the trade attractive to the trading partner. The dumb teams crow that they won the deal based on the value charts. Then, they go out and make stupid choices, just like they always have.

Nobody now brags how many points Cleveland fleeced from ATL in the Julio Jones deal. They just talk about how Cleveland blew their shot at Julio Jones (not that he would have helped the Brownies that much).

Well put. And though, as pointed out, the deal seems to have hurt both teams, you still got it right; it's the trade that got the Falcons Julio Jones.

Another way to describe it is to bring up TT's comments about 'flights' of players. He seems to make a lot of small moves up and down the board. If you buy into the story of how his board works, when the Packers moved back 6 slots for below 'table' value, (a 6th rounder) he likely had a group of players all rated the same. He would still get a player he valued the same, plus an extra pick later that he would view as 'free'.

aside: there is no hope of Cleveland salvaging that deal! They took Richardson with was essentially their own pick, using the extra first rounder the following year on Joss, so that ship has sailed.

[Fritz]

I wonder if Ted gets less emotionally attached to players than other GM's. I know, as a fan, I get attached to the idea of certain guys, and if I were the GM, I might want to be sure I got "that guy" even if it cost me an extra pick to trade up, or even if I had to refuse to trade down.

It takes some balls, and some small piece of robot heart, to simply classify players in "flights" and be okay with any ol' guy from that group.

[mraynrand]

I wonder if Ted gets less emotionally attached to players than other GM's. I know, as a fan, I get attached to the idea of certain guys, and if I were the GM, I might want to be sure I got "that guy" even if it cost me an extra pick to trade up, or even if I had to refuse to trade down.

It takes some balls, and some small piece of robot heart, to simply classify players in "flights" and be okay with any ol' guy from that group.

I'm sure he likes his guys, but is totally controlled. Ted must be an absolute beast at poker. Probably less emotional than that Yul Brynner Westworld robotic gunslinger.

Shazier is gone? Take the next guy on the board.

[KYPack]

I wonder if Ted gets less emotionally attached to players than other GM's. I know, as a fan, I get attached to the idea of certain guys, and if I were the GM, I might want to be sure I got "that guy" even if it cost me an extra pick to trade up, or even if I had to refuse to trade down.

It takes some balls, and some small piece of robot heart, to simply classify players in "flights" and be okay with any ol' guy from that group.

I think he does both. Claymatt was obviously that guy. I also think Eddy Lacy was, too. Even tho draft accounts say TT would have taken Ball, I think Lacy jumped out at TT.

I like the "that guy" approach. That mode seems to net stars. Flights of players yield Pat Lee. There can't be 3 or 4 guys that are all equal, one of 'em will play, the rest will bomb.

How'd you like a gig where you pick 21 yr old kids, projecting what they will do when they grow up?

[Zool]

I'm sure he likes his guys, but is totally controlled. Ted must be an absolute beast at poker. Probably less emotional than that Yul Brynner Westworld robotic gunslinger.

Shazier is gone? Take the next guy on the board.

I'm thinking more like this guy. He has some emotion but it doesn't cloud his judgement.

[Zool]

El Doublay

[pbmax]

Ted has some unusual Pro Day drills he lies to run. Time stamp not working in video, go to 1:20 to see Ted show you how to do an old school Pro Day drill.

[mraynrand]

Ted is a monster, not allowed to enjoy the Packers he created.

[mraynrand]

Aw shit, PBmax had to bring up Magnificent Seven. I won't get any work done the rest of the day.

[mraynrand]

[Guiness]

I think he does both. Claymatt was obviously that guy. I also think Eddy Lacy was, too. Even tho draft accounts say TT would have taken Ball, I think Lacy jumped out at TT.

I like the "that guy" approach. That mode seems to net stars. Flights of players yield Pat Lee. There can't be 3 or 4 guys that are all equal, one of 'em will play, the rest will bomb.

How'd you like a gig where you pick 21 yr old kids, projecting what they will do when they grow up?

Of course there are not 3-4 guys all created equal, but as you point out in your next sentence, it's near impossible to tell who will be more equal. If you go up two picks and down two from the Lee pick, you get to choose from Dexter Jackson, Mike Pollack, Lee, Martellus Bennett and Terrence Wheatley. Pollack and Bennett have both had ok careers.

[Smidgeon]

Firefly is my favorite sci-fi series.

Fixed.

[red]

We went thru this last year during the draft. People say the old charts are outmoded because, well, they are. The charts, point values, etc are really just window dressing. When you trade up or down, you are making a different bet. You are gambling that your organization and talent evaluation has solid information that goes way beyond the "points". If you have identified player A as an all-pro and franchise player, you will give up points to get in position to grab him.

The solid organizations make better decisions that the weak ones. NE, Pitt, GB and other teams with good scouting and drafting organizations often make trades that have their team appear to get hosed by the charts and point values. The Cleveland and Jax's of the world tend to make shit draft deals because they don't know what the hell they are doing.

The teams that have expertise always "leave points on the board". They do so to make the trade attractive to the trading partner. The dumb teams crow that they won the deal based on the value charts. Then, they go out and make stupid choices, just like they always have.

Nobody now brags how many points Cleveland fleeced from ATL in the Julio Jones deal. They just talk about how Cleveland blew their shot at Julio Jones (not that he would have helped the Brownies that much).

this is what i was talking about. trade value points or not, the seahawks did better then we did last year

we traded pick number #55 to the 49ers for pick #61 (second round) and pick 173 (6th round)

seattle then traded #56 to the ravens for #62 (second round), 165 (5th round), AND #199 sixth round

points or no point, seattle did a better job then TT did and got another pick out of the deal

[pbmax]

Or they complain how Cleveland blew all those points on hookers and gambling.

Seriously, I am predicting another night of Cleveland drafting an 'impact player' (WR/RB/OT) and a QB (God knows who, probably Manzier), spurring Hairdo to say

Which Hairdo, Mel? Mel knows less about football than Florio. If it wasn't for the draft, my dog would be a better source of knowledge.