Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 15
  1. #1

    John Clayton on the "value" of the picks traded for McGahee



    I had forgotten that the teams discount a pick given in the following year. (which was why getting McNair for a 2007 4th in June was really like giving up a 5th, which was less than the 4th that Tenn had wanted in the 2006 draft).

    Did Bills make a good deal?
    posted: Thursday, March 8, 2007

    While on the surface it looks as though the Bills cleaned up by getting three draft choices for running back Willis McGahee, don't applaud them until you look at the numbers.
    The Ravens surrendered a third-rounder and a seventh-rounder this year, and a third-rounder next season for McGahee. As you know, teams use a draft number chart to determine if they are getting equal value in draft choice swaps. The Ravens' pick in the third round is the 29th. Depending on which chart is under consideration, that pick counts as 128 points. For the third-round pick next year, you have to subtract the value of a round. Figuring the Ravens to be a potential playoff team and that they could be picking toward the bottom of the round, give the Bills 47 points for the equivalent of a low fourth-round pick.

    The seventh-round choice this year was a throw-in that gets the total to a little less than 180 points. In the draft chart value system, that's a mid-third-round choice. The Thomas Jones trade from Chicago to the New York Jets (the chance to move up 26 spots in the second round) equaled 280 points. The Bears theoretically got better value for their running back.

    http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog...3dclayton_john
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap





  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Brasília, Brazil
    Posts
    640

    Re: John Clayton on the "value" of the picks traded for McGahee

    And that's why this point system seems a bit farfetched...I'd personally rather have the 3 picks we gave the Bills rather than moving up in the 2nd round...better odds of getting a good player, no?




  3. #3

    Re: John Clayton on the "value" of the picks traded for McGahee

    Quote Originally Posted by RavensInBrazil View Post
    And that's why this point system seems a bit farfetched...I'd personally rather have the 3 picks we gave the Bills rather than moving up in the 2nd round...better odds of getting a good player, no?
    I don't disagree with your point at all, there are more chances to hit on one of 3 picks than just going 1-for-1. That said, generally, you've got a better shot at getting a better player the higher you draft. Or, at least, that's the theory behind the value chart.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




  4. #4

    Re: John Clayton on the "value" of the picks traded for McGahee

    Quote Originally Posted by RavensInBrazil View Post
    And that's why this point system seems a bit farfetched...I'd personally rather have the 3 picks we gave the Bills rather than moving up in the 2nd round...better odds of getting a good player, no?
    No.

    I would rather pick at the top of the third round this year, then have a end-third this year, a seventh this year, and an end-third (projection) next year. For us as fans there is not a great difference between end-third and beginning-third, but as closely as we watch each pick in the top few, FO's around the league watch each pick the first day. It might be similar to swapping up from 29 to 20 in the first round - not a lot of picks, but a *significant* difference in players available.

    I imagine many gm's around the game would say the same, which is why they use this chart.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Glen Burnie
    Posts
    350

    Re: John Clayton on the "value" of the picks traded for McGahee

    Depending on the talent pool, and what you are looking for, I'd take the higher pick on the first day. Second day, unless its early fourth so you can snag anyone that managed to slip through the cracks, give me as many as possible as its a crap shoot.
    ... They shall mount up with wings as Eagles;




  6. #6

    Re: John Clayton on the "value" of the picks traded for McGahee

    Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
    The Thomas Jones trade from Chicago to the New York Jets (the chance to move up 26 spots in the second round) equaled 280 points. The Bears theoretically got better value for their running back.
    Very interesting -- I'm not a complete believer in the draft number chart system, but this does make me feel a little better about this trade.




  7. #7

    Re: John Clayton on the "value" of the picks traded for McGahee

    The point missed in alot of thiese discussions is that we have very few openings for new players this year- meaning taht alot of draft pick walk on types will be cut or lost to cleveland from our practice squad. Add in the comp picks for this year and the 4 comp pickks next year. We have a surplus of mid-low level draft picks.




  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Glen Burnie
    Posts
    350

    Re: John Clayton on the "value" of the picks traded for McGahee

    Quote Originally Posted by duffybr View Post
    The point missed in alot of thiese discussions is that we have very few openings for new players this year- meaning taht alot of draft pick walk on types will be cut or lost to cleveland from our practice squad. Add in the comp picks for this year and the 4 comp pickks next year. We have a surplus of mid-low level draft picks.
    That's True. Nothing pisses me off more than when Savage raids our practice squad or messes with our FA's (Chester Tayler).
    ... They shall mount up with wings as Eagles;




  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Brasília, Brazil
    Posts
    640

    Re: John Clayton on the "value" of the picks traded for McGahee

    While with a higher pick you'll get a more highly touted player, it's still a guess whether he'll turn out to be a significant contribution to the team. This is hardly an exact science, and it's nearly impossible to predict which players will succeed. I'm sure most of us would have drooled over the selection of Robert Gallery a few years ago, but look at what he turned out to be...I still think more (slightly) lesser picks gives us better odds




  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    pigtown, baltimore, md
    Posts
    146

    Re: John Clayton on the "value" of the picks traded for McGahee

    Quote Originally Posted by duffybr View Post
    ...or lost to cleveland from our practice squad.
    true that.




  11. #11

    Re: John Clayton on the "value" of the picks traded for McGahee

    Quote Originally Posted by RavensInBrazil View Post
    I still think more (slightly) lesser picks gives us better odds
    I will agree with you there is a luck factor in the draft. Perhaps you would agree with me that the better prepared the drafting team, the less likely *bad* luck will come into play. For instance, if a person has a history of shoplifting, thorough interviews of the person and his friends, family and acquaintances will likely reveal that history, but if those interviews are *not* done, a drafting team (the Bengals come to mind) upon discovering its oversight might say, we had bad luck.

    So as the preparation factor goes up, the luck factor goes down. You and I may not know anything about these nobodies hanging around in the third round, but for the pros like Ozzie & his crew, there is less luck then you might think.

    :2c:
    Last edited by festivus; 03-09-2007 at 10:23 PM.
    Festivus

    His definitions and arguments were so clear in his own mind that he was unable to understand how any reasonable person could honestly differ with him.




  12. #12

    Re: John Clayton on the "value" of the picks traded for McGahee

    Quote Originally Posted by duffybr View Post
    The point missed in alot of thiese discussions is that we have very few openings for new players this year- meaning taht alot of draft pick walk on types will be cut or lost to cleveland from our practice squad. Add in the comp picks for this year and the 4 comp pickks next year. We have a surplus of mid-low level draft picks.
    Very true we are likely to still have 8 picks this year and 10 picks next year for a team that is likely to have very few spaces available. So, even if they do draft very well, it's likely that they are going to be cutting decent players anyway, even if they would otherwise like to keep them. And, if they really are something, they aren't likely to make it to the PS anyway. As such, a fewer draft picks isn't going to matter as much - other than the idea that the more picks you have to more chances you have of hitting on a pick.
    “Talk's cheap - let’s go play.” - #19, Johnny Unitas

    Follow me on Twitter @ravenssalarycap




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland