Is There Anyone In This Draft Worth Trading Up For Unless the Compensation Is Relatively Small?

There is a time for trading up. But the statistical evidence strongly suggests that generally the better course of action is not to trade up, but rather to try to obtain more draft picks. The reason is that every pick carries a certain risk--some statistical possibility or probability of failure (which can be defined based on how high the draft pick is)--and that even the best in the scouting community know that drafting is really hard, much like hitting in the major leagues. If the objective for a batter is the number of hits rather than batting average, then the hitter is better off hitting .250 with 100 at-bats rather than .300 with 70 at-bats.

Every NFL team has the statistical information showing the statistical likelihood of drafting a Pro Bowl player, a multiple-year starter, a marginal starter, and a bust by draft number and by position. And if you work the numbers, they show that generally teams are better off with more picks than with fewer picks. Again, I offer as examples Marcus Davenport, Cesar Ruiz, Payton Turner. And again, these examples show not that the Saints do a poor job drafting players, but that drafting players is hard even for the best, and that it is arrogance for general managers to believe that year after year they can do materially better than most of their peers in drafting players.

Indeed, I would suggest that the teams that do the best in drafting do not necessarily have better player-evaluation information, but are better in applying the player-evaluation information they have--they have had in place certain offensive and defensive systems, and draft only those players who fit the systems they use. In short, they pick not the best players, but the best players for their team.

An argument I have pushed against in this forum for years is that the Saints are so good and deep that they don't need many draft picks--that is, why draft players you are going to cut in their first two or three years. Last year, the Saints had for them a typically low number of picks--five, which was the same number the Eagles had (though the Eagles traded away draft capital with Tennessee for A. J. Brown and with the Saints for future picks). But some good teams had plenty of picks: Baltimore and the Giants 11; Kansas City and Minnesota 10; and San Francisco and Dallas 9.

And I would argue that because of years of having so few draft picks, the Saints are not a very deep and mediocre football team (what would our over-under number be were the Saints not in the weakest division in the NFL).
Well said RJ!

Referencing your comments about statistical information and likelihood, I am reminded that "100% of drivers believe they are 'better than average', regardless of any evidence to the contrary". Let that sink in for a moment and you start to realize that 50% of drivers are either not a good judge of "average", or are just fundamentally unaware. Those tickets and/or accidents suggesting they're in the lower 50% of the group weren't their fault, they were anomalies.

The problem, as it relates to the draft, is that we can reasonably predict EXACTLY how this 2023 draft class is going to turn out. 1% will be legendary/HOF players; 10% will be perennial pro-bowlers; etc..... We just can't predict how the individual picks will turn out in each slot. If you flip a coin 99 times in a row, and EVERY SINGLE time it's heads.....it's still a 50% chance it will be tails on the 100th toss. (I'd argue that you need to check that coin, due to the statistical improbability of 99 heads in a row). Once you verify that coin is legit, I'd argue that there will SOON be a run of tails to even out the statistical probable outcomes.

And I'm guessing that's where the fundamental difference(s) in draft philosophy comes from. With very few exceptions, I do not believe a player's success in the NFL can be accurately gauged. Their POTENTIAL for success? ABSOLUTELY!! But their actual success? Nope! On the contrary, those in the business with an eye for talent probably believe they are "better than average" at picking winners (sound familiar? referencing driver example above). And maybe they ARE better than average. Maybe they're even one of the all-time greats?! But they can't predict the outcome of their pick anymore than we can predict the outcome of a coin flip. Just because you get it right, doesn't mean you have a system to duplicate that outcome in a repetitive manner. Much like Vegas, the odds are stacked against you. You may actually win with your gambles, but if you play enough, the odds work in the house's favor. So I guess that the Saints philosophy is to bet the house in hopes of the big win.

Of course, someone eventually wins the big jackpot (2017, anyone?!). However, statistically speaking, the majority of your draft picks will be out of the league in 3 years or less. A team just needs to find enough players to last longer than that average, with some becoming perennial pro-bowlers and a few select choices to become legendary HOFers. The best way to do that, in a replicative manner, isn't to make targeted choices of "heads or tails". It's to make as many selections as possible, and let the statistics sort 'em out. If you make enough picks we know exactly how that will turn out. We just don't know how any one pick will turn out. And if you think you know, I question whether you're actually an "above average" driver, or if you just believe that you are.