Is There Anyone In This Draft Worth Trading Up For Unless the Compensation Is Relatively Small? (1 Viewer)

[Hedon James]

Agreed. Dudes want to trade back and grab 3 guys who won't make the roster inatead of 1 guy who's a starter.

U mean like Adam Trautman and Zac Baun who cost 3 picks each

They had a vision for these guys to develop into more and they didn't. What's that saying about missing 100% of the shots you don't take?

I notice you didn't mention trading up to get Olave.

Apparently, becoming a starter is the metric? Because if THAT is the measure, extrapolating the argument that you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, the Saints missed on 4 shots they didn't take (traded to acquire higher picks) and then missed on the 2 shots they DID take. That's 6 picks they used to acquire 2 players, neither of which is a starter; and both of which could easily be replaced with a 2023 draftee (or possibly even an UDFA....we seem to be good at that?!)

I like the Olave pick...looks like he'll become a good to very good player in the league, although not elite or a cornerstone player. Not a fan of what we gave up to get him. What did we trade in total to acquire Olave, 4 picks? So we missed on 3 that we didn't take, but absolutely hit on 1, no doubt about it. So we're at a 25% hit rate for a 1st round top-11 draft pick, where the consensus is that the 1st round "hit rate" is approximately 50%-70%, depending on the source(s) cited.

According to this article, which I like for the multitude of different ways they dissect and present the actual numbers, it also depends on position:

What stats tells us about the draft by round

The best times to draft certain positions based on the last 10 years.

www.arrowheadpride.com

Referencing the section "Historic Success Chart", copied & pasted below:

Historic Success Chart​

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:


1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)


2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)


3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)


4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)


5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)


6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)


7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

The 25% success rate we achieved through the entire Olave transaction is more inline with the success rate of a 4th-5th round selection. Best case scenario, our success with Olave is the expectation for a 3rd round receiver pick. In other words, we could've made 4 picks for WR in the 3rd round and achieved a similar result. But in doing what we did, trading picks to move up for Olave, we lost the opportunity to draft 3 additional players who MAY have turned into legit NFL starters. They may not have turned into anything....they may have been cut in TC. When you trade those picks and the player works out, you've statistically diluted your success rate; conversely, when you trade those picks and it doesn't work out, you've statistically compounded your failure rate.

But the whole point of the draft is that NO ONE KNOWS! The sure-fire can't miss prospect that is drafted #1 overall may be out of the league before his 2nd contract (Jamarcus Russell?), while a 7th round QB may lead his team to the NFC championship game in his rookie season (49ers Purdy), or possibly be a legendary HOF QB (Brady). By trading those picks away, you have locked in the worst-case scenario...."they probably won't make the team, so that's a wasted pick anyhow." And as Saints fans, we just KNOW that isn't true. Marques Colston & Zach Strief might be the best 7th rounders to ever wear B&G. Carl Nicks was a 5th rounder. Jahri Evans and CJGJ were both 4th rounders. I'll stop there, because there are too many 3rd rounders that panned out for the B&G. We seem to be golden in the 2nd & 3rd rounds. Yes, we miss on some of those picks, but it's not unusual that our 2nd & 3rd rounders outperform our 1sts. Alvin Kamara...Terron Armstead....I'll stop there, but there are others.

So yeah.....you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. I wish the Saints would TAKE those shots....ALL OF THEM. JMO...

 

[Taker597]

Apparently, becoming a starter is the metric? Because if THAT is the measure, extrapolating the argument that you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, the Saints missed on 4 shots they didn't take (traded to acquire higher picks) and then missed on the 2 shots they DID take. That's 6 picks they used to acquire 2 players, neither of which is a starter; and both of which could easily be replaced with a 2023 draftee (or possibly even an UDFA....we seem to be good at that?!)

I like the Olave pick...looks like he'll become a good to very good player in the league, although not elite or a cornerstone player. Not a fan of what we gave up to get him. What did we trade in total to acquire Olave, 4 picks? So we missed on 3 that we didn't take, but absolutely hit on 1, no doubt about it. So we're at a 25% hit rate for a 1st round top-11 draft pick, where the consensus is that the 1st round "hit rate" is approximately 50%-70%, depending on the source(s) cited.

According to this article, which I like for the multitude of different ways they dissect and present the actual numbers, it also depends on position:

What stats tells us about the draft by round

The best times to draft certain positions based on the last 10 years.

www.arrowheadpride.com

Referencing the section "Historic Success Chart", copied & pasted below:

The 25% success rate we achieved through the entire Olave transaction is more inline with the success rate of a 4th-5th round selection. Best case scenario, our success with Olave is the expectation for a 3rd round receiver pick. In other words, we could've made 4 picks for WR in the 3rd round and achieved a similar result. But in doing what we did, trading picks to move up for Olave, we lost the opportunity to draft 3 additional players who MAY have turned into legit NFL starters. They may not have turned into anything....they may have been cut in TC. When you trade those picks and the player works out, you've statistically diluted your success rate; conversely, when you trade those picks and it doesn't work out, you've statistically compounded your failure rate.

But the whole point of the draft is that NO ONE KNOWS! The sure-fire can't miss prospect that is drafted #1 overall may be out of the league before his 2nd contract (Jamarcus Russell?), while a 7th round QB may lead his team to the NFC championship game in his rookie season (49ers Purdy), or possibly be a legendary HOF QB (Brady). By trading those picks away, you have locked in the worst-case scenario...."they probably won't make the team, so that's a wasted pick anyhow." And as Saints fans, we just KNOW that isn't true. Marques Colston & Zach Strief might be the best 7th rounders to ever wear B&G. Carl Nicks was a 5th rounder. Jahri Evans and CJGJ were both 4th rounders. I'll stop there, because there are too many 3rd rounders that panned out for the B&G. We seem to be golden in the 2nd & 3rd rounds. Yes, we miss on some of those picks, but it's not unusual that our 2nd & 3rd rounders outperform our 1sts. Alvin Kamara...Terron Armstead....I'll stop there, but there are others.

So yeah.....you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. I wish the Saints would TAKE those shots....ALL OF THEM. JMO...

Look at those traded picks and tell me that they missed on any of those shots. Naming off players from 5 or 10 years ago is misleading. Those Trautmen pick wouldn't bring a starter one way or another.

 

[Taker597]

It's funny when people are like "We don't know how these picks will turn out."

NFL and AFL Draft History | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Checkout the complete history of NFL and AFL Drafts starting from 1936 to present on Pro-Football-Reference.com

www.pro-football-reference.com

Yes we do. 10 times out of 10, I rather you shot your shoot on your guy instead of settling for scraps.

Minnesota has been trading back for decades and what do they have to show for it? Nothing. Ultimate Pretender franchise.

 

[Jesse Custer]

True lol. But I remember this board being very high on Baun

And then they never used him in the role he excelled at in college.

 

[tim martin]

And then they never used him in the role he excelled at in college.

Nope wasted a pick on him. Surprised a team with a 3-4 didn’t draft him or trade for him yet

 

[Hedon James]

Look at those traded picks and tell me that they missed on any of those shots. Naming off players from 5 or 10 years ago is misleading. Those Trautmen pick wouldn't bring a starter one way or another.

Respectfully, if drafting a starter is the metric, we missed on EVERY pick we traded for Trautman, plus the pick we used on Trautman. So yeah, I'm telling you we missed on every single pick.

I hear your argument about players from 5-10 years ago. It's not without merit, but what is the time period that isn't misleading? CSP is gone now, but those are Loomis-era picks, who says he has final say, and he's still the GM. Perhaps we should only be looking back at the current regime's selections....perhaps from Ireland to present? But using that time period, we are terrible in the 1st round.

Here are the Saints 1st round selections according to Wikipedia, and the Saints website says Ireland has been in NO for 7 seasons, but only 6 drafts. That means he's responsible for 2018-present:

List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On that list are Davenport (2018- 2 1st rounders traded UP to get him), none in 2019 (used on Davenport), Cesar Ruiz (2020), Payton Turner (2021), Chris Olave (2022) and Penning (2022).

That's 5 1st round picks in 7 opportunities, over 6 drafts (2023 was traded "forward" into 2022). Davenport didn't merit a 2nd contract, and Payton Turner can't even get on the field (side note, has he even played AT ALL? I honestly don't know...but as of TODAY, a BUST, IMO!). Jury is still out on Ruiz....everyone wanted to move on from him until last season....perhaps Marrone has salvaged him(?) He certainly hasn't played up to his 1st rounder status, but he's starting, so let's count him as successful. No doubt Olave is a good pick, but jury is still out on Penning. Might be our next franchise LT for the decade; might be our next injury-prone bust. He's not a starter....at least not yet. If Ruiz counts for the reason cited, Penning cannot be counted, although I feel like he WILL become that franchise quality LT. So let's count him too.

In 7 opportunities, that's ONE honest to goodness 1st rounder who lived up to the billing. A 2nd 1st rounder has been a starter, but everyone has been calling for him to be replaced; and a 3rd 1st rounder who hasn't become a starter YET, but I think could/will be. In my previous post, I cited a source indicating that the 1st round success rate is typically 50%-70%, depending on the source. And yet the Saints have only gotten a starter (quality is debatable, but a starter is a starter) in 3 of 7 picks. In the BEST CASE SCENARIO, the Saints are less than a 50% success in the 1st round under the current regime. At best, that's average, perhaps on the lowest end of the spectrum compared to their peer group's 1st round selections. And if we're trading next years' firsts to move up for THIS year's selection, you've capped yourself out at a 50% success rate IF YOU HIT on the pick.

Seems to me that an argument could be made to move OUT of the 1st, where we are low-performers (to date) and gather more 2nd & 3rd rounders, where we seem to make our best picks of players with the highest impact.

Don't mean to single you out Taker.....you're entitled to your opinion....I just don't agree, and trying to illustrate WHY I don't agree. Not that anything I say even matters a little bit...Saints gonna do what the Saints gonna do. But the analytics are there to support trading back and making MORE picks, not fewer. If Ireland is gone, and our draft results aren't there anymore, I may be persuaded back to the targeted "sniper" approach. Until then, I don't want the Saints taking ANY picks away from Ireland....on the contrary, I want Ireland making AS MANY PICKS AS POSSIBLE.

 

[WhoDat?DrewDat]

True lol. But I remember this board being very high on Baun

I will die on that hill that we are forcing Baun to play out of position.

He's a rush linebacker and we never let him rush the QB.

 

[WhoDat?DrewDat]

Respectfully, if drafting a starter is the metric, we missed on EVERY pick we traded for Trautman, plus the pick we used on Trautman. So yeah, I'm telling you we missed on every single pick.

You need to reevaluate your expectations for draft picks.

Trautman has been an excellent blocker and decent starter. For a late 3rd that's perfectly fine.

Some of y'all act like all of our picks need to be Pro Bowlers or it's a miss.

 

[Hedon James]

You need to reevaluate your expectations for draft picks.

Trautman has been an excellent blocker and decent starter. For a late 3rd that's perfectly fine.

Some of y'all act like all of our picks need to be Pro Bowlers or it's a miss.

someone else suggested that "starting" was the metric. i didn't challenge it, because I can't think of a better metric.

Irreplaceable? that's up for debate. Probowler? another debate, and an argument about "popularity contest" versus merit of performance. 2nd contract with Saints? That leaves out guys like T-Rex who I think was a GREAT pick (a 3rd rounder, if I recall correctly?), just not able to keep him. "starter" seems to be the least subjective criteria available. still somewhat subjective, but the LEAST subjective.

P.S. I'm fine with Trautman as a 3rd round pick. I am NOT fine with the draft capital expended to move up to get him. That's the whole point of this thread, I think. Who is WORTH that opportunity cost of moving up?

 

[tim martin]

I will die on that hill that we are forcing Baun to play out of position.

He's a rush linebacker and we never let him rush the QB.

Agreed. Not sure what there vision was lol

 

[RJ in Lafayette]

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 are in fact mediocre football team (what would our over-under number be were the Saints not in the weakest division in the NFL).

 

[bobad]

Not this year. We don't badly need a QB or WR, and so many of them will be taken early there will be plenty of quality big guys at pick 28.

 

[Bayouboy]

It's almost a certainty the Saints trade up to grab someone. It's their MO. I just hope its not another "raw" project with a checkered injury history.

 

[Hedon James]

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.

 

[Jesse Custer]

Nope wasted a pick on him. Surprised a team with a 3-4 didn’t draft him or trade for him yet

Maybe the light will come on for them and they'll use him in the role Kaden Elliss was playing last season? Here's hoping anyway, because they haven't even scratched the surface with him despite some amazing tackling on special teams.