The truth about the NFL Draft (1 Viewer)

[bergeaux]

I'd guess in the statistical analysis, Peyton Manning is cancelled out by Ryan Leaf.

But tell me that the Colts aren't glad they got Peyton. And how many teams today wouldn't consider a Rickey Williams trade for Peyton if they could go back in time?

I imagine they could probably apply all their findings to marriage, to.

The point is that AT THE TIME, many teams would have traded up for either Payton Manning OR Ryan Leaf and it was proven to be a 50/50 gamble.

In todays draft Dorsey and Ellis are considered to be the same thing at a different position. Will Dorsey be a star and Ellis a bust or Ellis a star and Dorsey a bust? We'll have to see, but that's the point.

The same is for Chris Long and Vernon Gholston. I have seen a lot of draft boards and experts that are saying that they are equal and I have seen Gholston put above Chris Long because they say Gholston is more athletic. Then I have seen Long in front because of the intangibles. Will we see one be a bang and one be a bust? The history says it's more than likely.

 

[Rum]

The point is that AT THE TIME, many teams would have traded up for either Payton Manning OR Ryan Leaf and it was proven to be a 50/50 gamble.

In todays draft Dorsey and Ellis are considered to be the same thing at a different position. Will Dorsey be a star and Ellis a bust or Ellis a star and Dorsey a bust? We'll have to see, but that's the point.

The same is for Chris Long and Vernon Gholston. I have seen a lot of draft boards and experts that are saying that they are equal and I have seen Gholston put above Chris Long because they say Gholston is more athletic. Then I have seen Long in front because of the intangibles. Will we see one be a bang and one be a bust? The history says it's more than likely.

Skill-position players are always riskier than the special guys in the trenches. (Jim Finks' Golden Draft Day Rule #1.)

I don't think either GD or SE will be busts--I can see them for the next 10 years fighting it out for the starting All-Pro DT spot. I think these guys are driven a bit too much to even be considered in the same way as Sully or shawn Knight, or Ryan Leaf.

I just think, drafts where you have a real opportunity to get a diff-maker rarely come along. I mean that guy that starts for you from day one, or is a special player to get you to the top.

And I think that's why we need to try and get GD or SE. Will the world end if we don't? No, but it might feel like it when these 2 are stars for the next 10 years.

BTW, Manning was the only choice, but then again, I might be prejudiced towards Peyton..

 

[GermanSaint]

i never thought that downtrading is nearly a guarantee. but you can argue that downtrading by the saints in rounds 2-3 never panned out very great.

 

[Gumbo's Dad]

I forget who said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. (Mark Twain?) Anyway, I am generally against trading away picks especially because the franchise will not sign big time free agents. However, someone like Dorsey is worth giving up a 2 for IMHO. That being said, if that does not happen, I would be inclined to stay at the 10 spot and get a corner like Leodis or DRC. See this article found in another post regarding corners taken in the first 10 spots. CB history won pick - BostonHerald.com
10 out of the 11 corners were either solid starters or pro-bowlers.

 

[Bone Daddy]

Have to say I agree with the article. I am definitely not a fan of trading up and loosing draft picks - trading up does not improve your odds that the player won't be a bust.

 

[Mcshane]

i never thought that downtrading is nearly a guarantee. but you can argue that downtrading by the saints in rounds 2-3 never panned out very great.

nor did trading up in RD 1...

Maybe we should try trading down in rd 1 and up in rd 2-3? heh.

I say stay put and take you best shot b/c it is a gamble no matter what you do!

 

[Chairman_LMAO]

It's not that the stats are lies, it's that they're largely irrelevant. I mean, there's something to be said for "playing the percentages" I guess, but broad, sweeping generalizations (even ones based on hard data) simply can't be usefully applied to very specific situations involving one team drafting one player in one year at one spot. Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny. :rock:

The only useful conclusions to be drawn are that the stakes are high and it's very important to make the "right" choice of player for your specific situation. But we all already knew that.

What Rum said about Ryan Leaf cancelling out Peyton Manning is spot on. The "analysis" offered by the article, and the point you seem to be making, Bergeaux, is that the Colts "shoulda" traded down rather than taking Manning. It certainly would have been "safer" going by the broad sweeping generalizations the stats seem to support. But we all know that the Colts would almost certainly have been worse off if they had done that.

Those kind of conclusions are specious because they can't be applied evenly to every specific situation. If the conclusions meant anything, nobody would ever be able to trade down because they'd never be able to find a partner willing to trade up.

As for Polian's quote, it's not the draft that's "broken." I mean, how else would you propose it be done? What's "broken" is the unchecked ever-increasing values of rookie contracts. At the top of the draft, the risk is disproportionate with the potential reward. But again, we all already knew that.

 

[Rum]

The one hole in this theory I think that needs to be addressed: If everybody should stay in the same spot or trade back for more picks, who is gonna be doing all this moving up, and where did they get all dem extra picks???

It's sorta like that public speaking joke: "Before we get started, I want everybody to stand up and shake hands with the person behind you."

 

[Pbody]

I have always said the value of the draft is picks in the area of 25-60. If you can trade back and get multiple picks in there you will have a better chance at solid guys.
That is if you pick solid guys and not reach on some as we have done.

 

[Pensacola]

I have always said the value of the draft is picks in the area of 25-60. If you can trade back and get multiple picks in there you will have a better chance at solid guys.
That is if you pick solid guys and not reach on some as we have done.

Ditto!!! No doubt there is a large amount of very good players in those numbers. Rookie contracts $$$ are also much easier on a teams overall situation too (remember we need to resign several starters sometime soon). I hope we can trade down and get multiple picks in that area of the draft. I'm not feeling to confident about the ten spot (DT's gone, CB's a reach, LB's except for rivers are reaches, etc.)' Having multiple picks also increase your chances of success.

 

[tjharris]

The one thing I took from the article was the draft was a gamble but, the whole think is a gamble. Just because U trade down and draft a guy in the 5th rd he's not gonna be better than a guy drafted in the 2nd.
There are only a hand full of players that will make an impact, in there career, in any given draft. So, if U have a feeling about a player shouldn't U go after him? Instead of just taking whom ever falls to us.
I'm just saying it's a gamble no matter who U pick.
We could trade back, draft 15 players between rounds 3-7 and they all stink.
On the other hand if Ricky Williams turned out to be the second comming of Jim Brown everyone would be saying how smart Ditika was to make that trade.

 

[bergeaux]

I have always said the value of the draft is picks in the area of 25-60. If you can trade back and get multiple picks in there you will have a better chance at solid guys.
That is if you pick solid guys and not reach on some as we have done.

Exactly. That's a better summation. The point is to get as many picks in the late first and early second round as possible. That's where two or more of those picks are well worth one pick at the top of the draft.

 

[bergeaux]

The one thing I took from the article was the draft was a gamble but, the whole think is a gamble. Just because U trade down and draft a guy in the 5th rd he's not gonna be better than a guy drafted in the 2nd.
There are only a hand full of players that will make an impact, in there career, in any given draft. So, if U have a feeling about a player shouldn't U go after him? Instead of just taking whom ever falls to us.
I'm just saying it's a gamble no matter who U pick.
We could trade back, draft 15 players between rounds 3-7 and they all stink.
On the other hand if Ricky Williams turned out to be the second comming of Jim Brown everyone would be saying how smart Ditika was to make that trade.

You're missing it. That guy you have a feeling about? It's worth taking two guys, one a few picks back and another one round later because you spread your risk across two 21 year old kids instead of one and you can pay both of those guys less than you pay that one you think you want to trade up for.

Look at last year. We traded up for Antonio Pittman in the 4th and look what happened?

 

[tjharris]

No, I understand. Your playing the percentages.

I just don't like doing it that way. I'd rather pick the guys I want no matter the round.

I think the biggest problem is NFL teams make rookies out to be more than they are just to sell tickets.

I watched Reggie in college and I could tell he didn't have enough power to play RB in the NFL. So, I know every head coach knew the same thing. Yet every one hyped him up to be the next Gale Sayers.

 

[bergeaux]

No, I understand. Your playing the percentages.

I just don't like doing it that way. I'd rather pick the guys I want no matter the round.

I think the biggest problem is NFL teams make rookies out to be more than they are just to sell tickets.

I watched Reggie in college and I could tell he didn't have enough power to play RB in the NFL. So, I know every head coach knew the same thing. Yet every one hyped him up to be the next Gale Sayers.

Bill Pollian said it in the article. You can't go for a certain guy because they are all kids who are unpredictable. It's just a gamble no matter what. It's like the theory on investing. DIVERSIFY!

I can't say it any clearer.