I prefer Dallas' draft position

[Nightman]

The cost of making a bad pick earlier in the draft is a lot higher than making a bad pick later in the draft. A cost-value study of NFL drafts shows that the best values are had in the mid-second round -- the players often product close to what a first-round player might but at a significantly lower cost. Drafting high has a much greater risk-reward factor -- you might get an elite player, but you also might get a bust at a high cost (in terms of dollars and draft position). One study calls this "The Loser's Curse" -- your "reward" for being bad enough to get an early first-round pick is the opportunity to take a huge gamble.

Cost is generally not a factor to these perennially bad franchises. They can't even over-pay to attract talent. Anyhow, most of that has been mitigated by the new rookie pool. Clowney got 22m vs 50m for Bradford.

It still boils down to making poor picks. Any first round pick that starts and plays to a Pro Bowl level is still a bargain compared to a similar FA.

The 'curse' is bad management.

 

[CyberB0b]

T Drafting high has a much greater risk-reward factor -- you might get an elite player, but you also might get a bust at a high cost (in terms of dollars and draft position).

The teams picking in the top 10 are already bad. You are counting their draft position as a high cost, when they already hold that position. It's not as if teams are tanking to get a higher pick. If you bust with a top 10 pick, you still have top picks in the next few rounds. It also gives you the advantage of flexibility, when teams are looking to move up to get a specific player. You don't get that advantage when you are at the bottom of the list, unless you are willing to give up a lot more.

 

[AdamJT13]

The teams picking in the top 10 are already bad. You are counting their draft position as a high cost, when they already hold that position. It's not as if teams are tanking to get a higher pick.

The cost of the draft position refers to what the team could have gotten in picks by trading down. Unless you think Tampa Bay would swap us first-round picks straight up, then the No. 1 pick is obviously more valuable than the No. 27 pick.

 

[AdamJT13]

Cost is generally not a factor to these perennially bad franchises. They can't even over-pay to attract talent.

If you're a bad team trying to become a winner, it's not helpful to blow $20 million or whatever on a high draft pick.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

If you're a bad team trying to become a winner, it's not helpful to blow $20 million or whatever on a high draft pick.

Why don't all teams trade out of the top of the first round?

 

[Nightman]

If you're a bad team trying to become a winner, it's not helpful to blow $20 million or whatever on a high draft pick.

You were talking about value. Of course the best value was later in the second because the costs are controlled by the rookie draft pool. It isn't because GMs are better at picking players in 50-60s than the top 10.

It still comes down to picking the right players. I have never seen a team intentionally pass on a top draft pick to save money. The Vikings missed their turn once trying to make a trade, but quickly made up for it.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

I prefer #27 over #28, 29, 30, 31.....32 well uhmm.

 

[AdamJT13]

Why don't all teams trade out of the top of the first round?

Some do, some don't. Many teams in that position are desperate, get enticed by talent and are willing to take the gamble.

 

[AdamJT13]

You were talking about value. Of course the best value was later in the second

Um, that's exactly what I said the first time. Players drafted in the middle of the second round often produce close to what a first-round player might but at a significantly lower cost.

It still comes down to picking the right players.

Of course. But the later you pick, the lesser the risk. Around the middle of the second round is where the risk-reward is the most beneficial for the team, on average.

 

[Nightman]

Um, that's exactly what I said the first time. Players drafted in the middle of the second round often produce close to what a first-round player might but at a significantly lower cost.



Of course. But the later you pick, the lesser the risk. Around the middle of the second round is where the risk-reward is the most beneficial for the team, on average.

You cropped my post at the wrong point or completely missed the point. The draft isn't about Risk Aversion, it's about improving the team by drafting the better players. Cost is not a big factor during the draft. The higher picks produce the better players.

'Close' is the key word and it is vague enough to cover a wide array of players. And like I said the cost is fixed. It not because of smart GMs waiting until the second round to pick the better players.

 

[AdamJT13]

You cropped my post at the wrong point or completely missed the point. The draft isn't about Risk Aversion, it's about improving the team by drafting the better players.

Sorry, but risk-reward is a big part of the draft. If you have a high pick and hit on it, you can get a big payoff. If you miss, it can be very costly for a number of reasons.

Cost is not a big factor during the draft.

Huh? Why do you think teams ever trade down? Why do you think we didn't just stay at No. 18 and take Travis Frederick in 2013?

The higher picks produce the better players.

On average, yes. But they also come at a higher cost and a greater risk. That's the whole point.

 

[ottawacowpoke]

I think that the drafting number one is only a curse when there is not a clear cut pick. In 1989 Dallas knew that Aikman was the guy. This year there is no clear cut, can't miss prospect at number 1. Winston comes with so much baggage that he is a huge risk, as is Mariotta (for different reasons). This year having the number one isn't a huge advantage due to the risk. That is not always the case. It was in 1989 when 4 of the first 5 picks eventually became Hall of Famers, with the exception being Tony Mandarich, who everybody thought would be a monster in the NFL. The 89 draft illustrates both sides of the discussion, for the most part drafting high is advantageous, ie. Aikman, Barry Sanders, Derrick Thomas and Deion Sanders, but there is also risk, ie. Tony Mandarich.

 

[erod]

They also have the 33rd pick. So they can take Winston at 1 and still get the better player at 33. Your typical Lose-Win situation.

Yeah, but they're about to pay Winston big money they'll regret.

 

[Nightman]

Yeah, but they're about to pay Winston big money they'll regret.

Then don't make the pick. Trade it to someone who wants a QB or take a different player.

Drafting first is only a problem if you make it one.

You say they will regret it, but would you have the stones to pick someone else? Or would you let the fear of being wrong about Winston and him being a star force your hand?

HOU passed on Reggie Bush and Vince Young and went with Mario Williams and it turned out great for them.

And 4 years and 25m is not a crippling contract. Free Agency misses hurt worse.

 

[Nightman]

Sorry, but risk-reward is a big part of the draft. If you have a high pick and hit on it, you can get a big payoff. If you miss, it can be very costly for a number of reasons.




Huh? Why do you think teams ever trade down? Why do you think we didn't just stay at No. 18 and take Travis Frederick in 2013?



On average, yes. But they also come at a higher cost and a greater risk. That's the whole point.

They traded back because they had players rated at equal levels and got an extra 3rd pick out of the deal. I don't think it was so they could save a couple million on Frederick's contract. He would still be a steal at 18.

Justin Pugh got 7.9m guaranteed vs Fredericks 5.5m guaranteed. Over 4 years that is nothing and it wouldn't be worth losing Frederick over by trading back.

 

[AdamJT13]

They traded back because they had players rated at equal levels and got an extra 3rd pick out of the deal. I don't think it was so they could save a couple million on Frederick's contract. He would still be a steal at 18.

Justin Pugh got 7.9m guaranteed vs Fredericks 5.5m guaranteed. Over 4 years that is nothing and it wouldn't be worth losing Frederick over by trading back.

I don't think you're understanding the concept of "cost." It's not just the value of the contract, it's also the value of the draft position. Had we stayed at 18, we wouldn't have gotten the extra pick, we would have had to pay more money, and we would have had the same player.

And the fact that Frederick would "still be a steal at 18" reiterates the fact that players drafted a little lower can be close to (or better than) players drafted higher but at a lower cost -- on average, the difference in performance is less than the difference in cost (in terms of both dollars and draft position).

 

[rbr651]

With a rookie pay cap and fifth year option I can't find value in trading out of the first round, I'm assuming that's why those were implemented.

 

[CyberB0b]

The cost of the draft position refers to what the team could have gotten in picks by trading down. Unless you think Tampa Bay would swap us first-round picks straight up, then the No. 1 pick is obviously more valuable than the No. 27 pick.

There's no guarantee the picks you get as a result of a trade down will yield results. Look at our 2009 draft. I realize it's a different scenario, but stockpiling lower grade picks doesn't always work, either.

 

[Nightman]

I don't think you're understanding the concept of "cost." It's not just the value of the contract, it's also the value of the draft position. Had we stayed at 18, we wouldn't have gotten the extra pick, we would have had to pay more money, and we would have had the same player.

And the fact that Frederick would "still be a steal at 18" reiterates the fact that players drafted a little lower can be close to (or better than) players drafted higher but at a lower cost -- on average, the difference in performance is less than the difference in cost (in terms of both dollars and draft position).

You could also lose out on Frederick completely waiting until 31 to pick. That is why 18 is more valuable than 31 and 31 is more valuable than 47. Any value they gained with Frederick they blew with Escobar.

 

[AdamJT13]

There's no guarantee the picks you get as a result of a trade down will yield results. Look at our 2009 draft. I realize it's a different scenario, but stockpiling lower grade picks doesn't always work, either.

Of course. That's why it's an average.