I prefer Dallas' draft position

[AdamJT13]

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.

I'm not talking about specific picks. It's an average, over the long haul, for all teams.

Actually, I have no idea what you're trying to argue. I'm not stating an opinion, just the facts of what research has shown.

 

[CCBoy]

I'm not talking about specific picks. It's an average, over the long haul, for all teams.

Actually, I have no idea what you're trying to argue. I'm not stating an opinion, just the facts of what research has shown.

Thanks as always, for enriching comments...

 

[Nightman]

I'm not talking about specific picks. It's an average, over the long haul, for all teams.

Actually, I have no idea what you're trying to argue. I'm not stating an opinion, just the facts of what research has shown.

That is the only thing that has confused me. I was arguing the earlier the picks the better.

You were talking about value so it looked like you were backing up the OPs position that he would rather be at 27 than earlier in the draft.

I don't think that can be supported by the facts. Your study just coincided with common sense. With a set salary structure for rookies from top to bottom it is easy to see why mid to late second round picks had the best value per dollar. They are cost controlled. But they still aren't as good as players taken in the early first round, no matter how big a 'bargain'.

I am arguing that the much better players are taken much earlier. And that has been proven over time. The later in draft you go, the miss rate increases as well. With the new rookie wage scale, top 10 picks are even more valuable because they cost so much less than they used to.

 

[AdamJT13]

That is the only thing that has confused me. I was arguing the earlier the picks the better.

You were talking about value so it looked like you were backing up the OPs position that he would rather be at 27 than earlier in the draft.

I don't think that can be supported by the facts. Your study just coincided with common sense. With a set salary structure for rookies from top to bottom it is easy to see why mid to late second round picks had the best value per dollar. They are cost controlled. But they still aren't as good as players taken in the early first round, no matter how big a 'bargain'.

I am arguing that the much better players are taken much earlier. And that has been proven over time. The later in draft you go, the miss rate increases as well. With the new rookie wage scale, top 10 picks are even more valuable because they cost so much less than they used to.

It's better to have higher picks because you can always trade down, compile picks, and get better value. And you should be able to get better talent if you draft high. But when you're drafting high, there is a greater risk -- you had better make good picks, because mistakes are much more costly.

The best values, on average, are still in the middle of the second round. The new CBA didn't really change things that much, because the research was done before the contracts for the top of the draft got out of whack. (And, again, part of the "cost" is the value of the picks, not just the players' contract.)

 

[jnday]

This thread has really went off the deep end when posters are saying that having a top pick is now too much of a risk because the player may bust. Sure don't want to risk getting elite talent.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It's better to have higher picks because you can always trade down, compile picks, and get better value. And you should be able to get better talent if you draft high. But when you're drafting high, there is a greater risk -- you had better make good picks, because mistakes are much more costly.

The best values, on average, are still in the middle of the second round. The new CBA didn't really change things that much, because the research was done before the contracts for the top of the draft got out of whack. (And, again, part of the "cost" is the value of the picks, not just the players' contract.)

What do you mean the new CBA didn't change much?

Bradford got 50m guaranteed as part of a larger contract. Newton got 20m guaranteed as the entire contract.

Any research done before taking into consideration the new CBA is null and void.

 

[Nightman]

This thread has really went off the deep end when posters are saying that having a top pick is now too much of a risk because the player may bust. Sure don't want to risk getting elite talent.

I can't even believe people are arguing that. Busts are just as prevalent at 27 as they are at 5.

Teams don't pay for top 5 spots, they are assigned based on last year's record. But they are worth 3-5x more than a late 1st. Who would prefer the lesser pick?????

And TB still has 33. If they miss on 1 they have 33 in the so-called 'sweet spot'

 

[AdamJT13]

What do you mean the new CBA didn't change much?

Bradford got 50m guaranteed as part of a larger contract. Newton got 20m guaranteed as the entire contract.

Any research done before taking into consideration the new CBA is null and void.

Like I said, the research was done BEFORE the top of the first round got all out of whack. The difference between the top pick and the middle of the second round now is similar to what it was when the research was done (mostly through 2002). Actually, it's a little more skewed toward the top of the draft now than it was then. The top pick in 2002 got only $10.92 million guaranteed, and the 43rd pick that year got $1.45 million guaranteed -- or 13.5 percent of the top pick. Last year, the top pick got $22.11 million guaranteed, and the 43rd pick got $2.81 million guaranteed -- only 12.7 percent. It was the years in between then when the top picks started getting outrageous contracts.

 

[AdamJT13]

I can't even believe people are arguing that.

I'm not arguing that.

And TB still has 33. If they miss on 1 they have 33 in the so-called 'sweet spot'

The 33rd pick is higher than the "sweet spot" of the draft.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Like I said, the research was done BEFORE the top of the first round got all out of whack. The difference between the top pick and the middle of the second round now is similar to what it was when the research was done (mostly through 2002). Actually, it's a little more skewed toward the top of the draft now than it was then. The top pick in 2002 got only $10.92 million guaranteed, and the 43rd pick that year got $1.45 million guaranteed -- or 13.5 percent of the top pick. Last year, the top pick got $22.11 million guaranteed, and the 43rd pick got $2.81 million guaranteed -- only 12.7 percent. It was the years in between then when the top picks started getting outrageous contracts.

Could you link the study?

 

[jnday]

I can't even believe people are arguing that. Busts are just as prevalent at 27 as they are at 5.

Teams don't pay for top 5 spots, they are assigned based on last year's record. But they are worth 3-5x more than a late 1st. Who would prefer the lesser pick?????

And TB still has 33. If they miss on 1 they have 33 in the so-called 'sweet spot'

Who would prefer the later pick? The OP for one and a few more that are not thinking with their heads. This tread had to be an effort at trolling. There is no other explanation.

 

[AdamJT13]

Could you link the study?

http://cbdr.cmu.edu/seminar/Massey.pdf

 

[Nightman]

I'm not arguing that.



The 33rd pick is higher than the "sweet spot" of the draft.

The OP said he preferred drafting at 27 and a couple others agreed. I did not.

You seem intent on making some point about the middle of the second round without taking a side.

 

[jnday]

After 7 pages of discussion, is everybody in agreement that drafting late to avoid those elite talents is a better way to approach the draft?

 

[erod]

This thread has really went off the deep end when posters are saying that having a top pick is now too much of a risk because the player may bust. Sure don't want to risk getting elite talent.

That's not the point. Of course you want to draft early when it comes to getting that elite talent.

The point is, elite players ultimately come from all over the draft, though they're tougher to find the longer you go. However, busts happen early in the first round with relative frequency, too, and those mistakes are costly.

The other part of (my) point is that there are safe, exceptional football players late in the first round and the second round that don't have the "wow" factor to get drafted earlier. Travis Frederick is a prime example, as was Sean Lee.

Look at Jadaveon Clowney. Houston is nervous on that pick. I think Winston and Mariotta are going to bust horribly, but teams will bite the bullet and take them anyway. You saw it with Trent Richardson, Mark Ingram, CJ Spiller, and Darren McFadden, too. Very expensive players that turned out to be 3rd-round talent.

 

[jnday]

That's not the point. Of course you want to draft early when it comes to getting that elite talent.

The point is, elite players ultimately come from all over the draft, though they're tougher to find the longer you go. However, busts happen early in the first round with relative frequency, too, and those mistakes are costly.

The other part of (my) point is that there are safe, exceptional football players late in the first round and the second round that don't have the "wow" factor to get drafted earlier. Travis Frederick is a prime example, as was Sean Lee.

Look at Jadaveon Clowney. Houston is nervous on that pick. I think Winston and Mariotta are going to bust horribly, but teams will bite the bullet and take them anyway. You saw it with Trent Richardson, Mark Ingram, CJ Spiller, and Darren McFadden, too. Very expensive players that turned out to be 3rd-round talent.

There will be good players drafted in every round and some will be total unexpected surprises. Fear of drafting a bust sure doesn't give me the feeling that drafting the elite talent at the top of the first round is a bad option. If you are gonna list first round busts, players such as Aikman and Andrew Luck needs to be listed as well. You use Sean Lee as a solid pick that has offered value, but the reality of the situation is that Lee not been a productive player year in and year out due to injuries. Injuries was the reason that he was available in the 2nd round . Many of these picks that was drafted later and had good careers, overcame warts that had them rated lower to begin with.

 

[erod]

There will be good players drafted in every round and some will be total unexpected surprises. Fear of drafting a bust sure doesn't give me the feeling that drafting the elite talent at the top of the first round is a bad option. If you are gonna list first round busts, players such as Aikman and Andrew Luck needs to be listed as well. You use Sean Lee as a solid pick that has offered value, but the reality of the situation is that Lee not been a productive player year in and year out due to injuries. Injuries was the reason that he was available in the 2nd round . Many of these picks that was drafted later and had good careers, overcame warts that had them rated lower to begin with.

Who are the best five defensive players in the NFL in your opinion?

 

[Nightman]

Who are the best five defensive players in the NFL in your opinion?

JJWatt, DSuh, LKuechly, DRevis, JHayden

 

[erod]

JJWatt, DSuh, LKuechly, DRevis, JHayden

All great players. DE, DT, MLB, CB, CB. And all first rounders, and very expensive.

Is that a better fivesome than these guys (same positions): GHardy (6th round), JCasey (3rd), BWagner (2nd), RSherman (5th), AVerner (4th)

What about CCampbell (2nd), KWilliams (5th), NBowman (3rd), BGrimes (undrafted), TJennings (2nd)

And I haven't included a safety or OLB yet.

The point is, there is tremendous talent and more value later in the first round than early on. That was my only point.

New England and Green Bay have gone on long roads because of their ability to find impact players for cheap salaries.

 

[Nightman]

All great players. DE, DT, MLB, CB, CB. And all first rounders, and very expensive.

Is that a better fivesome than these guys (same positions): GHardy (6th round), JCasey (3rd), BWagner (2nd), RSherman (5th), AVerner (4th)

What about CCampbell (2nd), KWilliams (5th), NBowman (3rd), BGrimes (undrafted), TJennings (2nd)

And I haven't included a safety or OLB yet.

The point is, there is tremendous talent and more value later in the first round than early on. That was my only point.

New England and Green Bay have gone on long roads because of their ability to find impact players for cheap salaries.

If you had said "don't fret, we can still get very good players in the draft even at 27" no one would disagree.

When you said you prefer our draft position is when you lost most people. Making the best out of 27 is fine and it helps drag out the drama of the evening by drafting later, but I would still take a top 10 pick every time.