Verdict
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 26,230
- Reaction score
- 20,501
Pretty much everyone who follows pro football and the draft is aware of "the chart" used by pro teams to evaluate trades of draft picks. I think it was a very useful tool in its day but its reliability as a benchmark in making trades has to be questioned at this point, in some instances.
In the pre salary cap era, and before free agency, the value of top picks were really at a premium. If you could select a franchise quarterback at #1 overall, you had your franchise QB for the long term. As long as you had enough financial resources, you could insure that he would be your franchise QB until his skills had deteriorated to the point that he wasn't worth keeping.
The salary cap and free agency have changed that somewhat. If you draft a Peyton Manning, you are probably going to keep him, but he is going to cost you an incredible amout of cap space to resign him. Free agency has given the Peyton Mannings of the world leverage to get their price up to market value, or the player can simply move on to another team when his contract is up (with certain exceptions).
While every team is still looking for its version of Troy Aikman, or Peyton Manning, the reality is that getting a Troy or Peyton at the overall #1 pick isn't quite the same as it used to be. In fact, arguably, drafting the #1 overall guy in the salary cap era might be more of a penalty than a benefit.
I think that the chart will continue to be used as a barometer for draft day trades, but due to the inordinately high cost of signing the top 10 players selected that at some point you will see an adjustment in the chart.
If you look at a team like Houston, who has perpetually drafted highly since its inception, you would expect to see some improvement in both talent and record from year to year. One might argue that the Houston organization has managed things poorly, and you might be partially right. On the other hand, the organization's management might not be as poor as some might think.
Selecting Mario Williams was seen as a poor choice by the Texans. In hindsight, maybe it was, but I think they viewed Williams as a "safer" pick. I think they felt that there was a high degree of probability that Williams would have a high "floor" but that a talent like Bush had I higher "ceiling", but also potentially a lower "floor" as well. Houston was forced to select first rather than trading down because it could not find a suitable trading partner. If you remember, it shopped the pick quite a bit before draft day.
Arguably, Houston paid a premium to select Williams who was probably not nearly worth the overall #1 pick, because it was forced to. The draft chart in its current form almost prohibits trades in the top 10 picks unless it is a swap within a few picks. I think that was valid, to some extent, in the pre salary cap days, but I think that it's validity is questionable in the salary cap era.
In the pre salary cap era, and before free agency, the value of top picks were really at a premium. If you could select a franchise quarterback at #1 overall, you had your franchise QB for the long term. As long as you had enough financial resources, you could insure that he would be your franchise QB until his skills had deteriorated to the point that he wasn't worth keeping.
The salary cap and free agency have changed that somewhat. If you draft a Peyton Manning, you are probably going to keep him, but he is going to cost you an incredible amout of cap space to resign him. Free agency has given the Peyton Mannings of the world leverage to get their price up to market value, or the player can simply move on to another team when his contract is up (with certain exceptions).
While every team is still looking for its version of Troy Aikman, or Peyton Manning, the reality is that getting a Troy or Peyton at the overall #1 pick isn't quite the same as it used to be. In fact, arguably, drafting the #1 overall guy in the salary cap era might be more of a penalty than a benefit.
I think that the chart will continue to be used as a barometer for draft day trades, but due to the inordinately high cost of signing the top 10 players selected that at some point you will see an adjustment in the chart.
If you look at a team like Houston, who has perpetually drafted highly since its inception, you would expect to see some improvement in both talent and record from year to year. One might argue that the Houston organization has managed things poorly, and you might be partially right. On the other hand, the organization's management might not be as poor as some might think.
Selecting Mario Williams was seen as a poor choice by the Texans. In hindsight, maybe it was, but I think they viewed Williams as a "safer" pick. I think they felt that there was a high degree of probability that Williams would have a high "floor" but that a talent like Bush had I higher "ceiling", but also potentially a lower "floor" as well. Houston was forced to select first rather than trading down because it could not find a suitable trading partner. If you remember, it shopped the pick quite a bit before draft day.
Arguably, Houston paid a premium to select Williams who was probably not nearly worth the overall #1 pick, because it was forced to. The draft chart in its current form almost prohibits trades in the top 10 picks unless it is a swap within a few picks. I think that was valid, to some extent, in the pre salary cap days, but I think that it's validity is questionable in the salary cap era.
