My Non-Trade Down Theory

[TwoDeep3]

The notion of trading down makes no sense to me. Players are slotted by league scouts in regard to the talent they possess or exhibit via college games and workouts designed to showcase their professional potential.

As some have pointed out, this is a crap shoot and players fail at every spot in the draft, at times.

Value seems to be another label put on the idea of trading down.

We can get a better "value" if we move from here to there and pick up an extra selection.

While this is an absurd example, do you believe the Steelers made out better for trading down in 1990 for extra picks that brought us Emmitt Smith?

From a History of the Vikings website:

"On April 22, 1990 (draft day), Dallas traded Minnesota's 1st pick in 1990 and SF 3rd pick in 1990 to Pittsburgh for Pitt's 1st round pick (#21 and #81 for #17) and selected RB Emmitt Smith. With the #21 pick, Pittsburgh selected TE Eric Green."

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/07130070

Green played five years for the Steelers.

The other Steeler pick from Dallas was the Craig Veasey, a defensive tackle.

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/07160181

He played two years for the Steelers.

We moved up several slots and the Steelers gained a third rounder for the privilege of letting us select the all-time rushing leader.

Now you may dig deep and come up with a scenario that is the polar oppisite of this example.

I admit this is an extreme case which illustrate my point.

But the principle is clear. If there are no guarantees at the top of the draft. Then what does that say for moving down into a more hazy area where talent is even more difficult to identify?

Busts are labeled as such because they do not play up to pre-draft perceived potential.

But think on this for a moment. How many players taken in the fourth round are called a bust?

Busts are such because they are not worth the slot where they were taken. The money paid did not buy the results desired.

But where is all the money spent in drafts? At the top where players are more readily designated busts.

There are far more players labeled bust in the first round than any other. Because the expectations are higher for this player than ones taken after him.

There are also more pro bowlers and all-pros taken in the first round over any other round, per capita.

Because the talent is at the top of the draft.

There are exceptions to every rule. And I believe there are times it is wise to move down.

We have only a few slots open for a rookie to gain the starter's position.

Why trade down to grab players who have a higher probability of being back-ups.

I think our window is this year. T.O. could erupt like Mount St. Helens next year if Jerry doesn't pony up more money.

This year we need a playmaker and not just a player with the addition of a special teamer as a bonus pick.

Keep this truth in mind. While some falsely say Jimmy Johnson moved down in drafts. You only need pick up a Dallas Cowboy media guide to see that this notion is bogus.

Jimmy moved up to build the championship teams.

I'm for staying at 18 unless a real stud starts to fall for some crazy reason.

Then I wouldn't be opposed to moving up to get a difference maker.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[bobbie brewskie]

The notion of trading down makes no sense to me. Players are slotted by league scouts in regard to the talent they possess or exhibit via college games and workouts designed to showcase their professional potential.

As some have pointed out, this is a crap shoot and players fail at every spot in the draft, at times.

Value seems to be another label put on the idea of trading down.

We can get a better "value" if we move from here to there and pick up an extra selection.

While this is an absurd example, do you believe the Steelers made out better for trading down in 1990 for extra picks that brought us Emmitt Smith?

From a History of the Vikings website:

"On April 22, 1990 (draft day), Dallas traded Minnesota's 1st pick in 1990 and SF 3rd pick in 1990 to Pittsburgh for Pitt's 1st round pick (#21 and #81 for #17) and selected RB Emmitt Smith. With the #21 pick, Pittsburgh selected TE Eric Green."

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/07130070

Green played five years for the Steelers.

The other Steeler pick from Dallas was the Craig Veasey, a defensive tackle.

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/07160181

He played two years for the Steelers.

We moved up several slots and the Steelers gained a third rounder for the privilege of letting us select the all-time rushing leader.

Now you may dig deep and come up with a scenario that is the polar oppisite of this example.

I admit this is an extreme case which illustrate my point.

But the principle is clear. If there are no guarantees at the top of the draft. Then what does that say for moving down into a more hazy area where talent is even more difficult to identify?

Busts are labeled as such because they do not play up to pre-draft perceived potential.

But think on this for a moment. How many players taken in the fourth round are called a bust?

Busts are such because they are not worth the slot where they were taken. The money paid did not buy the results desired.

But where is all the money spent in drafts? At the top where players are more readily designated busts.

There are far more players labeled bust in the first round than any other. Because the expectations are higher for this player than ones taken after him.

There are also more pro bowlers and all-pros taken in the first round over any other round, per capita.

Because the talent is at the top of the draft.

There are exceptions to every rule. And I believe there are times it is wise to move down.

We have only a few slots open for a rookie to gain the starter's position.

Why trade down to grab players who have a higher probability of being back-ups.

I think our window is this year. T.O. could erupt like Mount St. Helens next year if Jerry doesn't pony up more money.

This year we need a playmaker and not just a player with the addition of a special teamer as a bonus pick.

Keep this truth in mind. While some falsely say Jimmy Johnson moved down in drafts. You only need pick up a Dallas Cowboy media guide to see that this notion is bogus.

Jimmy moved up to build the championship teams.

I'm for staying at 18 unless a real stud starts to fall for some crazy reason.

Then I wouldn't be opposed to moving up to get a difference maker.

Just my opinion, of course.

you are right to a certain extent.

talent is at the top of the draft (obviously, teams will draft the best players in the earlier rounds). ur just pointin out the obvious. but then it comes down to value of pick, and that is where you can say a 7th round pick was a better "value" than a 1st because for being drafted so late he wasnt a bust, which is where i agree with the fact that guys from latter rounds arent considerd busts because the value of the pick is so low, that even if they dont start they wont be considered a bust.

1. trading down into the "thick" of the draft, which in this case is the 2nd-3rd round is a great thing as the talent pool is very narrow and short found. i mean if we could get carpenter/lawson - two favorite picks for us, at the 22nd spot or even later than that, it would provide us with an extra pick in a latter round to address another position such as backup NT or OT/OG or FS. i think you are trying to say trading down far enough to lose out on a pick that we would have gotten at #18 and cant get at our new spot. IMO the type of trade down that we will do is to a team that has the need of a player that has fallen to us at #18 and trade with them for an extra pick but still be able to get our desired choice. the "Risk" factor comes in when you trade so far down that you do not get the talent that is there in the "top of the draft" and instead go for more value in the "Thick" of the draft.

2. there are plenty of examples to back-up both prespectives of trading down or not. i mean what about trading down and getting the same player you would have at the spot and then getting another selection in round 3 that ends up being a special teams expert or even a starter? both have upsides and downsides.

IMO, there are two kinds of down-trades.

1st being trading out of position and moving so far down to not get the guy you would have originally gotten but get 2 picks of greater value later on in the draft (calls for a bigger risk as the talent on both picks is not as great but both will be mediocre quality instead of 1 of "good" quality and 1 of below average quality). and 2nd being, trading down just a few spots and still being able to draft the same prospect while picking up a second pick in a much latter round i.e. 3rd or 4th.

the first option is more risky as there is a chance that both players may be good or bad. and the second calls for a bigger chance of 1 player being good while the second has a bigger chance of being bad.

now im just rambling . . . im done.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Do you recall the sentiments after the 2002 draft on this board?

People were proclaiming that Jerry finally turned a corner and we had solidified out team with superb talent.

Roy Williams
Andre Gurode
Antonio Bryant
Derek Ross
Jamar Martin
Ralph Hunter
Tyson Walter
Deveren Johnson
Bob Slowiskowski


We had our corners for the next decade as soon as Pete Hunter took his place as a starter.

The board rejoiced in the snagging of Bryant. A player with so much talent and who was so misunderstood.

The pancake block by Gurode against Texas where he drove the lineman out of the back of the endzone was discussed with glee. Just wait until he is snuffing out all those defensive linemen with his power blocking.

Keep in mind ALL the pundits gave us a terrific grade on draft day.

Because we selected players in the "meat" of the draft.

They were wrong. We were wrong.

Now what do these same pundits say about this draft?

I will quote you.

1. trading down into the "thick" of the draft, which in this case is the 2nd-3rd round is a great thing as the talent pool is very narrow and short found.

Who says the thick of the draft is beyond 18?

Aren't they the very same people we revile after draft day that don't agree with our picks?

And are you certain we can move down and still get a player like Carpenter?

If it's a crap shoot, how can you be certain of anything?

 

[bobbie brewskie]

Do you recall the sentiments after the 2002 draft on this board?

People were proclaiming that Jerry finally turned a corner and we had solidified out team with superb talent.

Roy Williams
Andre Gurode
Antonio Bryant
Derek Ross
Jamar Martin
Ralph Hunter
Tyson Walter
Deveren Johnson
Bob Slowiskowski


We had our corners for the next decade as soon as Pete Hunter took his place as a starter.

The board rejoiced in the snagging of Bryant. A player with so much talent and who was so misunderstood.

The pancake block by Gurode against Texas where he drove the lineman out of the back of the endzone was discussed with glee. Just wait until he is snuffing out all those defensive linemen with his power blocking.

Keep in mind ALL the pundits gave us a terrific grade on draft day.

Because we selected players in the "meat" of the draft.

They were wrong. We were wrong.

Now what do these same pundits say about this draft?

I will quote you.



Who says the thick of the draft is beyond 18?

Aren't they the very same people we revile after draft day that don't agree with our picks?

And are you certain we can move down and still get a player like Carpenter?

If it's a crap shoot, how can you be certain of anything?

Roy Williams - dont needa say nething, he has proven himself on the field.
Derek Ross - showed some talent, but he was lazy . . .
Antonio Bryant - could have been great for us if it wasnt for a few disputes with Parcells and company.

the rest were all as good as what we drafted em at or worse, you cant expect the whole draft to be perfect.

come on now, drafts are meant to be like that. isnt it true that "the draft is for superstars and Free Agency is for the filling of gaps" like you said as well, "there are busts all over the draft" there is gonna be good and bad within the draft no matter how you play it out, trade up or down or stay where your at.

i completely agree with you, trading down is risky, but im sure Ireland knows more than we do, so if he decides to trade down it will be for good reason. sometimes it happens taht you trade down and get what you would have gotten anyways and then some, and sometimes it backfires and you lose what you were hoping for. there have been plenty of draft trade downs that have worked out for the better and worse.

 

[Zaxor]

we traded down and still got Roy...

I agree to a certain extent TD3 but lets look at it this way...

lets say in this draft there are 10 players that have a 90% chance of doing well..they are the top 10 players of this draft now lets say the next group has a 80% chance but there are 30 - 40 players here...would you prefer 3 from the 80% group or 1 from the 90% group... I like the 3 from the 80%...

now having said that if there is a player that I think will be as close to a sure fire differance maker I might trade up and get him but I have to be as close to 100% sure as I can be

 

[bobbie brewskie]

lets say in this draft there are 10 players that have a 90% chance of doing well..they are the top 10 players of this draft now lets say the next group has a 80% chance but there are 30 - 40 players here...would you prefer 3 from the 80% group or 1 from the 90% group... I like the 3 from the 80%...

exactly what im saying, if we trade down we have more players with a lesser chance and if we stay where we are we have less players with a better chance. BUT, what if we trade down get the same player plus a guy with a 70% chance to be good? i mean, if its possible it can result in a great success, but then there is the risk of losing your 90% guy and being forced to get somebody that is not as good.

Honestly can you say that Carpenter, Lawson and Wimbely (the 3 guys id go with at our #18 spot) are all going to be gone if we trade down? i cant say that any 1 of them will be there but honestly, i really see high odds that one of the three will fall past the #18 pick and we will be able to trade down and still get the same value at say the #22 pick and pick up an extra 3rd round pick in order to address another need.

now i have a question, if 2 or even all 3 of them fall to us at 18, do you say we trade down a few picks since we will be able to get 1 of the 3 later or do we take the best of the 3?

by saying this, trading down also depends a lot on what has happened before your team picks and who is available. there are to many factors to determine whether trading down is a good or bad thing. and also think of how many other teams after us would really want to use their 1st pick on the same position as us . . .

 

[AdamJT13]

A couple of years ago, two economists applied economic theories to the NFL draft and found that the most efficent draft choices (the "best value," based on the cost in terms of draft picks -- trading up or down using other picks -- and dollars paid to the player) were in the middle of the second round -- specifically around No. 43 overall. The performance of second-round players relative to their cost (in picks and dollars) was greater than that of first-round picks, whose cost was far more but whose average performance wasn't much more. And the risk of drafting a bust in the first round also was much greater, based on cost (not only don't those players perform, they also cost a lot).

So in the long run, teams would be better off trading down out of the first round -- unless, of course, they're SURE the guy they want is going to be an absolute stud. You know, like Courtney Brown, Tim Couch, Ki-Jana Carter, Bryant Westbrook, Steve Emtman, Eric Turner, Blair Thomas, Tony Mandarich, Aundray Bruce, etc.

 

[TwoDeep3]

However Adam, look at the results of second round picks by Parcells as the head coach of the Cowboys.

Would you say his results would be something you would buy or sell?

This is not to sday just because it is the second round he fails.

But he has a hisoty with this franchise of over-valuing the players he has selected in that specific round.

Thus his penchant for erring in this paradigm would skew the econimic theories applied.

Would they not?

 

[Rack]

If we can trade down 2-5 spots, that would be ideal. But if not, there is nothing wrong with taking Carpenter at 18.


People ridiculed the Bengals for taking Levi Jones with the #10 pick a couple of years ago. Mel Kiper was in disbelief. I said at the time there was nothing wrong with the pick. Just cuz Kiper didn't have him rated that high doesn't mean the Bengals didn't as well. Obviously the Bengals didn't get the trade offers. What are they suppose to do? Pick the player Kiper (or some other supposed draft "Expert") tells them they should pick?

And look at the Bengals now. Looking pretty good for making that pick. Levi Jones has been well worth the pick. He's lived up to his draft status. He'll be in the probowl within the next couple of seasons.


Carpenter is one of the most underated players in this draft. He can rush the passer, has tremendous instincts, and is a good run defender. He's EXACTLY what our defense is missing. And he is worth the #18 pick.


Like I said, I wouldn't trade down more then 5 spots. And even then you're risking losing the player.

The only other trade I'd do would be to trade UP for AJ Hawk if he dropped past #10.


And this is coming from someone that absolutely hates Ohio State.

 

[Rack]

You know, like Courtney Brown, Tim Couch, Ki-Jana Carter, Bryant Westbrook, Steve Emtman, Eric Turner, Blair Thomas, Tony Mandarich, Aundray Bruce, etc.

Courtney Brown is actually a very good football player... when he's healthy. Problem is that happens about as often as Haley's Comet comes around.



Tim Couch shouldn't of been a starter his first year. He's a perfect example of why I always say you should never start a rookie QB. Yes, I know, people will mention Aikman. Aikman himself said at one point he started to wonder if he'd ever find success in the NFL. In Aikman's case we started to win rather soon in his career (first three seasons). If not, who's to say he would of lost his confidence? Also, who's to say sitting him a year (and keeping Danny White to start) wouldn't of done him more good?


Ki-Jana Carter's problems were injuries, not talent.


I could of told Detroit Westbrook wasn't worth the #5 pick. Just like I said a few years ago that Quentin Jammer wasn't worth a top 10 pick.


Steve Emtman, again, had injury problems. Which is messed up cuz he had no injury problems in college. He was a good DT before he got hurt. He certainly wasn't a bust cuz of a lack of talent.


Eric Turner... he was ok a couple of years. Didn't he make a probowl? Either way, I agree. He was a bust.


Blair Thomas... big time bust.


Tony Mandarich was a huge bust. But at least he was a solid run blocker.


Aundray Bruce is probably the biggest bust of all time.


I agree with you though, Adam. I just don't agree with some of the examples you used. You could of used many many much better examples. Mike Mamula would of been a good one.

 

[Rack]

Just for the hell of it, here's the #18 pick over the last few years...


2005: Erasmus James

2004: Will Smith (DE, OSU)

2003: Calvin Pace (Even at the time most people questioned this pick)

2002: TJ Duckett

2001: Jeff Backus

2000: Chad Pennington

1999: Matt Stinchcomb

1998: Robert Edwards (RB that NE drafted)

1997: Kenny Holmes

1996: Eddie Kennison

1995: Napoleon Kaufman

1994: DeWayne Washington

1993: Ernest Dye (another dumb cardinals pick)

1992: Dana Hall

1991: Alfred Williams

1990: Tony Bennett

1989: Brian Williams (giants pick while BP was coach)

1988: Aaron Jones

1987: Tony Woods

1986: Mike Sherrard

1985: Freddie Joe Nunn (one of the few the Cards got right)

 

[bobbie brewskie]

Just for the hell of it, here's the #18 pick over the last few years...


2005: Erasmus James

2004: Will Smith (DE, OSU)

2003: Calvin Pace (Even at the time most people questioned this pick)

2002: TJ Duckett

2001: Jeff Backus

2000: Chad Pennington

1999: Matt Stinchcomb

1998: Robert Edwards (RB that NE drafted)

1997: Kenny Holmes

1996: Eddie Kennison

1995: Napoleon Kaufman

1994: DeWayne Washington

1993: Ernest Dye (another dumb cardinals pick)

1992: Dana Hall

1991: Alfred Williams

1990: Tony Bennett

1989: Brian Williams (giants pick while BP was coach)

1988: Aaron Jones

1987: Tony Woods

1986: Mike Sherrard

1985: Freddie Joe Nunn (one of the few the Cards got right)

hmmm, maybe carpenter/lawson will be 1 of the only good #18 picks ever haha. this scares me.

 

[Rack]

hmmm, maybe carpenter/lawson will be 1 of the only good #18 picks ever haha. this scares me.

There's been a few solid/good ones.


Look at it this way, that pick is due to produce a superstar.

 

[bobbie brewskie]

There's been a few solid/good ones.


Look at it this way, that pick is due to produce a superstar.

haha well how bout this, with the 18th pick (1st round) of the 2006 draft the cincinatti bengals select CB Jimmy Williams/Tye Hill . . . with the 24th pick (1st round) in the 2006 draft the dallas cowboys select OLB Bobby Carpenter. and with the 27th pick (3rd round) the dallas cowboys select FS Jason Allen.

 

[TwoDeep3]

However Rack, to repeat myself...move up to the 17th pick and then we see Superstar written all over it in 1990.

 

[bobbie brewskie]

However Rack, to repeat myself...move up to the 17th pick and then we see Superstar written all over it in 1990.

move to any spot in the draft and there has been a superstar :-D

 

[proline]

How can you not understand the upside of trading down? Were you paying attention 2 years ago when we traded down, got Julius as well as the pick that we used last year to get Spears? That move was entirely based on the belief that there was not much difference between the top several RB's, so why not get an extra 1st round pick and still get a good RB?

It's not always the right play to make, but there are times when it is a solid move.

 

[bobbie brewskie]

How can you not understand the upside of trading down? Were you paying attention 2 years ago when we traded down, got Julius as well as the pick that we used last year to get Spears? That move was entirely based on the belief that there was not much difference between the top several RB's, so why not get an extra 1st round pick and still get a good RB?

It's not always the right play to make, but there are times when it is a solid move.

im pretty sure he understands the upside of it, he just believes that the upside to staying where you are outweighs that of trading down. and like ive said they both have their ups and downs.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I understand it. I don't agree with it.

Please help me here.

Two years into the league and exactly what milestones has Julius accomplished which make him an example of trading down is the wisest thing to do?

I am not putting him down. He may bounce back and be everything this franchise needs.

But can you say for sure that the trade was the absolute correct move for this franchise?

By the way. We did not get an extra first pick.

We had a first in 2004.

We had a first on 2005.

We gave up the first in 2004 to have two firsts in 2005.

We had two before the trade and two after.

There was no extra pick in the first.

We gained a second and a fifth. Had we actually received an extra pick in 2005 we would have had three in the first.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Because of where the valule is in this draft, trading down makes perfect sense.