Stephen Jones is a terrible negotiator

[honyock]

Words with Acquaintances. Maybe.

Okay, when you put it that way, I'll play you but I may have to go unlike a couple of your posts.

 

[Idgit]

I'm not so sure the wheels have fallen off. He's gone though some injuries for sure but I think he still has some healthy playing time ahead of him.

Actually, I expect him to play really well this year, and then for him to decline fairly steadily. And, the wheels were coming off a really, really good player. He had a lot of room to fall. I'm only talking relative to his huge salary here, too. He looked like a very good bet at the time of his extension. But once you get the neck and shoulder problems...those don't go away, and they really do interfere with your ability to play.

 

[Wheeltax]

When you're selling your car you can spout the KBB values all day long, but in the end it's only worth what someone is willing to pay. Everything has context.

 

[Wolf2k5]

This is worth repeating.

And the reality is, regardless of this trade we're still slated to have 10 picks during this draft. So we're going to walk away with a boatload of players especially when you factor in whatever undrafted FA's we sign. And nobody's going to care when they were picked as long as they pan out. There's no reason to be all butt-hurt over this stuff this early.

I can still remember all the ridiculous moaning and groaning after last year's trade and we ended up with one of the best rookie O lineman in the league and one of the best rookie WR's as well.

I'm convinced it's because everybody got their day two snacks all set for a few hours and then Boom! Done for the day lol

 

[The Quest for Six]

It was the cost of trading with a division rival.

no, it's tunnel vision when you chase for NEED!!

 

[honyock]

So that guy has looked at player performance and plotted it against draft position? Kinda cool. Although if that's the case, it's kind of gonna be off due to projections versus outcomes.

It's more of a measure of how well the league as a whole does at identifying talent, not so much a measure of what individual teams think they can get per given pick.

Or am I looking at their page wrong? Just glanced at it quickly.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. He and the other two charts there other than the Jimmy chart (including the Harvard chart), all came up with their own way of evaluating what you could expect from each draft position, based on historical data, figuring things like number of starts per career, number of quality starts, pro bowls, all pro selections, length of career, etc. Then they figured how much above a replacement player each draft pick was worth, in their estimation.

It is pretty cool, although like you say it probably is an approach that has its own pitfalls. All three of the newer charts came up with curves that led them to believe that the old chart - and old NFL thinking in general - overvalued high picks, and way undervalued lower round picks.

I started a thread a couple of days ago with some data by two economists that made the same argument, from another point of view, that more picks is almost always more valuable, due to risk diversification. So they and the new charters all argue that what the Cowboys did last year was smart management of resources - more players protects you from the pain of busts and the lower round players are undervalued anyway by most GM's. And they argue against what the Cowboys did today.

So anyway, just another way of looking at how you approach draft picks. I lean towards agreeing with them. That's why I didn't like the trade, even though I like Lawrence. But hey, I'm an emotional fan, so if he's a beast, I'll deny all this.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is *not* why. Old players and injuries hurt you. A tight salary cap hurts you. It's not Dallas moving up or down in the draft that hurts you.

The bigger bummer, for many of us, I bet, is less that we doubled down on Lawrence. It's that we were all looking forward to tonights draft, and it was abruptly over right after it started. I'm bummed by that.

Moving up in the draft and focusing risk in fewer opportunities hurts us. That is what the Harvard analysis was talking about. All of our eggs are in one proverbial basket and we are doing a poor job mitigating risk.

 

[Idgit]

Moving up in the draft and focusing risk in fewer opportunities hurts us. That is what the Harvard analysis was talking about. All of our eggs are in one proverbial basket and we are doing a poor job mitigating risk.

I know. But we move up and down, depending on the circumstances. I'm not defending moving up as a philosophy. But it's not the reason why we lack depth, either. We've lacked depth due to injuries and a tight salary cap.

 

[RS12]

How do people defend this trade?

Through silver and blue homer glasses.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Inner-division premium. I'm happy with Martin/Lawrence

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I know. But we move up and down, depending on the circumstances. I'm not defending moving up as a philosophy. But it's not the reason why we lack depth, either. We've lacked depth due to injuries and a tight salary cap.

And unfortunately poor drafting from 2006 until 2009.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know. But we move up and down, depending on the circumstances. I'm not defending moving up as a philosophy. But it's not the reason why we lack depth, either. We've lacked depth due to injuries and a tight salary cap.

Sure there are other factors but one less top 100 player on the roster this year hurts qualitydepth just like it did in the Claiborne trade. It is horrendous risk management.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Yeah. Just kind of economics, really. It's unlikely you'll get the transactional win if you're the wantee.

For instance, it only costs whataburger 46 cents to make a burger, but I pay them $3.50 so I can eat it and, by god was it worth the $3.50 and more! So really it was me that won.

So what I'm saying is, yeah we may have overpaid, but that doesn't mean a fresh Demarcus Lawrence with cheese isn't delicious.

My analogy started to break down at the end. Apologies.

I love analogies, .. well done.

 

[Idgit]

Sure there are other factors but one less top 100 player on the roster this year hurts qualitydepth just like it did in the Claiborne trade. It is horrendous risk management.

Yeah. But it helped with Frederick/Williams last year. Trading up is bad math. I'm not disputing it. Only the contention that it's the reason why we lack depth.

 

[Hostile]

47 coming up, not sure why that trade was made, Washington could end up with the better player @ 47.

Did they?

 

[KB1122]

Weren't we supposedly wanting to trade down this year? Or trade up at a better value?

Personally I would have traded down the pick.

This is part of the win now mentality. We have to get an edge rusher this year. Can't wait for next year's draft.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Through silver and blue homer glasses.

There's defending the player and then you have defending the trade.

I don't like the trade. But I like the player. And no doubt the player would not have been there at #47.

 

[Verdict]

The value on the draft value chart is relevant, but can't be viewed in a vacuum. If we traded up for the next "ware" then it was a very good trade. If we traded up for Shante Carver or Kavika Pittman, or Ebeneezer Ekuban then we got fleeced. Time will tell.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

Inner-division premium. I'm happy with Martin/Lawrence

Isn't there an actor named Martin Lawrence? I wonder if he approves of our picks.

 

[Hostile]

Isn't there an actor named Martin Lawrence? I wonder if he approves of our picks.

Nice pun.