Trade value chart

[KB1122]

We are only a punter away from a playoff run.... been saying it for years.

Our punting was subpar last year. Their punter was all-pro two years ago. We give up 30 yards a game in this department.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Our punting was subpar last year. Their punter was all-pro two years ago. We give up 30 yards a game in this department.

Our punter sucks, we should use one of our 7th round picks on one.

 

[KB1122]

Going by the Harvard chart, we could basically trade our 1 and 2 for Jacksonville's #3 overall pick to get Johnny Football. And we could also bundle our sevenths for either one second or one third plus one sixth. That strikes me as optimistic, but who knows?

 

[thunderpimp91]

Harvard chart isn't realistic though, it severely undervalues the top rounds and overvalues the bottom. Going by it we could move up to 10 from our 16 for a 7th

None of them are very realistic. In the original we would have to trade our whole draft to move up 11 spots in the 1st. Fans put way too much time and effort in debating draft charts.

 

[thunderpimp91]

Our punting was subpar last year. Their punter was all-pro two years ago. We give up 30 yards a game in this department.

We have bigger fish to fry than punters right now. And why would Jacksonville trade their punter in the first place?

 

[tantrix1969]

None of them are very realistic. In the original we would have to trade our whole draft to move up 11 spots in the 1st. Fans put way too much time and effort in debating draft charts.

It's still alot more realistic than the Harvard chart

 

[JD_KaPow]

Going by the Harvard chart, we could basically trade our 1 and 2 for Jacksonville's #3 overall pick to get Johnny Football. And we could also bundle our sevenths for either one second or one third plus one sixth. That strikes me as optimistic, but who knows?

Harvard chart isn't realistic though, it severely undervalues the top rounds and overvalues the bottom. Going by it we could move up to 10 from our 16 for a 7th

The Harvard chart is realistic, but it's not a trade value chart and you can't use it like one. It's a chart of the overall value you can expect to get out of a player drafted at a certain position. A couple things are missing from that. One is that the scarcity of players isn't linear with the value: the pool of players gets very small very fast as you move up in value. The other (related) issue is that two 200-value players aren't worth the same as one 400-value player, simply because getting all the value in one player leaves you a free roster spot that you can then fill (or at least try to fill) with another talented guy.

It's been suggested that the Harvard chart is pretty good for assessing trades, but that teams have to pay about a 30% premium to trade up. By this measure, moving from 16 to 10 would cost the 63rd pick (bottom of the 2nd round), very similar to what the Johnson chart gives you. I'm curious to see what future trades say about how teams value picks, given the CBA changes and the fact that teams are getting more analytically sophisticated.

 

[DFWJC]

Going by the Harvard chart, we could basically trade our 1 and 2 for Jacksonville's #3 overall pick to get Johnny Football. And we could also bundle our sevenths for either one second or one third plus one sixth. That strikes me as optimistic, but who knows?

Harvard chart is a total joke if applied as a pure trade value chart

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

The Jimmy Johnson chart is flawed as well due to changes in the draft...you are rarely going to get penny for penny trade value going by the chart. The simple thing to ask right now....are Travis Frederick and Terrance Williams more valuable than someone we could have got at 16? Are they more valuable than Eric Reid? To me they are and it's not even that close.