| Forum Index > Sports |
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
On April 21 2016 05:28 Jaaaaasper wrote: The picks they got are worth way more than the second pick in what way.... are you saying you value quantity over quality? do you believe it's a deep draft? you don't agree with the notion that a gamble on a franchise qb is more important than placing smaller bets in 2 drafts? where do you place the value of selling hype to fans? | ||
|
FatChicksUnited
Canada214 Posts
On April 21 2016 07:48 JimmiC wrote: Regardless, he is still worth the 1 year tag. are the panthers that pushed up against the cap? Don't disagree with you. He's a prime candidate to be tagged twice, actually. Really odd for the Panthers to rescind the tag. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On April 21 2016 08:26 y0su wrote: i wonder if the panthers got wind of some legal issues in what way.... are you saying you value quantity over quality? do you believe it's a deep draft? you don't agree with the notion that a gamble on a franchise qb is more important than placing smaller bets in 2 drafts? where do you place the value of selling hype to fans? Basically, if the qb they get is Matt Stafford or Matt Ryan, the trade is even. Thats really the problem. Both those players had better draft grades than these two and its really more likely Goff and Wentz end up closer to Christian Ponder and Jake Locker. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On April 21 2016 08:26 y0su wrote: i wonder if the panthers got wind of some legal issues in what way.... are you saying you value quantity over quality? do you believe it's a deep draft? you don't agree with the notion that a gamble on a franchise qb is more important than placing smaller bets in 2 drafts? where do you place the value of selling hype to fans? No I mean that the value of the picks, in quality and quantity is better than the second over all pick. The quantity has a quality of its own, and they got quality as well. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
GTR
51583 Posts
| ||
Shellshock
United States97276 Posts
On April 21 2016 10:17 GTR wrote: browns truly playing moneyball here Paul DePodesta already making an impact? | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
| ||
|
vult
United States9400 Posts
I'm really excited about them going forward. Been a fan of the team for a few years now (2nd behind the Pats), and since they got Bortles, I have really high hopes for the future. Everyone who has given me shit over the years will rue the day with the Jags make the playoffs this year. YOULL ALL SEE! :D | ||
|
Shellshock
United States97276 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On April 21 2016 10:16 JimmiC wrote: Or Aaron Rodgers, Andy Dalton, draft grades are fine but there are good and bad ones that are similar. In reality it impossible to grade a trade of draft picks till at the earliest 3 years after the last pick is made. Its a even more useless excersise than draft grades right after the draft which is little more than a ranking of what teams agreed most with the "draft expert" writing the grades. So, late first, early second round gambles? Anyways, if you get Dalton the trade is the same... People always say, "you can't win without a QB." However, just as importantly is there are scores of QBs who can't win games for you. Over the last decade there have been basically three who elevated crappy rosters into the playoffs: Luck, Manning, Rodgers. There are a few more that made the playoffs on good teams, but we are fairly certain also could have carried a bad team: Brady, Newton, Brees, Roethlisberger. Is it possible you got one of those guys? Yea. But its more likely you got Blake Bordles, who is serviceable while simultaneously turning your roster into the Jags, long term. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
People like to pretend the QB they are picking or a new QB is the next big thing (like the Raiders new QB Carr), or paying Brock Osweiler a lot of money. In reality those QBs are not noticeably different than Hoyer, Fitzpatrick, McCown, Tannehill, etc when those QBs get a full offseason of reps and start every game. The difference is in that those mediocre veterans are treated as throwaways and juggled and they get pulled whenever they suck a little, while your Derrik Carr or Jared Goff has not proven to you yet his mediocrity so you give them lots of leash and explain away mistakes. Your evaluating the trade backwards with the ATL example, because ATL would not have drafted those players at those positions. Clearly they wouldn't have picked Weeden. The point of saying these "trade ups" don't often work is because realistically you should assume all teams are equally stupid. The top WR last year was a late round pick. The Julio Jones trade looks good because Julio Jones outperformed his draft slot, and the Browns' picks have performed at or below their slots. I mean, your logic would say that teams should have traded 3+ first round picks for the Pats' 2000 6th round pick, but that is clearly crazy. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1087 Posts
On April 21 2016 12:24 JimmiC wrote: Look at the julio jones trade clearly ATL won it Phil Taylor (Atlanta's 2011 first-round pick), wide receiver Greg Little, (2011 second-round pick), fullback Owen Marecic (2011 fourth-round pick) and quarterback Brandon Weeden (2012 first-round pick). Even though clevland got more picks. The players that end up in the slots are what makes the end evaluation and time will tell us if it was a good trade or not. That's a very results oriented view of a trade and most people would caution against being results oriented in anything involving chance. If we go by results, at #124, the Browns could have taken Richard Sherman who was actually taken at #154 or Julius Thomas (#129). At #59, they could have had Randall Cobb (#64), Justin Houston (#70), DeMarco Murray (#71), or Jurrell Casey (#77). At #27, they could have had Andy Dalton (#35), Mark Ingram (#28), Muhammad Wilkerson (#30), or Kyle Rudolph (#43). The next year they could have picked up Josh Norman (#143), Alfred Morris (#173), Blair Walsh (#175), or Justin Bethel (#177) for their 118 pick. Then there's David DeCastro (#24), Harrison Smith (#29), Doug Martin (#31), Janoris Jenkins (#39), Alshon Jeffery (#45), or Bobby Wagner (#47) for their #22 pick. Those are all pro bowlers picked just a little bit after the Browns picked their players. If they had been better pickers, they could have formed a team of Richard Sherman, DeMarco Murray, Andy Dalton, Josh Norman, and Alshon Jeffery for the price of one Julio Jones. That's a hell of a skilled core for a team and that's skewing towards the better known players and not necessarily towards the Brown's needs. On the flip side, in 2012, the #6 overall pick was Morris Claiborne who has suffered from a lot of injury issues and has certainly not been stellar. If one person would have hit Julio Jones the wrong way on the knees in his rookie season, the trade could have been a complete bust. To evaluate whether or not a trade is fair, I'd look at the average value of a player taken at each spot. So what's a normal #6 pick worth? Then compare that to a normal #27 + #59 + #124 + #22 (next year) + #118 (next year). At #6, the hit rate is pretty good on getting a pro-bowler. Your chances aren't bad picking in the 20s, but it's much harder to find them in the 100s and lower. And how much do you value a pro bowler versus an above average starter or an absolute star versus a normal pro-bowler? Finally, you look at the specific class that you're drafting from and the specific player you're targeting. Is there a reason to believe he'll outperform the average at that draft spot? It's not an exact science and that's why trades get done. Each organization has their own evaluations and needs. However, if you offered me the #6 pick or the #27 + #22 + others, I'd take the #22 + #27 + others almost every time and hope that my scouting staff is good enough to make those picks count. There is no such thing as a sure thing in the NFL (even Manning could have blown out a knee/shoulder in his rookie season and never turned into what he did), so I'd rather give my scouting team numerous opportunities to get a hit rather than push all in on one player. | ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
When the variance is that high, on average, it's better to have more picks than less; the chance of a player who is drafted early on to be good isn't as high as that of finding at least one good players among 2+ rookies drafted later on. This is why the really good franchises tend to move down in the draft, not up, while the Redskins and Browns go for these massively stupid blockbuster trades that never work out. You can look at any individual trade and call it a win one way or the other, but the whole point is that you're doing that in hindsight. Im pretty sure that if you looked at every draft trade ever, you'd find that teams moving up, ON AVERAGE, end up with the worse end of it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
giftdgecko
United States2126 Posts
I was really surprised by Carolina releasing Norman, but the guy wants $16mill a year... There's no way to replace him but don't they have a bunch of other young players to pay? If you can lock up a few other players long term and get a tradable 3rd rounder next year it makes business sense. Like JimmiC said though, really felt like they could have kept the tag (which he never signed) and tried for one more ride before letting him go. Norman is supposedly interested in California and I think the niners have the cap space but that Florida tax in Jax is calling his name | ||
|
Shellshock
United States97276 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14105 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
herO vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
Solar vs Percival
RSL Revival
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Gerald vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
ByuN vs TBD
Rogue vs MaxPax
ShoWTimE vs TBD
CranKy Ducklings
Escore
RSL Revival
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
