This year in particular teams like a Miami or the Jets are looking to trade down out of the top. The problem now for most NFL teams looking to move up besides giving up picks is the guaranteed money that the players get in their drafted spot. Last year Russell of the Raiders got $33M in guaranteed money! That kind of Money is making NFL GM's think twice before pulling the trigger.A mere difference of 5 spots in the draft could cause a $10M swing.The NFL draft as in most enterprises is driven by demand. The more people ask for something.the higher the cost.Now taking in to account the guaranteed money a player gets will this cause teams to accept less in compensation? Several years ago Eli Manning was traded for a kings ransom in draft picks. If this deal was done today would itstill be made?
i?d say no. of course there are some trades, where GMs ignore the Chart, but i belive, the good GMs go by the system and are sucessfull with it. It?s getting a little difficult when there are players and future picks included, cuz it seems that everyone is judgeing them different, and it has a lot to do with wheather the team is in rebuild mode, or feels that it can compete. Look at last years draft, if you look at our 2 trades, they were based on the Value Chart, and compare them with the two high trades where GMs got away from the Chart: 9ers and Browns. We are pretty happy with the trades, i don?t think that anyone would say that about the 9ers and Browns.
I think the chart exists after the first 6 or 7 picks. Teams that want to trade out of those spots because they don't want to give out huge bonuses are lacking leverage. Who wants to give up multiple day one picks plus a huge signing bonus and put your GM career on the line for one player who could blow his knee out before his career starts? The only positions you would really consider moving up that high for would be an elite qb or pass rushing prospect.
I wouldn't call the draft point system obsolete, but with the escalating costs of signing a top draft pick, I think value of top a 5 (top 3 especially) compared to picks in the 6-10 range is not as high as the chart would say, barring the pressence of a true franchise QB.
I'd have to agree with those that say the chart is badly overvalued at the beginning of round one. Of course, it all depends on the draft class and your teams needs. Unless there is a needed "can't miss" QB (no one is really "can't miss" though) would you rather have the #1 pick or: #6 and #8 or #12, #16, #21 I'd take either of those over the #1 pick without worrying a bit. Less chance that your multiple players are a bust vs. one guy as well.
It all depends on the draft and who is to be picked by either team. Say a no brainer franchise QB is available to the Patriots at #1 (hypothetically) that many teams covet. Obviously the pick is worth more to other teams than to the Patriots who have Tom Brady. Also, how deep the draft is, like last year we traded away our picks to get Revis/Harris, in our opinion those lower picks had no value.
A guarantee, can't miss, sure-fire-hofer like Reggie Bush was a few years back before everyone simultaneously realized he's an expensive, glorified Kevin Faulk? The position is important as well. I'd say that if I were an NFL coach I wouldn't probably only consider taking cb's, qb's, defensive ends, and outside offensive tackles with top 5 picks. Those positions are the hardest ones to take average guys and "coach them up" like you can with receivers, running backs, and linebackers. With hindsight being 20/20 it's easy to go back and say "he was obviously going to be a star, why the fuck would they take X over (fill in with flashy talented player)" but in the long run going with better value position by position will make a team far better. A good, recent example of this would be the Texans taking Marrio Williams over Reggie Bush. Everyone thought Houston's f.o was retarded but time has shown it to be a pretty wise decision.
Well, #6 and #8 is more tempting, but it's not always the best choice. 12, 16, and 21 it really depends where you stand as a team. All of this gets blinded by "we need to stockpile picks" mentality but going by history it's not always the best course of action. I dunno, it's really a tough question to answer because generally there is far less variance in a top 5 pick because they have the highest chance of being an elite player, whereas anything after that you're rolling the dice. If you are a team like the Bears picking at #1 do you take the franchise QB ala Peyton Manning or would you rather have 6/8 or 12/16/21. It's very hard to answer. In fact, franchise QBs are so rare and so fucking valuable that if you do land one it's more than worth the risk. For instance, at #1 overall you either have(going by the 1998 draft) a) #1 Peyton Manning b) #6 Grant Wistom #8 Greg Ellis c) #12 Keith Brooking #16 Kevin Dyson #21 Randy Moss And yes even with Moss at option C, 99/100 people still take option A with Peyton Manning. That's the beauty of the #1 overall pick, you get exclusive rights on the player who you -think- will be able to turn a franchise around like Manning did for the Colts This year it's obviously a moot point, since none of the QBs are #1 worthy
