As far as the "value" of that #2 from the Skins next year.... it's relative, IMO. This is no one year rebuild. I'm looking towards 2008 as out next playoff year. That makes that second 2nd that much more valuable to the Jets. For a contending team, it's worth less. For a rebuilding team like the Jets, it's very valuable.
That's okay, it was an interesting read Buttle, but I draw a radically different conclusion All this tells me is that occasionally teams can be suckered into overpaying via the credit card mentality if they see an item they really want NOW Its the credit card mentality ... I'll worry about the bill when it comes in the mail, but for now I see an item I really want and I'm buying it But the value chart never changes ... this is a fact ... if you look at the value chart one year from today, the numerical value that is assigned to each and every pick will be exactly the same as the numerical value that is assigned to those selections today ... the value of those picks will not decrease {or increase} by even 1 VP {value point} ... heck, five years from now that will still be true of the chart, it never changes, it looked exactly the same five years ago as it looks today and it will look exactly the same in 2010 IMO what you see in the examples you sited involves a number of different factors, all culminating with a willingness to overpay {to some degree} via the credit card mentality ... in one instance it may be the desire to secure a possible franchise QB, in another instance it may be a team that views itself as being on the cusp of a SB run and sees a player that might close the deal, in yet another instance it could just be a case of falling in love with a particular player {like that item you must have}, etc etc ... but in each case you will have overpaid when the bill comes due if the chart says you overpaid ... the chart never changes ... if it says you traded 1000 VP's for 500 VP's, at some point you will pay exactly that price, 1000 VP's for 500 VP's ... some teams, for a variety of reasons, may be willing to pay that price on credit, but eventually {when the bill has been paid} they will have overpaid From the other end, the team getting better value, it all comes down to this ... how long are you willing to wait to collect ... at some point you may say, that's just too long ... but unless you are a team built to WIN NOW, TODAY, its highly unlikely you will ever view ONE YEAR as waiting too long to collect on the excess value JMO PS. I think there's a rule about dealing picks two years in advance ... I don't believe you can even do that, or it may be three years in advance ... its one or the other, but there's a cutoff ... so the most a team can even chose to wait {to collect} is probably two years ... I don't believe three years is even an option?
Great stuff. I think you summed up a lot of what I was thinking about our picks. I wasn't too happy with the Schlegel or Smith picks, at least for where they were taking but liked the 4th round and was very happy with our first 2 rounds.
Jabba, a friend of mine had a pretty good theory regarding Eric Smith. I think Westhoff got someone he wanted. Eric Smith is going to be a tackling demon on special teams. They may have already been planning on taking Brad Smith and Leon Washington in the 4th round, and let Westhoff have his new toy a little early. There is also the very real possibility that the new FO doesn't like Coleman, and think this guy can start as a rookie. Hard to know for sure, but I'll agree it was a head scratcher. Anything after the 2nd round is a crap shoot either way. I'm all for teams taking who they want when they want as long as its not completely rediculous. Real good write up Jabba, thanks.
With Eric Smith...every year it seems we take a safety or two that we don't seem to need, and people justify it by saying he's Westhoff's toy. You don't do that in round 3. Smith could turn out to be great, but I haven't read anything to think that he was close to being worth a 3rd rounder, and we didn't even need a safety anyway. As for the trading theory: I lean towards Buttle on this one. Draft picks a year later are usually valued as one round later. Look at what Bobby Beathard did in SD. Traded future firsts for 2nd rounders almost every year. If you trade a future pick, he'll be developed about a year later, and that's part of the reason why it's devalued. Some coaches can't even afford to do that because they might be gone.
I think you're on to something there mack, and so is Buttle in that regard ... if an HC and/or GM is on a short leesh, a high pick in the following years draft is worth less than a high pick now ... indeed he might view it as borderline worthless from a personal POV ... I can definitely see him thinking to himself, why should make this a better team for THE NEXT GUY when I need to make this team better NOW, FOR ME, or I won't even be here But Tangini just got hired so they're lookin at 4 or 5 years minimum, unless its a complete train wreck, so they would probably view this as increased value for which they both stand to benifit if used wisely
Jabba I think you are intermixing two ideas. One is what is generally accepted value fora future draft pick by NFL teams and draft philosphy. It is generally accepted thata future draft pick is valued less normally one round lower. What you are arguing here is draft philosphy of short term vs long term. That itis better to invest your draft picks and earn interest on them by trading for future picks. In the long run you gain. By trading up like the redskins do in the long ruin you will get a lot less. There is no disagreement about this and I have long been an advocate of trading draft picks for future picks as you will get more. While the trade may be equal in draft chart value I endorse the philosophy as it provides long term benefits. I think you used the credit card example in another post. Essentially that is what the Redskins do year and year out is they buy picks and pay for them with interest later. I would much rather invest the draft pick and gain interest than the other way around.
That's a point we can definitely agree on, Buttle We may have a different read on the value of these picks from year to year, but we are in prefect agreement about the correct approach towards building a football team .. the more the merrier .. if you wanna offer me two 2's for one 2, even if I need to wait a year for that second 2, I'm your huckleberry :grin: And the only way I even consider being on the other end of that arrangement is if I'm sitting on a keg of dynamite, a "win now" team with bona-fide SB aspirations, and I see a player on the board who has a real chance to be that missing piece who can put us over the top But that aside, I'd never be on the opposite end of that deal
