Why I'm not bummed the Niners traded their 1st round pick

[detlef]

I've been wondering when it would come to pass and perhaps it finally has. I think that picking at the top of the draft is a disadvantage.

 

The guaranteed money players at the top of the draft are getting is insane, far more, IMO than they're odds of panning out relative to players taken at the bottom of the same round are. How many OTs are going to be taken in the 1st round, 3? 4? 5?. Yet, a guy coming off the board late in the round is likely going to lock up about 1/0th the amount of guaranteed money that Long got. Is he 10x less likely to be a solid starter?

 

Wouldn't you rather save the money on rookies and spend it on proven Free Agents? However, if your team sucks for a few years in a row and you end up drafting 2-3 players in the top 5 or so, you're going to be hamstrung in the free agent market because all your money is going to be tied up in guys that may or may not pan out. When they took Alex Smith #1, it was the most unenthusiastic #1 pick I can ever remember. Yet they had to open up the checkbook for the kid. So far, that investment isn't close to having paid off and they can't afford to look elsewhere to address the need.

 

So, maybe the Niners got the best of both worlds with the OT Staley they used with NE's pick. He was a trendy pick with raw talent that just needed to learn the position (he was a converted TE). If he was to be released back into the draft after having spent a year learning at the pro ranks, where would he go? I'm guessing higher than 20 something they took him at and likely right around the top 10 where the Niners would have been picking. Only, instead of costing them end of the round money, he'd cost them top 10 money which really matters against the cap. Big freaking difference.

 

I would be very surprised if teams don't start doing this more often. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see teams practically give away high picks just to avoid laying out mad jack and screwing their cap over unknowns.

 

I know, I know, these guys going that high are can't miss. Robert Gallery, Mike Williams, That kid Rogers from MSU, hell Alex Smith, Cedric Benson, Tim Couch, the list goes on.

 

I've done a bunch of studies on average draft positions in fantasy compared to how those picks panned out to see where the real drop-off occurs year in and year out with respect to likelihood of being a stud or even legit starters. I wonder how it works out in the real game. If bottom of the round picks don't fare that much worse (and I would be honestly surprised if that's true considering that these players are still among the top 5 collegiate players at their position), then the money factor really makes a difference.

Edited April 26, 2008 by detlef

[DMD]

I'll agree to a degree about higher picks and their cost versus return but most of the superstars in the league were high picks in the draft - not all by any means but probably most. You never know what you are truly getting with a rookie but the odds are more in your favor with the earlier pick (given you know what you are doing). You want premier players and the draft may be expensive, but it is about the only place you are going to land a superstar player since teams try to hang on to them.

[Swiss Cheezhead]

they can't afford to look elsewhere to address the need.

 

 

They found a spare $80 million to pay Nate Clements, didn't they?

 

That's a good example of how much free agents cost, and it's not as if FAs are inherently better bets than rookies. I'd venture to say that the number of high-priced FAs who disappoint their team's fans is roughly equal to "busts" drafted in the top 10.

[detlef]

most of the superstars in the league were high picks in the draft

If you mean top 10 picks, then I'm not so sure you're correct.

 

Of the top 15 QBs in terms of QB rating, 3-4 were top 10 picks (I forget if Big Ben was just inside or outside the top 10

 

Of the top 15 rushers, 5 were top 10 picks.

 

WRs, pretty much the same story.

[Randall]

If you mean top 10 picks, then I'm not so sure you're correct.

 

Of the top 15 QBs in terms of QB rating, 3-4 were top 10 picks (I forget if Big Ben was just inside or outside the top 10

 

Of the top 15 rushers, 5 were top 10 picks.

 

WRs, pretty much the same story.

 

 

Big Ben was 11, and dropped because those teams didn't need a QB.

[detlef]

Big Ben was 11, and dropped because those teams didn't need a QB.

Well, two other teams did and neither chose him.

[Randall]

Well, two other teams did and neither chose him.

 

 

That's true. There was talk that year he didn't play against the best competition(Miami of Ohio) but that year some thought he was the best QB in the draft; many others thought it was Eli and some thought Rivers.

 

It isn't an exact science(projecting college players in the pros). It is amazing how many Heisman winners fail in the NFL.

[detlef]

That's true. There was talk that year he didn't play against the best competition(Miami of Ohio) but that year some thought he was the best QB in the draft; many others thought it was Eli and some thought Rivers.

 

It isn't an exact science(projecting college players in the pros). It is amazing how many Heisman winners fail in the NFL.

That's sort of my point. I mean, it would be hard to argue that either of the guys taken ahead of him have been better. Manning finally got it together this year but prior to that was very iffy. Rivers has been fine but done nothing to say he's certainly been better than Big Ben. Yet, I would imagine that Pitt had to pay him significantly less based on the fact that he was not top 10.

 

This is not the NBA where 1 or 2 guys make your team. You need to line up 11 on each side of the ball and it doesn't suck to have some decent reserves. Those cost money. I'm just not so sure how good it is for a team long term to have to lay out that kind of jack to somebody who most likely will be a bit of a project and quite possibly will not end up being special.

 

I'm going to do a study not unlike those I've done for FF to see how much more likely players in the top 10, next 10, and last 10 of the first round are to be studs or even solid starters. I'm curious what it will reveal.

[H8tank]

Wouldn't you rather save the money on rookies and spend it on proven Free Agents?

 

The NFL is a game of replacement, you do that via the draft.

 

A team has 53 players, how many of those are free agents? A team is built around the draft, good drafting teams are always contenders, always.

[detlef]

The NFL is a game of replacement, you do that via the draft.

 

A team has 53 players, how many of those are free agents? A team is built around the draft, good drafting teams are always contenders, always.

Any theories based on how it's been done can be thrown out the window because contracts for top 10 picks have seriously out-paced other economics of the game.

 

As heard on ESPN radio just a few minutes ago...

 

"What are the Patriots doing at pick 7?"

 

John Clayton: "Panicking and trying to move back. Nobody they can get there is worth nearly what they're going to have to pay. Last year's #7 pick got 5 years, $40 million and they don't want to have to pay that for the types of players that will be there."

 

That is exactly what I'm talking about. Forget trading back for value in terms of # of picks, teams are going to start trading back for value in terms of what the players are going to cost them.

 

And, when I'm talking free agents, I'm not just talking someone else's. I'm talking your own. So, say that 3rd round pick pans out and establishes himself among the top of his position. You're going to have to open up the checkbook. Well, if you've got a ton of jack locked up in some 22 year old QB that's at least 3 years away from being good if at all, you might be limited in what you can do.

 

You're right, a team has 53 players. That's a lot of mouths to feed so you need to be careful about who you devote upwards of 10% of your cap space to. Why the hell would you want to do that on somebody who's never played a snap at the pro level?

 

I'm not suggesting that teams blow off the draft. Rather that unless they can get this thing under control, the alleged advantage that teams are getting by having early picks is going to be nullified by the economics.

Edited April 26, 2008 by detlef

[Randall]

I'm going to do a study not unlike those I've done for FF to see how much more likely players in the top 10, next 10, and last 10 of the first round are to be studs or even solid starters. I'm curious what it will reveal.

 

I'e like to see that.

 

At the top of the draft sometimes the contract(if fulfilled) is worth more than the team. You really have to be careful in who you pick. Parcells likes linemen because they play for 10 years VS 4-6 for many "skill" players.