Someone finally put together all of the trade value charts together into one app. I've only been playing around with this thing for a little bit but fuck if it isn't valuable.
That's just a test trade to move up from 31 to 18. You can see the value from each of the charts and at the bottom is the difference along with the value of that difference.
You can also change the discount of future picks and whether that trade up is for a QB. [Reply]
'Everyone is just looking out for themselves'
In 2017, the Bears dealt the No. 3 pick, two thirds and a fourth to the 49ers to move up one spot in the draft. At No. 2, they chose their guy, Mitch Trubisky. It wasn't a reach at the time, as scouts ranked Trubisky the No. 1 QB in his class. That same year, the Chiefs sent two first-round picks and a third for the Bills' No. 10 pick, drafting Patrick Mahomes.
Regardless of how their careers would unfold, trade value charts had the teams who traded back — the 49ers and Bills — winning both deals by receiving upwards of 150 cents on the dollar. Why?
As Alec Lewis explains in an enlightening story on the NFL's approach to the draft, research has shown that teams should accumulate picks by trading back and into the future more often: "The more darts you have, the better your chance of eventually hitting the bull’s-eye."
In 2005, a research paper on overconfidence in the NFL revealed analysis on decision-making during the draft. Key themes:
Evaluating prospects is difficult. Our stats back it up: Across the past 13 years, first-round WRs were either a bust or a reach 63 percent of the time. The hit rate for top-10 QBs was not much better, with teams drafting stars at just a 26 percent rate.
Teams aren't as smart as they think. The researchers found that "teams massively overestimate their abilities to delineate between stars and flops, and because of that they heavily overvalue the 'right to choose' in the draft."
Given the uncertainty, the more picks, the better. The highly coveted QB position demonstrates the downside of trading up to get "your guy," unless he turns out to be Mahomes. Across the past 13 NFL drafts, nearly 70 percent of years saw the best QB drafted after the first QB was taken. For example, Lamar Jackson went No. 32 in 2018 as the fifth QB taken. Trade back. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kcbubb:
He’s another one…. Similar theme.
'Everyone is just looking out for themselves'
In 2017, the Bears dealt the No. 3 pick, two thirds and a fourth to the 49ers to move up one spot in the draft. At No. 2, they chose their guy, Mitch Trubisky. It wasn't a reach at the time, as scouts ranked Trubisky the No. 1 QB in his class. That same year, the Chiefs sent two first-round picks and a third for the Bills' No. 10 pick, drafting Patrick Mahomes.
Regardless of how their careers would unfold, trade value charts had the teams who traded back — the 49ers and Bills — winning both deals by receiving upwards of 150 cents on the dollar. Why?
As Alec Lewis explains in an enlightening story on the NFL's approach to the draft, research has shown that teams should accumulate picks by trading back and into the future more often: "The more darts you have, the better your chance of eventually hitting the bull’s-eye."
In 2005, a research paper on overconfidence in the NFL revealed analysis on decision-making during the draft. Key themes:
Evaluating prospects is difficult. Our stats back it up: Across the past 13 years, first-round WRs were either a bust or a reach 63 percent of the time. The hit rate for top-10 QBs was not much better, with teams drafting stars at just a 26 percent rate.
Teams aren't as smart as they think. The researchers found that "teams massively overestimate their abilities to delineate between stars and flops, and because of that they heavily overvalue the 'right to choose' in the draft."
Given the uncertainty, the more picks, the better. The highly coveted QB position demonstrates the downside of trading up to get "your guy," unless he turns out to be Mahomes. Across the past 13 NFL drafts, nearly 70 percent of years saw the best QB drafted after the first QB was taken. For example, Lamar Jackson went No. 32 in 2018 as the fifth QB taken. Trade back.
This makes a lot of sense bc team's devalue next year's picks if offered this year. For instance, the Chiefs might have to offer next year's 1st to get to #15 if we want to take BTJ, this year we'd have to discount the value of next year's pick by at least 100 points and probably offer our extra 5th, or whatever, to put the cherry on top, but next year the value of that 1st round pick is back to its original so that's a win for the Colts in this hypothetical. [Reply]
Gets even more complicated when you involve a player into the mix. Like why was Tyreek worth what we got? Yes because that's what Miami was willing to pay but why? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Couch-Potato:
This makes a lot of sense bc team's devalue next year's picks if offered this year. For instance, the Chiefs might have to offer next year's 1st to get to #15 if we want to take BTJ, this year we'd have to discount the value of next year's pick by at least 100 points and probably offer our extra 5th, or whatever, to put the cherry on top, but next year the value of that 1st round pick is back to its original so that's a win for the Colts in this hypothetical.
I'd add to this that offering x2 1sts for WR is a risky strategy. Pretty sure I saw a stat in the other thread that said 64% of 1st round WR's bust. I'd prob feel more comfortable with a trade using TEN's 2025 high-end 3rd rounder.
Ultimately, I think Veach has narrowed in on the best value at WR comes from the 2nd round. As an example, I'd bet we could flip next year's second or extra 3rd to make a similar move to the above in the 2nd. If we lost next year's 2nd, we'd still have TEN high value 3rd round pick, but it's actually that TEN pick that I think we're most likely to deal. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Couch-Potato:
How about #32 + #64 + 2025 2nd = #20 + #52 from PIT?
...we still have TEN 2025 early RD 3 pick.
32 is worth 590
64 is worth 270
Future second is worth 116. Future first is barely worth 270 points.
20 is worth 850
52 is worth 380
That deal would actually require us to use next years first just to get the value close.
That would have KC using 1130 draft value points to get 1230 draft value points.
That trade would help us immensely. We would come out with a blue chip offensive player and another offensive weapon to help balance the offense going forward.
