Shallow Thoughts & Nearsighted Observations
After going with focused and snark-free on Wednesday, I'm back with what everybody is more used-to from me. Meandering and snark... it must be ST&NO. Ready... BEGIN!!!!!
1. In the holistic, all-things-considered sense, second-round draft picks consistently work out to have better value than first-round draft picks. Some of you don't believe me, that much is clear; but it's true. Today, I am going to explain why and how.
There are four key reasons why:
a. Guaranteed money
b. The urgency of right now
c. Contract length
d. Relative value returned
a. First, let's start with guaranteed money. If a player is picked in the first 16 picks, his team is allowed to sign that player to a six-year contract, and they usually do. (The five-year deal Jake Long negotiated last year led a fairly anomalous preponderance of 5-year deals last season.) Players picked in the last 16 picks of the first round can be signed for a maximum of 5 years, and almost always are. All of them did in 2008.
Beginning with the first pick of the second round, you get into 4-year contract territory. I know what you're thinking... what does the length of the contract have to do with the price of tea in China? Well, a few things, actually.
A longer-term contract is inherently favorable to the team, because it provides cost certainty over a long period of time. To reap some benefits in return for the opportunity cost which the player is bearing (as represented by the inability to renegotiate for a long time,) agents insist upon receiving a great deal of guaranteed money in longer contracts, which provides income certainty to the players.
Take a look at the following chart I put together to help illustrate this point.
The bolded red rows represent the slots of the 5 players the Broncos took on Day 1 this season. (Note that Kevin Smith was the first pick of the 3rd round last season, due to the Patriots' forfeiture of their own first round pick, hence the 3-year contract.) Notice the far right column, which shows guaranteed money per year. It steps progressively down with each pick, which is what you'd expect. Look at the huge drop between the end of Round 1 and the beginning of Round 2. (I didn't include pick #31 Kenny Phillips because he had a fairly exotic, incentive-laden contract, or pick #32 Phillip Merling, because his deal was negotiated as if he were the last pick of Round 1, like Pick 32 normally is.)
If you have a guy like Alphonso Smith rated as the 20th best player in the Draft, and you can get him at #37, it's a great deal financially. Instead of having to guarantee $1.6 Million per year, you're getting the guy for guarantees of $650-700,000 per year. Just because a guy was drafted in the second round, doesn't mean he can't play like a first-rounder. Many of them do, at least as many as there are first-rounders who bust.
b. There's also the urgency of right now. For this reason alone, the standard going rate of a draft pick this year is ALWAYS a pick one round higher the next season, which, for valuation purposes is ALWAYS assumed will fall dead in the middle of that one round. That means that a first next year is fundamentally equivalent to the 48th pick this year. The Broncos got the 37th pick for the equivalent of the 48th pick. Value-wise, the Broncos win easily there, regardless of who the player selected is.
A lot of media people are acting like this was a really questionable or odd trade, but it was absolutely not. It was standard, like any number of other trades in recent years, such as the ones for Tony Ugoh and Joe Staley. The Panther did exactly the same thing in trading for Everette Brown at the 44th pick. Somehow, they're taking much less of a media beating for it.
Josh McDaniels put it like this. He said that the way they were looking at it, they had four 1st-rounders in the next two years. When a player they valued as a #1 was available at #37, they decided to take three of the four #1s this year. I think that makes perfect sense. Three good players can help the team now, and for one of them, you got at a huge discount, in terms of dollar cost. Would you rather pay $700K per year guaranteed to Alphonso Smith, or 2.5 to 3 times as much to next year's 16th pick?
c. Contract length is a key also, as alluded to before. Under the current collective bargaining agreement, (whose terms I mostly expect to continue into the foreseeable future once a new deal is reached,) a player on a 5- or 6-year contract hits unrestricted free agency after their rookie contract. A second-rounder on a 4-year deal is a restricted free agent at the end of his. That means that the team can control him cheaply for a fifth year too. So say Alphonso Smith plays great and completes his 4-year deal, and earns $4.8 Million (assuming a 5 percent raise over Curtis Lofton's deal last season, which is probably reasonable). The Broncos could tender him with a first- and third-round tender, which nobody will want to pay. The cost, in today's dollars, would be an incremental $2.562 million, so let's say it's $3.27 Million five years from now. (That number was extrapolated by running a 5% annual raise out 5 years, or mathematically, 2.562 X 1.055).
That brings the 5-year total to $8.07 Million, or $1.61 Million per year. Compare that to the contract that CB Domonique Foxworth just signed with Baltimore. He got $28 Million for four years, with $16.5 Million guaranteed. Foxworth improved in Atlanta, and got to the level of a completely average player. This is simple math, folks. A better player can be had for a quarter of the price of a lesser player. You take that deal every time. It's exactly the reason that you want to build through the Draft.
d. Time for more fun with charts, with a derivative of the above chart, this time projecting slot costs for players drafted in 2009.
We're making a couple of important assumptions here.
i. ESPN.com's Scouts Inc. knows what they're doing in valuing prospects, and their 1-100 grading scale is linear in nature, by which I mean, a one-point difference between 90 and 91 is the same as a one-point difference between 66 and 67 or 30 and 31. Each unit must represent the same amount of value on a scale of 1 to 100. (This entire assumption is somewhat dubious, but it's what we have to work with.)
ii. All slots will get a 5% raise this season, which again, is probably reasonable, if not slightly optimistic for the players, given the weak economy.
So, with those assumptions in mind, notice how little relative value you get out of the top 7 picks. Compare that with how much relative value you get from lower picks. This indicates what I have been saying (and I am definitely not the first person to do so), that the second round is the sweet spot for value.
Our five Day One picks from this Draft will cost a total of about $9.5 million per year over the next 4-5 years, or about three-quarters of a million dollars less than Darrius Heyward-Bey, the second coming of Ashley Lelie. That is value maximization.
2. As for the MSM's incessant howling about Alphonso Smith being too short, people ought to read this excellent FanPost from gnarlybroncodude. Now, I personally tend to be a guy who favors taller CBs, all things being equal, because I favor man-to-man press coverage. (Hence my love-fest for Sean Smith).
Josh McDaniels made clear the other day that he favors shorter, more fluid CBs. To paraphrase him, he said that the jump-ball situations where shorter guys are at a disadvantage happen too infrequently in a season to be very worried about, when compared to the quickness benefit you can get all the time. I think that makes a good deal of sense, and in any case, Alphonso Smith was one of my Players I Love a few weeks before the Draft. I value ball skills in a DB over any other factor. I was, and am, thrilled with this pick.
3. One of the fundamental rules of Finance is that sunk costs become irrelevant once they are incurred. I just spent $2,000 getting the engine of my car fixed, because the #4 rod bearing failed due to a manufacturing defect, and I was past the power-train warranty by a year and 20,000 miles. If something else major goes next year, the two grand I spent this weekend is not germane to next year's fix-or-junk decision. It must be evaluated independently, because paying the two grand was judged to be the right call in the spring of 2009, and that's that.
By the same token, watching the Broncos record this season through the prism of the traded first-round pick is a waste of time, and an exercise for the unintelligent. It doesn't matter, because the decision was deemed to be the right one in the spring of 2009. Sportswriters like to second-guess, and root for their instant "analysis" to have been correct. I consider that to be pandering to (and encouraging) foolishness from the consumers of their content.
Think about it like this. You're playing Texas Hold-em, and sitting on pocket aces, and after slow-playing it pre-flop, the flop comes out Ace, 7, 10, rainbow. You go all-in with a set of Aces, heads-up against a guy with a bigger stack than you, who has King-8 of clubs. The other guy catches running clubs on the turn and the river, for a flush, and you bust out. Was going all-in a bad decision? Of course it wasn't. At the time you made the decision, it was clearly the right call, at more than 9-to-1 odds. You go get a stiff drink and try again tomorrow, and do exactly the same thing the next time you're faced with the same situation. The end.
By the way, if the naysayers are correct, and the Broncos' pick is in next year's top 10, I bet the Seahawks try like crazy to get out of it. (Political messaging time.) Top-10 picks provide extremely low relative value vis-a-vis the money you have to spend on them. Remember when the Patriots had San Francisco's 7th choice in 2008, from the Joe Staley deal the year before? They wanted OUT of that pick, and only could get down to #10, where they took Jerod Mayo. They thought they could get him in the late teens, but couldn't find a taker for the 10th pick.
4. I talk about pundits a lot, and there is always a negative connotation to that word when I use it. The reason is that I associate the word with political talking heads, and I think that virtuall all of those people do society a great injustice by focusing on the wrong things. In this time of 24-hour news cycles and instant analysis, the pundits focus on process and horse race, rather than on policies which affect people's lives down the line. It's always "What does he have to do to get elected?" rather than "Are his policy proposals good for America?" This is how tens of millions of Americans can get a tax cut without fully understanding that they got one, for example. The media is more concerned with the politics than the policy.
I think football pundits do the same thing, especially around draft time. They're more worried about the process of it all, than with how the results translate to the field. Because they can read a value chart and a few scouting reports, they can pass themselves off as process experts.
Adam Schein can rip the Broncos for taking Knowshon Moreno, and it is (arguably) pertinent content today. When Knowshon rushes for 1,500 yards this season and helps the Broncos win games, Schein's rant will be a distant memory, from many news-cycles past. I remember when Schein brutally ripped the Packers for hiring Mike McCarthy. Before I got rid of Sirius, he had him as a regular guest on his radio show, and Schein couldn't get enough of kissing up to "Michael J. McCarthy."
Rick "Mr. Puff-Piece" Reilly also goes the shrill route, and calls Josh McDaniels Boy Blunder, and claims that it's arrogant that McDaniels takes a different approach to draft board construction than "most boards." He incorrectly states that McDaniels traded a #1 to "move up" in the second round. He goes on to tell us, as Broncos fans, that we're screwed. It seems to me that he ought to be posting on the DPO message board, with moral clarity like that, to go with such a weak grasp of the facts.
As a person who is strictly an opinion writer/analyst myself, I try to be careful to be measured and consider all sides, because being wrong always comes back on you when your work is archived. I expect to be wrong sometimes, but I think that being reasonable in your original presentation, and making transparent acknowledgment of the fact that you could be wrong goes a long way.
5. The flip side is that my opinions are completely independent of anybody else's, and not very subject to change at all. In a forum like MHR, I am happy to read other people's opinions, and I think it's great that we can all discuss football, and share thoughts, and have our opinions evolve from the discourse. If somebody wants to tell me that the Alphonso Smith trade was dumb, I'll never agree with that, no matter what they say, so there's no point in me arguing with them. I think what I think, and they're free to think what they think. That's what I mean when I say I am not in the arguing business, I am in the saying-what-I-think business.
I relate this to Josh McDaniels' comments about how he doesn't care what anybody else's evaluations were. That's definitely the right attitude, in my opinion. I am solely responsible for the content of this column, so the only things which matter to it are what and how I think. When I spend 4-5 hours every Sunday writing it, I don't think for one second about how anybody else is going to take it. I am solely focused on writing value-adding content that MHR readers will want to read.
Josh McDaniels and Brian Xanders are responsible for selecting the personnel for the Broncos, so the only things which matter to that process are what and how they think. They have to produce a winning team, so their focus is solely on that.
Disagreement and criticism are fine, in both arenas, but at the end of the day, only results matter. McDaniels and Xanders don't care, just like I don't care. There's no room for hurt feelings, only for production and results.
6. As the resident around-the-league guy, here is one undrafted Free Agent per team to watch out for this season, and two for the Broncos.
| Team | Player | Position | Comments |
| Arizona | Brandon Pearce | T | Could compete at a position where the Cardinals could use some depth. |
| Atlanta | Ryan Stanchek | T-G | This is the kind of player who eventually steals a starting job |
| Baltimore | Dannell Ellerbe | ILB | Flashed a lot of talent at Georgia, but never was consistent. |
| Buffalo | Joel Bell | T | I'm loving the O-Linemen so far, but Buffalo has a need at T. |
| Carolina | Gerald Cadogan | T | Should have been drafted by the end of Round 4. |
| Chicago | Eric Peterman | WR | Slot guy is the best of a weak bunch. |
| Cincinnati | Quan Cosby | WR | A solid player who can contribute as a rookie. Already 26 years old. |
| Cleveland | Mike Massey | TE | The Browns need TE help. Wonder if he'll cry about Wolverine hate? |
| Detroit | DJ Boldin | WR |
Anquan's little brother could be better in the NFL than college. |
| Green Bay | Ronald Talley | DE | Not impressed with this group, but Talley could help at DE. |
| Houston | Jeremiah Johnson | RB | May be able to help soften Slaton's workload |
| Indianapolis | Tim Masthay | K | May make the team as a kickoff specialist |
| Jacksonville | Tyler Lorenzen | QB | A possible keeper as a #3 QB due to his good athleticism |
| Kansas City | Taurus Johnson | WR | Has kick return potential |
| Miami | Orion Martin | DE | A potential edge-rusher in a rotation, probably at OLB |
| Minnesota | Ian Johnson | RB | Could make team as a backup RB |
| New England | Brian Hoyer | QB | Developmental type with good tools |
| New Orleans | PJ Hil | RB | It makes a lot of sense that he'd find short yardage carries |
| New York Jets | J'Nathan Bullock | TE | Basketball star at Cleveland State was a football star in high school |
| New York Giants | Maurice Evans | DE | Should have stayed in school. Fell due to behavior questions |
| Oakland | Shawn Bayes | RS | Speedster, so he'll fit right in |
| Philadelphia | Sam Swank | K | NFL caliber placekicker. This is a function of my dislike of David Akers |
| Pittsburgh | Mike Reilly | QB | Ron Jaworski likes him, and that's good enough for me with a QB |
| San Diego | Darry Beckwith | ILB | Underachieved at LSU, but has talent |
| San Francisco | Alex Boone | T | Lakewood, OH's own, can someday start at G in the NFL. Fairly serious behavior concerns exist due to a predraft alcohol incident. |
| Seattle | Michael Bennett | DE | Can play in a rotation at the NFL level |
| St. Louis | Phil Trautwein | T | Can fill in at either T position, and do fine |
| Tampa Bay | Rob Bruggeman | C | Will be in the mix for a backup OL spot |
| Tennessee | Mitch King | DT | High motor, low tools. Will probably make the team on effort. |
| Washington | Antonio Dixon | DT | Has talent, but inconsistent play kept him undrafted |
| Denver | Chris Baker | NT | This was buying low, and with such a need at NT, he has a great chance |
| Denver | Rulon Davis | DE | When you were named after Rulon Jones, Denver is a natural fit. |
7. Retired for John Elway.
8. It occurred to me the other day that there's a fine line between using recurring phrases like "Ready... BEGIN," or always keeping #7 retired for John Elway, and devolving into nothing but a bunch of Schein-on-the-radio-like schtick. I plan to be careful not to ever get to Scheinland with my work for MHR. Let me know if I am ever going too far in that direction, and I'll dial it back.
9. Have a great week, and I'll see you next Monday morning for more Shallow Thoughts & Nearsighted Observations.
38 recs |
122 comments
|
Comments
Excellent job TB. Thanks!
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
All I want is 53 Rod Smiths. Is that asking too much????
by boydy2669 on May 4, 2009 6:47 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
just a great job
I feel so smart now having read it………..
Cletus……math…….nah!
"when they find the center of the universe, i know quite a few people that are going to be upset it isn't them" dmitchell624
by dmitchell624 on May 4, 2009 6:50 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Read as always ---Ted, I have learned so much from you and the crew of MHR, however Cletus has a point...
Real Power, comes with the realization that One cannot change the Moment;
only ones perception of it: Atitude! JQM
by UB3 on May 4, 2009 7:20 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why did Ted delete my comment?
Can anyone tell me why Ted deleted my comment? It was a very simple counterpoint to his argument for drafting Alphonso Smith. I just wanted answers, from Ted, for my counterpoint.
Couldn’t take the heat so delete? I’m at a lost.
by vieng111 on May 4, 2009 7:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ted doesn't delete comments
so Ted has no explanation for you. You’ll have to ask TSG
"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy
by Ted Bartlett on May 4, 2009 7:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd imagine it broke one of the following rules (from the MHR code of conduct)
* Any FanPost or FanShot with vulgarity in the title will BE DELETED, no questions asked
* Any repeat FanPost will be deleted. FanPosts that are nothing but Links, with text to meet the 75-word requirement will be deleted. If you come across news and want to post the link, USE THE FANSHOT SECTION! That is what it is there for!
* FanPosts that are misleading will be deleted. People come to MHR for their Broncos news and the integrity of the site will not be compromised because you want to be a stand-up comedian.
* Any comments that personally attack any other member will be deleted and the member warned.
* Any post or comment that refers to a player, coach or other prominent figure in a derogatory way will be deleted. We are all adults, act like it.
* Openly wishing or hoping that the Broncos fail tells me you are not a Broncos fan. At that point you are a Troll and will be dealt with appropriately.
Time to galvanize
by jack_ on May 5, 2009 2:11 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
This puts it in financial perspective very well...
Hard to argue that.
As far as the UDFA picks, I think Martin Rucker, from Mizzou, is still with the Brownies. I think he will amaze them if given the opportunity to be the starting TE. It sure was nice having him and Chase Coffman on the same team in 2007 LOL.
A proud prognostication of 10-6 in 2009!!!
by Broncotodd on May 4, 2009 7:32 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd and Buzzed
The Buzzed button up in the top right gets great work like this a bigger audience. Do it for Ted and for the ones who will get to read him.
Tyson Jackson for 12 million a year? Granted, there weren’t any other 3-4 DEs in this draft, but KC needs a great OLB, too, and Curry was on the board. Let me see again – we get Moreno, Ayers and Smith for 7.48? Honestly – do you know of a coach that wouldn’t take that deal?
Thanks again, Ted, for those wonderful charts. Understanding ‘value’ isn’t big in the sports media, and I appreciate you bringing it out in such clear terms.
Hillis/Moreno in '09
by Emmett Smith on May 4, 2009 7:32 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Still have a 1st rounder
I agree with all your points on the ‘next-year speculation’ for Alphonso Smith trade, but the one other thing that should be emphasized that could make the trade more tolerable for those who don’t like it is that we still have a first round pick in the 2009 draft. We didn’t give up our presence in the first round, so we still have a shot at those speculative picks next year. I’m loving the value of Smith at 37 more every day, and I can’t wait to see him in TC and the preseason games at Nickel.
by BroncosBassist on May 4, 2009 7:33 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Quoted for truth
Yeah but what kind of story would that be, to let facts get in the way?
Don’t you know, Denver traded their first rounder next year away so the could “move up” in round two this year for a CB that is too small.
Darrell Green was 5’9 as well (albiet faster than Smith I’m sure).
I’m still trying to figure out why Carolina isn’t getting roasted for trading next years 1st rounder for the 2nd year in a row (maybe its because Otah is a good player and E. Brown had a 1st round grade on many boards…wow, that sounds familiar), and they don’t even have a second 1st rounder to fall back on next year.
by RudyR on May 4, 2009 1:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ya
I wouldn’t try to figure this out too much. It is like looking for the grand unifying theory of physics. You could put a lot of energy into it and just burn out.
Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.
by Kfustud on May 4, 2009 1:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Denver Broncos are east of the Mississippi,
A small market Team,
and to many to the east,
Denver, is still a a cow town.
Real Power, comes with the realization that One cannot change the Moment;
only ones perception of it: Atitude! JQM
by UB3 on May 4, 2009 2:29 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops West of the mississippi...
Real Power, comes with the realization that One cannot change the Moment;
only ones perception of it: Atitude! JQM
by UB3 on May 4, 2009 2:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think...
that this sums it up.
Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.
by Kfustud on May 5, 2009 9:46 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except when the Rockies went to the World Series
Then it was “How does a martini-and-sushi place like Denver compete against a beer-and-chowdah city like Boston?” because then it was just more ‘baseball’ to be less ‘metropolitan’ I guess…
"From the get-go, we targeted a certain type of player: tough, smart, competitive, versatile, a good person that loves football and wants to win." -Coach McDaniels
by Colorado_Kitten on May 5, 2009 2:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or Monday Night Football
When Denver is remembered to be the city where we all ski to work in the morning and tend to our sheep herds at night.
Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.
by Kfustud on May 5, 2009 3:17 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Remarkable, Ted.
You really took alot of time to piece together a wonderful piece here. Many people may have a thought pass through their mind, but the picture is bigger than their minds willingness and follow through.
You, my friend, have painted a picture of reality that escaped the "analysts’ " mind because instant analogy requires quick thoughts and assumptions instead of well thought out and researched facts. You are one of the reasons this site is far and above the MSM. You are a true credit to us, thanks bud. AND REC’D.
Strength and honor
by kybroncomaniac on May 4, 2009 7:49 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Overall I agree. I thought he did an honest job…except for one glaring major point which he overlooked. Namely, that all draft classes are equal, which they are not. You can argue that it’s difficult to tell in advance the quality of next years draft class and that’s true enough. But sometimes doing the smart thing by the number’s can lead you far astray. If there is a strong draft class next year, it may be that the Broncos would have been much better off keeping the pick and paying more money for a much better player. Time will tell. I was simply disappointed that he didn’t really address this issue.
by Tuttifrutti on May 5, 2009 3:53 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once again you rock
Great work TB, I liked your analysis, I especially liked:
my opinions are completely independent of anybody else’s, and not very subject to change at all. In a forum like MHR, I am happy to read other people’s opinions, and I think it’s great that we can all discuss football, and share thoughts, and have our opinions evolve from the discourse. If somebody wants to tell me that the Alphonso Smith trade was dumb, I’ll never agree with that, no matter what they say, so there’s no point in me arguing with them. I think what I think, and they’re free to think what they think. That’s what I mean when I say I am not in the arguing business, I am in the saying-what-I-think business.
Pray for the best, prepare for the worst, and hope you come down somewhere between the two.
by BShrout on May 4, 2009 7:51 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Great Post Ted - rec'd & buzzed
to continue your financial analysis, once a player is drafted, where they were drafted (sunk cost) is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how well they perform. As an example, consider the 2006 draft, often considered a questionable draft.
The Broncos drafted 4 players (if we ignore the Walker deal). Out of that draft we got one stud (Harris), one starter (Thomas) and two players who are still question marks (Moss & Crowder). That’s actually slightly above average but because of the way people frame it (1st & 2nd rounder both underperforming) it is viewed as a substandard draft. But if we saw it as the stud coming in the 1st round, the starter in the 2nd and other other two as day two drafts it would be seen as a very successful draft. But it’s the same draft.
by SlowWhiteGuy on May 4, 2009 7:52 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Very thoughtful observation
I am beginning to like the pick of Smith with the more I read…..and I think the pick may work. A huge hole in your thinking is watching the talent of this years draft. There really were no home-run slam dunk superstars in waiting. Although I like it now. If we are a bottom rung team record wise AND Orton doesn’t pan out then we have lost our chance at a true superstar QB in the next draft or a Mario Williams type player with true game changing talent. I really didn’t like the top 10 talent THIS YEAR but if there is a player that so fits our scheme and has all world talent then I bet we would like him better than Alphonso Smith next year…..a gamble I know…..but I hate we lost our leverage to replace Cutler with another franchise QB……and if Orton becomes what many of us fear he’ll become then what a bummer for us.
Example is the Chargers…..with top 10 picks (because of their pitiful track record) secured Philip Rivers and LT and Merriman….now what were the Chargers like last year without Merriman….ordinary….sometimes a top 10 talent can change the complexion of your team if it is the RIGHT guy. Let’s hope it works in our favor
by yallas on May 4, 2009 8:11 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
or the Bears go 2-14
I will pull for Cutler but maybe their old defense will break down like ours……now that would be a treat.
by yallas on May 4, 2009 8:17 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for your comment, yallas
Your illustration via the Bolts and Merriman is apt. A top 10 player can change the face of your whole team. So could Moreno or Ayers, to be honest. Both have that level of skill, just in different ways.
My thoughts also go back to this year’s draft and the cost factors that Ted noted. We will already have a player that we need – a very good nickelback, top smaller corner (which, as stated, mcd tends to prefer) in the draft. We’ll be paying him 2nd round scale and he’ll be another year more experienced by the 2010 draft. If he can make the jump, a high number of interceptions will change games very quickly. For that matter, a few great runs by Moreno, or Ayers shutting down the strongside against the run or pass, can also change games in a big way.
Champ and Goodman are both at the age where generally their experience and football intelligence can suffice if they are beginning to slow, but the downward movement in skills will set in soon. We will need two great CBs to replace them – we now have at least one of them, and Jack Williams may be another (or a professional nickel back). Given the almost overwhelming number of places that we needed help, I think that this draft was tremendous. I’ve got a lot of hope for a few of the UDFAs, too.
Hillis/Moreno in '09
by Emmett Smith on May 4, 2009 9:34 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You need to remember...
Before the Chargers took Rivers with one of those top ten type picks, they also took Ryan Leaf with a top ten pick.
There is no such thing as an absolute guaranteed lock in the top of the draft, especially when it comes to QB. The list of failures at those positions is long and storied. I think the point of the Smith deal this year, comes down to a bird in hand is worth more that feathers with promise next year.
"Now we have them where we want them"
-Kieth Bishop - On the Denver 2 yard line, Cleveland Ohio, 1987
by AlanC on May 4, 2009 9:04 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know but without a top five pick you never get the chance
but good point
by yallas on May 4, 2009 9:10 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never?
How have guys like Roethlisberger (#11), Flacco (#18) and Cutler (#11) fared? Ironic, that you’re so upset in losing Cutler, and so upset about the trade to draft Smith, but your argument is based upon top-5 picks. Cutler himself wasn’t even a top-10 pick. I’m confused…
by Douglas A. Lee on May 4, 2009 9:19 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Top 5, 10, or 11....don't be so friggin picky....and I don't like Flacco.
Cutler dropped barely out of the top 10 as did Big Ben….you will ALWAYS have exceptions to rules…..tell me how good Jarvis Moss is compared to Mario Williams….always expections the wrong way as well….the bottom line to my point is there is some great top 10 talent some years that hopefully we would have had a better shot at and with 2 1st round picks next year we would have had a better shot at an elite prospect, that’s all…..and if you read my post I said I was warming to the Alphonso Smith pick….
by yallas on May 4, 2009 10:13 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nit-picking?
Your words were, “without a top five pick you never get the chance”
Look at it this way…if 2010 is supposed to be SUCH a deep draft, then won’t Denver be better off picking lower (according to your predictions) and getting an extremely-talented player at a lower and cheaper slot?
Did you miss the entire gist of Ted’s analysis, that top-10 picks are a terrible value?
by Douglas A. Lee on May 4, 2009 10:23 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
repeat from my comment above
the bottom line to my point is there is some great top 10 talent some years that hopefully we would have had a better shot at and with 2 1st round picks next year we would have had a better shot at an elite prospect, that’s all…..
and yes I read the article but my point is sometimes there is a player that is a game changer and that person would be worth the cost…a al Peyton Manning…..what if they had traded their number one pick the year before on a corner and missed a chance on him…..again I don’t have to agree with all his point and that is the point…..
Love that you are a Bronco fan in NY
by yallas on May 4, 2009 12:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have to agree
What was not addressed in the article that is a firm truth is that there is lost opportunity cost with every pick that goes off the board and Denver is not picking.
Ie. Denver could trade down from 10 to 15 in the first round next year, and the 5 players that go in the 10-14 spots are part of opportunity cost to doing the deal. Whether that cost means anything to Denver is up to them, once they see who goes in those spots.
Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on the situation) that cost is subjective, until 3-5 yrs down the road when one can see exactly how good each player was and by that time, not too many peopel care what pick was traded and what wasn’t.
by RudyR on May 4, 2009 1:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a logical falasy
obviously the moment you exercise a draft pick you have forgone all the other alternatives. If you take your premise to the extreme a team should never use it’s picks, only trade them into the future for higher picks. Eventually you would have every 1st round pick one year. Of course you would probably suck until then.
All of this talk is just a stalking horse for comparision between a player the Broncos actually selected (Smith) versus some speculative future pick. You can always specualte that the could get more value in the future by trading into the future, but that’s al it is: idle speculation.
Smith (or any other player) may or may not work out. That’s true of any player and would be equally true of that supposed sure thing high 1st rounder next year.
by SlowWhiteGuy on May 4, 2009 2:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
except then Ryan Leaf would also be...
you get a 50/50 chance…remember in the real draft you don’t know which of the two will turn out. At the time most “experts” thought Leaf would be the better QB.
by SlowWhiteGuy on May 4, 2009 2:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
without belaboring the point
You still have a shot at a true bigtime team changing, championship winning player sometimes…..but your point is well taken
by yallas on May 4, 2009 3:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never understood why though
I really thought Ryan Leaf was just mostly media hype, and that Peyton over him was a no-brainer. I didn’t think Leaf would be that big of a bust, just that he wouldn’t be nearly as good as Peyton.
Owning the Patriots since September 9, 1960
by Darin H on May 4, 2009 3:50 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did anybody watch the rose bowl he lost to Griese ?
He was a REACH! Poor decisions such as this pick (or Todd Blackledge or Bey) throw off the discussion more than seemingly good picks that just down pan out (Mandarich, Blair Thomas)
I agree with some of Ted’s points but feel his argument lends itself so much more to the logic of trading down rather than the trading #1 for #2. The fact that there are SO MANY variables makes the outcome of this discussion probably forever arguable.
The arguments of value VS future expectations is mostly nonsense in my mind. The statements Ted lists so liberally as ‘true’ are so inductive & so subject to interpretation! On a single player vs single player basis (there is the we got two for the price of one angle) Absolute nonsense. The odds will ALWAYS favor a significantly lower draft pick as the player more likely to be the better player!
I could go on but the vast amount of information here sounds so much like a political shell game!
And for your information, all else being equal; NOBODY prefers a smaller or slower CB!
I expect I’ll go on later but for now I’m happy with trusting that Josh & Nolan took an educated risk that will turn out well….
by Whidbey Bronco on May 4, 2009 4:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe we have the same point?
That was my point, that by trading the future pick, there will be opportunity cost of not having that pick.
However that cost is subjective (or speculative if you prefer), depending on the eye of the beholder.
I’m not sure where the idea came from that they would never use their picks. I’m saying they can quantify Smith now, however the cost of not having that future pick next year is subjective. Denver felt it was worth it (I happen to agree considering all the needs they have), however most people in the press seem to value the at-this-point unknown opportunity cost Denver is incurring by doing the deal.
by RudyR on May 5, 2009 1:50 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice work Ted!
I’d spent all of 5 minutes working on the financial implications of the trade. This took my understanding to another level and I’m grateful for your work.
The sunk cost argument was particularly astute.
Recd and buzzed.
by NedBronco on May 4, 2009 8:35 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Excellent
I was thinking about trying to do a salary-cap post on the Smith trade myself. But then I got hung up on the problem where I don’t know jack about the details of capology.
On Chart 2, I want to second the notion that the Scouts grades just can’t be linear. They’d be hard to correct for, though, since the actual fit between the scouts grading system and actual football talent would be so hard to determine. If you think the Scouts system bunches players to closely in the 80s range, you could multiply scores by a constant. If you think it overstates the difference between the Staffords and Freemans of the world, you could take the square root of the grade. Pardon me if I’m telling you something you already know, but this would probably make a real difference in the evaluations. More to the point, if you think the difference between an Alphonso Smith and a Vontae Davis or Malcolm Jenkins is overstated on the Scouts score, then the deal looks even better.
by Chibronx on May 4, 2009 8:45 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it's hilarious that not even the Raider fans are coming over to vote for their draft pick. lmao
I really do feel sorry for them on some level…but only the “good” fans out there that I have met. All good fans deserve good owners…it’s too bad the Raiders won’t have a good owner any time soon.
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
by Tim Lynch on May 4, 2009 9:06 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
not unless someone finally manages
to yank Al’s feeding tube. ; )
"They need a hero to tell them that the impossible can become possible..... WHEN... YOU'RE... AWESOMMMME!" -- Rhino the Hamster
by broncosmontana on May 4, 2009 9:27 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect that before the draft someone hooked his morphine drip up to his feeding tube.
I have no other explanation for that draft. It was utterly baffling. As part of the AFC West, I extend my deepest gratitude.
Hillis/Moreno in '09
by Emmett Smith on May 4, 2009 9:36 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Post
Once again another great post. Thanks for the work that you do, always enjoy reading and learning.
by Stuman on May 4, 2009 9:08 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
anomalous preponderance
That phrase alone made this a worthy read. Once again, I’m impressed with the depth of your shallowness! Great work here, TB!
"They need a hero to tell them that the impossible can become possible..... WHEN... YOU'RE... AWESOMMMME!" -- Rhino the Hamster
by broncosmontana on May 4, 2009 9:14 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
It's the business side of life...
Rec’d!
Too many “fans” forget that this truly is a business. Bottom line is wins, but an inch above that bottom line is ROI (Return on Investment…).
by topnation on May 4, 2009 9:18 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Excellent Work
By the way, I cannot listen to Adam Schein at all. His buddy Solomon Wilcotts is just as bad. I should not fault them because it is their job to get a reaction out of people which causes them to take a stand on every decision. You cannot get on the air and say “well, that was an interesting move. We will have to wait and see how it plays out. Get back to me in two years.”
Keep up the good work!
Keep Moving Forward.
by ColoradoOwl on May 4, 2009 9:21 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. Schein and Wilcots are blowhards....and that is as polite as I can be to those 2 knuckle heads.
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
All I want is 53 Rod Smiths. Is that asking too much????
by boydy2669 on May 4, 2009 9:47 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent analysis, Ted!
I hope your breakdown of the numbers, and what really matters (value) gets through to the Chicken Little’s of Broncos Country…
by Douglas A. Lee on May 4, 2009 9:21 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh
And Rec’d and Buzzed. I share your disdain for Schein, and I assume your feelings are (like mine) somewhat based upon his presence on SNY. Between listening to him rant about the Mets and those ridiculous eyebrows, I just can’t handle him…
by Douglas A. Lee on May 4, 2009 9:24 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you intentionally leave Dallas off the list?
The other teams listed at 6. doesn’t include Dallas.
by creamy on May 4, 2009 9:38 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the hard work
I agree with all of this and I appreciate you quantifying my thoughts!
by swg777 on May 4, 2009 10:00 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry -this is such BS!
These so-called “Shallow Thoughts & Nearsighted Observations” couldn’t be more in-depth. :-)
Thanks so much, Ted! Fantastic post! My favorite line:
“Our five Day One picks from this Draft will cost a total of about $9.5 million per year over the next 4-5 years, or about three-quarters of a million dollars less than Darrius Heyward-Bey, the second coming of Ashley Lelie. That is value maximization.”
"From the get-go, we targeted a certain type of player: tough, smart, competitive, versatile, a good person that loves football and wants to win." -Coach McDaniels
by Colorado_Kitten on May 4, 2009 10:04 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
So from this cost - benefit analysis, why not
trade down from 12 (McD said several teams contacted him about moving up to 12) then we probably could have gotten Donald Brown at RB, still gotten Alphonso Smith, and gotten another player like maybe Connor Barwin.
Growing older is not for sissies. Jack Palance
by bradley on May 4, 2009 10:15 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
But
Do we know that McD and X liked Brown?
by Douglas A. Lee on May 4, 2009 10:25 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brown has a couple of habits that don't fit the Denver system
He doesn’t have patience in finding his route and fails to set up his blockers, hurrying them from behind. Given the importance of vision, patience and acceleration, I don’t think that Brown has the right tools to run in our offense. Certainly, Moreno is both a better runner by quite a bit and a better fit for what we’ve done to date.
That’s a very good point, nyc – the value of Moreno lies both in his greater skill and better fit. Putting those things together, I’d have to say that it was worth the value of that pick. Others will see it differently, but it seems pretty clear to me. In fact, I don’t think that anyone to date has argued that Moreno wasn’t worth that pick, whether you feel that they should have stockpiled 2nd round picks or not. Brown is a very good running back, and a perfect example of a guy who is very good but not a very good fit.
Hillis/Moreno in '09
by Emmett Smith on May 4, 2009 10:40 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
ditto
Charles Davis summed up his analysis of Brown with a coach’s dictum — ’fast through the hole; not fast to the hole!" The consensus was that Brown could learn this given time, but Moreno clearly already has.
I read someone’s (an apparent flamer’s) attempt to disparage the Moreno pick because he was “too slow.” Do you mean like Terrell Davis too slow? Let me cry all the way to the bank. The sad thing was that this writer purports to be a knowledgeable Bronco fan.
There have been other purportedly knowledgeable writers (pompous pundits?) who have considered the Moreno pick without even bothering to consider ‘goodness of fit,’ as if scheme is somehow an irrelevant issue. Rhetorically speaking — I guess we goofed by not drafting Loadholt and Herman Johnson, too. Thanks for all the…..er….useful information, Mr. Pundit.
by Colinski on May 4, 2009 4:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
herman Johnson to the Broncos was absolutely baffling
yet it kept cropping up.
Maybe they were thinking DT….
There is no army so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
by Jeremy Bolander on May 4, 2009 6:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, no
And I suppose that’s why they didn’t trade down – they must have thought Moreno was totally worth it. I was just tossing a thought out there – I know that I don’t know beans about these college kids, at least not compared to McX.
Growing older is not for sissies. Jack Palance
by bradley on May 4, 2009 10:42 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
they were at 12 so they got him....picking higher does have it's benefits ehh?
by yallas on May 4, 2009 3:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep
I’ll take two every year!
We could always trade down from a #1 for two #2s… Imagine the value then!
by Whidbey Bronco on May 4, 2009 5:09 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop trying to justify the broncos draft
Wait 3 year and we will see if we traded to much away for “value”. Side note when US company’s send work overseas they always talk about the better value of the workers.
by mattx1 on May 4, 2009 10:16 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think he's justifying the draft
so much as justifying the strategy. The draft will be evaluated by the performance of the players. The strategy is open for debate right now.
"They need a hero to tell them that the impossible can become possible..... WHEN... YOU'RE... AWESOMMMME!" -- Rhino the Hamster
by broncosmontana on May 4, 2009 10:19 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice comments but...
your poll is terrible. Trying to judge a handful of recent draft picks against another draft pick (I know it says any #7, but you specifically listed an extremely questionable pick) is as worthless as any of the “experts” draft grades from this year.
I could get the exact opposite result by going to the 99 draft and asking if you would rather have Champ Bailey (7th pick) for 10 million a year or the Pu-Pu Platter of Cade McNown, Matt Stinchcomb, Jon Jansen, Russel Davis, and Doug Brzezenski for 9 million per (you did say any #7 pick).
by Gorbal on May 4, 2009 10:27 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that you'll find that it's very 'tongue in cheek'
It was meant as a small grin, and it got mine.
Hillis/Moreno in '09
by Emmett Smith on May 4, 2009 10:47 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I have a pic of a bear grinning.
It all starts in the trenches - HT 11/11/08
Leave the hateful vitriol to the uninformed - HT 3/16/09
by firstfan on May 4, 2009 11:22 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not something that you'll want to see up close!
Hillis/Moreno in '09
by Emmett Smith on May 4, 2009 12:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, you'll find when I do polls
that they usually are tongue-in-cheek. This edition wasn’t really very snarky, so I added some in the poll.
"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy
by Ted Bartlett on May 4, 2009 11:26 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
get the real value
Go to the 99 draft and look at Champ Bailey, a great player, vs. the 2 best picks from the lower part of rd. 1 and the best 2 picks from rd. 2.
How about Champ vs. Jevon Kearse (#16), Al Wilson (#31), Dre Bly (#41), and Kevin Faulk (#46)?
by ddtraveller on May 4, 2009 12:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point I am making is that...
at the time you’re making the move, virtually any 5 good players are going to represent a better value than 1 top 10 player. If you trust your ability to evaluate talent, you’ll take 5 over 1.
"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy
by Ted Bartlett on May 4, 2009 12:25 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's what I'm saying...
If you’re the Raiders you’ll get Bey at the top vs. 5 bad players later on. If you’re great at evaluation then you get 1 great player vs. 5 great ones. You just can’t compare 1 great one to 4 or 5 lousy ones or 1 horrible one to 5 great ones.
I think all us Broncs fans are making too much of the tounge-in-cheek poll which does that though.
by ddtraveller on May 4, 2009 3:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shallow AND observant
+1 TB
My Dad told me about the 4 seasons:
Pre-season
Regular-season
Post-season
Off-season
by KaptainKirk on May 4, 2009 11:47 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Bey!
I understand the point of the article and it’s well-said but really it all comes down to being able to evaluate skill. The Raiders suck at it so you can’t compare a Raiders #7 to lower round Broncos picks.
Would you rather have Morreno, Ayers, Smith, McBath and Quinn or B.J. Raji (assuming the Broncos would have taken him at #7 if they’d had the #7 pick)?
Or from the 2006 draft how about this either or with a top of round 1 pick vs. 2 low 1’s and 2 round 2 picks?
Would you take;
Jay Cutler
or
Haloti Ngata, Antonio Cromartie, DeMeco Ryans, and Tony Scheffler?
How about the Denver-Chicago trade viewed through this lens?
Jay Cutler and Johnny Knox(the WR Chicago got with our 5th rd. pick) vs. Ayers, Smith, Orton and 1/2 of Quinn and 1/2 of Olson?
Orton alone, in McDaniel’s system, might make the deal a great one for Denver. Then again, looking at Cutler’s contract we traded to Chicago- purely from the perspective of being efficient with money Denver may have lost out given that Chicago doesn’t have to pay Cuter’s signing bonus.
by ddtraveller on May 4, 2009 12:17 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather have 5 guys that could be great over 1 guy who could be great
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
by Tim Lynch on May 4, 2009 2:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
great work, as usual...
nothing wrong with a call-sign; “Ready… BEGIN”, and #7 SHOULD be retired for all time in all things Broncos!
"...the liberty of the Press is called the Palladium of Freedom, which means, in these days, the liberty of being deceived, swindeled, and humbugged by the Press and paying hugely for the deception."
-Mark Twain, 1870
by BornOrange on May 4, 2009 12:22 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
2 problems with this otherwise excellent piece
If we had Alphonso Smith rated as the 20th best player this year, which seems reasonable, we traded a pick that has 62.5% chance of getting us the 20th or better ranked player next year (assuming we have equal probability of finishing in any given spot), that doesn’t sound too bad if the 20th best player this year is as good as the 20th best player next year. However 2009 was universally hailed is a weak draft, while 2010 is already being talked up as one of the strongest draft classes in recent history (right there with 2006). That means the player we had 62.5% chance of getting next year would all else being equal be a better player.
The second falacy is “One of the fundamental rules of Finance is that sunk costs become irrelevant once they are incurred.” which is true, however to stay with your example of spending 2000$ on an engine, the assumption when making that investment is that the rest of the truck is not going to need substantial repair any time soon – so if you have to spend another 2000$ or more the year after to replace the breaking system or steering rack or something, it will make your initial 2000$ a bad investment. A good decision today, is not necesarily a good decision tomorrow. I believe that with the situation we are in right now, we would have been better off waiting for a year when we are a year wiser and more experienced to make those decisions.
by gyldenlove on May 4, 2009 12:36 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this
There is no hurry. Denver’s not going to win the Super Bowl next year. Bowlen is going to give McDaniels at least 3 years. A CB who plays in the nickel package and pushes for playing time at the 2nd corner position isn’t going to make or break the team this year, and was not necessary after spending on a starting corner in free agency.
A little patience would have been better for this team in the long run.
by creamy on May 4, 2009 1:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
In response to your first counter-point
There are a couple of things to point out in your argument as well. One is that we have Smith to help us this year. There is value in being able to use that 20th best player in the draft this year. Also, that 20th best player this year will have a years worth of experience on the 20th best player next year, so even if the 20th best player turns out to be a better player, it may take several years for him to surpass this years 20th best player in terms of quality.
Second, you are not taking into consideration the value of getting the 20th best player this year for the cost of the 37th best player. Your next years 20th best player will cost you 20th best player money for the life of that contract. This years 20th best player is a bargain for 37th best player money for the life of that contract. Add in my first point of getting to utilize that player for this year, which is a year that we need a lot of help and the fact that next year he won’t be a rookie like next years 20th best player will be and the deal looks good to me.
A few much needed INT’s by Smith and no one will be questioning this move mid-season. McD addressed a huge deficiency on our D from last year. We were at the bottom of the barrel in turnovers forced. He improved upon a weakness and did it for a bargain. What’s not to like there?
If we could have just screwed another head on his shoulders, he would have been the greatest QB who ever lived.
by c_style on May 4, 2009 1:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1 Exactly
This is touching again on the point of this article.
Second, you are not taking into consideration the value of getting the 20th best player this year for the cost of the 37th best player.
If talent was a commodity and you were tasked at maximizing the talent of your team then getting lots of talent for lower price is exactly the goal of a good organization. So many people look at drafting down in terms of the extra picks, and in part that is true, but when you look at the fact that a team is essentially maximizing the talent/cost in a financially capped team sport. Well no wonder it works!
Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.
by Kfustud on May 4, 2009 1:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's not to like is...
We may get a #20 type player for #37 type money. What about the the #10ish type talent we won’t have a chance to look at next year!??
Take that FACT and all the rational points as to the value of later picks and either pick the low rounder next year (and pay him …superstars COST) or trade down then for even more value. It’s a pretty big risk giving up this option in mind mind.
I hope the few Int’s happen more than the “burnt again by the taller faster receiver” ! If it doesn’t, do all the supporters of this pick still support it as a good risk?
by Whidbey Bronco on May 4, 2009 5:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ya
It is a risk, like most things in the draft. They are betting on their own evaluations. I guess if you have to bet on something, betting on yourself isn’t that bad.
Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.
by Kfustud on May 5, 2009 10:32 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh Rulon
how/ why are none of you talking about Rulon?? This guy has the tools to be a real force in our defense. At 6-5 281, this UDFA has experience as a 5 technique DE (he played college ball at Cal) and he also is a proven leader. He served our country and fought in iraq after college. This guy has a real good story and he should not be forgotten by us bronco fans. I wish him the best of luck and hope to see him develop into a starter on our defense. He is a stud and the kind of player/leader we need. I love the direction our team is headed – players who are REAL professionals, whether that be on the field or off.
by Newpball on May 4, 2009 12:43 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Excellent work!
The value of the pick is over the heads of the “talking head media” types that can only see “trade a 1 for a 2” and stop there. Clearly we took a first round caliber player for second round money, and got what we wanted instead of holding out for a speculative pick.
But aside from value (which is awesome), I keep wanting to remind readers about another wonderful point:
Smith – top ten in interceptions in college football history. Think about that.
Very rec’d Ted!
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on May 4, 2009 3:15 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Sunk cost problem
“Sunk costs become irrelevant once they are incurred . . . . Watching the Broncos record this season through the prism of the traded first-round pick is a waste of time, and an exercise for the unintelligent. It doesn’t matter, because the decision was deemed to be the right one in the spring of 2009. "
It is true that sunk costs are irrelevant to the persons (i.e., the Broncos) who have incurred the sunk costs, for purposes of their future decision making. Ignoring sunk costs would, for example, be relevant, and important, for the Broncos when deciding whether or not to play Alphonso (i.e., they should look at his playing skills when deciding whether or not to play him, not the merits or costs of the trade). Similarly, the Broncos decision the last few years not to start Jarvis Moss or Tim Crowder appropriately ignored their sunk costs. They would have compounded the problem by playing them just because they have large guaranteed contracts.
However, Broncos fans and the media have no sunk costs when it comes to the Alphonso trade or the Jarvis Moss draft decision. We have no decisions to make that are impacted by the team’s sunk costs. We are not making decisions for the team. We are commenting on whether or not it was a wise move. Having observed the team the past few years, I can state that the decision to draft Jarvis sucked (as I also said on draft day in 2007), without “wasting my time” – I have no sunk costs in that draft decision and subsequent contract.
Part of our opinion about whether or not they should have dealt their #1 for the 2nd round pick will indeed be impacted by their record this year. This trade did not occur in a vacuum. There is a context that leads many people to reasonably believe that the Broncos traded a top 10 (perhaps top 5) first round pick for a 2nd round pick. Specifically, we have (1) a very hard schedule next year, (2) a new offensive system, (3) a new defensive system, (4) a new offensive coaching staff, (5) a new defensive coaching staff, (6) lost our pro bowl, franchise QB, who, it can be argued, was the main thing standing in the way of a 3 to 5 win season last year. Even our owner, for the first time that I can recall, was pessimistic enough about the upcoming season to admit there will be no Super Bowl this year. For an owner, that kind of admission is the equivalent of saying, “we’re not going to be very good this year.”
This does not guarantee a cruddy season. It is evidence for the probability of a cruddy season. I believe we have the likelihood of a record that would put us in position for a top 10 draft pick next year. This likelihood of a poor season militates against "the urgency of right now".
I believe it is silly to assume that our first round pick next year will be in the middle of the first round. This year, a .500 record got you a pick in the middle of the first round. I want my coach to be objective on draft day and be able to consider the fact that his team may be worse than Chicago next year. Bravado is great for the locker room, but it’s not so handy on draft day. If he’s legitimately convinced of the probability that the Broncos will have a .500 record or better, then he made the correct move. If he believes the opposite, then I think he made the wrong decision and traded the wrong pick.
For these reasons, and given the context of a probability of a poor season (apparently agreed to by even the owner), I also do not agree that the Broncos should have a 2009 "sense of urgency" that causes them to discount the value of a top 5 or 10 pick all the way down to a #48 pick only one year out. In mathematics terms, that is an extraordinarily large discount rate you are assuming, considering the fact that this is a rebuilding year by even the owner’s measure.
This is not meant to be a rail against Alphonso. I think he has a chance to be a good starter for the Broncos.
by Broncos_FTW on May 4, 2009 4:17 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Thank you!
I wish I’d have written this most excellent post!
Even more though, I hope the whole point fails to prove itself as Alphonso lights up every team he faces and makes Josh look like a genius!!
by Whidbey Bronco on May 4, 2009 5:22 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the problem with this line of thinking....
There is a reasonable likelihood that Smith may make a contribution this year – there is zero likelihood that next year’s pick will make a contribution this year.
Next year there is an even higher likelihood that Smith will make a contribution – there is a likelihood that next year’s pick would make a contribution but it is still less than the likelihood of Smith contiributing (although probably higher than the probability that Smith contributes in 2009)
In fact, in every year for the next five years, there is still a higher likelihood that Smith contributes than there is that next year’s pick (who would have one year less experience) actualy contributes.
That’s the time value of the pick and why most league front offices disdane your logic and actually trade future picks for one round later in the current draft.
Argue all you want. The professionals have already decided what is fair.
by SlowWhiteGuy on May 4, 2009 5:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Professionals get fired all the time for bone headed thinking
by yallas on May 4, 2009 6:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
An individual, yes
but we are talking about the entire group. NFL FO’s as a collective whole have determined that this is a reasonable exchange.
by SlowWhiteGuy on May 4, 2009 6:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that there is a general rule that states you should trade a higher pick next year for a lower pick this year. However, it is not an absolute. There is no specific rule that states that any pick in the 2nd round this year is equal in value to any pick in the first round next year. If it were, then it would be proper for the 0-16 Detroit Lions to trade their first round pick next year straight up for the #64 pick in the draft this year. I do not believe that any front office would agree to such a trade, absent extraordinary circumstances. To my knowledge, no such trade has ever been made. "The professionals" have not decided that this scenario is fair.
The original poster was more specific. He stated, "the standard going rate of a draft pick this year is ALWAYS a pick one round higher the next season, which, for valuation purposes is ALWAYS assumed will fall dead in the middle of that one round."
My point is that there is a context here. This trade did not occur in a vacuum. There is evidence that should preclude one from assuming the pick will fall in the middle of the first round next year (which would have required a .500 record this year). I listed some of the evidence in my first post. Therefore, we have information at our disposal that we can use to evaluate the trade beyond the general rule. In order to make the original poster’s presumption, we have to ignore the evidence. Ignoring the evidence does not turn this into a great trade.
In addition, Seattle argued with Denver over which pick they wanted. They wanted Denver’s pick, not Chicago’s. Why? For the same reasons I listed. They believed Denver’s pick was more valuable because of the likelihood that it will be a high pick next year. Their front office "professionals" did not assume that Denver’s pick would fall in the middle of the first round.
There was a lot of head shaking around the league regarding this trade. Head shaking is not determinative of whether or not it was a good trade. It is evidence, however, that Denver’s trade was not the norm.
"(M)ost league front offices disdane your logic and actually trade future picks for one round later in the current draft . . . .The professionals have already decided what is fair."
This is a logical fallacy called "an appeal to authority". It is an argument that rests on who provides the evidence and ignores the content of the evidence. "Some front office types believe that Denver executed a fair trade. Therefore, Denver executed a fair trade."
I also do not believe that it is an accurate statement about the state of the NFL, with regard to trading a 1st next year for a 2nd this year. Here is the quote from an ESPN article discussing the trade, "This bold strategy [trading a first round pick next year for a second round pick this year] doesn’t get a lot of support leaguewide, and I believe teams will shy away from it in future drafts if the Broncos fail with Smith." http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=4115637&type=story
by Broncos_FTW on May 5, 2009 9:55 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
there is a problem with this line of thinking
and it is contained in a single statement you made, from whence it creeps out to weaken the rest of the thought:
It is evidence for the probability…
This is a contradiction. Probability doesn’t have evidence, that is why it is probability.
There is no army so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
by Jeremy Bolander on May 4, 2009 6:17 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Probability = greater than 50% chance, as opposed to just a possibility.
by Broncos_FTW on May 5, 2009 8:32 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me expand on what I just typed. Probablility has multiple usages. In this case, it means “the state of being probable” or “the state of being supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof”. Strong enough to establish a presumption means it is “more likely than not” or a greater than 50% chance.
In my post, I state that there is a context here that shold not have been ignored. The context is that there is evidence of a probablity (a greater than 50% chance) of a top 5 or 10 pick.
by Broncos_FTW on May 5, 2009 8:59 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
Yes you can look at existing data and try to extrapolate that there exists an arbitrary greater than 50% chance that this pick will fall within a certain area. Unfortunately, that is all it is, a type of educated guess to the outcome.
You can’t know how our team will compete next year, you can’t know how the schedule as seen now will compare to the future, and indeed you can’t know where the pick will land.
So is it probable or possible? Unknown, you might say that you are using it in a context but you really aren’t because there is no basis for your context to be true.
So ultimately was this trade fair? Some argue yes and some argue no. The facts that exist are that it isn’t that unusual and it results in a player who will cost less than a 1st round pick who will perform this year. That is about all we can really say at this point.
Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.
by Kfustud on May 5, 2009 10:25 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that it is an educated guess as to the outcome. I think that making an educated guess, taking into account the facts, is a wiser move than arbitrary assumptions that (1) the Bronco’s pick will be in the middle of the 1st round or (2) all trades involving 2nd round picks this year for 1st round picks next year are equal .
There is a context. We know certain facts about the Broncos. It’s not a classroom hypothetical about a make believe team. The original article disregarded those facts and stated that there are specific rules that are always accepted by all teams in determining whether or not a trade was fair. I submit that teams can make educated guesses based on the specific circumstances of their team.
As to whether it is ususal or not, I posted a link above to an ESPN article that states, ""This bold strategy [trading a first round pick next year for a second round pick this year] doesn’t get a lot of support leaguewide, and I believe teams will shy away from it in future drafts if the Broncos fail with Smith."
by Broncos_FTW on May 5, 2009 10:51 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
My comment specifically goes to your terminology with probability and possibility. The concern here was in regards to the qualifier you attached that it references a greater than 50% chance. That definition, unfortunately or fortunately, is dependent on too many variables to be accurate.
Whether or not your point is dismissible is really not my concern.
We are all familiar with the ESPN article. Sadly Clayton begins to ramble and his logic becomes cloudy at best. While discussing the history of 1st for 2nd round trades is interesting, Clayton gives examples of several successful teams and unsuccessful teams that have taken this strategy in the past, Clayton enters unsupported territory when he claims that the strategy is out of favor? (conjecture?) He then describes how this strategy has resurfaced recently (so not as out of favor as it once was?) and finally comes to some unreasonable conclusion that Denver’s move for Smith will be the final determinant. (Even though plenty of teams have failed in the past and this still happens today.)
Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.
by Kfustud on May 5, 2009 2:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have to be careful with that point..
In the same vein, all teams must extrapolate and make arbitrary guesses to future outcomes when making trades involving future draft picks. Seattle did that very thing when they wanted Denver’s 1st rather than the Bears’ traded 1st. At some level, decisions have to be made in the face of this uncertainty.
That’s exactly why it’s best to have an argument on assumptions now rather than later. We’re not biased by future information and are evaluating essentially the same information the FO used. While it’s true that nobody can guarantee anything about the future, that shouldn’t stop us from making reasonable estimations.
I think FTW’s logic is rather thorough. While even he would hope that it’s disproven (e.g. that the Broncos go 13-3 next year) it’s not out of bounds and not dismissable simply because we can’t see the future.
On a related note, I’d also like to point out that a mid-1st pick seems to have better tradability than an early 1st recently. I’m going purely on gut here, but it seems that teams are getting more hesitant about trading into the top 10 than they used to be specifically because of the disproportional value. The Jets made their move because it was for a QB, which seems to be the only real reason to leap into the top few anymore. What I’m trying to say is that if you’re looking for draft capital, having a mid-1st pick that’s more easily tradable/negotiable/whateverable may actually be more valuable than a high-1st. With the high 1st, you might end up getting stuck with it and drafting a guy you could have had later on (or perhaps somebody else you were willing to take), thereby incurring the extra cash penalty for no beneficial reason.
by Hooper on May 5, 2009 11:39 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have written
to your final point here on several occasions recently. I give credence that mid to late round picks are more favorable these days based on value. Not only value for paying less for players that still possess excellent talent but also in trade value. Every year talented players fall below what many would consider their draft position. When this happens they become hot targets for teams looking to capitalize on this unexpected value and seek to trade up to those picks. So in essence sitting pat on a lower draft pick and shopping it as talented players fall to you is far easier than trading out of top picks which are already slotted to be high cost.
Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.
by Kfustud on May 5, 2009 2:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that last post was a non sequitur. I don’t think I was clear enough about that. I haven’t had the time to keep up properly with all the conversations, which is why it’s probably repetitive.
by Hooper on May 5, 2009 4:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Extra Credit for that one
Rec’d
My Dad told me about the 4 seasons:
Pre-season
Regular-season
Post-season
Off-season
by KaptainKirk on May 4, 2009 6:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Post, Rec'd buzzed but one question
Oakland Shawn Bayes RS Speedster, so he’ll fit right in
what is a RS? Did you mean FS or RB?
HILLIS
by robbo650 on May 4, 2009 5:23 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Return Specialist
"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy
by Ted Bartlett on May 4, 2009 6:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
So KR and PR both?
That is actually kind of rare…
There is no army so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
by Jeremy Bolander on May 4, 2009 6:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Copernicus (Ted), couldn't take the heat so you delete?
I see my post was deleted. Couldn’t take the heat so you delete? I see how it works.
It was a very simple and straight forward question. Someone that is so supportive of the Alphonso Smith pick should be able to answer a simple question or at least give me an explanation. Or, did I stump you?
I guess you’re going to take your ball and go home because you coudn’t take the heat (questions and criticism).
I suppose you’re ONLY here for pats on the back. Well, here you go. Good job.
by vieng111 on May 4, 2009 6:50 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I responded the first time, and probably shouldn't have...
It’s not a value-adding exercise for anybody. As noted above, I didn’t delete anything.
"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy
by Ted Bartlett on May 4, 2009 8:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Ted. I hope you know it's NOT personal.
I was just reading Jack’s post (from above) on MHR’s Code of Conduct, and if I personally attacked you in any way, I aplogize for my misstep. Most people know that I DO NOT make it personal. It was a post to show that most people don’t see or answer the most basic question against the trade for Alphonso Smith.
I think if you read ALL my other posts, you can see that I DO NOT personally attack anyone. On the contrary, most of my points are to show another persons point of view, and to create a thoughtful dialogue. I prefer a good dialogue (another point of view) then mundane responses.
Read my post: Contrary to many opinions here at the MHR, I am a True fan!!!
by vieng111 on May 5, 2009 9:27 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Buddy.
Like Ted said twice, it’s not his call to delete comments, so one of the other guys running this site must have judged that it violated the code of conduct or it was simply lost due to a gliche. Perhaps you should reformulate your questions respectfully and see if it gets through this time. Ted’s been nicer to you than I would have been, but don’t push your luck with this garbage.
"The mystic chords of fandom, stretching from every trade and signing to every active account and guest all over this broadband, will yet swell the chorus of union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". ~ Abraham Lincoln-ish
"The tree of victory must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of quarterbacks and coaches". ~ Thomas Jefferson-ish
by ejruiz on May 5, 2009 2:14 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
One note
one of the other guys running this site must have judged that it violated the code of conduct or it was simply lost due to a gliche.
There aer no other guys running this site. TSG runs this site, and any decisions regarding a deletion are his and his alone. He does take into account anyone flagging a remark. That may or may not have happened. If that remark violated any part of the code of conduct, any member in question can go back to their comment and probably see why. If they have questions. TSG is the only guy to talk to. Ted had nothing to do with this. I hope that clarifies things.
Hillis/Moreno in '09
by Emmett Smith on May 5, 2009 2:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great stuff Ted,
and you put a lot of effort into it. Thanks 13-3 Baby!!!
by bfree2bronc on May 4, 2009 8:43 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
What a well written and wonderfully reasoned piece.
Also the thing to remember about "using phrases like “Ready… BEGIN,” or always keeping #7 retired for John Elway" is that they only devolve into “Schein-on-the-radio-like schtick” when they begin to take the place of substantive discussion. You aren’t writing them as an excuse for not having something else to say, you’re using them despite having valid, well reasoned points to make. That’s the difference.
Time to galvanize
by jack_ on May 5, 2009 12:14 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed on schtick vs slick
also, you can just leave off the #7 without the commentary, if it ever starts to burn out. I heart subtle nuances, and that would definitely qualify.
There is no army so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
by Jeremy Bolander on May 5, 2009 11:35 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent As Always.
Good work, Ted. Keep’em coming!
"The mystic chords of fandom, stretching from every trade and signing to every active account and guest all over this broadband, will yet swell the chorus of union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". ~ Abraham Lincoln-ish
"The tree of victory must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of quarterbacks and coaches". ~ Thomas Jefferson-ish
by ejruiz on May 5, 2009 2:15 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Awsome Dude
I read everrrrryy word of this lengthy, but extreemly informative artical. I had to vote #3, just because i thought that the response was funnier than the need to tell the truth. Otherwise, the vote was the obvious. One guy gets the same mony as 4 or 5? No brainer!
Thanx again and don’t quit spending your sundays in exactly the same way!!!
It is better to keep silent, and appear to be wise, then to ramble on and remove all doubt! The Wisest Man, Solomon.
by metalman5050 on May 5, 2009 10:09 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

by 































