The Loser's Curse and the NFL Draft
by TJ Johnson on Mar 10, 2010 9:30 AM MST
in 2010 NFL Draft - Denver Broncos
115 comments
In 2005, Cade Massey and Richard Thayer, two academics from Duke and the University of Chicago, authored a fascinating and statistically-heavy paper entitled The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence vs. Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft. While the paper is dated, and while it has received its fair share of criticism and analysis itself, I think the most fascinating sentence from the entire 59-page paper is the biggest and most overlooked truth from the modern-day NFL:
Buying expensive players, even if they turn out to be great performers, imposes opportunity costs elsewhere on the roster.
More liberally put, spending too much money on just a few high-priced players is a recipe for losing. That's because you've lost the "opportunity" to spread those cost across other quality players in other critical areas. In free agency, this means doing what the Chicago Bears just did with Julius Peppers, or what the Washington Redskins did a year earlier with Albert Haynesworth. Or what Al Davis does every year with every player.
In the NFL draft it often means picking in the top of the draft over and over again, which continues to cost you a premium each year. It also means crazily trading up. Let's take a look at an example of each.
A Real Black Hole
The Oakland Raiders have drafted in the top ten in the last four years. Who they drafted isn't as important as how much they paid for these picks:
| Year | Player | Pick # | Total Contract | Years | Guaranteed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | Darrius Heyward-Bey | 7 | $38.25 Million | 5 | $23.5 Million |
| 2008 | Darren McFadden | 4 | $60.1 Million | 6 | $26 Million |
| 2007 | JaMarcus Russell | 1 | $68 Million | 6 | $31.5 Million |
| 2006 | Michael Huff | 7 | $43 Million | 6 | $16 Million |
The first thing that stands out from this list (aside from the lack of quality), is the sheer size of the contracts and the massive amounts of guaranteed money. While the Raiders are picking ahead of the rest of the league, they are paying a large premium to do so. Imagine what happens to a team after 4 or 5 or 6 years of paying these kinds of premiums if the players don't work out. The team's problems compound, they end up tying up a lot of their payroll on unproductive players, and the franchise sinks into a bigger hole. Now you know why they created head coaches. They need to find someone to distract you from tables like the one above.
But teams shouldn't end up being in this situation for 4 or 5 years, should they? After all, given that they have the opportunity to draft the best players, they should end up--after several years--atop the division. After all, they've drafted all of the "best" players, haven't they?
Unfortunately (or fortunately for teams like the Chargers and Broncos), the NFL draft, and specifically, the first round, is a crapshoot, so much so, I often think it's sheer luck. But don't take my word for it. Here is what Massey and Thayer found when they looked at the issue:
...over their first five years, players drafted in the first round spend about as many seasons out of the league (8%) or not starting a single game (8%) as in the Pro Bowl (9%). page 5
When I read this for the first time, it shocked me. It also changed my view on the NFL draft. You see, for all of the tape and combine drills and interviews and private workouts, teams just aren't very good at figuring out who will do well in the NFL. At least Mel Kiper makes some dough, so it must be good for the economy on some level.
You can begin to see the trouble for a team like the Raiders. Despite the fact that they are picking ahead of everyone else, their chances of actually finding pro-bowl players for 2 or 3 or 4 years in a row is difficult. But they still have to pay these picks as if they were pro-bowlers. And you just thought Big Al was totally crazy. Turns out he is insane, but insane because he and the other owners haven't figured out how to get a better rookie cap in place.
But what about Peyton Manning or the Dallas Cowboys of the early 1990s? Didn't they score big in the first round and eventually set themselves up for dynasties? Sure, you've got me. But they are the exception to the rule. And, honestly, given the statistic that I cited above, one could just as easily say they happened to win the lottery. They got lucky (somewhere there is a parallel universe in which Ryan Leaf is about to enter the Hall of Fame).
Let's contrast Oakland's data with what the New England Patriots have done in the last 4 years:
| Year | Player | Pick # | Total Contract | Years | Guaranteed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | Patrick Chung | 34 | $ 4 Million (estimates) | 4 | $2.5 Million (estimates) |
| 2008 | Jared Mayo | 10 | $18.90 Million | 5 | $13.8 Million |
| 2007 | Brandon Meriweather | 24 | $8.75 Million | 5 | $6 Million |
| 2006 | Laurence Maroney | 21 | $8.735 Million | 5 | $6.13 Million |
The thing that stands out from this list (aside from the quality) is the lack of huge contracts and guaranteed money. The Patriots, aside from happening upon some nice players, have not had the same opportunity costs as the Raiders, and therefore, have been able to spread the money across their roster more evenly.
But aren't the Raiders just playing the hand they are dealt? They can't change where they draft each year. That's true enough. But they certainly don't have to stay in that position. They could try and trade back. Trading back is like great risk management. If you do it, you are allowing yourself to gain picks, picks that also have a chance to become good NFL players, and you're doing it at less cost and less risk. As Massey and Thayer point out:
..the right to pick first in the draft, is only a benefit if the team trades it away. The first pick in the draft is the loser's curse (page 32).
The Day the Mastermind Had a Brain Freeze
This can also work the other way. Teams can sometimes, for whatever reason, fall in love with a player and they foolishly trade away picks, as if they willingly want impose opportunity costs upon themselves. Unfortunately, we don't have to look too far from home to find an example of this. The Jarvis Moss trade will suffice.
You all remember this one, don't you? During the 2007 NFL Draft, Mike Shanahan was sitting at pick number 21. But by pick 17, Jamaal Anderson and Gaines Adams were already off the board. So Shanahan, thinking he was going after a potential sack artist, moved up from pick 21 to pick 17, and nabbed Moss.
On the surface, this doesn't seem like too big of a deal. But if we examine what Shanahan gave up to get Moss--essentially to move up 4 spots--the mistake becomes clear. Denver traded its first-round selection, its third-round selection, and its sixth-round selection (21st, 86th, and 198th overall) to Jacksonville for Moss.
Let's take a look at the NFL draft value chart and see if Shanahan at least got similar value
17th pick (950 points) = 21st pick (800) + 86th pick (160 points) + 198th picks (13.2 points)
The value chart suggest that Shanahan did not receive fair value. Under this equation he sits at - 23.2 points. One might argue that this was a premium that Shanahan had to pay to get a potential 12-to-13-sacks-a-year guy. Perhaps. But let's take a look at the monetary value of these contracts:
| Player | Pick # | Total Contract | Years | Guaranteed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jarvis Moss | 17 | $14.95 Million | 5 | $8.06 Million |
| Reggie Nelson | 21 | $9.55 Million | 5 | $7.1 Million |
| Marshal Yanda | 86 | $1.75 million (estimated) | 3 | $640 K |
| Doug Datish | 198 | Undisclosed | 4 | Undisclosed |
Interestingly enough, all four of these players are still in the league, but the difference between the bottom 3 is that Moss's contract is probably larger than all of their contracts combined (although Datish's contract was undisclosed).
It appears that by 2007, Shanahan was done trying to finding the next Terrel Davis. Instead he was after a big splash, and he was willing to give up two additional picks and more cash for the opportunity to do so.
You might be tempted to say, "well, sure, hindsight is 20/20, but Moss could have become the next Lawrence Taylor." I suppose this is true, but it's not really the point, now is it? The point is that generally speaking NFL teams are poor evaluators of talent, the 1st round is a crap shoot anyway, and by stockpiling later picks, you can both manage risk and lessen opportunity costs.
A McError?
Some have maintained that Josh McDaniels made a similar mistake when he traded this year's 1st-round draft pick to the Seahawks last year for cornerback Alphonso Smith. I tend to agree with this assessment, regardless of the player chosen. From a value perspective, McDaniels got the 37th pick in the draft, which had a points value of 530. The pick the Seahawks will end up receiving this year is the 14th pick, which carries a value of 1100. For those that work with discount rates, I don't have to tell you that the the discount rate on an a one-year investment that has a future value of 1100 and a present value of 530 is extremely high, over 100%. The thought makes me cringe.
Even if McDaniels had assumed that his team was winning the Super Bowl (which he did not), the value of the last pick in the first round (32nd pick) is 590 points. That's a discount rate of of about 11.5% over the value of the 37th pick in the 2nd round. One can talk all day about wanting to get a first round corner for the price of a 2nd. However, given the lack of success for all teams, a better strategy would have been to exhibit patience, keep this year's number 1 and use it to stockpile additional picks.
Perhaps, if Brandon Marshall is dealt to the Seahawks for a 1st-round-draft pick, he'll get the opportunity remedy his mistake.
Draft Strategies
The kind of thinking I've been describing invariably leads itself to these well-known draft strategies:
If you've got a top ten pick, trade back. Not only will you save your owner a lot of money (than he can later use on actual proven players), you'll be able to add a few additional picks.
Never, and I mean, never trade up. If the NFL draft is more lottery than skill, why would you purposely give your opponents more tickets just to get what looks like a luckier series of numbers.
Need should be elevated over best player available. In a world in which you're just as likely to get it wrong as right, you might as well draft areas of need.
Going against these three strategies is risky indeed. You'll tend to reach, you'll tend to overpay, and you'll tend to put all of your eggs into one basket. If you're Dan Snyder, at least you can afford it.
24 recs |
115 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Agree
The problem with trading back is you have to have a taker in that pick. One other thing is trading for a 2nd round pick for a future 1st round pick should not be attempted regardless of the reasoning.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" - Ash from Army of Darkness
"H.I., you're young and you got your health, what you want with a job?" - Evelle from Raising Arizona
"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes." - Agent Rogersz from Repoman
Yeah, I agree with the rationale of trading a future No 1 for a 2nd.
1.14.10, the day I went green.
That should read....I dont agree
1.14.10, the day I went green.
Good read TJ and rec'd
I mostly agree with this strategy but that Suh would sure look nice in orange and blue:)
"Vegetarians are cool. All I eat are vegetarians - except for the occasional mountain lion steak "
Ted Nugent
hah, that's true Nate
Even though I wrote this, I am subject to player bias as well.
And this is the point!
Bring that dude to Denver!
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Do you see him as a future NT?
Because I’m not so sure that bringing in a start DT in college and making him a 5-technique automatically means he’ll be good (see also: Dorsey, Glen).
Assuming we were to get Suh, as long as we’re playing the ‘what if’ game.
Rob, good post.
You can see that I’m actually showing my human bias right now. You are bringing up some good factual information that should be back-tested and you brought up Dorsey. That is actually a very good example.
I’m just like an over zealous owner. Just watching Suh at the line of scrimmage on tape makes me want this guy.
Regarding the actually question, because the lack of 3-4 defenses in college, projecting guys into the pros at the 3-4 is even more challenging and subject to bias.
With respect to the 3-4, one could make a really compelling case for Dan Williams in this regard.
Since I am all about risk management, I’m with you. NT. NT. NT.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Nice post, Dude.
A prime example of this was the trade for Ricky Williams, where the saints traded away all of their picks. It’s a very big gamble.
Ricky Williams was taken 5th in that draft………… and Champ Bailey was taken 7th. hmmmmmmm
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
Nice work Dude!
I’m all for the post a few weeks ago that had us trading all of our picks for value picks in the second round, it was a second round stock pile. I can’t imagine how or why this article was written… Was this somebody’s thesis or dissertation??
Good post dude
in most cases where a player is traded up for, that one player isn’t worth what the 2 or 3 maybe worse players is worth. The fact of sheer numbers fills needs and depth.
the only way I could justify a team trading up is if they see their franchise QB or a certain position they feel if upgraded with said player would put them in SB contention
Glad to see you working off that paper
I loved it when I found that last year, it’s a cool read.
Nice article :)
Tweeting via @jtkimbell
This was awesome
Unlike life and the economy, the NFL draft is governed by fixed and highly legible rules. As far as I’m concerned, this is the best kind of analysis a Chicago economist can aspire to.
Some questions and quibbles.
Isn’t there a potential fallacy of composition issue w/r/t bust rates on picks? Sure, in the aggregate, first-rounders are likely to wash out. But the aggregate is an amalgamation of the Steelers, the Ravens, the Raiders and early 2000’s Shanny. Ceteris paribus, a team should get the heck out of the first round. But that would be bad advice for some teams. Incidentally, I think Bill Bellichick has hurt himself this way. If you’re a “typical” team, it’s good to get the heck out of the first round. But if you’re the Patriots and you do well in the first round and your’re pretty deep, does it really make sense to keep trading back?
A better argument, and a better subject to investigate, might be whether individual teams’ drafting is in fact a crapshoot. Are the Steelers, who are just loaded with high-contribution first-round picks, actually good at drafting? Or have they just been lucky?
I hear you on the McError, but shouldn’t opportunity cost also be factored into that one? The argument is really that they traded a first-round pick for Alphonso Smith + Whomever They Sign with the Money They’re Not Paying Pick #14 in 2010. That would even the scales a bit, and if we’re going to account for opportunity cost in one place, we should to it in others.
Finally, wouldn’t a position-by-position analysis reveal that it’s no so much the first round that’s a crapshoot, as certain positions? I would guess that closer look would reveal that WRs and QBs are a crapshoot, while Offensive Linemen and Linebackers pan out more predictably. And even there, you’ve got a lot of selection bias. If good players are made rather than drafted, you’d almost have to expect that QBs taken in the top 10 fare horribly — after all, the team had to be bad to land there, and more often than not, they’ll fumble the job of player development.
None of this is a complaint with your work. But I do think there are difficulties in moving from thinking about the NFL draft in the aggregate to drafting strategies for particular teams.
by Chibronx on Mar 10, 2010 10:12 AM MST reply actions 9 recs
About time one of you guys came around to my distain of the Alphonso Smith trade. The risk vs reward profile for that trade was just horrible from Denver’s perspective. I would have heaped untold praise upon McDaniels if that trade had happened the other way around with us getting an unknown 1st rounder for a 2nd round pick. Some of you guys seem to think I hate on McDaniels just because. This is not true at all. I have been vocally happy with his UFA decisions and have said so again and again. What I hate is when McDaniels makes risky moves that are more likely to fail than succeed. I don’t like when he takes excessive risk for marginal rewards, especially when he didn’t have time for complete full due diligence (the 2009 NFL draft).
The key to winning in the NFL is drafting well in the middle to late rounds and signing those guys to four and five year deals. Getting 100+ catches for three consecutive years at less than $2MM per year or 17 sacks from a player getting paid less than $1MM per season…. that is amazing and nearly impossible to duplicate via UFA. Shanny hit the 2006 draft out of the ball park. Getting 91 grabs out of Eddie Royal is the same thing.
On the flip side, getting 15 catches from Javon Walker at like $1MM per catch… No bueno. Same thing with mega busts like Charles Rodgers and Run DMcFadden. The new CBA should address the dangers of missing on Top 10 draft picks. It is not fair for these teams to suffer both talent and financial hit for missing on these picks. The new CBA should limit the financial hit in this scenario and that will be very good for the NFL.
In my opinion.
Lol
The new CBA should address the dangers of missing on Top 10 draft picks. It is not fair for these teams to suffer both talent and financial hit for missing on these picks. The new CBA should limit the financial hit in this scenario and that will be very good for the NFL.
Unless they’re the Raiders.
TJ, you have outdone yourself this time!
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
by KaptainKirk on Mar 10, 2010 10:19 AM MST up reply actions
It will even help the Raiders.
Having to drastically overpay rookies that have never played NFL football is foolish. Some of these guys can’t handle the money and the big money is the primary reason their NFL careers fail – Charles Rodgers.
The NFL needs to re-route rookie pay towards the Vets that have already proven out. The current rookie pay structure is ridiculous and stupid. I think even most NFL players would agree on this.
The Raiders can continue to draft mega bust after bust, but they won’t have to overpay these players in the future.
In my opinion.
But they will have to overpay in 2010 for bust in waiting, Bruce Campbell.
Once more, for old times sake.
In my opinion.
auld lang syne and all that... :)
There's a big hard sun, beating on the big people, in the big hard world.
formerly Styg-like
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 10, 2010 1:47 PM MST up reply actions
Oh I agree with you 100%
I just found it amusing.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
At least Campbell sacrificed himself at the combine...
so Jacoby Ford might have chance with a real team :P
"Brandon Marshall will be a happy BRONCO WR in 2010"
Broncotodd - 2009
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams
Well i guess all we can do about the Smith trade is hope it turns out well..
Not much we can do about it now. Maybe it was a rookie mistake, literally and figuratively.. lol But i can also see the sense in drafting a position a year early to give the player a year in the system. If you imagine that Smith is the player we pick at 14 this year, he has all of his college production and promising scouting reports plus a year in the nfl learning the schemes and how to play corner, being taught by one of the best Corners playing the game.
I’m not disagreeing that it was a risky move, it may have been, but aren’t all players in the draft risky? And in some ways this risky move came at a cheaper price than the risky player that we would have to pick at 14 this year.
Mostly i think people are pissed with it because Smith didn’t do great last year, i thought he was doing well in the first couple of games in the season and then he got hurt and seemed to really fall off. I don’t think it is lack of talent.. i’m not sure what it is but i hope he picks his game up a lot this year to make us all fell better about drafting him.. If people are willing to give a guy like Michael Vick a second chance i definetly think that Alphonso Smith deserves one.
by HorseStance on Mar 10, 2010 10:31 AM MST up reply actions 2 recs
McG, it's hard to disdain Smith himself since it will take a few years to know for sure.
But from a numbers perspective, no es bueno, es la verdad, en mi opinion.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Come on Baxter, you know I don't speak Spanish.
"You can make mistakes, but you are not a failure until you blame others for those mistakes." -John Wooden
Spanglish?
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
interesting movie :)
"Brandon Marshall will be a happy BRONCO WR in 2010"
Broncotodd - 2009
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams
You ate a whole wheel of cheese?
Wow, I’m not even mad, I’m impressed.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
by kentuckybronco on Mar 10, 2010 3:42 PM MST up reply actions
+ 1
Brick threw a trident!
You probably get this a lot. This isn't the real Caesar's Palace is it?....Did Caesar live here?
You know where I wanna go? I'll tell you where. Someplace warm. A place where the beer flows like wine. Where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano. I'm talking about a little place called Aspen
Awesome, papi. Freakin' Awesome.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
But I don't have the SAP feature on my PC!
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
No one disagrees with you about the trade
Far as I know, but you have a vendetta against the player, who hasn’t had chance enough to prove that he is a bust as you seem to think.
A vision without a plan is just a dream. A plan without a vision is drudgery. But a vision with a plan can change the world.
by Sayre Bedinger on Mar 10, 2010 11:30 AM MST up reply actions
Dude, few of us liked the Alphonso Smith trade, but at some point you have to accept it and move on!
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
The guy formerly known as ZAPPA
I accept that we wasted that pick, but it still makes me sad. This was the deal McDaniels made with the devil when he made the trade. It will haunt him thru the draft and possibility thru 2010. Of course it will get play leading into the 2010 draft.
High draft picks are a precious resource that will make or break teams. Teams like the Colts (Manning, Wayne, Dallas Clark, Freeney, Adai) Steelers (Holmes, Big Ben, Mendenhaul, Hampton, Palamalu) and Ravens (Flacco, Reed, Lewis, Suggs, N’Gaga, Oher) are built for sustained excellence upon their round 1 picks.
In my opinion.
Alphonso
It seems that one other thing should be factored in to trades like the Alphonso Smith trade – forward shifting things one year.
Basically, for trading the 1st round pick, Denver got a player that they had graded as having first round talent, plus that player having one year of NFL experience. I’m not saying that suffices in evening the scales, but it’ll be interesting to see how Alphonso Smith grades out this season against whoever Seattle drafts at #14.
How could Denver have had a great idea of which players were worthy of 1st round grades with such a short window to prepare for the 2009 draft.
In highlight, my guess is McDaniels wishes he had exercised a lot more patience at the 2009 NFL draft.
In my opinion.
I suspect you’re right. He flat out admitted they weren’t prepared enough, and I suspect that is why they’re doing more due diligence with the draft than most teams are this year.
Sort of reminds me of Dan Reeves’s infamous “I thought you were taller” fiasco with oneof his first rounders. On the bright side, the Raiders are still the only team to have drafted a dead guy.
by DCJ on Mar 10, 2010 4:44 PM MST via mobile up reply actions
You kind of lost me on your logic...
If the first round is a ‘kind of a crap shoot’ and therefore it’s better to pick late and invest less money on a high risk opportunity; how is it that picking a player in the 2nd round that you have graded as a 1st rounder and paying them far less money a bad thing? I thought you were making the argument that because of the limitations of picking talent it makes more sense to minimize how much you pay for very uncertain investments. By doing that you preserve money for other (more sure) investments.
I know most people think that the Smith pick was a big mistake and that he is a bust. Count me amongst those who are going to wait and see to judge whether this was a good or bad pick.
by RunningUte on Mar 10, 2010 10:42 AM MST reply actions 6 recs
I think he's saying that the value didn't match up
Perhaps if it was this years first for last years 2nd and 3rd, the values would have equated better. It wasn’t the risk of the move but the compensation didn’t match
by T.Dot_Bronco on Mar 10, 2010 10:56 AM MST up reply actions
But talking about compensation means believing in the points chart. And if the first pick is really a curse, then the points chart isn’t a good way to evaluate compensation. After all, the points chart says it’s worth the most, and by a lot!
I don’t think anybody’s thrilled with the Alphonso Smith trade right now, but Ute is right, the logic of the criticism here seems to go against the thrust of the article. If trading up is always bad, it’s hard to fault trading back, and if opportunity cost is an issue with the top-10 picks, then the lack of opportunity cost is a merit to the Smith trade.
by Chibronx on Mar 10, 2010 11:00 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Ute, Thanks for the read
I am not seeing the lack of logic, but perhaps I am too close to it. The 1st round pick is has more overall value and therefore could be used to trade back as I noted. So keep it and use it to stockpile. Trading it straight up with a 2nd round pick is flawed.
Smith signed for less than a 14th pick this is certainly true, but if you hold the 14 and work back from there, you could have almost certainly added some extra picks that would have ‘cost’ significantly less.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
by TJ Johnson on Mar 10, 2010 11:16 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
TJ thanks for the post
I really enjoy your posts and they are consistently thought provoking (especially this one). I think SWG says it better than I did. It is easy to understand the logic of trading back in a draft and acquiring additional picks as a good thing, however those additional picks still have a high degree of risk associated with them. SWG’s example of comparing this to the ability to make a relatively lower risk FA signing (Green) in addition to the draft pick is helpful and a good contrast.
As we know the team is operating with a limited amount of financial resources, so their goal is to maximize player value(contribution) relative to investment dollars. I personally think they are doing a very good job of this by bringing in solid players for reasonable contracts that overall improve the depth of the organization.
The value of round 1 is strange.
Top 8 overall picks require an exorbitant salary be paid to an untested rookie, which makes those picks much less attractive.
However, I’ve read that GMs love the mid to late 1st round picks because you can add a premier talent at a cost that more easily fits into your salary cap structure. I’ve never heard about a GM complaining about the mega deal for the guy drafted 23 overall.
Prospects like Clady, Patrick Willis and Cutler don’t fall into round 2. Their deals are very cap friendly if they turn out to be top shelf players. I’m sure Denver is thrilled to pay Clady what he is owed the rest of his rookie contract. 1st round picks rarely renegotiate their deals until the year before they expire.
When you hit home runs on later round picks, guys like Portis and Marshall start chirping for a new deal after just a year or two.
In my opinion.
by McGeorge on Mar 10, 2010 4:19 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs
Good post, McG. That first line is absolutely correct.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
I can't even imagine the cumulative amount of hours the broncos organisation spends on the draft..
but despite all that effort it is still a very risky business. I guess in reality all we can hope for is for most of the guys to work out and contribute to the team in some way going forward.
As McGeorge said.. if a rookie wage scale gets put in place by a new cba i think it will make the whole draft process a lot fairer and help some of the consistently bad teams to scrape themselves from the bottom of the league.. Except the Raiders of course.. they can stay at the bottom for eternity.. hah!
Thanks for the post TJ!
Good article TJ
I would say trading up though can make financial sense at times. Especially if you have a roster full of players you are confident with. Could the Broncos have afforded to pay 4 mid first round picks over two years. What would the setback be if one or two of those didn’t pan out 3-4 years from now. Not only are they taking up roster space seeing if they pan out, but budget space too over those years.
I’m actually fine with the risk taken last year since we had a bounty of first round picks to be able to take that risk. I hope it doesn’t happen every year or even every five, but 3 first rounders over two years is suffice and even better should Smith turn out to become that first round worthy pick last year. It was risks taken that allowed us to have two first round and three second round picks last year. Now whether they were good picks is debateable, but the strategy to create those picks was done very well.
I'm glad we had this talk. -- TJ Johnson
Thanks, BIE
As always, I am certainly glad we had this little talk.
As you can see, The Dude is pretty flexible on bending his views.
I’m still mulling this over. Yo und SWG and asddqq and Jeremy have brought up some great points.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Great as always Dude.....
This further illustrates my belief in BPA, Best Player Available. It’s always better to have more assets, cause they can be turned into what you need later.
However, I can see where NFL coaches come from in trading up. Take Mike and Jarvis. For years Denver had been ridiculed for no pass rush. We kept striking out in FA and in the lower rounds of the draft. So Mike decided to pay a premium for a player he thought could improve the position. It didn’t work out, but you can’t say he didn’t try.
In addition, NFL head coaches are people too. We as fans fall in love with players ALL the time (Eric Berry last 3 years for me), why wouldn’t an NFL head coach? If they see a player who fits their system they’ll pay more to get that player. If they see incredible athletic ability, they may think they can make them football players (though Josh doesn’t seem like he’ll fall for this) and pay a premium for that level of athlete.
P.S. Dude, this is petty on my part, but…The word “irregardless”….Yeah it’s a word, but it’s a slang word for “regardless”, the proper word. Which, doesn’t make sense to me. Why have a longer, harder to spell word be slang for a proper term? Sorry, it’s petty, but it annoys me in the same manor people who use “like” all the time and is something I almost always point out. “Regardless” just sounds better anyway………….
Keep abiding……
"You can make mistakes, but you are not a failure until you blame others for those mistakes." -John Wooden
hey randall, the dude does use a tad bit of slang in order to fit the persona, but I will abide and change that directly
by the way, The Dude has a undergraduate degree in English Literature. DOH!
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Yeah sorry to be petty, but everyone has triggers
and that word happens to be one of mine.
Reminds me of Peter’s segment on Family Guy. You know what really grinds my gears…………….
"You can make mistakes, but you are not a failure until you blame others for those mistakes." -John Wooden
Randall, I appreciate it. Believe me, I do.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
I was going to mention
That irregardless is a double negative, and a personal pet peeve of all English Teachers. But I thought I would just let the Dude abide.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
I don't got the capacity to understand, baby.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Nice work...
but a few points.
One of the most profound conclusions of the Massey Thaler work is that the NFL draft value chart is seriously, seriously, flawed. In particular it vastly over-rates high draft picks while vastly under-rating lower draft picks. That is even before opportunity costs are taken into account. Hence it is completely inconsitent to blend the draft value chart with their work.
More importantly, I think Massey and Thaler would completely disagree with your conclusion on the Smith trade. According to their work the sweet spot in the draft is between picks 25 and 40. So much so that they conclude that the #31 pick is worth just as much to a team as the #1 pick in the draft. The explanation is complicated but, in a nutshell it boils down to this: the extra money you pay for the #1 pick almost never brings a comensurate return in player performance relative to the #31 pick.
Massey & Thaler’s analysis actually indicates that the Smith trade was a good one. The false comparison – Smith versus the Broncos’ 1st round pick in 2010 misses two key elements.
The first is the opportunity cost of of the 1st round pick in 2010. The key comparison is: what do the Broncos get with Smith plus what they can do with the money they saved versus what they would have to pay for the 1st round pick. It’s almost, but not quite, a comparison of Smith plus Green versus the 1st round pick. If you look at the surplus value of the picks, the Broncos actually got the better deal based on Massey/Thaler’s work.
The second point, as was mentioned above, is the immediate return versus delayed return. Smith in 2009 and a FA in 2010 versus the #14 pick in 2010.
As you said, their are some shortcomings in their work, but it by far the most scientific work on the actual value of draft picks. And it indicates that the Broncos made a smart move.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Mar 10, 2010 11:19 AM MST reply actions 9 recs
Hey SWG! Good to see you in one of my posts. Fair point regarding the opportunity cost.
I think my conclusion on the Smith move is not Smith hiimself, it’s the fact that you took the value of the first rounder (no matter what McDaniels thought it would have been) and you discounted it. That pick could have been traded back and one could have added additional picks for what it cost for Smith.
Regarding the Massey and Thayer disagreeing, here is what they say on page 14 about trading back:
A third notable feature of these data is the remarkably high discount rate, which we estimate to be 174% per year. A more detailed look at trading patterns suggests that this rate, though extreme, accurately reflects market behavior. Specifically, teams seem to have adopted a rule of thumb that they "gain a round by waiting a year." For example, a team trading this year’s 3rd-round pick for a pick in next year’s draft would expect to receive a 2nd-round pick in that draft. This is clear in the data: eighteen of the 26 trades involving 1-for-1 trades for future draft picks follow this pattern. 10 This trading pattern leads to huge discount rates since they must equate the value of picks in two adjacent rounds. While we do not elaborate this finding since it is not the focus the paper, it is clear that teams giving up a second-round pick next year for a third-round pick this year are displaying highly impatient behavior.
I’m not reading into this that they would have agreed with the Smith trade.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Here’s my question, Dude: Could the pick have been traded back? My understanding is that a larger portion of the teams holding first-round picks would like to trade back. So you have a lot of sellers and few buyers. As economists, Massey and Thayer most likely assume that a market for something just springs into existince. But it’s not hard to find news stories about teams who want to trade back, but can’t.
This is the nut of my confusion with the Alphonso Smith evaluation. Yes, they got poor point value, and yes, your’e right, factoring in the freed-up cash doesn’t completely balance the scales. But arguing that they could have traded this year’s first rounder for more and better picks later in the draft, well, sure, they could have — if there was a market that let them choose from a number of options. But I don’t think we can assume that exists.
Chibronx, yes, I am speculating that they could. I can't assure it, however.
You mean to tell me that perfect markets, like the one Uncle Milton says exits, don’t always exist? I am shocked, man.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
That guy. There’s no need to mention that guy.
I just wanted to clear that up. I agree that there are better theoretical trades for the #14 pick this year. But I have a tough time faulting McD for passing up trades that weren’t actually on the table. I think the best way to look at the pick is that if anything, the Patriot Way is so fixated on valuing opportunity cost correctly, its practitioners outsmart themselves and forsake too many opportunities to grab top-shelf talent. The best way to avoid first-round busts is to avoid first-round picks, but then would the Pats’ dynasty really have worked without Richard Seymour.
TJ, I hope I haven’t sounded overly negative in the comments above. This stuff is excellent, and as always, the critiques are friendly and in the spirit of generating excellent work.
Chibronx
Never. Don’t worry about it in the least. If I can put up a post that gets this kind of debate every week, I will have done a great job. The difference between me and—I hope—other guys blogging is that I admit that no data set is perfect, and often, my interpretation can have flaws in it. With the kind of people that come to MHR, if I try and pretend like I know everything, it would be both foolish and shortsighted. Guys like you and DCJ and SWG others all have more “smarts” for data than I do. I think my skill, if i have one, is to make the points interesting to more fans—I hope.
I enjoy these posts very much, please keep them coming.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
If they would have agreed
to trading the 14th pick last year for the Smith pick, then they necessarily would have agreed to trading this years 14th pick for the Smith pick last year. In that situation, there is no discount in terms of real value (as opposed to the make believe trade chart value) . In fact, the time value is all gravy, so there is actually a negative discount: Denver got more actual value out of the trade then Seattle. Which makes sense, because Seattle was paying for the irrational, percieved value of a 14th pick over a high second round pick, which it can now either irrationally keep or potentially use to swindle another team out of some actual value this year.
On another note, it’s funny to think that the worse you think McDaniels is at drafting, the better the Smith trade was. Think how much better off the Raiders would be if they had traded their last 4 first rounders straight up for second rounders, even if all of those second rounders were now out of the league. So you can’t really assert that McD is both a terrible drafter and that the Smith trade was terrible.
Asd, I like your style.
I used the “make believe” chart because of it’s widely reported use, and moreover because of it’s consistency in value. We could have used another method of valuing had we chosen to.
I looked at the trade as how it occurred and I used the chart that is widely used for valuation purposes. Then I simply ran the discount for 1 year as one would do for any investment. Explain to me please the negative discount. I value assets all the time and I am curious how you a reaching this conclusion. Simply because he played for a year?
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Yeah, I guess I was a little confusing
If you are talking discount rate just in terms of value paid now v. what you get later (like an interest rate) then I think the Smith trade would have a negative discount rate under the paper from Seattle’s perspective b/c the paper would value (just using arbitrary numbers to illustrate the point) a 37th pick at 100 and a 14th at 95, due to the difference in salaries. So if you are paying 100 now to get 95 in a year, you’ve got a -5% disount rate.
Looking at it from the Broncos side, they also get the benefit of whatever they get out of Alphonso this year, lets say 5 value points, v. the value they would have gotten out of having this year’s first round pick last year, ie 0. I think I agree that this doesn’t really relate to discount rate, but if you buy the paper’s value chart, it does indicate that the Bronco’s made a good deal b/c they gained both a higher valued pick and got it sooner.
Surplus value
I think you are missing their concept of Surplus Value. If you look at Figure 9 in their paper they compare the vvalue of the performance to the price paid for a given draft pick; the result is the surplus value of the pick. Their analysis shows that the highest surplus value is at the 10th pick in the 2nd round. According to their analysis the 14th pick has a surplus value of about $660K while the 38th pick (I think that’s where Smith was taken) has a surplus value of about $750K.
The conclusion is that the 6th/2nd is actually more valuable than the 14th/1st. Not saying I necessarily agree with this highly counter-intuitive valuation, but it’s quite likely that McX may agree with it.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Mar 10, 2010 1:20 PM MST up reply actions
SWG, correct. Yes, that's true. I didn't bring in surplus value because that is the part of the study
that I totally disagree with, mate:-)
But, assuming the premise is correct, I agree.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
not sure that surplus value is the best way to represent it. But, if you look at it as a probability of exceeding expectations, then the numbers can be reworked to indicate how likely a player drafted at a given spot is to exceed expectations given the point value assigned to that spot.
The analysis arrives at the same conclusion. Early draft pick are most likely to miss expectations while the picks most likely to exceed fall in the second round.
If you are looking for the greatest impact form a single draft pick that would probably come from an early fisrt round pick. But if you are looking for the greatest impact from an entire draft, then you want to load up on secoond and third round picks.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Mar 10, 2010 4:23 PM MST up reply actions
Here we are congruent...and you know what's even scarier...McGeorge was saying
the same thing earlier to me…..it’s Halloween!!!
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
I think mid to late 1st round picks provide the best value.
You are usually picking the best or 2nd best college prospect at his position and his deal is 5+ years and very cap friendly if he pans out.
2nd round guys have more flaws and their failure rate is quite a bit higher than round 1.
Round 1 busts are expensive, but most years, more All Pros are ex-round 1 guys than the other rounds combined.
In my opinion.
Great to see you again SlowWhiteGuy
And I am in agreement with you that the TMstudy really highlights deficiencies in our current knowledge of draft pick value. In fact, in doing so they seem to be violating an axiomatic concept. For those not familiar with how axioms work, they generally mean “foundational truth”. AN example of abrogating an axiom would be a linguistic analyst claiming that language is useless. By speaking to you. With words that come out of their mouth, i.e. language. They attempt to use language in an attempt to claim it is useless, thus contradicting themselves and proving the exact opposite of their claim.
Axioms resist being “disproven” because any attempt to do so requires that they be true in order to get off the ground. IN the TMstudy they require the NFL’s valuation system to be true (they pull data from it) in order to prove that it isn’t true.
Some specific quibbles I have, though I would note that the first quote you pull from the TMstudy is perfect, and quite agreeable:
…over their first five years, players drafted in the first round spend about as many seasons out of the league (8%) or not starting a single game (8%) as in the Pro Bowl (9%). page 5
What I see here is an obfuscation of the concept of “value.” Each of their criteria is being viewed in a manner meant to indicate players value (which is done through the passive psychological device of “probowl” which is often corrolated with talent and success, i.e. player value). But does the ProBowl meet the requirements of being an objective measure of all first round talent? The only things it has going for it is that yes, good players tend to be in the probowl (and sometimes players that were good but not any more) and that everyone is eligible, including non-first round picks. The problem is that it is irrationally limited entry if the purpose is to determine value of players. A player’s conference, whether he is the fourth best player at a position as opposed to the fifth best, and whether or not Brian Dawkins is in the same conference all work to limit otherwise deserving entries. Players that should be in a probowl, and players that are in a probowl are two totally separate things.
TMstudy makes the same error on the first two criteria in the quote as well: 8% spend as many seasons out of the league, the implication is talent, but a player out of the league within the first five years of being drafted could very likely be injured. 8% spend time as non-starters also implies talent, but there too numerous other considerations are valid reasons why players don’t start. In fact, I would say that there are numerous positions where being a “starter” is relatively meaningless, such as LBs, DE, DT, RB, TE, maybe CB or S…. defensive schemes, positional rotations, etc. all conspire to limit the effectiveness of assigning value to this concept.
The quote referenced above is also missing a critical piece of info: 8% are talentless, out of the league hacks, 8% are underperforming, talentless non-starters, and only 9% represent the only valuable players to come out of the first round. What about the other 75% of first round players? Given the choices it sounds like they are starters in this league. Sounds good to me, and fits in quite nicely with the concept that 1st round picks are valuable.
..the right to pick first in the draft, is only a benefit if the team trades it away. The first pick in the draft is the loser’s curse (page 32).
Again, the TMstudy suffers from a case of myopia. It is less the loser’s curse than it is the Raider’s curse, or the Lion’s curse, or the St.Louis curse. Some teams just don’t get it, but it is far from an leaguewide phenomenon. The Colt’s used a #1 pick to catapult them out of the bottom feeders, the Dolphins picked their player and negotiated a contract that exploited every loophole in the current rookie salary rules to get a good deal on a great player. They too have left the realm of bottom feeders since then. The TMstudy overreaches its data on this point.
Basically, the TMstudies error is that it has enough data and evidence to support a rookie cap, but trying to address player values and team competence is far outreaching their capabilities in this study. That would take a book, or several books, not 59 pages.
As to these final points, if the TMstudy lens is used to bring them into focus, it should be tempered by the limits of that scope:
If you’ve got a top ten pick, trade back.
Unless you have a talented scouting department and front office and are able to get a talented player with a smart contract. In other words, raiders need not apply…
Never, and I mean, never trade up.
Unless your capable scouting department and GM have identified a perfect fit and high impact compared to other options on your board. In other words, Shanahan need not apply…
Need should be elevated over best player available.
Unless your talented staff has managed to use free agency to solidify gaping structural deficiencies, and afforded you the option and flexibility to combine BPA and need into the supreme draft concept of “Best player who can help us the Most”. In other words, Matt millen need not apply.
It isn’t that a rookie cap makes a lot of sense, its that the previous escalation of rookie salaries, and their starting points didn’t make any sense. A rookie cap is fraught with its own perils too, since it answers an arbitrary escalation of prices from draft position to draft position, and from year to year, with an equally arbitrary injunction.The solution would have been to let the market set the worth from year to year, just like teams do with UDFAs, which means that sometimes, the cost of a first overall pick would be lower than the year previous. I know this sounds like crazy talk, but it happens all the time everywhere around us. Markets need to be able to adjust. A rookie cap doesn’t really address the fundamental problem, and eventually, it too will be viewed as a problem, because it is simply adding another layer of rigidity to an already too-constrained market. Now, I will admit that the whole notion of a “draft” imparts rigidity to the market, since teams are entitled to a player, whether that player wants to play there or not (and even for players that manage to"break out," the teams that lose them are always compensated for their loss. So to an extent, the “problem” of rookie salaries will always exist unless the NFL reinvents itself. As it is, the NFL values “parity” in its brands (though it should be noted that individual “brands” have some autonomy in this system (due to individual ownership) and so the “parity” can often be quite self-serving), as opposed to “fairness” amongst its brands, so I don’t see a reinvention anytime soon. The NFL actually makes a halfway decent case study for egalitarianism runamuck, and how its inherent contradictions prevent it from obtaining any of its explicit goals…
There's a big hard sun, beating on the big people, in the big hard world.
formerly Styg-like
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 10, 2010 1:41 PM MST up reply actions 9 recs
I should note that
the “perfect first quote” I mentioned above refers to the one before the jump, not the one I lead off with as a “quibble”… bad grammar (again) on my part…
And Em, I don’t think your grammar and my grammar should go out together… Especially once the sun gets over the yardarm. ;)
There's a big hard sun, beating on the big people, in the big hard world.
formerly Styg-like
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 10, 2010 1:45 PM MST up reply actions
I think
I’d give the study a little more credit than you seem to do. Yes making rosters, starting, and pro-bowls are imperfect measures of actual performance. But I don’t think they are totally meaningless. And I don’t think the study is indicating that first round picks don’t perform very well or give less performance than second round picks; they clearly appear to be better players on the whole and to give better performance. It’s just arguing that, as a whole, they are being overpayed for that performance, so that they are not as good a value as some second round picks.
I totally agree that assuming all teams have the same chances for good drafting and player development as the average of all teams used in this study is a bad idea. The Ravens appear to be really good at it, and the Raiders really bad. But i think looking at the average is a useful baseline for evaluation, after which we can try and layer on any team specific information we think we have.
I agree with you here asdqqq
and I didn’t mean to give the impression that I didn’t like the study, or TJ’s post. When it comes to addressing the money issue of the nfl draft, it is great and insightful reading, and I am glad TJ highlighted it. AN d I like their concept of “surplus value” though I am still getting my head around its applicability. My beef with it over the years has been that it is overreaching its data set.
There's a big hard sun, beating on the big people, in the big hard world.
formerly Styg-like
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 10, 2010 2:14 PM MST up reply actions
And I think I agree with you on that
To the extent the study or people relying on the study are trying to set rules that all teams should follow in all cases, that is clearly overstating the data. But I think you can pretty safely say that generally, unless you are absolutely sure you are getting a super stud at number one, you’d be better off trading down. Just taking your Miami example, for instance, sure they turned out all right b/c they did a good job of drafting and player development, but if they traded down and got to pay less for a similar quality player later (I don’t think Long was clearly in a class of his own, like Peyton was) and potentially pick up other players in later rounds, they would be even better off. The first pick is better than all of the rest only if there is one player who is clearly a better choice than all of the rest to follow.
But I think you can pretty safely say that generally, unless you are absolutely sure you are getting a super stud at number one, you’d be better off trading down
Every draft has at least one great player who would be the best choice for a team in the draft (this player may be different for different teams), and the beauty of the #1 overall is that there is nothing standing between a team and that player except themselves.
My take on TM is that they are trying to valuate the ability of a team to choose. More choice normally means better, and they are saying otherwise, up to a certain point. Their claim that the monetary value of choice is too high of a premium is well received by me, but I just don’t feel they have enough data to state that conclusively. Choice (self-directed action) is a hugely impactful concept, and I don’t think money alone, even in a salary-cap environment, is up to the task of guiding its evaluation.
What they have done is created a sort of “Idiot’s Guide to drafting” specifically for the Raider’s front office. I can’t honestly say whether that is good or bad… ;)
Risk-management is another concept which is worth discussing in regards to the TMstudy, but they are outlining a strategy, which, if followed, eliminates opportunity as concisely as it does risk. Team’s like the Raiders need that, but I think the majority of NFL teams are ok in this area.
There's a big hard sun, beating on the big people, in the big hard world.
formerly Styg-like
by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 10, 2010 2:57 PM MST up reply actions
I think I see what you are saying
But I’m not sure it is directly a “choice” issue. They seem to be just assuming that the performance to be expected from a player will get worse as you go along, which seems a fair proxy to choice to me. It seems to me that the flaws in the study are more about shortcomings in the performance variable, like you intially were commenting. As in, the marginal increase in performance in those first round draft picks versus those second round ones might actually be worth the high prices paid because those marginally better than everyone else players (ie the superstars) have a totally disproportionate impact on the outcome of games. Also, it doesn’t take into account the limitation on the number of players you can put on the field.
OK, I’ve done way too much haphazard evaluation of this study. But I’ve enjoyed your comments Mr. Bolander, thanks!
Guys, reading this thread was an amazing read by itself!
I thank you for it.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
a LOT to agree with here
… Which gets me thinking about a more rational way to deal with rookie contracts.
What if for the 1st 32 players signed every team ranked lower gets the chance to match any contract, similar to an RFA.
So if there is a Peyton Manning player who everyone agrees is a stud, they’ll get a big old honking contract that the worst team can match, or if they think its risky they sign someone else for less $$. If there is some 5th round-rated guy that really fits some team that they can sign for a 7th round contract, the team could maximize value that way too (though I’d guess teams would maximize value contracts to starter quality/1-3rnd rated guys).
The 2nd round on could be a regular draft, as it is now except the best contract/value/fit players would be off the board, as would the crazy contracts.
by cjfarls on Mar 10, 2010 5:31 PM MST via mobile up reply actions
Not so fast
…over their first five years, players drafted in the first round spend about as many seasons out of the league (8%) or not starting a single game (8%) as in the Pro Bowl (9%). page 5
That is definitely interesting and , I think, very surprising. Even so, it does not mean, as you infer, a complete crapshoot. It would have been a lot more telling if for comparison, you had provided similar stats for players taken in the second round. If those numbers over five years were say: 40%, 50% and 2% out of league, not starting and pro bowl respectively, then the odds for obtaining a first round talent is significant higher than they are for any other round and thus still very desirable.
All fine points, Warmick.
Didn’t want to make the post too long and I had to get it finished off, but these are great points.
I think Ernesto Ruiz is going to do a follow up post brining in some of this stuff to refute some of my contentions and conclusions, so look for that.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Great work TJ - rec'd
And it’s also good to see SWG back to posting…
While this quickly can turn into another long argument, covering the Smith pick yet again, I think that your point on Moss is perhaps more revealing. While Smith, like or hate him, was still ranked as a 1-2 round pick, Moss wasn’t so much a bad choice for the fact that Shanahan gave up too much value for him, accurate as that also was, but for the fact that many teams had him ranked in the 4th round. Given his substantial health issues, going back a few years even then, his thin build and brief time of high production, Moss was the kind of player that you take a flyer on in the 3rd or 4th round if your team is otherwise well established.
Always appreciate the effort and the insight, TJ. Thanks
It all starts with the lines
Thanks, Doc, it's not without flaws, but it's still interesting...I hope.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Rookies!!!
You present a wonderful case as to why there needs to be a rookie salary cap (much like the NHL) … with a rookie salary cap it takes the financial risk out of the draft and ensures that the players who make the big money, make the money on past performance and future expectations, rather than just future expectations!
agreed isiah, it makes NO sense!
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Nice Article TJ
Perfect example of why the CBA needs to get changed. Pay the players that are proven.
Great research and thanks for sharing.
the trick on a rookie cap...
… Is also capping the length of the deals, otherwise you totally hose the top rookies like P.Manning, etc that are underpaid even at the current crazy prices on their rookie deals.
My past solution (before my new idea posted above) was only 2year deals, but keep the 4year RFA rules.
Under such a situation, a team gets 2 years to evaluate a guy, but then he’s on the market. If he’s great someone will offer him at least a “more decent” deal, even if its undervalued compared to complete free agency, but you also don’t have the problem of talent jumping ship so fast from franchises like Oak, etc that they have no opportunity to build.
Folks also forget that NFL actually does have a rookie cap… Its just so loose in later year money restriction that teams can completely hide the big guarunteed money in later years of the deal.
by cjfarls on Mar 10, 2010 5:41 PM MST via mobile up reply actions
CJ, awesome last point. It's a joke, but it is there.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Great work TJ
This will go into consideration for my next mock. I have never been a fan of the trade up, and regardless of who we got in 2007 I hated that draft because of what we gave up for Jarvis Moss, a guy I never wanted in the first place. Same thing last year with Ayers. I thought Ayers was a second or third round pick based on his talent level, and I hope he proves me wrong, but I thought there was a lot better value there in the first round (Clay Matthews in particular was a guy I liked).
I was, until I learned of our love for Moreno, a Shonn Greene advocate all of last season. I think our draft would have been best served going after Orakpo or Brian Cushing, then Clay Matthews and Shonn Greene in the second.
Anywho, I am excited about this year’s draft because I think McDaniels and Xanders have learned from the Smith trade, and I think they will use a different approach for this draft in terms of valuing their picks. Last year’s draft seemed like a bunch of knee jerk reactions, and you could tell that it wasn’t as well thought out as you would hope.
I still think we ended up with solid players, don’t get me wrong, but you’re right about the value of later picks. Every NFL Exec makes mistakes, and McX have made their share already, and probably will make more. That said, I think they hold each other to a high standard, and they will be prepared for this draft better.
Trading down is a serious option for us. I have had trouble sticking to a player for 11 overall, but it’s weird because trading very far down, you miss out on most or all of the guys you might target at 11. I think we’re in a rare position if we trade Marshall. In such a talented draft, and the NFL is more competitive than it has ever been. I think there will be a lot of opportunity to trade down, and we may do it twice. We could potentially end up with five or six picks in the first two rounds depending on how we maneuver based on the Marshall trade/trade downs.
This is why I love mocking, because there are so many options, not just with players but you take into account the financial considerations and it becomes a whole new ball game. Great work, TJ.
A vision without a plan is just a dream. A plan without a vision is drudgery. But a vision with a plan can change the world.
by Sayre Bedinger on Mar 10, 2010 11:37 AM MST reply actions
Shonn Greene?
I’m not sure that you really thought this one through. To me, this is a pretty classic case of personal background (Iowa) trumping scheme and team requirements. While I love Shonn’s story, which I researched heavily and covered in a Tales, he’s a pretty bad fit for Denver. He isn’t very skilled at receiving and even his blocking isn’t as strong as Denver’s requires.
If you look, each of the Denver players at RB has one thing in common – they all block, rush and receive. Greene only had one good year in college and only caught 11 passes, which could be seen as a downside. It’s essential to have all three skills in the McDaniel’s system, as it was in NE.
I won’t get into the old Orakpo vs. Ayers arguments, but as much as I liked Cushing then, I also had to admit that he has a history of injuries that reasonably scared off a lot of suitors. He had a great year in 2009, but hindsight isn’t that important – he could as easily miss all of next year. That’s true of any player in degree, but the predisposition toward injury is and was a reasonable concern for that draft. I don’t think that there’s any doubt that Xanders and McDaniels had a limited time to get ready for the draft and had major problems with the Goodmans on top of it. Even so – a player like Greene wasn’t then and isn’t now a very good fit for Denver. He’s perfect for the Jet’s though, and I’m glad that he landed somewhere that lets his skills come to their greatest fruition.
It all starts with the lines
Thanks, Sayre. If we get some picks for Marshall it gets really intersting
as to how we manipulate them.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Great Post
The points you make about high draft picks are so obvious, yet it happens every year with the same teams. The bottom line is that success in the NFL is based on the ability to properly evaluate players and develop them with highly skilled coaching staffs.
TJ - Good article
You got a lot of interesting conversation going.
Obviously, if you had unlimited space, you could have anticipated some of the reactions.
Like many, I think the draft is complicated and uncertain – not necessarily a crap shoot – but subject to many opinions.
For instance, last year I had Razi and Orakpo rated as among my most attractive picks.
McD chose Moreno and Ayers.
I now think he did better than I would have.
I’m a firm believer in BPA – but there are caveats.
I agree with the comment that certain positions are risky high – WR, RB and especially QB.
DL, OL, LB and DB are less risky early IMO.
Consequently, if someone puts Tebow higher than 3rd or 4th rd on a mock draft, I go on to the next article.
Need does play some part in decisions – I rank players not linearally but in tiers. Several players might for me be on the same tier. Need would increase the value for someone basically even on one of the tiers.
Some players develop quicker than others for a variety of reason. The biggest reason is IMO the system they’re are adapting to. To judge a player (or coach) as a “success” or “bust” their first year is precipitous and lacking perspective and fairness.
Consequently, if someone rags on Alfonso Smith or McD I stop reading them.
To much to read on this site to waste time with some of the stuff.
Your article, however, not only had some good thoughts, but led to some great comments (i.e. SlowWhiteGuy; Emmett Smith & others). Keep us cooking
by ivanthenotsobad on Mar 10, 2010 12:51 PM MST reply actions
Ivan, thanks, man!
I appreciate it. I actually disagree with the studies surplus value methodology. And the reaction from these great posters was expected somewhat. I knew when I referenced the study, and further, when I brought the McDaniels trade to light, I would be getting zinged for it, since one can look at opportunity costs from a variety of perspectives.
When dealing with stats generally, I try to put out a strong perspective on something, but I know going in that others are going to see it in a different manner indeed.
It takes a little while to develop the skin for it, but I’ve come to enjoy it really.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
It takes a little while to develop the skin for it, but I’ve come to enjoy it really.
? Maybe I"m misreading, but I don’t think anything stated here is personal or that you’re somehow wrong… At least you’re bringing a great topic to the table with a point-of-view to encourage the discussion. It’s often times I find the comments and the derivative topics from them the most fascinating compliment to every article you’ve written so far.
I'm glad we had this talk. -- TJ Johnson
by BroncoInExile on Mar 10, 2010 6:17 PM MST up reply actions
Hey, BIE, I think I meant that the first several times you post like this
you either try like hell to defend your point of view (the stupid way), or
you learn from others who have good perspectives.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Some of you guys mentioned
A rookie salary cap, and I agree, rookies get paid way too much, especially early first rounders, but I don’t know of a good solution for this. There are a lot of potential NFL stars that also play baseball, so if the NFL isn’t willing to pay them, the MLB will, and could steal some potentially great players. Remember, John Elway could have ended up playing baseball, imagine if that would have happened! What if because of a rookie salary cap, the next “John Elway” goes and plays for the Yankees instead.
by BroncoinOCCali on Mar 10, 2010 1:01 PM MST via mobile reply actions
Draft strategies revisited
If you’ve got a top ten pick, trade back.
Absolutely, unless there is a consensus franchise QB in the mix.
Never, and I mean, never trade up.
But this of course precludes rule 1, except for dealing with idiots. and the idiots are already picking before anyone who would follow this rule…
Need should be elevated over best player available.
This is where I disagree with the logic. While prospects are rated according to perceived ability, they are typically paid according to their draft position. By restricting to need, you exacerbate the risk of reaching down too far and bringing up someone who does not rate the pay grade. Yes, you can trade down, but only if you have a willing partner (which is rare) and even then you are explicitly valuing quantity over quality. Additionally, the future value of a draft pick lies in both his contribution and his trade value. Picking the best player allows you to maximize the chance of getting value through either route.
by DCJ on Mar 10, 2010 1:02 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
Hey DCJ, when I see you have posted on my threads, I fear them. You are far too logical
to give opinions, even when I give some loose opinions of my own.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Just don’t make fun of my pointy ears…
by DCJ on Mar 10, 2010 4:50 PM MST via mobile up reply actions
Thank You, DCJ
I have been reading down this entire fascinating thread to see if and who would bring up the point you just made. Totally agree.
nice post
i am a little worry we are sinning too many 30 over guys
okay i have cerebral palsy arthris and chronic fatigue as well i have a great life and loveing folks some days are better than other days i got a make-a-wish in 2001 and saw my favorite team the broncos it was the trip of a lifetime i wish everyone couild have gotten to enjoy that with me i know some of u hate the broncos and that okay but i bleed organ and bule for my mnr fans but i bleed orange and blue denver will rise again resident broncos fan for every blog resident broncos for stampede bule thanks shvd98z24
J-Man!!! I love seeing you in one of my posts!!! Welcome!!!
If this is what it takes to get you in here, I’ll write more of these!
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
i wouild
comment more on here but i get sidetacked
okay i have cerebral palsy arthris and chronic fatigue as well i have a great life and loveing folks some days are better than other days i got a make-a-wish in 2001 and saw my favorite team the broncos it was the trip of a lifetime i wish everyone couild have gotten to enjoy that with me i know some of u hate the broncos and that okay but i bleed organ and bule for my mnr fans but i bleed orange and blue denver will rise again resident broncos fan for every blog resident broncos for stampede bule thanks shvd98z24
Pay for Performance.
The strange idea that a rookie gets paid for his potential instead of rewarded for his actual performance is a structure that must change in the NFL. Granted injuries have always made it dicey for players who have an average career of about 4 years at best, but most should have learned skills to apply after football anyway. Only a select few can live their whole life on what they made playing football. How about being paid for performance, like rewarding certain measures decided on contracturally.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein
by Ponderosa on Mar 10, 2010 4:33 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
Ponderosa, Couldn't have said it any better.
By the way, great insight on McClain. You and Doc are great resources!
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Oh jeez...
I don’t know if anyone has this yet, but NFLN is reporting that Rolando McClain has Crohn’s disease. Whether this affects his draft status it is yet unknown.
Yup, we've been talking about this for an hour or so. There's a fanshot on the front page with a bunch of comments.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
by kentuckybronco on Mar 10, 2010 5:33 PM MST up reply actions
Fortunately, we've got DocBear and Ponderosa to help us out. Check it out.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
by kentuckybronco on Mar 10, 2010 5:34 PM MST up reply actions
Thanks TJ for the great post...
I was thrilled to see that Al Davis is spending all of his money on scrubs…Keep up the great work Al…The “brain freeze” analytical inference of Shanahan was priceless.
Thanks, Man. As always, no one b$%ch slaps Al Davis like me!
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Mile High Report
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Next Game
Web Stuff
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
