Trade Down: Nobel prize winning economist says teams get better value by trading down

Originally posted by fryet:

Random thoughts on trading down:

• How set is your roster? If you have a weak roster, trading down would result in more chances to hit on a winner, and you have spots on the 54 man roster to allow them to develop. But on the other hand, if you have a strong roster, you will be forced to cut players you drafted just a few months ago.
• What position are you drafting? If it is a QB, chances are, that drafting for value is not a winning strategy. The vast majority of starting QBs are first round picks.
• Information age still isn't going to tell you who will be arrested or get injured (although it can identify those with a higher than average propensity for those things happening). For small school prospects, if they have never been challenged by elite schools, then it is hard to say how they will do in the pros. The data is just not available to anyone.

Good post - if you're a team with a lot of needs and roster spots, trading back makes sense because you have time to evaluate players before cutting them. If you only have 5 roster spots, trading back and accumulating 15 picks doesn't make sense. You also can't just take a bunch of fliers on QBs and hope they pan out. There is a limited number of snaps to go around, so carrying more than 1 developmental backup seems like a waste (ideally, you'd have one veteran backup who can fill in right away and doesn't need a lot of snaps and one guy you're grooming/evaluating to see if he can be a starter someday).

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:

Originally posted by fryet:
Random thoughts on trading down:

• How set is your roster? If you have a weak roster, trading down would result in more chances to hit on a winner, and you have spots on the 54 man roster to allow them to develop. But on the other hand, if you have a strong roster, you will be forced to cut players you drafted just a few months ago.
• What position are you drafting? If it is a QB, chances are, that drafting for value is not a winning strategy. The vast majority of starting QBs are first round picks.
• Information age still isn't going to tell you who will be arrested or get injured (although it can identify those with a higher than average propensity for those things happening). For small school prospects, if they have never been challenged by elite schools, then it is hard to say how they will do in the pros. The data is just not available to anyone.

Good post - if you're a team with a lot of needs and roster spots, trading back makes sense because you have time to evaluate players before cutting them. If you only have 5 roster spots, trading back and accumulating 15 picks doesn't make sense. You also can't just take a bunch of fliers on QBs and hope they pan out. There is a limited number of snaps to go around, so carrying more than 1 developmental backup seems like a waste (ideally, you'd have one veteran backup who can fill in right away and doesn't need a lot of snaps and one guy you're grooming/evaluating to see if he can be a starter someday).

This is a good rule to follow, with one exception. If you are drafting near the top and there are elite players available, take them. Take them. Take them. In this draft, if you were drafting 7th for example, yes, I'd trade back. If I were drafting 1, 2, or 3, stay where you are.

Yes when the KC Chiefs traded up to get Patrick Mahomes they made a HUGE mistake....... It was also a huge mistake when the Niners traded three picks to move up for Bryant Young.

Originally posted by MK_Ultra:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by MK_Ultra:

Originally posted by Heroism:

Teams who trade down and pick the right players get better value.

Few teams pick the right players.

Few teams pick the right players if they 'stand pat' ..... therefore by trading down they get extra darts to throw

So, that means more players to cut later in the year. Nobel prize winning economists build NFL teams?

That means you get more chances to find the next Tom Brady or George Kittle or Jesse Sapulo, or Dwight Clark or Dexter Manley, Bo Jackson, Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe, Richard dent, Deacon Jones, Roger Staubach, Bart Starr, etc, etc, etc all very late round picks who turned out much better than expected

I cant be bothered to write down the names of the thousands of players who just didnt work out. There is no one single system which guarantees success in the draft, surely that is obvious by now? And collecting later picks on the offchance of finding the next Kittle is all very well but I think that you will find that the odds kill you.

Originally posted by Heroism:
Teams who trade down and pick the right players get better value.

Few teams pick the right players.

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:

Originally posted by fryet:

Random thoughts on trading down:

• How set is your roster? If you have a weak roster, trading down would result in more chances to hit on a winner, and you have spots on the 54 man roster to allow them to develop. But on the other hand, if you have a strong roster, you will be forced to cut players you drafted just a few months ago.
• What position are you drafting? If it is a QB, chances are, that drafting for value is not a winning strategy. The vast majority of starting QBs are first round picks.
• Information age still isn't going to tell you who will be arrested or get injured (although it can identify those with a higher than average propensity for those things happening). For small school prospects, if they have never been challenged by elite schools, then it is hard to say how they will do in the pros. The data is just not available to anyone.

Good post - if you're a team with a lot of needs and roster spots, trading back makes sense because you have time to evaluate players before cutting them. If you only have 5 roster spots, trading back and accumulating 15 picks doesn't make sense. You also can't just take a bunch of fliers on QBs and hope they pan out. There is a limited number of snaps to go around, so carrying more than 1 developmental backup seems like a waste (ideally, you'd have one veteran backup who can fill in right away and doesn't need a lot of snaps and one guy you're grooming/evaluating to see if he can be a starter someday).

I read the article by the Nobel Winner, and while I didn't understand a lot of the math, they did point out some assumptions that I think are questionable. They base their market value of the player on their 6th to 8th year (when they get their second contract) so the *prime* years aren't valued by the study.

Secondly, they don't really differentiate between the edge rusher position vs a DT vs a linebacker postions. They look at the Jimmy Johnson curve and plot their chart on top of it. So I think they are *averaging* the drafts and *averageing* the positions. Guy's like Kyle differentiate QB's and Edge rushers from the rest of the other positions. They don't *average* the positions and treat an edge rusher just the same as a Guard. (and I think most, if not all coaches do that too) which I think explains the extream over valuing of the first pick vs the 20th pick, (for example),

Finally, I think most if not all the coaches in the NFL are relatively lazy - as compared to guys like Kyle and Bellicheat and some of the other elite coaches. I mean, I just don't see Tomsula going out to evaluate a guy like Nick Mullens, or a guy like Chip Kelly evaluating DJ Jones or Julian Taylor. It's not in their comfort level and leave it to the respective position coaches to evaluate that position. Whereas both Kyle and Bellicheat can (to a certain extent) coach all 22 positions and can very accurately (I think) scout all 22 positions better than 80% of the coaches in the NFL.

Meh

Ton of elite players were missed by teams by trading back a few picks

I think there is a lot of merit to trading down and acquiring more picks as well as obtaining players who are undervalued and slip further than expected. There are always players with 2nd round value sitting on the board on the third day, and guys who should be top 100 selections on the board at pick 200. Teams like the Niners burn a fourth rounder on a punter, which allows scores of better players to fall down the board. Teams hunting for OL depth will pick developmental guys rather than proven assets that can come in and contribute right away. These players tend to beat their final draft landing spot.

At the same time, when you are at the top of the board, dropping down doesn't always make a lot of sense, since the elite talent gets selected early (top 10 valued picks don't slip down into the second round very often).

In the end, it is the hit rate on prospects that matters the most. If the Cowboys end up with three quality starters from the first three picks in the 2018 draft (which I believe they will) in LVE, Connor Williams and Michael Gallup, that will keep a GM in business, and a franchise moving in the right direction.

For instance, I was a huge believer in LVE in the last draft. When the Bears picked Roquan Smith, LVE was next on my board. I thought he would go in the 15-19 range (he was picked by the Cowboys at 19), so I believed a move down to the 13-14 range would still allow us to acquire him and gain extra assets. That would have been the way I would have played out the first round last year.

Originally posted by Zachary:

Meh

Ton of elite players were missed by teams by trading back a few picks

Just recently Alvin Kamara for us.

There is no economic Nobel prize. Alfred Nobel would turn over in his grave if he'd hear that economists were related to his foundation. This prize is awarded by a swedish bank and does not matter at all.

Originally posted by Mayor:

There is no economic Nobel prize. Alfred Nobel would turn over in his grave if he'd hear that economists were related to his foundation. This prize is awarded by a swedish bank and does not matter at all.

Mayor bringing the heat like:







"f**k your insignificant Cracker Jack prize...and will somebody pick up all these goddamn Legos!"

Originally posted by Zachary:
Meh

Ton of elite players were missed by teams by trading back a few picks

Maddog I think has the right mindset. Talent evaluation. The '85 draft had the 49ers trading up, in a sense, to get Rice. They were loaded coming off a super bowl win and there was not going to be a lot of 3rd round players and lower that were going to make the team. Then you have the '86 draft - where Walsh thought the talent was in the middle rounds, and basically traded down got lots of mid round picks and unbelievably nailed that draft.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by Zachary:

Meh

Ton of elite players were missed by teams by trading back a few picks

Maddog I think has the right mindset. Talent evaluation. The '85 draft had the 49ers trading up, in a sense, to get Rice. They were loaded coming off a super bowl win and there was not going to be a lot of 3rd round players and lower that were going to make the team. Then you have the '86 draft - where Walsh thought the talent was in the middle rounds, and basically traded down got lots of mid round picks and unbelievably nailed that draft.

Yep. So the answer is, flexibility. There will be times when the relative strengths and weaknesses of the draft pool in combination with the team's strengths and needs push towards trading down. Times when the same factors push towards trading up. And times when neither is especially indicated although some trading in either direction might work. Drafting is not science, it is more like an art form.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by Zachary:
Meh

Ton of elite players were missed by teams by trading back a few picks

Maddog I think has the right mindset. Talent evaluation. The '85 draft had the 49ers trading up, in a sense, to get Rice. They were loaded coming off a super bowl win and there was not going to be a lot of 3rd round players and lower that were going to make the team. Then you have the '86 draft - where Walsh thought the talent was in the middle rounds, and basically traded down got lots of mid round picks and unbelievably nailed that draft.

I've read that it was initially because the guy he wanted was gone and the trade downs happened organically. I also don't know if this was his intention, but it was the '86 draft (along with the trade for Steve Young the following offseason) that allowed the dynasty to roll well into the 90s.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by Zachary:
Meh

Ton of elite players were missed by teams by trading back a few picks

Maddog I think has the right mindset. Talent evaluation. The '85 draft had the 49ers trading up, in a sense, to get Rice. They were loaded coming off a super bowl win and there was not going to be a lot of 3rd round players and lower that were going to make the team. Then you have the '86 draft - where Walsh thought the talent was in the middle rounds, and basically traded down got lots of mid round picks and unbelievably nailed that draft.

Yep. So the answer is, flexibility. There will be times when the relative strengths and weaknesses of the draft pool in combination with the team's strengths and needs push towards trading down. Times when the same factors push towards trading up. And times when neither is especially indicated although some trading in either direction might work. Drafting is not science, it is more like an art form.

Indeed. People also have to take into account "expected value" tells you what should happen over time. Theoretically, the Rams should've been able to launch a dynasty based off of the RG3 trade. It was the largest I had seen since the Ricky Williams deal. They ended up getting very little value out of that. Same with Cleveland when Atlanta traded with them to get Julio Jones. I'm in favor of proper talent evaluation, getting elite guys, undervalued guys, and guys that fit your system. To do those things, you need flexibility as you said.