The value of trading down in the draft

[Cbus cardsfan]

I don't think I ever appreciated how bad of a pick Antrel Rolle was.

Antrel was my guy.

So was Antron.

 

[Mulli]

Antrel was my guy.

So was Antron.

Never heard of him

 

[Harry]

Sorry but I see some major issues. Not all drafts are equal. You might trade out of a deep draft into a weaker draft. The Cards also learned this year how much the value of a future pick could erode. Plus the quality of the scouting is critical. If you trade down for overvalued players it a damaging exercise. Finally I’ve maintained the Portal makes current drafts deeper than in the past. Deeper drafts enhance the chance of a trade down being beneficial. I don’t think you can use Pre-portal drafts compared to current drafts to establish valid rules.

 

[kerouac9]

I would like to trade down with the Vikings for 11, 23, 2025 1st to build the defense with the 3 1st round picks and signing CB Steven Nelson. With pick 35 take WR Troy Franklin and with the 66th pick take WR Rome Wilson to complete the WR room.
Pick 11: Turner or Verse
Pick 23: Byron Murphy
Pick 27: Copper DeJohn as a safety
Pick 35: Troy Franklin W
Pick 66: Rome Wilson WR
Pick 71: Cooper Beebe OG
Pick 90: Theo Johnson TE
Pick 104: Kyree Jackson CB/S
Pick 138: Gabe Hall DE
Pick 162: Caelen Carson CB
Pick 187: Isaiah Davis RB
Pick 226: Josh Proctor S

That’s what I call a bold plan.

 

[Stout]

But as has been said many times if you already have a plan and trades already in place to accomplish it? Then that is null and void. If that’s the case most have said it is NBD…. If they don’t then stick and pick.

If, if, if...since we can't know if the "ifs" become certainties, the debate will rage on.

 

[WisconsinCard]

If, if, if...since we can't know if the "ifs" become certainties, the debate will rage on.

But we do know that GM's call around before the draft to gain teams interest in moving and what it going to take. So it not a reach to think that MO wouldn't have a well educated guess as to who, where, and what it takes to get any number of picks.

 

[daves]

There are a few more good highlights regarding the same article in today's Athletic newsletter:

Teams should expect to be wrong on “their guy”​

In 2017, the Bears dealt the No. 3 pick, two thirds and a fourth to the 49ers to move up one spot in the draft. At No. 2, they chose their guy, Mitch Trubisky. It wasn’t a reach at the time, as scouts ranked Trubisky the No. 1 QB in his class. That same year, the Chiefs sent two first-round picks and a third for the Bills’ No. 10 pick, drafting Patrick Mahomes.

Regardless of how their careers would unfold, trade value charts had the teams who traded back — the 49ers and Bills — winning both deals by receiving upwards of 150 cents on the dollar. Why?

As Alec Lewis explains in an enlightening story on the NFL’s approach to the draft, research has shown that teams should accumulate picks by trading back and into the future more often: “The more darts you have, the better your chance of eventually hitting the bull’s-eye.”

In 2005, a research paper on overconfidence in the NFL revealed analysis on decision-making during the draft. Key themes:

• Evaluating prospects is difficult. Our stats back it up: Across the past 13 years, first-round WRs were either a bust or a reach 63 percent of the time. The hit rate for top-10 QBs was not much better, with teams drafting stars at just a 26 percent rate.
• Teams aren’t as smart as they think. The researchers found that “teams massively overestimate their abilities to delineate between stars and flops, and because of that they heavily overvalue the ‘right to choose’ in the draft.”
• Given the uncertainty, the more picks, the better. The highly coveted QB position demonstrates the downside of trading up to get “your guy,” unless he turns out to be Mahomes. Across the past 13 NFL drafts, nearly 70 percent of years saw the best QB drafted after the first QB was taken. For example, Lamar Jackson went No. 32 in 2018 as the fifth QB taken. Trade back.

Nearly 20 years after the paper was published, teams continue to avoid recommendations by trading up and mortgaging future picks. The full article explores the incentives at play, with decision-makers sharing the reasoning behind this irrationality.