Trading up in the Draft for a QB

OP
OP
G

GimmedaBall

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Posts
1,626
Reaction score
1,110
I was hoping to get a the name of a QB in this draft who you think is worthy of three first round picks.

I don't ask for much. :p

I honestly don't know. As the college game and style of play has evolved I don't know how to translate from college QB to pro QB.

When I watch college games I'm often at a loss to determine how a guy is going to make the switch.

The one guy in this draft that shines above all others is RB Barkley. I see Marshall Faulk with more power and great burst. He doesn't even have to lower his shoulder to run over defenders and then he turns on the afterburners and leaves them behind. RB's have notoriously short careers and are often injured---but he would be a guy I'd trade up for in this draft. How's that for a crazy lineup and one-two punch: DJ and Barkley. LOL.
 

Mainstreet

Cruisin' Mainstreet
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
118,101
Reaction score
58,435
I honestly don't know. As the college game and style of play has evolved I don't know how to translate from college QB to pro QB.

When I watch college games I'm often at a loss to determine how a guy is going to make the switch.

The one guy in this draft that shines above all others is RB Barkley. I see Marshall Faulk with more power and great burst. He doesn't even have to lower his shoulder to run over defenders and then he turns on the afterburners and leaves them behind. RB's have notoriously short careers and are often injured---but he would be a guy I'd trade up for in this draft. How's that for a crazy lineup and one-two punch: DJ and Barkley. LOL.

A lot of NFL GMs have the same difficulty selecting a QB with the way the college game is played today.

I'm certainly not willing to offer a QB prospect I would throw three first round picks at.
 

DVontel

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Posts
13,057
Reaction score
23,254
I don't see any of the qbs in this years draft worthy of 3 first round picks.
No use of hindsight, I never seen any QB leading up to a draft worth 3 first round picks. Not even Andrew Luck.
 
OP
OP
G

GimmedaBall

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Posts
1,626
Reaction score
1,110
Assume the Cards pick at #15 for the next three years:

Using this Draft Value Chart, the #1 pick is given a value of 3,000 points. The #15 pick is given a value of 1,050.
3 X 1050 = 3150 to make the trade.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/

A quickie calculator so you won't have to use your fingers and toes to count:

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/games/draft-pick-value.php

In other words, if you want to jump to #1 in this draft it will cost those 3 #1 picks. Cards have some solid players and a team making a trade might demand more figuring the Cards are going to be higher in the standings the next two years (and lower on the draft board). The price goes up over the 3 #1 picks.

Here's the crazy details on the Titans-Rams trade that brought Goff to the Rams:

April 14, 2016: Traded by Titans as 2016 1st round pick (1st overall) with 2016 4th round pick (113th overall subsequently traded, Nick Kwiatkoski) and 2016 6th round pick (177th overall, Temarrick Hemingway) to Rams for 2016 1st round pick (15th overall subsequently traded, Corey Coleman), 2016 2nd round pick (43rd overall, Austin Johnson), 2016 2nd round pick (45th overall, Derrick Henry), 2016 3rd round pick (76th overall subsequently traded, Shon Coleman), 2017 1st round pick (5th overall, Corey Davis) and 2017 3rd round pick (100th overall, Jonnu Smith)

Worth checking out this transaction because the Rams went from #15 to #1 in that draft to get Goff.

Value calculations:

Titans gave up picks 1,113,177 = 3089.6
Rams gave up picks, 15, 43, 45, 76, 5, 100 = 3980 with the Ram calculation more than the calculator can hold. Luckily, the 100th overall pick equals 100 points so 3880 + 100.

The hidden cost for the Rams was their #1 pick at #5 in the 2017 draft that was included in the deal. Titans selected WR Corey Davis with that #5 pick in the draft and TE Jonnus Smith with the #100 in the third round.
:

Here's Corey Davis stats for 2017. Hamstring injury kept him on the sidelines and reduced his play. Still, his numbers don't look good for the 5th pick in the draft:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DaviCo03.htm

http://www.titansonline.com/news/ar...o-Return/e465779c-6477-4d05-a156-2010c7f14bb0

Here's Jonnu Smith stats for 2017. Ditto on the numbers for a 3rd round pick:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitJo01.htm

Question for those posting that they don't want to give up 3 #1 picks to move up to #1 overall, how much are you willing to trade in order to make the move?
 

POISON

Formerly known as Okieguy
Joined
Mar 24, 2003
Posts
1,268
Reaction score
380
Location
Norman, Ok.
If we get a franchise QB by trading up then any price is worth it. Say we trade up to 8 and get Mayfield and he becomes the next Drew Brees. We give up our 1st, 3rd and next years 2nd. I think we come away with a steal.

If we trade our entire draft to move up and get Mayfield and he becomes the next Drew Brees we still have the steal of the draft.
Mayfield will be a bust. I'd look at 4 or 5 other qbs first. Jackson or Rudolph may still be had at #15 without losing any picks....
 

POISON

Formerly known as Okieguy
Joined
Mar 24, 2003
Posts
1,268
Reaction score
380
Location
Norman, Ok.
The team I’m most afraid of in sitting and waiting for a qb are the bills. They gave 2 firsts this year and could throw in next years first or a 2nd this year and jump in front of us like the chiefs and Texans did last year. If we don’t have to offer too much I wouldn’t mind jumping up to 11 with the phins to get our qb if he’s still on the board. I agree, I don’t see 5 QBs going in the top 10, but 11-15 I could see a lot of trades to qb needy teams knowing we’re looking for one.
I've seen a lot of mocks having the Bills taking Rudolph at #21. If that is true we might get Jackson or 1 of the others if they fall.
 
OP
OP
G

GimmedaBall

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Posts
1,626
Reaction score
1,110
No use of hindsight, I never seen any QB leading up to a draft worth 3 first round picks. Not even Andrew Luck.

Washington gave up 3 #1 picks + a #2 to the Rams to move up for RG III. Until his injuries, RGIII looked to be worth it.


March 14, 2012: Traded by Rams as 2012 1st round pick (2nd overall) to Redskins for 2012 1st round pick (6th overall subsequently traded, Morris Claiborne), 2012 2nd round pick (39th overall, Janoris Jenkins), 2013 1st round pick (22nd overall subsequently traded, Desmond Trufant) and 2014 1st round pick (2nd overall, Greg Robinson)
 

JeffGollin

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
20,472
Reaction score
3,056
Location
Holmdel, NJ
It's an inexact science, but begs the question: "How much of a talent gap is there between where we are in the draft and what we'd have to give up in order to make a trade?

Would we give up too much to move up to get one of the 4 elite QB's? What about trading up to #10 or so to secure L Jackson? Are any of the 3rd echelon QB's worth reaching for at #47 or trading up higher in the 2nd round in order to secure them.

I get the feeling that this may require a degree of dice-rolling and SK doesn't strike me as a guy who likes to play in an arena where he lacks close to complete control. What say you?

Exciting times.
 

AZfaninMN

ASFN Addict
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Posts
8,082
Reaction score
6,492
Location
Minnesota
I've seen a lot of mocks having the Bills taking Rudolph at #21. If that is true we might get Jackson or 1 of the others if they fall.
I don’t think they can stay pat and get him there because teams like Pittsburgh, New England, Jacksonville (Bortles depending), and maybe a team from the 2nd round trading up in front of them
 

Gandhi

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Posts
2,024
Reaction score
2,878
Location
Denmark
The problem is, this is wildly convoluted. Yes, if we all had time machines, we might do things differently. The reality of trading up for Cam Newton is that Whiz would have lasted a few more years, and the franchise would have taken a very different direction. However, would he have been as successful in his rookie year sharing the rushing load with Beanie Wells instead of DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart?

I wouldn’t do it a different way even if I could. I think you hit the nail on the head, Solar, with you point that Newton might have not done as well without Stewart and Williams. It’s in line with what I have been saying for a long time that you can’t simply transfer a quarterback from one team to another and expect him to be as successful. There are a lot of variables that goes into being successful like most posters can probably relate to from their personal live, and to a player some of them are on the field while some of them are off the field. These players are pro’s, but they are not robots. That’s also why you might sometimes hear phrases like “this player might benefit from a change of scenery”. That is not only to be understood literally that a player might play better in another stadium in another weather and with another surface. It’s is also to be understood as a reference to the player as well as his family living another place, get new acquaintances, get new relations with coaches, get new relations with teammates and the list keeps going. It’s way too easy to simply assume that Matt Ryan would definitely play well with another team, or that Matthew Stafford would, or that, yes, Cam Newton would.

That said, any team must try to get a franchise quarterback, and that takes me back to the question if I would trade up in the draft. I think it’s very difficult to answer such static questions, in part because of what I wrote in the section above, but maybe more importantly because my draft wishes change from year to year. For example, right now I would do a lot to trade up for a quarterback or pursue one in free agency, either via money or trade. That is, however, because the Cardinals don’t currently have Kurt Warner or Carson Palmer playing at a very high level which would make me want to draft another position without trading up. In relation with that aspect is how your history is with experience the lows of not having a franchise quarterback. Cardinals-fans have gone through many bad years of Kevin Kolb, John Skelton, Max Hall and you could continue the list yourself. That will of course reinforce the fear of experience those times again. I think is you ask Packers-fans they won’t have the same approach since many of them have never experienced not having a good quarterback. Another variable obviously is if you like the quarterback and think he could be a franchise quarterback.

Anyway, if I had to try to answer the question, I would not have traded up to select Cam Newton. I would, however, without a doubt had traded up to select Andrew Luck. I have followed the draft intensively for more than ten years, and I have never seen as good a prospect at any position as Luck. He was close to a perfect prospect. Heck, I would even have traded more than three first round picks for the rights to draft him. That year, I also believed a great deal in Robert Griffin and I would have like to trade up for him as well. Again, remember that was after years of atrocious quarterback-play with the Cardinals. Last year I wanted to trade up to select Deshaun Watson (you can read about my process in a mock draft game by clicking here), but not all the way to the top one, three or five.
 
OP
OP
G

GimmedaBall

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Posts
1,626
Reaction score
1,110
I wouldn’t do it a different way even if I could. I think you hit the nail on the head, Solar, with you point that Newton might have not done as well without Stewart and Williams. It’s in line with what I have been saying for a long time that you can’t simply transfer a quarterback from one team to another and expect him to be as successful. There are a lot of variables that goes into being successful like most posters can probably relate to from their personal live, and to a player some of them are on the field while some of them are off the field. These players are pro’s, but they are not robots. That’s also why you might sometimes hear phrases like “this player might benefit from a change of scenery”. That is not only to be understood literally that a player might play better in another stadium in another weather and with another surface. It’s is also to be understood as a reference to the player as well as his family living another place, get new acquaintances, get new relations with coaches, get new relations with teammates and the list keeps going. It’s way too easy to simply assume that Matt Ryan would definitely play well with another team, or that Matthew Stafford would, or that, yes, Cam Newton would.

That said, any team must try to get a franchise quarterback, and that takes me back to the question if I would trade up in the draft. I think it’s very difficult to answer such static questions, in part because of what I wrote in the section above, but maybe more importantly because my draft wishes change from year to year. For example, right now I would do a lot to trade up for a quarterback or pursue one in free agency, either via money or trade. That is, however, because the Cardinals don’t currently have Kurt Warner or Carson Palmer playing at a very high level which would make me want to draft another position without trading up. In relation with that aspect is how your history is with experience the lows of not having a franchise quarterback. Cardinals-fans have gone through many bad years of Kevin Kolb, John Skelton, Max Hall and you could continue the list yourself. That will of course reinforce the fear of experience those times again. I think is you ask Packers-fans they won’t have the same approach since many of them have never experienced not having a good quarterback. Another variable obviously is if you like the quarterback and think he could be a franchise quarterback.

Anyway, if I had to try to answer the question, I would not have traded up to select Cam Newton. I would, however, without a doubt had traded up to select Andrew Luck. I have followed the draft intensively for more than ten years, and I have never seen as good a prospect at any position as Luck. He was close to a perfect prospect. Heck, I would even have traded more than three first round picks for the rights to draft him. That year, I also believed a great deal in Robert Griffin and I would have like to trade up for him as well. Again, remember that was after years of atrocious quarterback-play with the Cardinals. Last year I wanted to trade up to select Deshaun Watson (you can read about my process in a mock draft game by clicking here), but not all the way to the top one, three or five.

In statistics, you’ll hear the phrase ‘ . . . all things being equal’ after changing a single variable and attempting to trace the effects. To look at a hypothetical trade up for Cam Newton, for simplicity’s sake one has to assume that all other player performances and other factors will ‘be equal.’ The assumption is that Cam and the other players involved are all going to perform to the same stats with either the Panthers or the Cards. That is a huge leap and we all know what happens when you assume something ( It makes an ass out of u and me.) It is also the basic assumption that underlies every player move, draft pick, trade, etc. The guy performed great in college . . . assume he’ll do the same in the pros. We do indeed look at players as if they are plug-n-play robots.

Of course that is never the case. One other extreme to all things being equal is summarized in chaos theory and ‘The Butterfly Effect.’ “The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that may ultimately alter the path of a tornado or delay, accelerate or even prevent the occurrence of a tornado in another location. The butterfly does not power or directly create the tornado, but the term is intended to imply that the flap of the butterfly's wings can cause the tornado: in the sense that the flap of the wings is a part of the initial conditions; one set of conditions leads to a tornado while the other set of conditions doesn't. The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which cascades to large-scale alterations of events (compare: domino effect). Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different—but it's also equally possible that the set of conditions without the butterfly flapping its wings is the set that leads to a tornado.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

When Cam went to the Panthers, there was a unique combination of factors that resulted in his success. For example, Solar7 brings up having both Stewart and Williams as RBs to support Cam.

In the Cards/Panthers SB run in 2015, Palmer was supported by CJ, DJ, and AE while Cam was supported at RB by Stewart and Tolbert. Would Cam have been as good on a Cards team with our three guys? Would he have been even better with our three? The same question could be asked on how Cam would have performed with our WR—would he have had more or less yards and fewer INT with Fitz over Smith? Our OL, our D, our coaching staff, our water coolers, our uniforms, our chewing gum, etc.

In 2015, Cam passed for 3837 yards and rushed for 636. Stewart rushed for 989 and Tolbert added 256. The top three rushers (which included Cam and no Williams) went for 1881 yards.
Offense 3837 + 1881 = 5718 (just Cam’s number and the other top rushers)

In 2015, Palmer passed for 4671 yards. The top three rushers for the Cards had CJ at 814 + DJ at 581 and AE at 289 = 1684. (KW was the fourth leading rusher with 142 yards but I stopped at the top three for comparisons sake)
Offense 4671 + 1684 = 6355 (Palmer’s passing numbers and the top three rushers)

Cards O was putting up more than the Panthers; our rushing trio put up numbers very close to the Panther’s top three rushers. So, to just toss out the notion that Cam would not have done as well without his Williams/Stewart RB does hold up under the stats for 2015. Got to at least look at the numbers.

Here’s the butterfly wing in 2015. Palmer banged up his finger. Instead of getting him out of the game when he injured himself, he went back in (BA? CP himself wanting to soldier on?). How severe the injury has never been fully revealed but what we do know is CP tanked in the following games. It was only a miracle toss and then run by Fitz that got us past the Pack—and then the Cards were totally destroyed by the Panthers in the Conference championship 49-15. Was it the injury to the finger? Was it CP’s mental state and confidence level and inability to perform in a big game?

So, the challenge question if you want to downplay hypothetical trades is ‘How would you evaluate the different possibilities in trading draft choices to move up to aid in the decision-making process if you don’t want to keep ‘all other things being equal.’”If you prefer chaos theory, best have a really, really, really big supercomputer for all the variables.
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
11,172
Reaction score
12,108
Location
Las Vegas, NV
In statistics, you’ll hear the phrase ‘ . . . all things being equal’ after changing a single variable and attempting to trace the effects. To look at a hypothetical trade up for Cam Newton, for simplicity’s sake one has to assume that all other player performances and other factors will ‘be equal.’ The assumption is that Cam and the other players involved are all going to perform to the same stats with either the Panthers or the Cards. That is a huge leap and we all know what happens when you assume something ( It makes an ass out of u and me.) It is also the basic assumption that underlies every player move, draft pick, trade, etc. The guy performed great in college . . . assume he’ll do the same in the pros. We do indeed look at players as if they are plug-n-play robots.

Of course that is never the case. One other extreme to all things being equal is summarized in chaos theory and ‘The Butterfly Effect.’ “The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that may ultimately alter the path of a tornado or delay, accelerate or even prevent the occurrence of a tornado in another location. The butterfly does not power or directly create the tornado, but the term is intended to imply that the flap of the butterfly's wings can cause the tornado: in the sense that the flap of the wings is a part of the initial conditions; one set of conditions leads to a tornado while the other set of conditions doesn't. The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which cascades to large-scale alterations of events (compare: domino effect). Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different—but it's also equally possible that the set of conditions without the butterfly flapping its wings is the set that leads to a tornado.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

When Cam went to the Panthers, there was a unique combination of factors that resulted in his success. For example, Solar7 brings up having both Stewart and Williams as RBs to support Cam.

In the Cards/Panthers SB run in 2015, Palmer was supported by CJ, DJ, and AE while Cam was supported at RB by Stewart and Tolbert. Would Cam have been as good on a Cards team with our three guys? Would he have been even better with our three? The same question could be asked on how Cam would have performed with our WR—would he have had more or less yards and fewer INT with Fitz over Smith? Our OL, our D, our coaching staff, our water coolers, our uniforms, our chewing gum, etc.

In 2015, Cam passed for 3837 yards and rushed for 636. Stewart rushed for 989 and Tolbert added 256. The top three rushers (which included Cam and no Williams) went for 1881 yards.
Offense 3837 + 1881 = 5718 (just Cam’s number and the other top rushers)

In 2015, Palmer passed for 4671 yards. The top three rushers for the Cards had CJ at 814 + DJ at 581 and AE at 289 = 1684. (KW was the fourth leading rusher with 142 yards but I stopped at the top three for comparisons sake)
Offense 4671 + 1684 = 6355 (Palmer’s passing numbers and the top three rushers)

Cards O was putting up more than the Panthers; our rushing trio put up numbers very close to the Panther’s top three rushers. So, to just toss out the notion that Cam would not have done as well without his Williams/Stewart RB does hold up under the stats for 2015. Got to at least look at the numbers.

Here’s the butterfly wing in 2015. Palmer banged up his finger. Instead of getting him out of the game when he injured himself, he went back in (BA? CP himself wanting to soldier on?). How severe the injury has never been fully revealed but what we do know is CP tanked in the following games. It was only a miracle toss and then run by Fitz that got us past the Pack—and then the Cards were totally destroyed by the Panthers in the Conference championship 49-15. Was it the injury to the finger? Was it CP’s mental state and confidence level and inability to perform in a big game?

So, the challenge question if you want to downplay hypothetical trades is ‘How would you evaluate the different possibilities in trading draft choices to move up to aid in the decision-making process if you don’t want to keep ‘all other things being equal.’”If you prefer chaos theory, best have a really, really, really big supercomputer for all the variables.

The problem with saying "all things being equal" when looking back as far as you are at Cam Newton, there isn't a way to make all things equal enough for it to be a decent argument. You're talking four years of picks and players and records that would change our draft position. It's not particularly hard to go back and make a comparison of "what if we traded a third round pick to move up and pick DeShaun Watson, because that's just a little bit of data to deal with.

But it's mental gymnastics to say who we might have hypothetically picked with existing picks if we had Cam. If we had Cam, our head coach would probably still be Ken Whisenhunt, and who knows if we'd have Larry, or David Johnson, or Tyrann, or whoever else, because we'd have probably had to pay Cam that huge contract he got.

Too much happens in 7 years to play "all things being equal."
 

oaken1

Stone Cold
Supporting Member
Banned from P+R
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Posts
18,193
Reaction score
16,293
Location
Modesto, California
In statistics, you’ll hear the phrase ‘ . . . all things being equal’ after changing a single variable and attempting to trace the effects. To look at a hypothetical trade up for Cam Newton, for simplicity’s sake one has to assume that all other player performances and other factors will ‘be equal.’ The assumption is that Cam and the other players involved are all going to perform to the same stats with either the Panthers or the Cards. That is a huge leap and we all know what happens when you assume something ( It makes an ass out of u and me.) It is also the basic assumption that underlies every player move, draft pick, trade, etc. The guy performed great in college . . . assume he’ll do the same in the pros. We do indeed look at players as if they are plug-n-play robots.

Of course that is never the case. One other extreme to all things being equal is summarized in chaos theory and ‘The Butterfly Effect.’ “The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that may ultimately alter the path of a tornado or delay, accelerate or even prevent the occurrence of a tornado in another location. The butterfly does not power or directly create the tornado, but the term is intended to imply that the flap of the butterfly's wings can cause the tornado: in the sense that the flap of the wings is a part of the initial conditions; one set of conditions leads to a tornado while the other set of conditions doesn't. The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which cascades to large-scale alterations of events (compare: domino effect). Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different—but it's also equally possible that the set of conditions without the butterfly flapping its wings is the set that leads to a tornado.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

When Cam went to the Panthers, there was a unique combination of factors that resulted in his success. For example, Solar7 brings up having both Stewart and Williams as RBs to support Cam.

In the Cards/Panthers SB run in 2015, Palmer was supported by CJ, DJ, and AE while Cam was supported at RB by Stewart and Tolbert. Would Cam have been as good on a Cards team with our three guys? Would he have been even better with our three? The same question could be asked on how Cam would have performed with our WR—would he have had more or less yards and fewer INT with Fitz over Smith? Our OL, our D, our coaching staff, our water coolers, our uniforms, our chewing gum, etc.

In 2015, Cam passed for 3837 yards and rushed for 636. Stewart rushed for 989 and Tolbert added 256. The top three rushers (which included Cam and no Williams) went for 1881 yards.
Offense 3837 + 1881 = 5718 (just Cam’s number and the other top rushers)

In 2015, Palmer passed for 4671 yards. The top three rushers for the Cards had CJ at 814 + DJ at 581 and AE at 289 = 1684. (KW was the fourth leading rusher with 142 yards but I stopped at the top three for comparisons sake)
Offense 4671 + 1684 = 6355 (Palmer’s passing numbers and the top three rushers)

Cards O was putting up more than the Panthers; our rushing trio put up numbers very close to the Panther’s top three rushers. So, to just toss out the notion that Cam would not have done as well without his Williams/Stewart RB does hold up under the stats for 2015. Got to at least look at the numbers.

Here’s the butterfly wing in 2015. Palmer banged up his finger. Instead of getting him out of the game when he injured himself, he went back in (BA? CP himself wanting to soldier on?). How severe the injury has never been fully revealed but what we do know is CP tanked in the following games. It was only a miracle toss and then run by Fitz that got us past the Pack—and then the Cards were totally destroyed by the Panthers in the Conference championship 49-15. Was it the injury to the finger? Was it CP’s mental state and confidence level and inability to perform in a big game?

So, the challenge question if you want to downplay hypothetical trades is ‘How would you evaluate the different possibilities in trading draft choices to move up to aid in the decision-making process if you don’t want to keep ‘all other things being equal.’”If you prefer chaos theory, best have a really, really, really big supercomputer for all the variables.


i think, "all things being equal" comes into play to some degree in player evaluations... it does so by GM's looking at similar contributing factors.
somebody mentioned the RB's at carolina helping Cams rushing stats... No... having two good RB's causes the defense to cheat up which would have hurt cams rushing stats... had he played for AZ, well...in the year mentioned we didnt rush well until the end of the season....Cams stats may have gone up overall as he was forced to pass and then subsequently run as the pass plays broke down....
but everyone knows..."all things are never equal" but when it comes to player evals you cant get into the quantum physics of it all...maybe if we served gluten free muffins in the cafeteria, player A would have been .003 secs faster, and when he made that cut in his route he wouldnt have tripped on the corners foot, thereby allowing him to make the catch...and we win the championship...
The team does what they can to make players successful but in most cases the players themselves also have to invest in it. Drew Brees played poorly his first few years with san diego...apparently their coaching staff was not enough. so Drew hired a personal QB coach in the off season and completely changed his on field production.... had the chargers wondering what they were gonna do with Phil Rivers... but then he got hurt...

to go all quantum physics on it...hell, maybe Drews scream of pain when he broke his shoulder altered the weather cycles and set in motion the force that caused hurricane Katrina, destroying new orleans,..and thus allowing Drew to later come and uplift an entire community and be hailed as the saviour of new orleans as he and his upgraded play leads them to their first ever super bowl...

Kismit, destiny, and fate are not things that a team can try and factor in when evaluating players.

But there are known quantities that can help make those determinations. Body type, play style, physical condition, history of previous players on grass Vs turf, personality type, GPA, college major, performance with or without an oline, performance with or without a running game, charisma, personal drive...does he want to win?? or does he expect to win? is he committed 24/7/365 to being the best at his profession...does he understand that he has to work harder in the off season than he does during the season?

There are tools in place to help make these determinations. Tools like the personality test you posted a couple weeks back. Lots of players will take those types of tests at the combine...more will do so when they get to their respective teams. Not the same tests obviously, as well as not every team. each team has tools they think will put them over the top... for example the Cards use the VRQB machine..awesome but there are only a few teams that use it right now. when I coached I used to put blinders on my QB in practice to force him to use his head when going through progressions...peripheral vision is good but some QB's rely on it too much and it causes turnovers... in regards to the personality tests they can help teach you how a player learns and how he is motivated.

The hardest part of it all is getting into the players psyche and learning who he is. Brett Favre and John Elway were both athletic guys with intense passion for the game and a distinct competitive edge... Joe Montana was very much not athletic by NFL standards, rather diminutive and soft spoken... but Joe has more super bowl rings than Favre and Elway combined. Partly because Montana wasnt fiery...the man had liquid ice running through his veins and the bigger the moment got the better he performed.

In QB evaluations the hardest thing to define is the "it" factor... the ability to take control of a moment and force your will upon it. all of the greats have it... but some who have it never actually tap it...something has to give. Brady and Montana are possibly the two very best QB's to ever play the game...so why didnt "IT" manifest itself in college? ND and Michigan are both top schools so it isnt due to a lack of talent around them...coaching? Maybe they met that one coach who tapped into their inner most being? Or maybe not being a #1 overall draft pick just pissed them off?

Player evaluations will never be an exact science and just like stock investments...past performance does not guarantee future gains.
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
11,172
Reaction score
12,108
Location
Las Vegas, NV
i think, "all things being equal" comes into play to some degree in player evaluations... it does so by GM's looking at similar contributing factors.
somebody mentioned the RB's at carolina helping Cams rushing stats... No... having two good RB's causes the defense to cheat up which would have hurt cams rushing stats... had he played for AZ, well...in the year mentioned we didnt rush well until the end of the season....Cams stats may have gone up overall as he was forced to pass and then subsequently run as the pass plays broke down....

You don't think having two awesome RBs and Steve Smith to break over the top of the defense helped Cam throw for 4,000+ yards and run for 700+? That's just ridiculous. Defenses didn't know who was going to run the ball at any given time, as all three were threats to crush you, and they couldn't just cheat up.

It was no secret why they went all-in on McCaffrey this year, so there was an additional running threat in the backfield.
 
OP
OP
G

GimmedaBall

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Posts
1,626
Reaction score
1,110
The problem with saying "all things being equal" when looking back as far as you are at Cam Newton, there isn't a way to make all things equal enough for it to be a decent argument. You're talking four years of picks and players and records that would change our draft position. It's not particularly hard to go back and make a comparison of "what if we traded a third round pick to move up and pick DeShaun Watson, because that's just a little bit of data to deal with.

But it's mental gymnastics to say who we might have hypothetically picked with existing picks if we had Cam. If we had Cam, our head coach would probably still be Ken Whisenhunt, and who knows if we'd have Larry, or David Johnson, or Tyrann, or whoever else, because we'd have probably had to pay Cam that huge contract he got.

Too much happens in 7 years to play "all things being equal."

Of course it's mental gymnastics when looking at hypothetical trades. I'm anxious to hear your method to evaluate the effectiveness of trading up in the draft for a QB.
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
11,172
Reaction score
12,108
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Of course it's mental gymnastics when looking at hypothetical trades. I'm anxious to hear your method to evaluate the effectiveness of trading up in the draft for a QB.

It's pretty simple - I look at the past 10-20 years of history and see who was a success when traded up for. Success meaning sustained wins, playoff appearances, statistical consistency, and remained on the team that traded up for him into at least a second contract. And the answer is basically two with caveats... Eli Manning, which I don't really count because his situation is extraordinary and most players aren't going to decline being the #1 pick, and Joe Flacco, who technically the Ravens traded back for, collecting assets, and then up from trading back.

I refuse to count the past two years of drafts yet because those players have not had an opportunity to develop their careers.
 

JeffGollin

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
20,472
Reaction score
3,056
Location
Holmdel, NJ
This makes no sense. It's not a gamble at all anymore. It isn't a punitively high contract, nor are there hold outs. If you miss, you simply miss. Would drafting a QB in the first round be any more of a risk than stupid picks of 'potential' players in the first round that contribute nothing in their first year, if at all?
The logical answer would be "no."

But what if we gave up additional picks to trade up for a QB who becomes a bust? I'm not sure I'm cool with that.

A lot of what goes into what we eventually do will be locked up tightly in the minds of SK and the new coaching staff. Either they make the right decision on a QB they truly love...or they whiff.

We won't know which until we see the dude in action on the field this summer/fall.
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
11,172
Reaction score
12,108
Location
Las Vegas, NV
The logical answer would be "no."

But what if we gave up additional picks to trade up for a QB who becomes a bust? I'm not sure I'm cool with that.

A lot of what goes into what we eventually do will be locked up tightly in the minds of SK and the new coaching staff. Either they make the right decision on a QB they truly love...or they whiff.

We won't know which until we see the dude in action on the field this summer/fall.

Not to mention... there's a middle ground here. What if we draft a guy and he comes out and throws for say, 2,000 yards, 7 TDs, and 7 INTs (Mitch Trubisky's stat line last year... I could make this worse by using Goff as the example)? And leads us to a 5-11 record (Bears record)? Are we going to scream and panic? Probably not if we pick him at #15. If we traded three first round picks for him, like some people are suggesting, yeah, then it's going to create panic - but Trubisky may continue to improve, as Goff showed last year.

People have gotten too used to rookies coming in and lighting it up.
 
OP
OP
G

GimmedaBall

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Posts
1,626
Reaction score
1,110
People have gotten too used to rookies coming in and lighting it up.

Unfortunately that's correct. Guys are coming into the pro game from the college ranks and are required to jump in and be superstars. Rare bird that can fly that way.

Leaves the guys with talent but lack of experience behind as busts. Few QBs are brought along slowly and allowed to sit and learn the way JG (Pats and 49ers) and Rogers behind Favre were allowed to progress.

That's why it is important for the Cards to sign either that FA bridge vet QB or a Cousins. If not, that #6 or #7 QB off the board has 'disaster' stamped on his jersey from the get-go.
 
OP
OP
G

GimmedaBall

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Posts
1,626
Reaction score
1,110
It's pretty simple - I look at the past 10-20 years of history and see who was a success when traded up for. Success meaning sustained wins, playoff appearances, statistical consistency, and remained on the team that traded up for him into at least a second contract. And the answer is basically two with caveats... Eli Manning, which I don't really count because his situation is extraordinary and most players aren't going to decline being the #1 pick, and Joe Flacco, who technically the Ravens traded back for, collecting assets, and then up from trading back.

I refuse to count the past two years of drafts yet because those players have not had an opportunity to develop their careers.

So, you don't consider the cost in lost picks/players but just how the QB performed??? Is it just about the QB and not about the other players???

How do you then know that the team that traded up got a good return on their draft pick investment unless you determine a way to calculate the cost???
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
11,172
Reaction score
12,108
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Unfortunately that's correct. Guys are coming into the pro game from the college ranks and are required to jump in and be superstars. Rare bird that can fly that way.

Leaves the guys with talent but lack of experience behind as busts. Few QBs are brought along slowly and allowed to sit and learn the way JG (Pats and 49ers) and Rogers behind Favre were allowed to progress.

That's why it is important for the Cards to sign either that FA bridge vet QB or a Cousins. If not, that #6 or #7 QB off the board has 'disaster' stamped on his jersey from the get-go.

Bortles, Mahomes, Goff, Trubisky, Tannehill... at least 5 first rounders who have been given time and weren't rookie successes but will walk into 2018 as starters.
 

Solar7

Go Suns
Joined
May 18, 2002
Posts
11,172
Reaction score
12,108
Location
Las Vegas, NV
So, you don't consider the cost in lost picks/players but just how the QB performed??? Is it just about the QB and not about the other players???

How do you then know that the team that traded up got a good return on their draft pick investment unless you determine a way to calculate the cost???

I don't need to know the return on investment overall if the effort generated a clear failure. I work in marketing, I spend all day working on this. But if everyone in my industry spends $25,000 on social media campaigns, and it never gives them more than $4,000 in revenue back, I don't need to waste my time figuring out if they might have spent that money on buying the office new printers, I need to just avoid spending the money on social media.
 

Gandhi

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Posts
2,024
Reaction score
2,878
Location
Denmark
In statistics, you’ll hear the phrase ‘ . . . all things being equal’ after changing a single variable and attempting to trace the effects.

Yes, but recruiting players is not statistic.

To look at a hypothetical trade up for Cam Newton, for simplicity’s sake one has to assume that all other player performances and other factors will ‘be equal.’ The assumption is that Cam and the other players involved are all going to perform to the same stats with either the Panthers or the Cards. That is a huge leap and we all know what happens when you assume something ( It makes an ass out of u and me.) It is also the basic assumption that underlies every player move, draft pick, trade, etc. The guy performed great in college . . . assume he’ll do the same in the pros. We do indeed look at players as if they are plug-n-play robots.

No, we don’t look at players that way. Or, at least I don’t, I should say. I can’t speak for anyone else. Drafting is projecting, and basically, so is acquiring a free agent. With draft prospects, you are not projecting what he could and would do for your team right now, but what he would do for your team down the road. That is the very reason why teams go through countless interviews with draft prospects, why they have private detectives who investigate almost everything about the prospects, why the prospects are being watched every second by several people in the month leading up to the draft, and many more things that every team goes through to project the players correctly. Every time you hear about a prospect dropping in the draft because of character concerns the reason almost always is that the teams fear what unfortunate impact that guy might have on the organization in the future. The very nature and premise of the draft is that it is an inexact science precisely because the prospects are not robots.

Of course that is never the case. One other extreme to all things being equal is summarized in chaos theory and ‘The Butterfly Effect.’ “The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that may ultimately alter the path of a tornado or delay, accelerate or even prevent the occurrence of a tornado in another location. The butterfly does not power or directly create the tornado, but the term is intended to imply that the flap of the butterfly's wings can cause the tornado: in the sense that the flap of the wings is a part of the initial conditions; one set of conditions leads to a tornado while the other set of conditions doesn't. The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which cascades to large-scale alterations of events (compare: domino effect). Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different—but it's also equally possible that the set of conditions without the butterfly flapping its wings is the set that leads to a tornado.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

When Cam went to the Panthers, there was a unique combination of factors that resulted in his success. For example, Solar7 brings up having both Stewart and Williams as RBs to support Cam.

In the Cards/Panthers SB run in 2015, Palmer was supported by CJ, DJ, and AE while Cam was supported at RB by Stewart and Tolbert. Would Cam have been as good on a Cards team with our three guys? Would he have been even better with our three? The same question could be asked on how Cam would have performed with our WR—would he have had more or less yards and fewer INT with Fitz over Smith? Our OL, our D, our coaching staff, our water coolers, our uniforms, our chewing gum, etc.

In 2015, Cam passed for 3837 yards and rushed for 636. Stewart rushed for 989 and Tolbert added 256. The top three rushers (which included Cam and no Williams) went for 1881 yards.
Offense 3837 + 1881 = 5718 (just Cam’s number and the other top rushers)

In 2015, Palmer passed for 4671 yards. The top three rushers for the Cards had CJ at 814 + DJ at 581 and AE at 289 = 1684. (KW was the fourth leading rusher with 142 yards but I stopped at the top three for comparisons sake)
Offense 4671 + 1684 = 6355 (Palmer’s passing numbers and the top three rushers)

Cards O was putting up more than the Panthers; our rushing trio put up numbers very close to the Panther’s top three rushers. So, to just toss out the notion that Cam would not have done as well without his Williams/Stewart RB does hold up under the stats for 2015. Got to at least look at the numbers.

Yes, but it is problematic to use any theory of causality because of what I wrote about the many variables that goes into success. You cannot predict the outcome of each variable, and thus you cannot predict if something will be successful. That’s why you can’t just look at some numbers and conclude anything from that.

So, the challenge question if you want to downplay hypothetical trades is ‘How would you evaluate the different possibilities in trading draft choices to move up to aid in the decision-making process if you don’t want to keep ‘all other things being equal.’”If you prefer chaos theory, best have a really, really, really big supercomputer for all the variables.

The thing is I would not evaluate the different possibilities, and especially not with all things being equal. You can’t use math or formulas to project anything in the draft. The prospects are human beings, and thus you need to project them like that. You also have to make individual judgements on what you want to do with the prospect in each single case. Personally, I use a lot of time reading about lots of prospects because that is my only way of getting to know a little about them, but the teams obviously have way better options, and I would guess they make an evaluation based on some sort of sociological and anthropological dynamics.

I understand that it is much more simplistic to us fans to speculate based on tangible and accessible things, but when we simply ignore a lot of factors in the projections and scenarios I think it becomes a bit too unrealistic.
 
OP
OP
G

GimmedaBall

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Posts
1,626
Reaction score
1,110
Bortles, Mahomes, Goff, Trubisky, Tannehill... at least 5 first rounders who have been given time and weren't rookie successes but will walk into 2018 as starters.

Here's what "sitting behind a QB means:"

Rogers and JG sat for a couple of years. Rogers was behind Favre for three years after being drafted (2005-6-7) and didn't take over as a starter until 2008. In the three years, he appeared in a few games but not as a starter.

JG sat behind Brady for 2 years in 214 and 2015. He started in 2 games in 2016 until Brady returned (Card fans remember at least one of those starts. He started that last five games of 2017 after being traded to SF.

Here what 'sitting behind a QB doesn't mean"

Only Mahomes had close to a year behind a starter.

Bortles 21-40 career started 13 games first year
Tannehill 37-40 started all 16 games first year
Goff 11-11 career started 7 games first year
Trubisky 4-8 career started last 12 game first year
Mahomes 1-0 career started last game reg. season
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
553,889
Posts
5,412,455
Members
6,319
Latest member
route66
Top