"Belichick was right! Economics and the NFL draft"

[RayClay]

Just a thought. I think that some of the discrepancy comes from the concept that all first rounders are equal. I think BB believes that because the Pats are constantly going to be picking late in every round, you have to look at the draft more like thermoclines. As you descend in the draft there are definite breaks in the level of talent within draft. But the key is that these breaks don't come neatly at the end of each round.

For example the top grade of player might only be 4-8 players in length, The next grade might be 15-20. The next 20-30, etc. I don't think BB goes into a draft knowing he's trading down. I think he knows who he'd like to draft, but when you are drafting so low, you have to recognize that when the players you rate at late first round values are gone, it is always better to trade down into the next "thermocline" and hopefully get multiple players where you only would have gotten one without the trade.

The reality of this draft wasn't that it sucked all the way through, it just sucked at the top. There were a distinct lack of depth in players who would be immediate impact players. Last year was a great year for those kinds of players, and we were able to get one at 21. This year after you got out of the top 6 every player take was a good player, but none were without question marks.

I think we got a real "first round" talent with our pick at 53, but there are legitimate questions that won't be answered until we see him on the field. None of our picks this year are ones that we can feel the same way we felt about picking up Jones and Hightower. But that can probably be said for 40 of the picks that were made before ours

On the other hand, I've never felt better about our 7th round picks, where I think the draft was still deep enough that we got 2 guys who are good enough to make the roster of one of the best teams in the league.

So, getting back on point, I think that whether trading down or up is more a function of the number of high level talents that each draft brings to the table....especially when you are picking at the end of each round. In a top heavy year like 2012 you trade up to get a guy who might have slipped into your range. In a thin year like 2013 it might not be a good idea.

On of the more interesting and telling things to come out of the 2013 draft was that in BB's mind he wasn't "reaching" for Duran Harmon. He not only targeted him, he believed others had as well. If that wasn't the case, BB would have taken the trade, that we now know was available at 91.

Excellent post, Ken.

I've linked this, but I think it bears watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp838EJ54mE

Mayock describes scouts and himself going to look at Ryan and others and Rutgers and coming back talking about Harmon. "Wow", as Mayock says.

 

[Urgent]

There was a lot of discussion about this when the 2005 working paper came out. Cade Massey actually worked for me years ago, before Yale and Wharton, and I have followed the work of Massey, Thaler, Kahneman, and the other behavioral economists closely.

In the 2005 paper, they assigned actual dollar values, based on the "surplus" of each pick, based on expected value of performance, to the rookie scale (of the time). The surplus peaked in the second round, and was highest from about picks 20 through 60. At the time, the outrageous cost of the first pick, and the top five, made those picks a tax on crappy teams. Very few of those picks were worth what they were paid.

Important to note that this isn't a "first round" vs. "second round" analysis grouping the top five into the bottom five of the round - it was done pick by pick. It was also originally done before the new CBA.

 

[mgteich]

Thus 20-60 has often been called the "sweet spot" of the draft, although in some drafts 25-75 seems more reasonable.

There was a lot of discussion about this when the 2005 working paper came out. Cade Massey actually worked for me years ago, before Yale and Wharton, and I have followed the work of Massey, Thaler, Kahneman, and the other behavioral economists closely.

In the 2005 paper, they assigned actual dollar values, based on the "surplus" of each pick, based on expected value of performance, to the rookie scale (of the time). The surplus peaked in the second round, and was highest from about picks 20 through 60. At the time, the outrageous cost of the first pick, and the top five, made those picks a tax on crappy teams. Very few of those picks were worth what they were paid.

Important to note that this isn't a "first round" vs. "second round" analysis grouping the top five into the bottom five of the round - it was done pick by pick. It was also originally done before the new CBA.

 

[patsfan13]

Just a thought. I think that some of the discrepancy comes from the concept that all first rounders are equal. I think BB believes that because the Pats are constantly going to be picking late in every round, you have to look at the draft more like thermoclines. As you descend in the draft there are definite breaks in the level of talent within draft. But the key is that these breaks don't come neatly at the end of each round.

For example the top grade of player might only be 4-8 players in length, The next grade might be 15-20. The next 20-30, etc. I don't think BB goes into a draft knowing he's trading down. I think he knows who he'd like to draft, but when you are drafting so low, you have to recognize that when the players you rate at late first round values are gone, it is always better to trade down into the next "thermocline" and hopefully get multiple players where you only would have gotten one without the trade.

This is why the trade value chart isn't static but would need to change from year to year based on the talent in the draft that particular year.

BB varies his behavior depending on the team needs + the composition of the talent available that year.

 

[Jackson 2]

Conclusions based upon sound research and empirical evidence when it comes to BB and the draft are pure BS, and everyone knows it. Anyone who claims that Bill knows what he is doing is a pathetic homer who drinks the Kool-aid. This entire discussion needs to cease right now.

 

[jsull87]

Alright, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here for a moment:

1. I don't think the issue most fans have is trading out of the first round.
2. I do think it's draft reaches, and I suspect the economics works better if the talent you take in the 2nd round is, in fact, 2nd round talent.

Not saying this is my position, but I'd have a hard time arguing it too.

I agree with you and am arguing once again for arguments sake.

But i guess in rebuttal you would say:

1. I do think this is a core emotional issue when "the guy" is there but the pats trade out. The amount of times i have heard "trade up for that impact player" in this forum is nauseating.

2. I would argue that every pick taken in the 2nd round is 2nd round talent by definition. You can assign book value to these picks but market value is what it is.

Saying someone is a "This" round pick is a bit silly as each teams have different values. E.g Mallett who was off some boards completely yet pats had him as a 3rd round pick. Then you have fans here saying he has 1st round talent e.t.c


Anyway a lot of this is silly discussion. The reality is the trade itself and the pick are two different beasts. You hit with your 2nd,3rd,4th and 7th picks you are a genius... great trade. You miss and you will have everyone asking why the hell did you trade down. See examples 2010 (good) and 2009 (bad)