value vs need revisited

[Clonamery]

Knock Knock.

BB: Who's there?

OLB, 6'4" 256 4.59 21 40.5" 10'08" 4.18 6.87

BB: Go away.

Oh, that's just not funny.

 

[bucky]

Knock Knock.

BB: Who's there?

OLB, 6'4" 256 4.59 21 40.5" 10'08" 4.18 6.87

BB: Go away.

Are you referring to a particular draft prospect from 2 years ago who just happened to look like Mike Vrabel?

 

[borg]

What we think we know about BB and the Patriots...

1) They value extra picks and the flexibility these picks provide
2) They value roster depth
3) They plan for the future, not just the immediate.

How this plays out, the Patriots Way...

1) The Pats will own, at a minimum, an extra 2nd rounder for 2012
2) BB will build a roster that has depth for an 18 game season
3) The future will be addressed through the draft, the immediate may arrive via free agency( if FA ever opens for business)
Long term, BB has to love how his team is positioned verses the other AFC East teams. Double and triple the early round picks compared to the Jets and Fish. Roster age continues to trend younger, especially verses the Jets.

However...

1) Brady's window of opportunity is finite.
2) Belichick is aging as well.
3) Memory of Jets losses and consecutive one and dones in the playoffs.
4) Bob Kraft losing to the Jets...can't be happy

The vast majority of teams in the league, if they were in New Englands shoes, would go for it now. They would target the missing X factor pieces and pay the high cost, whether through extra draft picks or big FA contracts. Will Belichick view this team in the same light as the preseason 2003 team, just a couple parts short of Championship caliber...enter Ted Washington and Rodney Harrison. Or 2004...enter Corey Dillon.
Unfortunately, the trade window will be closed for an unknown time and trading picks for vets won't occur pre draft.

Food for thought...

One possibility that BB may be planning for...push 2011 draft picks back to 2012...then use these chips to acquire veterans before this season starts. With a shortened offseason possibility, rookies will be less ready to perform. Teams depending on free agents will be less organized. It is possible teams may be willing to trade from their roster and secure 2012 picks, realizing their team is not ready to compete this year.

 

[bucky]

FWIW, I would argue that the best name for this sort of value is an economic one: marginal utility.

In other words, there are two parts to the equation, at least with regard to picks in the first four rounds.

COSTS:
(1) The draft pick used to select the draftee
(2) The money paid to that player
(3) The talents of the player cut to add the draftee

BENEFITS:
(1) The talents of that player
(2) The costs saved, if any, from cutting the existing player

The marginal utility = BENEFITS - COSTS.

That works for me. Very nicely put. But like most text book materials, it's not always easy to see the practical application. The important thing, to me, is that the formula accounts for the existing talent level on the team, thus putting to rest the BPA vs. Need argument. I also agree that at some point in the draft (be it 4th round, 5th round, etc) it becomes more of a BPA rule.

I will also say that the concept of "cost" is a bit tricky in this circumstance. If the saved cost is reallocated towards another roster spot, then it truly belongs in the equation. However, if the savings go directly into the ownership's bank account, it doesn't really add anything to the benefits.

For example, this is why I have a hard time seeing an ILB drafted this year: adding an ILB would require getting rid of either Guyton or Fletcher, and doing so would increase the salary cap hit without adding a huge net amount of talent.

You are assuming here that there would not be enough of a talent increase in the newly drafter player to make such a move, making it poor value. I would agree with that assumption, but I think it is still worth stating.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Oh, that's just not funny.

I suppose we could beat her until our morale improves .... :scream:

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Are you referring to a particular draft prospect from 2 years ago who just happened to look like Mike Vrabel?

Yes. :bricks:

 

[patchick]

Yes. :bricks:

The funny part is that the whole board instantly recognized the list of numbers. It's kind of impressively pathetic.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

That works for me. Very nicely put. But like most text book materials, it's not always easy to see the practical application. The important thing, to me, is that the formula accounts for the existing talent level on the team, thus putting to rest the BPA vs. Need argument. I also agree that at some point in the draft (be it 4th round, 5th round, etc) it becomes more of a BPA rule.

I will also say that the concept of "cost" is a bit tricky in this circumstance. If the saved cost is reallocated towards another roster spot, then it truly belongs in the equation. However, if the savings go directly into the ownership's bank account, it doesn't really add anything to the benefits.

I did say "in the first four rounds"—in the Belichick era, every player taken in the first four rounds has been on the payroll on opening day. I agree with you that the "cost" factor takes a back seat to "potential upside" (which falls under "talents") later in the draft (e.g., Cassel, Edelperson).

As to your second point, the Pats spend enough each year that I can safely assume the money saved is not going to Kraft's pockets.

You are assuming here that there would not be enough of a talent increase in the newly drafter player to make such a move, making it poor value. I would agree with that assumption, but I think it is still worth stating.

Pretty much, yeah. If there were another Mayo at 17, I'd at least consider it, but I don't think there is.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The funny part is that the whole board instantly recognized the list of numbers. It's kind of impressively pathetic.

Well, to be fair, how many OLBs have a 40.5" vertical? *sigh*

 

[Off The Grid]

The funny part is that the whole board instantly recognized the list of numbers. It's kind of impressively pathetic.

It seemed like EVERY Site was pimping him for the Pats, citing The Vrabel Corollary.

Thank GOD Coach Bill The Mad didn't listen to that crap, and went for Ron Brace, instead!!

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It seemed like EVERY Site was pimping him for the Pats, citing The Vrabel Corollary.

Thank GOD Coach Bill The Mad didn't listen to that crap, and went for Ron Brace, instead!!

In a perfect world, somehow the Pats manage to swap the contracts of Afailus and Vrabel, keep Vrabel while trading Afailius to the Chiefs, and draft Barwin so that he could learn from Vrabel for a year. igsfly:

 

[townes]

It's a balancing act and value is the key. You don't take a need with a 3rd round grade in the 2nd to address need if a player who could contribute with a significantly higher grade is available. They have to look at all their options and what will be available throughout the draft when making decisions about who to take and when. How they group prospects and see them fitting is always going to drive their approach to the draft, as well as what they feel they can get done in free agency.