- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,705
- Reaction score
- 18,875
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.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Knock Knock.
BB: Who's there?
OLB, 6'4" 256 4.59 21 40.5" 10'08" 4.18 6.87
BB: Go away.
Knock Knock.
BB: Who's there?
OLB, 6'4" 256 4.59 21 40.5" 10'08" 4.18 6.87
BB: Go away.
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.
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.
I suppose we could beat her until our morale improves .... :scream:Oh, that's just not funny.
Are you referring to a particular draft prospect from 2 years ago who just happened to look like Mike Vrabel?
Yes. :bricks:
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.
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.
The funny part is that the whole board instantly recognized the list of numbers. It's kind of impressively pathetic.
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!!