Confusion over Belichick's non-trade with SF on Pick # 33 in draft

[plk]

I'm pretty sure everybody does agree, but it's often hard to tell in a messageboard conversation which the person means. Plus I might have mentioned that "value" is a slippery concept in itself.

Absolutely. The value of a stock is extremely uncertain because it depends on what happens in the future. The value of a draft pick can, in some sense, be determined, at least in relation to other picks, by looking at what that pick has produced in the past. Quite different.

I'm glad to hear that I was confused in believing that other people were confused, but it sure did seem that way to me at the time. Imagine smiley.

 

[Off The Grid]

If you are going to do that, you cannot just change the meaning of a standard financial term and say that you want it to mean something other than what it always means in a financial context.

Actually, colloquialisms and expressions are a common, every day part of the language.

That's why the word "colloquialism" exists, Francis.

And "Book Value" as a colloquialism for "Ball Park Figure" on the Draft Value Chart is clearly applicable.

[EDIT: somebody needs a little refresher on the civility policy: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...d/13/739115-draft-board-civility-policy.html]]

 

[Oswlek]

Actually, colloquialisms and expressions are a common, every day part of the language.

That's why the word "colloquialism" exists, Francis.

And "Book Value" as a colloquialism for "Ball Park Figure" on the Draft Value Chart is clearly applicable.

I've never once heard "Book Value" used as a colloquialism for "Ball Park Figure". In fact, it typically means just the opposite, that you are looking for more data than just an estimate. :confused2:

 

[patchick]

I've never once heard "Book Value" used as a colloquialism for "Ball Park Figure". In fact, it typically means just the opposite, that you are looking for more data than just an estimate. :confused2:

Totally agree -- book value has a specific, well-accepted meaning in the investment world: a valuation of an asset that comes straight from the balance sheet.

There is one more possible meaning, if you're not steeped in finance -- the "book value" of a car, i.e. the trade-in value listed in the Kelley Blue Book. In that case the meaning shifts toward "a standard estimated value of an asset, that you may or may not be able to realize in the marketplace." Perhaps that's what OTG was thinking of? But even that isn't a "ball park figure."

Funny how in May the draft board turns into a linguistics board.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Funny how in May the draft board turns into a linguistics board.

I'm thinking of investing in a thesaurus and dictionary before the 2012 NFL Draft

 

[Off The Grid]

I would've thought that the correlation between the Blue Book "Book Value" on a car, as a starting point for negotiation, and the use of the Draft Value Chart as...a starting point for negotiation...was crystal clear to anyone.

In this, I was evidently mistaken.

 

[Off The Grid]

Actually, colloquialisms and expressions are a common, every day part of the language.

That's why the word "colloquialism" exists, Francis.

And "Book Value" as a colloquialism for "Ball Park Figure" on the Draft Value Chart is clearly applicable.

[EDIT: somebody needs a little refresher on the civility policy: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...d/13/739115-draft-board-civility-policy.html]]

Clearly.

...

 

[Fencer]

I would like to suggest a variation on the quite interesting strategy above just in case someone else might be intrigued.

Say a club will need a quarterback in a year or two, and they have a mid-to-late first round pick. How about if they use the first round pick on their best bet for a non-quarterback reliable starter (a draft that produces a reliable starter is not all that bad a draft no matter what else happens), and then use the rest of their picks on quarterbacks.

I have no idea what the probabilities are, but one advantage of this approach is that watching the heads of the commentators explode would be great live television.

The media and internet furor would be entertaining in a perverted sort of way.

Teams don't even find enough snaps in practice for 3 QBs. How could they develop 6-10?

 

[patchick]

I would've thought that the correlation between the Blue Book "Book Value" on a car, as a starting point for negotiation, and the use of the Draft Value Chart as...a starting point for negotiation...was crystal clear to anyone.

In this, I was evidently mistaken.

Ah, ok, that IS what you meant! Comparing the "chart price" of a draft pick to the "blue book price" of a used car makes plenty of sense. It is, as you say, a neutral starting point for negotiations. The actual marketplace price will seldom be an exact match, but only in unusual conditions of supply and demand will it be wildly different.

BUT -- try looking up the phrase book value in any dictionary, in Wikipedia, etc., and you'll see why your intent wasn't "crystal clear to anyone." 90% of the of the time that phrase refers to a balance sheet-based valuation of an asset or corporation.

 

[plk]

Teams don't even find enough snaps in practice for 3 QBs. How could they develop 6-10?

That is a very good point. My only defense is that I was responding to a post that advocated using all seven picks on quarterbacks. I was assuming six picks on quarterbacks after using the first-round pick on a non-quarterback.

My idea was that when you got them into training camp, maybe you could make a guess about the three most promising ones and keep them on the roster. Maybe you could slip one or two onto the practice squad.

Whether or not the strategy was worth trying would depend upon what the odds are of hitting on a quarterback with the six picks, and its relationship to the odds of hitting on a quarterback with the first-round pick. I don't have any idea about that.

You are right; it would simply not be a practical strategy no matter what the odds because there would not be enough snaps for the new quarterbacks in addition to the ones previously there.

 

[Shelterdog]

You are right; it would simply not be a practical strategy no matter what the odds because there would not be enough snaps for the new quarterbacks in addition to the ones previously there.

You also probably need a year or two to evaluate a QB.

Notice that the Pats always have a developmental third QB somewhere in the system (Brady-Cassel-KOC-Gutierrez-Crompton) who they gave a year or so, but if number three doesn't show improvement they cut him and bring in another developmental QB.

 

[Oswlek]

Teams don't even find enough snaps in practice for 3 QBs. How could they develop 6-10?

Taking 6-10 clearly isn't viable, but there are lots of teams out there without any viable options at QB. Taking 3-4 with the intention of keeping the two around who pick things up the best seems like a reasonable alternative to grabbing someone high.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Taking 6-10 clearly isn't viable, but there are lots of teams out there without any viable options at QB. Taking 3-4 with the intention of keeping the two around who pick things up the best seems like a reasonable alternative to grabbing someone high.

I think that the moral of the story is that if you give young QBs time to develop instead of throwing them into the fire, they have a better chance to be successful.

 

[borg]

Taking 6-10 clearly isn't viable, but there are lots of teams out there without any viable options at QB. Taking 3-4 with the intention of keeping the two around who pick things up the best seems like a reasonable alternative to grabbing someone high.

Having extra QBs on the roster will allow Tommy to continue his waterslide workouts at exotic resorts while his other 52 teammates continue their Mass. workouts.

 

[Shelterdog]

Having extra QBs on the roster will allow Tommy to continue his waterslide workouts at exotic resorts while his other 52 teammates continue their Mass. workouts.

I assume you're just trying to be a funny guy but the day Brady isn't one of the top three or four QBs in the NFL is the day we can criticize how he prepares for the season.

 

[Oswlek]

You also probably need a year or two to evaluate a QB.

Notice that the Pats always have a developmental third QB somewhere in the system (Brady-Cassel-KOC-Gutierrez-Crompton) who they gave a year or so, but if number three doesn't show improvement they cut him and bring in another developmental QB.

Yes, but in every case except KOC, the backup proved almost immediately whether they were worth developing. That's why I think someone looking for a QB could make use out of going to a 4 QB roster and snagging 4 rookies with the hopes that 2 of them will be worth keeping around.

 

[Oswlek]

I think that the moral of the story is that if you give young QBs time to develop instead of throwing them into the fire, they have a better chance to be successful.

Sure, that's part of it. But I wouldn't say it is the entire picture.