Content Post How Current NFL Teams Were Built and How Pats Compare

[SlowGettingUp]

No the combined picks so the value of both players picked vs 1. Of course, only 1 in 3 second round picks succeed and even worse for 3rd and later so in many cases the second pick was a bust. This was probably a big factor.
Your adding a bust and dropping to where a lesser player would be on average.

Of course, Chris Jones was taken in the 2nd round after a trade down so its not a be all end all by any means.
KC traded 28 and 249 for 37,105 and 178. SF took Guard Garnett who was a bust and KC took Jones at 37 who is future hall of famer.

Every other pick ended up a bust. Chiefs could have taken Jones at 28, never made the trade and would have had the same outcome. The other picks were meaningless. So this is a win for trading down but in reality the trade down didn't help the Chiefs at all unless they liked someone more than Jones between 28 and 37. A trade down win like this is kind of a questionable win.

Thanks.

Curious if you have enough data to project the average value (and standard deviation) of each pick position. Be interesting to see how that compares to the trade charts everyone uses.

 

[silentone]

Well, I think everything is in the context of the way the analytics were done and that should be assumed with comments like I made.

I think what I did was a good place to start and it follows the logic from the other data which is why I decided to take a look at it. Logically it makes sense that this would be true, and this add on work doesn't dispute the other data. What % certainty is there that this is true? Not 100, not 50, 75% probably if I was to guess.
If most picks after round 1 are busts and higher first round picks have a higher % chance of success(and these are actual facts) it logically fits that trading to a less likely success rate in the first round to pick up extra picks that probably bust would in the long run be a losing strategy.

Hopefully someone else somewhere does a deeper dive and helps clarify the argument one way or the other. This type of back and forth helps to that end and I actually appreciate it.

Regarding

"If most picks after round 1 are busts and higher first round picks have a higher % chance of success(and these are actual facts) it logically fits that trading to a less likely success rate in the first round to pick up extra picks that probably bust would in the long run be a losing strategy."

Your models/logic doesn't seem to account for the following:

The cost of each player at the draft slot taken
How much surplus capital is acquired by trading down
The cumulative probability of success of the additional picks acquired

There could be other reasons, but I think these are some of the reasons as to why that one of your conclusions ("Eliminating trades with future 1’s and 2’s included (mostly QB’s), trading up was the better strategy 72% of the time in hindsight. Trading down is likely to be a bad move 3 out of 4 times." is in such contrast to the analytcial models.

 

[Hyped]

Very impressive. Bottom line: the Patsies under arrogant Little Bill & his ****ing incompetent ****ing nepo toadies (which includes BOTH children STILL Upstairs) have absolutely ****ing SUCKED in the draft since and including 2017. THAT'S why we are where we are now.

Stephen and Brian are at UNC now.

So, I guess you are talking about Amanda (thought she was a lacrosse coach at Holy Cross, no?) and ????

 

[Hyped]

As for the OP, I dunno....while the data certainly tells otherwise...I am always for trading down. I'd rather 3-4 "lottery tickets" vs. putting all of our eggs in one basket. Then again, we have never drafted in the #1-#10 pick range from 2009-2023.....

For example, I'd love to trade down from #4 if Carter/Hunter are off the board....with say the Raiders...so they can move up to get Sanders...and we still take Will Campbell two picks later...and get say...a 3rd maybe from the Raiders? That 3rd would be a 25% shot at a starter (according to the OP's analysis)....the way I see it..it would be taking Campbell which we are mostly likely to do AND picking up an extra 3rd or a 4th...that could turn out to be a "bonus".

In the Belichick era...we traded down a lot...but hardly ever with a top 10 pick (we didn't have any from Jerod Mayo to Drake Maye).

 

[NormZauchin]

I looked at trades that were only a few slots and there wasn't much difference in outcome. Of course, if you're trading down its probably because you weren't taking that guy so speaks more to scouting than it being a bad trade. Plus it did work out over 25% of the time which is not a small #. Teams should use the analytics, but nothing is 100% so there are always going to be situations that you can analyze and go against the history. You just need to have very good information before you trade down

The Pats were expected to take Trent McDuffie but apparently BB really wanted Strange so traded down. If he did not get a trade down does he still take Strange, sounds like he would have. That is one thing I could not really capture.

Do draft picks that fall in the first round well past where most mocks have them (Jalen Carter, Vince Wilfork, Micah Parsons all come to mind) do better than their draft position? I'd guess that's true but no way to quantify that easily.

Opposite question, if you draft a guy well ahead of consensus in first round, do they normally underperform their draft position. The examples I saw were yes but I could only remember a few.

Logically it seems the general consensus is pretty accurate so you should not take a guy in the first round that is 30 picks or more before consensus (Cole Strange) and if a consensus top 10 guy falls out of top 10 you should be all over them.

There are a number of studies that show that the consensus of experts, professionals, knowledgeable people, etc., is almost always superior to the view of one expert, professional or knowledgeable person. Attempting to show that you are the smartest person in room by going against the consensus on NFL draft picks is, in the long run, a losing strategy.

 

[KCSVEN]

There are a number of studies that show that the consensus of experts, professionals, knowledgeable people, etc., is almost always superior to the view of one expert, professional or knowledgeable person. Attempting to show that you are the smartest person in room by going against the consensus on NFL draft picks is, in the long run, a losing strategy.

You’re confusing statistical analysis with opinion. I didn’t have an opinion. I’m just telling you what the data said

There is no consensus on trading down with teams. Half the team trade up and half the teams trade down.
Bill Barnwell did a huge article on this in 2024. However, he focused on all trades up and down to determine trading down was slightly the better option.
Nobody did an analysis of solely the patriot situation this year, which was what I was doing.

Only for first round pics only if you didn’t get a future first or second, and only if a QB wasn’t being traded up for or starting player included

He did say the one thing you absolutely should not do and the one thing in the article that you should follow is to never trade a better pick in the future year for a worse pick in the current year, which I also concluded. I said Always trade the current year pick for a better pick next year. His data agreed with mine.

It’s a great article, but also using a slightly different data point for wins and losses

Should teams trade up in the NFL draft? Lessons from past deals

Trading up isn't simply a pass/fail conversation, but there often is a clear winner. Here's what previous NFL draft deals can teach us.

www.espn.com

 

[stinkypete]

Based on analytics the odds are better, NOT DEFINITIVE, to stay and pick but it is just one factor you need to take into account.

I think the casual fan, myself included at 1 point, believes the draft is a crap shoot and the more picks you have the better. I can conclude that, it is at best 50-50 and more likely a losing strategy in the long run. Accumulating more picks for the sake of getting more shots should not be a strategy you actively pursue. Does not mean you never do it but you shouldn't have that as a main strategy going into a draft.

It seems the real conclusion is the general NFL scouting consensus on draft picks are pretty good and the higher you pick the better chance you have of success and picks after round 1 are more likely to bust than work out thus accumulating more picks for the sake of increasing odds is not a good strategy in itself.

You are onto a significant - yet simple - analytical breakthrough.

The next question, in my mind, is what the success rate is in the top 5 vs. top 10 vs. top 20 vs. 1st round. Then you can really dig in and create a probability model for maximizing draft value.

 

[KCSVEN]

You are onto a significant - yet simple - analytical breakthrough.

The next question, in my mind, is what the success rate is in the top 5 vs. top 10 vs. top 20 vs. 1st round. Then you can really dig in and create a probability model for maximizing draft value.

That does vary by draft. The first non-QB drafted had a very high success rate, 80%. And then some drafts it was the next 2 non-QBs and others up to the next 6 non-QBs that were successful at About a 60% level
Once you get past the top 10 that became more of a 50-50 proposition in the first round, but again the depth and quality of the drafts made a pretty good difference

 

[BTTA]

Given all this, it is even more amazing how much the Pats' success in this century has been dependent on a 6th round flyer.

 

[Brick27]

Given all this, it is even more amazing how much the Pats' success in this century has been dependent on a 6th round flyer.

Sure can’t ever just draft for need.