OT Musing: Are the Patriots Undervaluing mid/late 1st Round Picks?

[DropKickFlutie]

Rationale:
1. Before 2011, first round picks were massive contracts that could ruin a team's cap on unproven rookie players
2. After the new CBA in 2011, rookies are tied to a rookie wage scale making significantly less. Control of 4 years plus a fifth-year team option for first-rounders.
3. Top10 picks are still expensive, about 9M/yr to 7M/yr for unproven rookie players
4. Mid to late first round picks are making similar $ as second round picks, around 2-3M.

Seems like mid to late 1st rounders are excellent value if you hit. Also likelier to take the top player of their position here compared to leftover players in round2 in the "same" tier of value grouping. I'm not a fan of the outdated Patriots thinking from the early 2000's that 2nd round picks are better value than 1st round picks.

Question: are the Patriots undervaluing the value of mid to late 1st round picks ??

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtba...hat-burrow-tua-and-chase-young-will-make/amp/

 

[jah]

Trading out of the late 1st has never been about money with the Patriots. It's about a belief that in some drafts, you can get players of roughly the same quality in the second round. Whether that's actually true is a different discussion.

 

[zimmy]

They have taken their fair share of mid-late 1sts in recent years: Brown, Jones, Hightower, Easley, Wynn, Michel, Harry etc. Not forgetting they traded one for Cooks and lost one for deflategate. So the premise is slightly wrong that they always trade down.

What they rarely do is trade up in the 1st as the cost is prohibitively expensive, especially if they have a number of players similarly rated. The cost of jumping up in round 2 or 3 for someone you like is much cheaper.

People misunderstand the BB strategy really. He's not going to trade down for a lesser player. But if his board has players that are similarly ranked, then it is logical to trade down, acquire draft capital and still get the same quality of player. You can use that pick to then trade up elsewhere for example.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Trading out of the late 1st has never been about money with the Patriots. It's about a belief that in some drafts, you can get players of roughly the same quality in the second round. Whether that's actually true is a different discussion.

Yes and I think a flaw in their draft system is the bottom guy in the "same" tier is actually notably worse than the first couple guys in the tier. Explains the second round busts. The hits in the second round were, no surprise, the first guys taken at their position (Gronk, Chung)

.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

They have taken their fair share of mid-late 1sts in recent years: Brown, Jones, Hightower, Easley, Wynn, Michel, Harry etc. Not forgetting they traded one for Cooks and lost one for deflategate. So the premise is slightly wrong that they always trade down.

What they rarely do is trade up in the 1st as the cost is prohibitively expensive, especially if they have a number of players similarly rated. The cost of jumping up in round 2 or 3 for someone you like is much cheaper.

People misunderstand the BB strategy really. He's not going to trade down for a lesser player. But if his board has players that are similarly ranked, then it is logical to trade down, acquire draft capital and still get the same quality of player. You can use that pick to then trade up elsewhere for example.

Yes key phrase meaning if he has multiple players similarly ranked. I think they're mis-evaluating guys where a more strict view of who is actually "just as good" could help them make better decisions. Not Belichick's fault if he logically trades down thinking 3 guys of equal potential are left but actually the third guy is notably worse than the first two

.

 

[zimmy]

They don't draft in tiers. They have a very specific grading system. They may however think that a 6.3 player 20 spots lower in the draft is better than a 6.4 player at the bottom of the first round, for example, when the extra draft capital allows them to move up in the draft somewhere else to get a better player elsewhere (e.g. another 6.3 player)

And neither Gronk or Chung were the first guys taken at their position - Delmas and Gresham were.

 

[zimmy]

Yes key phrase meaning if he has multiple players similarly ranked. I think they're mis-evaluating guys where a more strict view of who is actually "just as good" could help them make better decisions. Not Belichick's fault if he logically trades down thinking 3 guys of equal potential are left but actually the third guy is notably worse than the first two

.

If your point is that Bill misevaluates players then there isn't much to discuss. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Personally, I think he's a good drafter who tries to look at the board holistically. That may mean he passes up a higher rated player on occasion in order to get multiple players who are almost as good. He's intelligent enough to know not to get attached to one player.

But let's look at the 2013 NFL Draft where we traded down from 29 to 52 and took Jamie Collins. He's basically the same quality of player we could have got at 29, but we also picked up a 3rd, 4th and 7th. That became Logan Ryan, Josh Boyce and LeGarrette Blount. That is Bill's strategy in a nut shell.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

If your point is that Bill misevaluates players then there isn't much to discuss. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Personally, I think he's a good drafter who tries to look at the board holistically. That may mean he passes up a higher rated player on occasion in order to get multiple players who are almost as good. He's intelligent enough to know not to get attached to one player.

But let's look at the 2013 NFL Draft where we traded down from 29 to 52 and took Jamie Collins. He's basically the same quality of player we could have got at 29, but we also picked up a 3rd, 4th and 7th. That became Logan Ryan, Josh Boyce and LeGarrette Blount. That is Bill's strategy in a nut shell.

Yeah I hear you. I don't think it's Belichick misevaluating. He's at the mercy of the evals from his assistant coaches and scouts. I just meant whether it's worth pressure testing the last couple guys in the same value tier. The draft strategy is sound if the players really are the "same". But it works less well if the second round pick guy is actually much worse than the first guys in their position.

 

[Doctor DDS]

I do think that player cost was a factor in the early 2000's as very high picks were extremely expensive but that ended a long time ago. Drafting is the easiest 2nd guess as there will always be successful players that you passed at the time of your pick. W/o knowing how he personally evaluates each players it's hard to know how he really feels after making a pick and seeing how the draft plays out. The draft is a game of chicken - could the Pats have waited another 10 picks to take Dugger? Maybe he really had his eye on someone else at 37 and they went a pick or 2 before? Assume many 5th round picks would have become UFA if that one specific team did not take them. Was that a mistake even if the player turns out OK? If you love a player and he really fits a need I think you need to take him - otherwise accumulating more picks makes more sense.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

I do think that player cost was a factor in the early 2000's as very high picks were extremely expensive but that ended a long time ago. Drafting is the easiest 2nd guess as there will always be successful players that you passed at the time of your pick. W/o knowing how he personally evaluates each players it's hard to know how he really feels after making a pick and seeing how the draft plays out. The draft is a game of chicken - could the Pats have waited another 10 picks to take Dugger? Maybe he really had his eye on someone else at 37 and they went a pick or 2 before? Assume many 5th round picks would have become UFA if that one specific team did not take them. Was that a mistake even if the player turns out OK? If you love a player and he really fits a need I think you need to take him - otherwise accumulating more picks makes more sense.

Agree. Perhaps a better way to word it is the other way, not that mid/late firsts are underrated but they're overrating so many second round busts as inappropriately as good as the first round guys

.

 

[Vatahala]

An obvious advantage of a late round 1st over an early 2nd is you have him under control for 5 years.

 

[FCB02062]

I honestly think Bill undervalues the entire draft. Bill thinks he can get 1st and 2d round talent in the UDFA pool and 7th rd...sure he's gotten some players late but it's the old horses vs ponies...Bill would rather have a bunch mid-late round ponies than a top 10 horse

 

[Ring 6]

Trading down is almost always smart. Look back at draft history. The hit rates stink across the board. If you can trade the 23rd best hope for the 37th and 70th you double your chances and the hit rate isn’t that much lower.

 

[mgteich]

Rationale:
1. Before 2011, first round picks were massive contracts that could ruin a team's cap on unproven rookie players
2. After the new CBA in 2011, rookies are tied to a rookie wage scale making significantly less, to 4 years plus a fifth-year team option.
3. Top10 picks are still expensive, about 9M/yr to 7M/yr for unproven rookie players
4. Mid to late first round picks are making similar $ as second round picks, around 2-3M.

Seems like mid to late 1st rounders are excellent value if you hit. Also likelier to take the top player of their position here compared to leftover players in round2 in the "same" tier of value grouping. I'm not a fan of the outdated Patriots thinking from the early 2000's that 2nd round picks are better value than 1st round picks.

Question: are the Patriots undervaluing the value of mid to late 1st round picks ??

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtba...hat-burrow-tua-and-chase-young-will-make/amp/

I see that there is a lot of discussion. For me, it's simple, Belichick's evaluation exactly matches that of the trade charts.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Trading down is almost always smart. Look back at draft history. The hit rates stink across the board. If you can trade the 23rd best hope for the 37th and 70th you double your chances and the hit rate isn’t that much lower.

It's not double the chances if each of the later guy chances is much lower

 

[Ring 6]

It's not double the chances if each of the later guy chances is much lower

Double the chance to get a good player because you have double the choices, but they are at a slightly lower hit rate. Maybe I misworded it

 

[Ring 6]

I see that there is a lot of discussion. For me, it's simple, Belichick's evaluation exactly matches that of the trade charts.

Not sure how you conclude that. He will trade down often with a trade that matches the chart but trade up rarely with a trade that matches the chart. That would imply his chart is more positively weighted to lower picks. He isn’t trading to break even on the chart but to win in his own “chart”.

 

[ralmat55]

People over think the Patriots draft strategy. They trade up more than down in a typical draft. Accumulating picks is not an exercise in actually drafting more players. It’s common for them to end up making fewer picks than what they started the draft having. It’s an exercise in being able to draft more players that they rate highly and want.

Last week the Patriots moved back once by moving out of the 1st round. They then proceeded to move up from the third round back into the 2nd round for Uche, traded up in the 3rd for Asiasi, traded from the 4th to 3rd to take Keene, and traded up 30 spots in the 6th for Onwenu.

If they like a player, they go and get him if he in range. No draft discussion is more tiresome that “oh that player would have been there at pick @#*&”. If the pick becomes a productive player, it doesn’t matter where he was taken.

 

[PYPER]

Its actually quite simple. Two players are better than one. When you trade down from #23 and get #37 and #71 in return, you give yourself a chance to get two players who often times are just as athletically gifted at what you would have taken at #23.

Sometimes you may even get the same player at #37 as you were planning to take at #23.

The draft is an inexact science. Every year there are guys Listed on popular media sites who have a late 1st or 2nd round grade who end up being late round picks or even undated free agents. The reverse is also true.

History tells us that even the majority of 1st round picks ultimately become busts. There are even some years where practically the entire draft class is a bust.

Thats why its important to give yourself as many at bats as you can. There are also plenty of guys picked in later rounds or even undrafted free agents who emerge as stars.

Trading down for more picks is the way to go. If i had the top pick in draft, i’d try to trade down multiple times, picking up a kings ransom each time if i could. Id move from 1 to 3, then 3 to 6, then 6 to 9, then 9 to 12 all while stockpiling numerous 1st-3rd round picks. When i was done, it might look even better than the Hershall Walker trade that launched the Cowboys dynasty in the 90’s.

One last point, the draft is just one roster building tool. Free agency and undrafted free agents are also important ways to build your roster. Belichick doesn’t get enough credit for his mastery in utilizing all 3. Not every player he picks works out but he gives himself so many chances that the Patriots always have better depth than every other team in the league. When the roster is devastated by injuries, we still win 12 games. When it stays relatively healthy, we win super bowls. I realize everyone wants to give all the credit to Brady but he’s just one guy. Football is a team sport. Belichick is the reason we have a 20 yr dynasty.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Its actually quite simple. Two players are better than one. When you trade down from #23 and get #37 and #71 in return, you give yourself a chance to get two players who often times are just as athletically gifted at what you would have taken at #23.

Sometimes you may even get the same player at #37 as you were planning to take at #23.

The draft is an inexact science. Every year there are guys Listed on popular media sites who have a late 1st or 2nd round grade who end up being late round picks or even undated free agents. The reverse is also true.

History tells us that even the majority of 1st round picks ultimately become busts. There are even some years where practically the entire draft class is a bust.

Thats why its important to give yourself as many at bats as you can. There are also plenty of guys picked in later rounds or even undrafted free agents who emerge as stars.

Trading down for more picks is the way to go. If i had the top pick in draft, i’d try to trade down multiple times, picking up a kings ransom each time if i could. Id move from 1 to 3, then 3 to 6, then 6 to 9, then 9 to 12 all while stockpiling numerous 1st-3rd round picks. When i was done, it might look even better than the Hershall Walker trade that launched the Cowboys dynasty in the 90’s.

One last point, the draft is just one roster building tool. Free agency and undrafted free agents are also important ways to build your roster. Belichick doesn’t get enough credit for his mastery in utilizing all 3. Not every player he picks works out but he gives himself so many chances that the Patriots always have better depth than every other team in the league. When the roster is devastated by injuries, we still win 12 games. When it stays relatively healthy, we win super bowls. I realize everyone wants to give all the credit to Brady but he’s just one guy. Football is a team sport. Belichick is the reason we have a 20 yr dynasty.

I think you're overstating getting back a bounty for moving back a few spots. This isn't Madden.

.