What did we actually gain with the trading down

[Sgt Schultz]

Here's what I think it boils down to.  We had a draft board of players we were interested in.  As our pick neared, the next guy on the board was not worth the pick we had.  So, we traded down.  Maybe we lose the next guy or two or three, but in the end, we wind up not spending the #38 pick on a guy who is worth about the #52 pick.  In the process, they got more picks.  Maybe not prime picks, but picks they could make use of.

That takes discipline.  In the past, we would salivate over somebody who was a legitimate third round pick, get nervous that somebody was going to grab him before we did (aka overpay), and do something stupid.

Personally, I would have grabbed Slater in the first, and if for some reason we didn't, hang with where we were and grab Eichenberg or Jenkins in the second.  Guess what?  They saw it differently than I did.  The kicker: they have forgotten more about these guys than I will ever know, so I will have some faith in their judgement.  It is their profession.

If they ever start talking about aviation, I hope they call me because I guarantee, I have forgotten more than they will ever know.  But in football talent assessment and "the plan," I owe them that same courtesy.

[Snake]

11 hours ago, stbugs said:

The last trade down was where we got some value. The other two were even, but had some risk because we did pass on some guys. I loved the Marshall pick but I think Christensen will need to pan out to make the trade downs worth it because we did have our pick of OL at 39. Honestly, if we pull Trey Smith in a few minutes, I’m really happy because we got some solid OL help that slipped and made the trade down work.

Christensen metric and film wise was the second best LT behind Sewell. His biggest knock is he didn't play in the SEC.

[Fox007]

12 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

This requires Sherlock Holmes level thinking.  I'm digging it.

Yea we're used to the Holmes and Watson with Will Ferrell level of thinking instead.

[Panthers8969]

12 hours ago, Proudiddy said:

Also, in last night's presser, Rhule And Fitt said according to their guys (scouts?) a 3rd this year is the equivalent to a 2nd next year, and Rhule said when they viewed it that way, they essentially paid off the Darnold trade already.  I thought that was fascinating. 

People have been saying this for a while, and conceptually it makes no sense. If I had to guess, someone got drunk and ran with the logic behind the time value of money principle. You get your value quicker in the current year, but unless you’re just that bad at drafting, the value you’re getting will be worse. Give me a future 2 over a current 3 anytime 

[Mr. Scot]

9 hours ago, Panthers8969 said:

People have been saying this for a while, and conceptually it makes no sense. If I had to guess, someone got drunk and ran with the logic behind the time value of money principle. You get your value quicker in the current year, but unless you’re just that bad at drafting, the value you’re getting will be worse. Give me a future 2 over a current 3 anytime 

The logic behind it actually has to do with the evaluation process.

Even with things easing up, the virus left coaches unable to do a lot of the traditional things that are part of player evaluation. They did the best they could, but still had major limitations.

It's expected that those conditions won't exist next year, which will mean that the evaluation process should be more reliable and effective.

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

The logic behind it actually has to do with the evaluation process.

Even with things easing up, the virus left coaches unable to do a lot of the traditional things that are part of player evaluation. They did the best they could, but still had major limitations.

It's expected that those conditions won't exist next year, which will mean that the evaluation process should be more reliable and effective.

Valuing next year's picks as a round later than this year's picks has been fairly standard process for pretty much the entire common draft era and it makes sense. Next year's pick isn't going to do anything for you this year. Meanwhile, you might just get your ass fired.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

Valuing next year's picks as a round later than this year's picks has been fairly standard process for pretty much the entire common draft era and it makes sense. Next year's pick isn't going to do anything for you this year. Meanwhile, you might just get your ass fired.

In years when there there was no Covid, sure.

It's different this year, and multiple NFL people echo that sentiment.

[Shocker]

Having a hard time confirming if that 4th rounder next year is Houstons pick or a pick from the Rams or Miami.  Still good biz but does make a big difference.

[top dawg]

9 hours ago, Panthers8969 said:

People have been saying this for a while, and conceptually it makes no sense. If I had to guess, someone got drunk and ran with the logic behind the time value of money principle. You get your value quicker in the current year, but unless you’re just that bad at drafting, the value you’re getting will be worse. Give me a future 2 over a current 3 anytime 

All draft pools are not equal. You may not want to acknowledge this fact, but you know that it's absolutely true on an intellectual level. 

These scouting departments scout players from highschool (sometimes earlier) through college.

[Smittymoose]

9 hours ago, Panthers8969 said:

People have been saying this for a while, and conceptually it makes no sense. If I had to guess, someone got drunk and ran with the logic behind the time value of money principle. You get your value quicker in the current year, but unless you’re just that bad at drafting, the value you’re getting will be worse. Give me a future 2 over a current 3 anytime 

Spoken like someone who doesn't the difference between present value and future value. 

Ask yourself, would a team ever straight-up swap a current second for a future second? If not, then you have you answer. 

[LinvilleGorge]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

In years when there there was no Covid, sure.

It's different this year, and multiple NFL people echo that sentiment.

My point was that you can't really blame COVID for something that has pretty much always been. Yeah, it was a weird evaluation year but next year's picks are pretty much always devalued by a round. Partly because you can't use them now and partly because you can't quantify exactly what pick you're talking about. It could be one of the first picks in that round or one of the last or anything in between. The safe bet in valuation is to just assume it'll be one of the last.

[Mr. Scot]

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

My point was that you can't really blame COVID for something that has pretty much always been. Yeah, it was a weird evaluation year but next year's picks are pretty much always devalued by a round. Partly because you can't use them now and partly because you can't quantify exactly what pick you're talking about. It could be one of the first picks in that round or one of the last or anything in between. The safe bet in valuation is to just assume it'll be one of the last.

I'm telling you how the evaluators see it, and yes it makes sense.

If you were asked to hire five people this year based solely on stats but couldn't meet or talk to any of them while knowing that next year you also needed to hire people but would be able to fully interview and vet them, which of those two processes would you have more confidence in?

[Jared Patterson]

Wait did we pick up any picks for next year????????? Someone please answer!!!

Edited May 2, 2021 by Jared Patterson

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, Jared Patterson said:

Wait did we pick up any picks for next year????????? Someone please answer!!!

A fourth from Houston.