What is the value of the #1 pick?

[Stumpy]

There has been a lot of talk about trading down on here, and it seems like every time some suggests trading down, it elicits one of three responses:

1. "If we don't think anyone is worth the top pick, why would anyone else!"

Every team evaluates and values talent differently. If it weren't for that, then no one would ever trade, and there wouldn't even be a need for a draft. The teams would all just get together after the combine, slot all the players based on their consensus ratings and assign the players accordingly.

2. "Teams won't trade future picks, because there might not even be a draft next year.

The NFL knows that there will be a draft next year. The players will cave well before a lockout lasts that long. Now, there is the possibility that courts may rule in favor of the players and force massive changes on the owners, such as ruling the college draft illegal. (highly unlikely) However, the owners would surely close up shop and find a way to re-open under a new shield before they let the courts force them to play under rules that would fundamentally change the game that much.

3. "No one is going to be willing to give up what it would take to trade up to #1."

This is, perhaps, the most misinformed statement of them all. Are there teams out there that would be willing to give up two future 1sts and two 2nds to move up this year? Probably not. That may be what the Draft Value Chart says it would take to move from 10 to 1, but, that is not necessarily what it would take to move up.

The #1 pick is worth whatever Marty Hurney decides it is worth. Those DVCs are guides not rules. To go further into this, lets look at the Draft Value Chart...

If Hurney wants to trade out of the top spot, then he probably feels that the best player in the draft isn't worth the #1 pick. (3000pts) So say he views the top player as being worth only the #5 pick. (1700pts) Assuming that the values decrease accordingly over the next ten prospects, the 10th pick would be worth 1050pts.

If that is how Hurney views it, then to move down from one to ten would only cost a mid 2nd round pick and either a 3rd this year or a 2012 2nd.

Does any of this mean that we will trade down, or that we are more likely to? No. But it does mean that, just because there is not a runaway number one player, it doesn't make it impossible to trade down.

[Jackofalltrades]

Too much to read.

[C47]

[TheRealDeal]

Quick answer this year: Not much

[chknwing]

1+2+2+1

[C47]

If X=Y and Z= Y to the third, then X+Y+Z divided by X+Y =

[Mr. Scot]

Teams aren't really married to that chart.

If we're talking trade, it's worth what someone is willing to give up for it. If that's not enough, take it rather than trading it.

[pantherfan81]

Hurney only looks at pie charts

[C47]

Hurney only looks at pie charts

I thought that was Richardson...

[pantherfan81]

I thought that was Richardson...

JR taught him well ;)

[Stumpy]

I know it is long as hell, but every time you try to explain these concepts in simple terms people just say, "nah-uh thats not wut teh value chart sayz."

[Mr. Scot]

Know your audience :lol:

[Stumpy]

Teams aren't really married to that chart.

If we're talking trade, it's worth what someone is willing to give up for it. If that's not enough, take it rather than trading it.

And yes, that's exactly the point I was making. (See last post)

[section543]

McShay mocked Peterson to SF at #7. Would those of you who REALLy want Cam be willing to trade down TWICE ( Bengals, 49ers if they were willing to do so for Cam and Gabbert)- if we could get Peterson plus 2 #2's this year?