OK...I've think I've figured Shanny out (yeah right...lol)

[footstepsfrom#27]

This is for those of you who love the NFL draft value chart. ...bear with me here...this is gonne get wild.

Every kind of wild trade scenario imaginable has been discussed in here for moving up to the #2 spot in the draft to take Calvin Johnson.

Except one.

It's the one Mike Shanahan has already demonstrated he likes best...doing business with suckers based on how they see the draft and how they view the concept of immediate gratification...do we know anyone who fits this description? I believe we do...

Some NFL draft analysts have suggested that this draft is weak enough that you can devalue picks down one entire round after you get past the talent drop off point, meaning that according to this theory, a late 1st in this draft is actually more like a late 2nd in a normal year, and a late 2nd more like a late 3rd...etc... I've seen that drop off listed everywhere from 10-18 in the first round and down to around 50 players in the 2nd round for the next drop off point.

Will that matter to some NFL GM's? Yes...and no.

Some teams will ignore this completely because it happens nearly every year that some teams value the HERE and NOW more than they do the future even if the players selected are not quite as good. Like most people, NFL GM's are sometimes subject to the lure of immediate gratification trumping waiting for something better. That might be OK in a stronger draft, but it's not encouraging if you're stockpiling picks in THIS draft, however it's VERY nice if you can get somebody to play this game to your advantage...somebody who has already proven they're a sucker to do that. It means teams that do that are unlikely to get much value unless they get lucky or mine a nugget somewhere unexpectedly.

So how do we use this to our advantage to get to #2? The same way Mike did it in 2005 and parlayed it into moving up for Cutler last year. Recall that in 2005 we dealt our 1st rounder that year for Washington's 1st, plus pick #'s 76 and 119, all in 2006. Those players turned out to be Karl Paymah and Brandon Marshall. The #22 pick we picked up for 2006 was packaged with the #29 in the 3rd round (#93 worth 128 pts) to move up to get Cutler with the #11 pick, a value of 1250 points. The value according to the chart works like this in the Washington trade:

Denver
22=780pts
76=210pts
119=56pts
Total: 1046 points

Washington
25=720 points

Washington takes it in the shorts to the tune of 346 points and makes this trade for one reason; because they wanted a player badly enough that they accepted the idea that the 2006 picks were really worth one complete round less in value since they were future. This is the only explanation that really makes sense on why Washington could justify this deal. In other words they bought into the idea that immediate gratification trumps future value, thus they adjusted those picks value downward one complete round in their mind as follows:

22=360pts
76=78pts
119=31pts
Total: 469 points

That's a big gap...already down 346 points in this deal, instead of asking for more to make it equal, they manage to convince themselves that the 1046 actually equals only 469...a 577 point gap in value, or basically the value of the #33 pick (1st choice in the 2nd round). Essentially the Skins overpaid by nearly 50% for the premium it took to get that pick they used on Campbell. No wonder Skins fans think they won the deal...they bought hook line and sinker the Washington PR job that they only gave us 469 points in value since we had to wait a year for our payoff and got their QB of the future in the deal. That's the equivilent of the #43 pick in that draft. Is there a single poster on this board who believes that Brandon Marshall+Karl Paymah+the #22 pick used to leverage the move for Cutler weren't worth far more than the #43 pick and Campbell? Shanny should have been arrested, tried and convicted for grand larceny in this deal.

So to summarize, we know the Skins view of the value of futue picks vs present picks makes them ripe for the pickin'...again.

Denver currently owns draft value in 2007 as follows:

#21=800
#56=340
#70=240
#86=160
Total: 1380 points

Washington, who we already know has shown a willingness to move down in this draft, owns 1600 value points with the 6th pick, leaving Denver 220 points short of getting that pick...the value of pick #74 (10th in the 3rd round). Since they're moving down the Skins will expect the value chart to be at least equal this time around. Since we already know based on past experience that they will devalue any picks from next year, to gain another 220 points in value we have to figure on giving them more than that next year by one entire round; which means we woud need to give up value equal to the #10 pick in the 2nd round, worth 480 points in current value but less than half that in the Skins view. It's unlikely Denver finishes drafting in the 10th spot next year so we will also need to give them a conditional pick in '08 to make up the difference, probably their own 4th which we own from the Lelie deal. Let's assume they finish slightly better next year and draft in the 10th spot, making that pick worth 92 points. That would make the final deal:

Denver: 6th pick (1600 points)
Washington: #21, #56, #70, #86, (1380 pts) + 2008/2nd and 4th round picks (480+92=572pts) Total value=1952

That's a lot of value to give up for the #6 pick.

Or is it?

By the current value chart we lose in this deal by 352 points, the value of pick #55 in the draft...and ironically about the same as they overpaid for the right to draft Campbell...basically an extra mid 2nd rounder. The difference however, is that while Washington overpaid by almost 50%, getting 720 points of value we're only paying a 22% premium. However this does not tell the entire story. Remember that in a weak draft like this I stated at the outset of this post that the break point in talent required devaluing picks one entire round after those drop off points. So in reality, while the value chart suggests we're losing by the value of a mid 2nd, we're really only sacrificing a mid 3rd instead when compared with a stronger draft. It's a good idea to trade picks to move up when those picks have comparatively less value than normal. Top this off with the fact that even if the Raiders pick Johnson, we still have a shot at a blue chipper at #6 if we had to keep the pick.

How does this help in getting the #2 pick from Detroit? It all depends on whether Detroit subscribes to the view that next year's picks are worth less than this years. I suspect they don't...because if they did they wouldn't be willing to take our #1 next year along with the rest of this package, which is what we've heard was offered. The sticking point is (reportedly) only the pick they'd get THIS YEAR, not the value of next year's 1st rounder. We already know Detroit is willing to move down, but they want to stay high enough to still get a player they want. In this current scenario however, Detroit gets the #6 pick this year and our #1 next year, which solves the primary problem they have with the trade. Assuming Denver finishes better next year and drafts 26th instead of 21st...700 value points; Detroit gets 1600+700=2300 points, which means they lose by 300 points in this deal. That's the value of pick #60 in the current draft...a late 2nd rounder. If we finish 21st again (800 points) they do better by 200 points (500=pick #78).

So either way Denver wins by roughly 100-300 points if you just use the value chart. Now factor in the fact tha we LOST value in moving up with Washington to the tune of about 352 points...so let's say we split the difference here and figure Denver wins the Detroit deal by 200...that means in the end we're only down by 150 points...that's the value of a late 3rd (pick #88). To close the gap we can also consider offering another pick...say the other 4th...in 2008. That would leave us next year with picks in round 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7...and minus picks in round 1 and 4...still enough to probably get a couple of good players in what's likely to be a better draft.

What's that...you say Detroit wouldn't do this? Please...does anyone think they got value in Foster and Bell for a pro bowl corner in the last deal? We would have cut Foster anyway. This is Matt Millen we're talking about here. The bottom line is we're tallking about a small difference...a mid round pick probably...in being able to get this deal done. At the end of the day does anybody really think that we're guaranteed to hit on consecutive #1 picks this year and next anyway? Last year was a very strong draft and we did well. Are you so confident about this draft...a much weaker one? I'm not. I'm not confident we can score on both #1's, especially another pick in the 20's...let alone the rest of these picks in a weak draft with our history of wasted picks. In exchange for moving up for Calvin Johnson we essentially give up next year's #1 plus 3 picks in this weak draft below round one and a 4th next year.

Go back and look at almost any draft in our history under Shanny other than the one from last year's exceptionally strong one and find a point where two consecuitve #1's and a mixed bag of 4 later picks would produce the impact Johnson would. At absolute best it's a draw...more likely it's advantage Johnson. The '03/'04 draft for example: DJ Williams, Tatum Bell, Darius Watts, Jeremy LaSeuer + George Foster and Quinton Griffin...for Calvin Johnson? Advantage Johnson. Or maybe the '01/'02 drafts? That would be Willie Middlebrooks, Paul Toviessi, Reggie Hayward, Ben Hamilton + Ashleigh Lelie and Sam Brandon? Advantage Johnson. How 'bout '99/'00? That's Al Wilson, Montae Reagor, Lennie Friedman, Chris Waton + Deltha Oneal and Jerry Johnson. Advantage Johnson.

You get the point...here's my question...is a potential Hall of Fame receiver for Jay Cutler's entire career worth getting beaten out of a late 3rd round pick and a 4th? We'd never miss 'em. Would Detroit do this?

This is Matt Millen we're talking about here. Go Mike!

Flame away...

[Barry Ramey]

Oh man, you really need to get out more, ha ha, just kidding. Well thought out, you are the man when it comes to the trade value chart at least!

[Hotrod]

Im gonna try and read that again tonight while having a drink

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Barry Ramey

Oh man, you really need to get out more, ha ha, just kidding. Well thought out, you are the man when it comes to the trade value chart at least!

Hey I'm chilllin' at the airport in St. Louis with nothing else to do...

[Popcorn Sutton]

You must type like 200 words per minute. Rep for effort.

If CJ is all he's cracked up to be then it would be an interesting move. Keeping in mind that he is being touted as like the next Jerry Rice, TO and Randy Moss combined (minus the attitudes) on Moss and Owens of course.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by BrewCrew

You must type like 200 words per minute. Rep for effort.

Naw...but I can break 90 on a good day.

[Killericon]

The '03/'04 draft for example: DJ Williams, Tatum Bell, Darius Watts, Jeremy LaSeuer + George Foster and Quinton Griffin...for Calvin Johnson? Advantage Johnson. Or maybe the '01/'02 drafts? That would be Willie Middlebrooks, Paul Toviessi, Reggie Hayward, Ben Hamilton + Ashleigh Lelie and Sam Brandon? Advantage Johnson. How 'bout '99/'00? That's Al Wilson, Montae Reagor, Lennie Friedman, Chris Waton + Deltha Oneal and Jerry Johnson. Advantage Johnson.

Only part I disagreed with. Plus, most those comparisons only hold true if he turns out to be Randy Moss without attitude.

If Shanahan is trying to move to #2, then this would be a sound rationalization. I don't think he is though. I just don't buy it.

[mattob14]

So, our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd this year and 1st next year aren't enough? You now want to add our second 3rd rounder this year and two 4ths next year to the package? Sure, you can work it out on the value chart, but that doesn't make any sense when you're trying to build a team. What happens in 2 years, when some of the vets retire and we have a grand total of 3 players from the 2007 and 2008 drafts to fill the void? I just don't see how it benefits the team in the long-run to trade 7 picks for one player.

Also, the Redskins didn't de-value each of their picks to justify the trade, any team trading future picks de-values them by half, or one full round. Using the one-half method, #22 was worth 390, #119 was worth 28, and #76 was worth the full 210, for a total of 628 points. Using the full round method, you get 360+210+31, for a total of 601. That means Denver came out roughly 90-120 points behind. I'm fine with that, given we got a first in a stronger draft, but by the chart, that was a loss for the Broncos, who were obviously counting on a worse finish from Washington in the 05-06 season.

[mattob14]

I read that wrong, you actually want to give up our '08 2nd as well. This just keeps getting worse....

[That One Guy]

Well thought out. Some good points on the strength of one draft to the next, never thought about that. I don't know much about this Johnson fella' though but he better be something really special if people are ready to give up this much for him.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by mattob14

So, our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd this year and 1st next year aren't enough? You now want to add our second 3rd rounder this year and two 4ths next year to the package? Sure, you can work it out on the value chart, but that doesn't make any sense when you're trying to build a team. What happens in 2 years, when some of the vets retire and we have a grand total of 3 players from the 2007 and 2008 drafts to fill the void? I just don't see how it benefits the team in the long-run to trade 7 picks for one player.

We're not trading 7 players for 1...probably at least 3 of those picks will not make the team. Thus it becomes more like a 4 for 1 deal. That's much more likely than a 7 for 1 trade, especially since this draft is weak and our record hasn't been stellar in drafting prior to this last year.

Also, the Redskins didn't de-value each of their picks to justify the trade, any team trading future picks de-values them by half, or one full round. Using the one-half method, #22 was worth 390, #119 was worth 28, and #76 was worth the full 210, for a total of 628 points. Using the full round method, you get 360+210+31, for a total of 601. That means Denver came out roughly 90-120 points behind. I'm fine with that, given we got a first in a stronger draft, but by the chart, that was a loss for the Broncos, who were obviously counting on a worse finish from Washington in the 05-06 season.

You're math is correct...somehow I managed to divide 780 and get 360, and if you're saying the #76 was in the same draft...I didn't realize that either (are you sure?)...but that's not really the point. You're lending credence to the idea that it's legit to devalue the picks. I'm saying that it's not.

[Bob]

So are you an accountant?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Bob

So are you an accountant?

Clearly not since I can't divide 780 by 2... Worse though...financial analyst!

[Bob]

My background is a MS in rehab counseling -- so I intentionally stayed away from numbers they scare the hell out me.

Despite the error, I am impressed.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Bob

My background is a MS in rehab counseling -- so I intentionally stayed away from numbers they scare the hell out me.

Despite the error, I am impressed.

I worked in mental health and chem rehab for almost 20 years...got out in 2002...hated every second for the last 5 years. You have my sympathy.

Cripes....my planes loading...later.

[mattob14]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

We're not trading 7 players for 1...probably at least 3 of those picks will not make the team. Thus it becomes more like a 4 for 1 deal. That's much more likely than a 7 for 1 trade, especially since this draft is weak and our record hasn't been stellar in drafting prior to this last year.

Actually, I'm pretty sure all of those players, or at least 6 of the 7 (or eight, I was having trouble following some of that) would make the team. With the exception of Clarrett (and I do consider that an exception case), teams don't draft players on the first day, or even the 4th, to cut them. Also, with the success we've had the last couple of years, I don't think you should be so quick to write off some of those later picks. Last year in particular looks to be successful right through the 7th round.
Finally, I'm still not ready to buy that Johnson is an automatic superstar. Yes, he's a great prospect, has few (if any) real holes in his game, and would be my choice if we could have anyone in the draft this year. Until I see him dominate NFL defenses for at least 2-3 years, though, I don't want to give up anywhere near that for him. Remember the Ricky Williams and Hershell Walker trades? Even the Giants are seriously regretting their move up for Eli Manning.

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

You're math is correct...somehow I managed to divide 780 and get 360, and if you're saying the #76 was in the same draft...I didn't realize that either (are you sure?)...but that's not really the point. You're lending credence to the idea that it's legit to devalue the picks. I'm saying that it's not.

I'm not worried about the math, more that you stated the picks were de-valued by Washington to justify the trade. #76 was a 2005 pick used on Karl Paymah (that was the same draft we took DW in the 2nd and Foxworth in the 3rd), but the other two were 2006 picks. I do think it's legitamate to de-value picks somewhat for future years, but I also would like us to take advantage of that more often (I'm a fan of trading out of a weak 1st round this year for another 1st next year).

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by mattob14

Actually, I'm pretty sure all of those players, or at least 6 of the 7 (or eight, I was having trouble following some of that) would make the team. With the exception of Clarrett (and I do consider that an exception case), teams don't draft players on the first day, or even the 4th, to cut them.

We do...looking back at the past drafts, I see only 5 of 10 1st rounders most fans would say they were satisfied with in the Shanahan era. We hit on Cutler, DJ, Wilson, Pryce, and Mobley, and missed on Foster, Oneal, Middlebrooks, Lelile and Nash...a 50% hit rate. The 2nd round looks worse; Scheffler, D-Will, Portis, Kennedy, and Gold were hits, but look at the misses...guys who either sucked outright or left here after a year or two because they weren't the answer: James, Brown, Reagor, Friedman, Toviessi, Pierce, Bell, Watts...that's a 38% hit rate. Round 3: Foxworth, Paymah (maybe), Hayward, Griese, Neil, Detron Smith (good special teams) were hits...Clarett, LaSeuer, Davis, Cole, Watson, McGriff and Campbell were failures...a 46% hit rate even if giving the benefit of the doubt to Paymah and Detron Smith. 4th round: Marshall, Dumervil, Brandon, Hamilton, Carlisle and Gary made it...Griffin, Eason, McNeal, Harris, Johnson, Alexander, Gilliard, Lewis, Darius Johnson, Jamie Brown and Ken Brown didn't do anything. Leaving Hixon out since the jury's out on him...that's 6 out of 17 or 35%. Obviously we will not hit on all these picks. If things hold true to form, we're looking at one 1st rounder sticking and one missing, hitting one one 2nd rounder and missing on the other, then maybe hitting on one 3rd and missing on the 4th...that's only 3 of 7 picks making the roster and staying around more than a year or two. That doesn't mean they're even starters. So we'd probably be trading 3 players for a guy who may go to 10 pro bowls. That's a bargain IMO.

Also, with the success we've had the last couple of years, I don't think you should be so quick to write off some of those later picks. Last year in particular looks to be successful right through the 7th round.

I didn't suggest we trade any of those picks...

Finally, I'm still not ready to buy that Johnson is an automatic superstar. Yes, he's a great prospect, has few (if any) real holes in his game, and would be my choice if we could have anyone in the draft this year. Until I see him dominate NFL defenses for at least 2-3 years, though, I don't want to give up anywhere near that for him. Remember the Ricky Williams and Hershell Walker trades? Even the Giants are seriously regretting their move up for Eli Manning.

Teams that don't take risks rarely win Superbowls. Johnson is the only player in this draft scouts universally rate as a can't miss player. It's worth the risk to create an offensive so explosive we couldn't be stopped.

I'm not worried about the math, more that you stated the picks were de-valued by Washington to justify the trade. #76 was a 2005 pick used on Karl Paymah (that was the same draft we took DW in the 2nd and Foxworth in the 3rd), but the other two were 2006 picks. I do think it's legitamate to de-value picks somewhat for future years, but I also would like us to take advantage of that more often (I'm a fan of trading out of a weak 1st round this year for another 1st next year).

Well the fact is neither of us knows for sure whether Washington devalued the picks or not, but that's the best explanation...even if they didn't...we still gave them 720 points with the 25th pick and got back about 350 more than we gave up...and it's clear they don't seem to mind giving up future picks, including #1's...plus they've been consistently rumored to be interested in trading down and picking up more picks, which we can do for them. And why are players worth less a year later? Does anyone think Cutler was only worth the 11th pick in the SECOND round since we got him a year later? It's fine if the Skins think this...all I'm saying is it works to our advantage if they do.

[mattob14]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

We do...looking back at the past drafts, I see only 5 of 10 1st rounders most fans would say they were satisfied with in the Shanahan era. We hit on Cutler, DJ, Wilson, Pryce, and Mobley, and missed on Foster, Oneal, Middlebrooks, Lelile and Nash...a 50% hit rate. The 2nd round looks worse; Scheffler, D-Will, Portis, Kennedy, and Gold were hits, but look at the misses...guys who either sucked outright or left here after a year or two because they weren't the answer: James, Brown, Reagor, Friedman, Toviessi, Pierce, Bell, Watts...that's a 38% hit rate. Round 3: Foxworth, Paymah (maybe), Hayward, Griese, Neil, Detron Smith (good special teams) were hits...Clarett, LaSeuer, Davis, Cole, Watson, McGriff and Campbell were failures...a 46% hit rate even if giving the benefit of the doubt to Paymah and Detron Smith. 4th round: Marshall, Dumervil, Brandon, Hamilton, Carlisle and Gary made it...Griffin, Eason, McNeal, Harris, Johnson, Alexander, Gilliard, Lewis, Darius Johnson, Jamie Brown and Ken Brown didn't do anything. Leaving Hixon out since the jury's out on him...that's 6 out of 17 or 35%. Obviously we will not hit on all these picks. If things hold true to form, we're looking at one 1st rounder sticking and one missing, hitting one one 2nd rounder and missing on the other, then maybe hitting on one 3rd and missing on the 4th...that's only 3 of 7 picks making the roster and staying around more than a year or two. That doesn't mean they're even starters. So we'd probably be trading 3 players for a guy who may go to 10 pro bowls. That's a bargain IMO..

IF only 3 of those picks are on the roster in two years, and IF Johnson goes to 10 pro bowls, sure it's a good trade. The fact is, though, we don't know if either is true and it's not a gamble I prefer to take.

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

I didn't suggest we trade any of those picks....

No, but you suggested trading 6 or 7 2nd-4th rounders, which should be more productive players.

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

Well the fact is neither of us knows for sure whether Washington devalued the picks or not, but that's the best explanation...even if they didn't...we still gave them 720 points with the 25th pick and got back about 350 more than we gave up...and it's clear they don't seem to mind giving up future picks, including #1's...plus they've been consistently rumored to be interested in trading down and picking up more picks, which we can do for them. And why are players worth less a year later? Does anyone think Cutler was only worth the 11th pick in the SECOND round since we got him a year later? It's fine if the Skins think this...all I'm saying is it works to our advantage if they do.

Of course it makes sense to de-value future picks. If not, why not just trade our first rounders from 2008-2012 for multiple 1sts this year, round out the D-line with top-20 selections this year, sit back and watch the defensive juggernaut the Broncos become? With the "what have you done for me lately" attitude of the NFL, no one would take us up on that.

[p7superfly]

I'm with you.

Do what it takes to get it done.

Cutler, Javon, CJ, Henry ... now work on a line, and that's dominant for forever.

It'd cost a LOT ... but these picks are hit / miss. You just don't hit on every pick. Sure things are rare.

If we can get CJ, we have to.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by mattob14

IF only 3 of those picks are on the roster in two years, and IF Johnson goes to 10 pro bowls, sure it's a good trade. The fact is, though, we don't know if either is true and it's not a gamble I prefer to take.

Actually it's not a gamble. Keeping picks is the gamble here. Gamblers don't play the house odds, they play the house to lose, which happens seldom enough to ensure that the house comes out ahead but just often enough to ensure the gamblers return. I'm the one playing the house odds here because I'm relying on past performance to provide an indication of future results. My judgement on what those odds are is based on 12 years of prior results. You're going against the house odds, expecting results that differ signifcantly from our past performance. If house odds hold true, roughly 3-4 of the picks I suggested we move for CJ will fail. Equally likely, Johnson will go to multiple pro bowls. Will he get to 10? Maybe not...I'd settle for 5 or 6 and him being the ultiimate weapon with Cutler throwing to him.

Of course it makes sense to de-value future picks. If not, why not just trade our first rounders from 2008-2012 for multiple 1sts this year, round out the D-line with top-20 selections this year, sit back and watch the defensive juggernaut the Broncos become? With the "what have you done for me lately" attitude of the NFL, no one would take us up on that.

Not sure...maybe SoCal or EddieMac knows this...but I don't think the NFL allows future draft choices to be traded beyond a certain time frame, I'm thinking for some reason that it's two years out. I don't think that even if a team wanted to trade their top pick in 2014 they'd be allowed to do that. I may be wrong about that but I think I've read this somewhere. In any case, there have been examples of teams like the Redskins under George Allen that basically traded all their picks for older established players and paid the price for that. In the salary cap and free agency period it's not possible to just sign unlimited numbers of expensive players, so the illustration doesn't really hold up since it's not financially doable anyway.