Hell No, I Won't Go! Thoughts on Draft Strategy
Draft day is tantalizingly close, but oh, so far away. Rather than go into what our needs are (there will be plenty of time for that later) I would like to address what kind of strategic approach we should be taking to the draft. This may be counter-intuitive to some, and I hope to make tasty hamburger out of some people's sacred cows. I'm sure some of you have achieved enlightenment are aware of this already, but hopefully this can generate some discussion about the best way to make our team stronger through the draft.
First, a word about taking players in the draft versus free agency, the way it is currently structured in the NFL. While they constitute a small sample size, the Washington Redskins are a pretty good example of why a team ought to be interested in the draft. You would think that after splashing money on underperforming players like Bruce Smith, Deion Sanders, Albert Haynesworth, etc., the Redskins would have figured out by now that giving up a huge chunk of change on a small number of players is not the way to succeed. Fortunately for the rest of the NFL, they haven't. And neither have several other teams.
The bottom line, particularly in the NFL, is this: There is not one single player that is a certainty to perform well when moved from one situation to another. Not one. NFL players get injured. A lot. A player that plays well in one system may not necessarily play well in another system. This means that owners take a lot of risk on NFL players. Since the NFL still as of this writing has a salary cap in place, there is only a certain amount of money for an owner to splash out on players. Knowing how much uncertainty there is in the NFL, if you were an owner, would you rather spend most of your money on a few players or spread your risk around on several players? If you didn't choose the latter answer, then, well, you're Dan Snyder.
Which brings me to the draft.
I have a radical idea. Brace yourselves.
Unless they finish in the last eight, the Texans should trade down. Every year.
Radical, huh?
I don't care who the Texans stand to get at #18 or #20 or wherever. They should trade down.
Succeeding in the NFL is all about depth. If one starter goes down but his replacement is almost as good, you don't lose nearly as much as you do if your All-Pro starter goes down and his replacement is scrub-level. As an example, think about one of the least pleasant Texans experiences (and wow, that's saying something) of all time - the home game against Indy in 2008.
Imagine for a moment that instead of just teh Schaub being out of commission, both starting quarterbacks couldn't play because of the flu that day. As much as I curse his name to this very day, I think it's fair to say that the team starting Sage Rosenfels is going to have a pretty significant edge over the team that starts Jim Sorgi. Why? Because the drop off in talent between Schaub and Rosefels is not nearly as severe as the dropoff between Manning and Sorgi.
Right. Now that I've gone out of my way to make a totally obvious point, let's get back to the draft.
Because depth is more important, and because the amount of money owners can spend is capped, a smart GM will be looking for value in draft picks; that is, looking for a high rate of production per dollar spent. As it turns out, way back in 2005, a group of economists did some research on the economics of the NFL draft. In a nutshell, these guys calculated the production of players taken in the NFL draft and compared it to their salaries.
The study determined that players taken early in the draft are generally better. However - and here's where the value thing comes into play - the costs are out of proportion to their production. Once you get past about the 25th pick, the cost/production ratio is most favorable. Basically, the most valuable picks are in the 25-75 range. If you're picking there, you are going to (a) spend less and (b) get more value out of your dollar.
Which is why I'm a firm believer in trading down. Let's look at the Texans as an example. With the 20th pick, what should the Texans do? You know what my answer is: Trade down. 20 is outside the value sweet spot. Let's check out the draft-pick value chart. What if the Texans could give up the 20th pick and get something like the 30th and 74th picks? That would turn their one overvalued pick into two picks right in the value zone.
Obviously swinging such a deal is not easy - you have to find a team that wants your spot and has picks where you need them. But there are always GMs and owners out there that believe that there is a can't-miss prospect waiting at a particular spot. There's always a Dan Snyder out there. Of course, because he doesn't grasp these concepts, he's usually drafting ahead of the Texans.
2 recs |
29 comments
|
Comments
excellent analysis!
I was definitely wincing at the thought of trading down but I do see your depth argument. But wow it’s VERY hard to ignore the twinge of pain from voluntarily waiting so far into the draft to get your talent.
Wasn’t Cushing one of our earlier round draft picks? I shudder to think of the Texans without him =/.
Do you really think Cushing, Ryans and Williams would have been waiting for us in the later rounds? Do you think our depth would benefit so much by having lost them?
Or is it a moot point b/c we WERE the sorriest team in the league going back to your qualifying statement of “If you’re in the bottom 8” part?
So now that we are out of the bottom feeding 8 teams that’s when we can ignore the Ryans, Cushings, and Williams of this draft?
DeMeco fits into that zone perfectly, actually.
33rd overall. That’s where you get pretty great value, and the talent drop-off from ~20 to there isn’t significant.
Obviously Mario and Cushing are monsters. In hind-sight, you probably wouldn’t trade out of those picks. But in the case of Cushing, a 15th-overall pick ain’t guaranteed to succeed. There’s definitely some risk there. Obviously Cushing was one of the players they identified as must-take if he fell to them. But if there’s not a player on the board that they’re crazy about, I definitely agree with TGC here. Best not to put all your eggs in one basket. Two picks in the top 50 is less risky than one in the top 20.
Cushing is awesome
So is DeMeco. DeMeco is costing the club second round money whereas Cushing is costing first round money. So from a performance/cost perspective, Ryans is the better value.
The point isn’t that picks 25-75 are better players. In all likelihood, they’re not. The point is that they’re better value, meaning for a slight drop off in talent you can pick up more players. And depth is crucial in the NFL.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 22, 2010 3:00 AM CST up reply actions
Bill Belichick
Approves of this post. If there wasn’t a cold, black abyss where his heart should be, Belichick would smile after reading this.
Looking forward to a day when being a Texans fan doesn't mean that April is the highlight of my season...
is that what Dallas and Pittsburgh do ?
Dallas seemed to get alot of their depth from . .. free agency?
Pittsburgh? where do they get their depth from? trading down in the draft? free agency?
It might be cool if Rivers McCown could also see if he can interview the scouts. As in how much of what the scouts look for is raw talent and how much is attitude and work ethic?
I mean, whoever saw all the personality and winning attitude of Brian Cushing is a GENIUS. Same for whoever saw that Bernard Pollard would be such a great fit for the team. I know we didn’t get Pollard via the draft but still. There’s something of an artform to finding talent that the Texans MIGHT be on the cusp of mastering that artform.
Whatever you might think of the Cowboys and Steelers they DO find depth of talent.
Actually, the Cowboys did build most of their depth through the draft & some undrafted FAs
On a side note, I’m starting to get sick to my stomach due to giving the Cowboys credit for anything
I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but you appear to be unarmed.
by The Night Owl on Feb 21, 2010 5:13 PM CST up reply actions
haha sorry about the indigestion there
I’m just sort of wondering stuff like:
Are the Texans coaches good enough now to develop raw talent?
How about developing half way decent talent? (as in taking halfway decent talent and turning it into exceptional talent? not meaning taking crappy talent and getting it up to halfway decent ;-) )
Are they forcing raw talent into molds that don’t fit the talent?
Are they adjusting their game strategies to fit the strengths of the raw talent that they do have?
I haven’t the first clue of where to go about finding that out — if it’s even something we can find out. Might be the answers are too subjective. Or it might be we just need to find the right people to interview =D.
by BattleRedFan on Feb 21, 2010 6:42 PM CST up reply actions
You might want to check out this guy:
http://twitter.com/MoveTheSticks
Ex-scout. His podcasts are highly recommended.
- Rivers McCown, From Mom's Basement | Twitter
by riversmccown on Feb 21, 2010 10:15 PM CST up reply actions
It takes 2 to tango,
and that’s the potential flaw. It’s one thing to say that there are plenty of Dan Snyders and Al Davis’s just waiting to forfeit value picks to the Texans, but I reality that’s just not the case. If the right deal comes along, then sure, trade back and build depth. Just understand that most GM’s would love to move back themselves. Sometimes you just have to stay put and acccept the impact player that falls in your lap.
by carsonwayne on Feb 21, 2010 3:37 PM CST via mobile reply actions
There's no such thing as absolutes.
In some cases trading down would be beneficial, other times you simply end up with 2 career backups rather than 1 potential starter. It’s almost entirely dependant on the the situation…
If at #20 there’s a player the Texans have rated very high and see as a good fit for their team, they should pick him. The only times you should be looking to trade down are when your team has had alot of turnover and you need to focus on quantity as well as quality, or if the best player you have listed for your team is projected to be later in the draft and you with the trade you have the ability to get him if you choose.
But if you’re not drafting the best player available for the team, you’re doing it a disservice.
After holding my hand up to cover VYgina
and actually reading the whole thing, I agree.
Gaining depth is definitely more important than drafting a potential superstar.
I remember how ecstatic I was when Smithiak traded down 2 years ago and gained an extra 3rd(I think) which turned out to be Steve Slaton.
I hope you’re reading this Smithiak. Drafting down is the way to go!
As we speak
NFL Network is showing the Texans victory over the BESF’s! Can’t wait to see Winston challenge KVB…
Right on
thanks for pointing that out. I turned it on and just saw Kris Brown make a field goal. Wow.
screenshots or it didn't happen!
oh wait . . . that was a replay of a real game - not an online game. never mind ;)
by BattleRedFan on Feb 21, 2010 6:32 PM CST up reply actions
You know…I like the idea of trades when you’re in the middle (13-20) of the draft. I feel like there’s some flexibility that should be taken advantage of. Especially because in round 1 we aren’t tied to any one player…we could go Iupati (OG), Brown (OT), Williams (DT), Warren/Ghee/Wilson (CB), Mays (S)….and they could all fill a hole.
The hard part is always finding someone who wants to trade up to your spot. I remember last years draft when Smith said exactly that, they were interested in trading down, but no one was interested in making the deal to move up.
Be judgmental about the actions of the past, be hopeful about the actions of the future. -The Homers Creed
Completely Agree
But I also completely agree w/ tGC in regards to the fact that trading down should always be the strategy. Obviously, you still gameplan for this very situation, where no viable trade is available and you have to pick.
If the Treasury Secretary doesn't have to pay taxes, then why do I?
Shake and Trading Down
Go together like me and Coors Light.
Looking forward to a day when being a Texans fan doesn't mean that April is the highlight of my season...
Like Little Dickie Justice, Age 12
And Vince Young?
Like Pancakes and Romo?
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
by tehGrindCrusher on Feb 22, 2010 10:37 AM CST up reply actions
I'm always all for trading down
If you aren’t in the top ten, it only makes sense. Especially if a QB starts to free fall. Teams are usually willing to trade up to beat some other team to get to your spot.
Re: QB
I was thinking the same thing—that we tend to see teams trade up when there’s a QB they really want. Baltimore’s lust for Joe Flacco is why we were able to move down two years ago.
Looking forward to a day when being a Texans fan doesn't mean that April is the highlight of my season...
I agree
With this and the general principle behind trading down- but I think it’s often more a product luck than strategy. For example in ‘08 the Ravens probably figured they needed to pick before the Bucs to be sure they got Flacco. It’s nice if you can swing it, but it takes two and one of them needs to want to trade up- which I think is the exact opposite of most teams instinct.*
*I confine this statement to rational teams. Jerry and Danny don’t count.
Hopefully
There’s a player who slips down to the Texans spot that someone wants and we can trade back.
pray for OTs like trent williams and campbell and davis etc....
thats our best bet i think…
"Its like a silk bag filled with puppy ears"
my understanding of the conventional wisdom is that the present value for a draftpick
is generally 1 round higher than the player is drafted. That is to say that this year’s 3rd round pick would trade for next year’s 2nd round pick. If that IS the case, why wouldn’t some teams delay gratification in year 1, trading down and out of the 1st & 2nd for future value (and continue to trade out of the 1st round year-after-year afterwards)…next thing you know…that team would be stacked wide & deep with this “value” talent.
The Pats seem to do this better than anyone….they seem to sell high (trading away almost anyone (Seymore/Cassel etc.) for future value picks), then they seem to own the second round each year…and while they they don’t get much notice on draft day…they have quietly acquired more talented “value” depth than any team in the league. If they continue in this manner…it seems like they won’t have a position on the field that doesn’t have 2nd round tallent filling the spot. I might be paranoid, but it seems like that kinda managment forethought & discipline just might solidify them as a perrenial contender. Anyone else buy this argument?

by 
























