Analysis: If option is available, Detroit Lions better off trading back in NFL draft, not moving up
It's that time of year where we get in the bad habit of peeking at every NFL mock draft, just hoping to see something different. Thankfully, Sports Illustrated's Chris Burke provided this week's fodder, incorporating six trades into his first-round projection.
While you may expect the Detroit Lions to be moving up in this hypothetical scenario, Burke actually flips the script and has the team dropping back six spots in a draft-day deal with the Dallas Cowboys, picking up an extra second-round pick for the trouble.
Let's be clear, there's no factual basis to this mock, other than first-round trades are commonplace (five last year on draft day). Also, there has been some speculation from Dallas reporters that the Cowboys could move up for the right player (believed to be Aaron Donald or Anthony Barr), but in the same breath, those reporters limited a trade up to "a couple of spots," not six like Burke is suggesting.
But all things created equal, if the Lions had the opportunity to use the team's second-round pick to trade up for someone like Sammy Watkins or Khalil Mack, or trade back while picking up an extra second or third-round pick, the better option would be to gain more selections.
Hear me out.
First, I buy Mack and Watkins are elite talents, but elite talents don't always pan out, even more so against their inflated expectations.
Remember Aaron Curry, the can't-miss linebacker a vocal group of Detroit fans wanted the team to select No. 1 overall instead of Matthew Stafford in 2009? Yeah, Curry is out of the league after four unproductive seasons.
Maybe Watkins becomes a multi-time Pro Bowler, but it's just as likely he's never more than a solid number-two option in a passing attack.
Last year, economics professors Richard Thaler and Cade Massey released an updated version of their comprehensive 2005 study of the NFL draft, focusing in part on the value of trading picks. They determined, assessing contract cost and production over time, high first-round picks are overvalued commodities.
"Our findings are strikingly strong. Rather than a treasure, the right to pick first appears to be a curse. If picks are valued by the surplus they produce, then the first pick in the first round is the worst pick in the round, not the best. In paying a steep price to trade up, teams are paying a lot to acquire a pick that is worth less than the ones they are giving up. We have conducted a wide range of empirical tests and every analysis gives qualitatively similar results. The same is true under the 2011 labor agreement. The new rookie salary cap reduced the cost of the very top draft picks, but not enough of them to alter our results."
Even staying put, and retaining the team's current choices, the Lions give themselves multiple chances to find impact players in the early rounds. Trading back, if the opportunity presents itself, further increases those odds with the acquisition of additional picks.
If the Lions were to move back just a couple spots, gaining even a third-round selection in the process, the team would retain the opportunity to add a potential, long-term difference-maker in the first round, possibly even a player who has been projected to the team at No. 10, such as Oklahoma State cornerback Justin Gilbert or Alabama safety Ha Ha Clinton-Dix.
Detroit could also conceivably use the additional selection(s) acquired from trading down to make a more practical move back up into the late-first or early-second round, landing another desired target at a position of need.
At this stage, every possibility remains open. The Lions could certainly trade up for Watkins, Evans, or even Jadaveon Clowney, but that type of move essentially puts all the team's draft eggs in one basket.
Sticking at No. 10, or dropping back, gives Detroit multiple early-round choices to address the team's assorted needs. Given the Lions' roster holes, and current status as a non-contender, there's greater value in more early-round picks than fewer.
