Watkins wants to be s Lion

[sggatecl]

well to be fair...Julio jones going down is a major reason their offense wasn't up to par. So in your ATL example they lost 5 picks AND julio jones.

That's my whole point. You lose Julio Jones and a couple other guys and you go from 13-3 to 4-12. The 5 picks they gave away would have helped out immensely but they don't have the depth they would have.

 

[grandy]

It used to be much harder to move those picks because that #3 guy was going to get 35+ million, not less than 20. That means you are moving up to take a franchise type QB or LT out of desperation... and people want more to trade with you.

Now, you could reasonably take a CB at #1 overall. $22M over 4 years is not out of whack for a CB, especially in this market, so it's not such a desperation move, and the buyers have more power to negotiate.

I always figured it would be the other way around.

In the old system, teams at the top who didn't need a QB/LT/DE or didn't want ridiculously high contracts would be desperate to get out of that spot.

In the new system, teams at the top have more flexibility on who they can draft without worrying about an outrageous contract.

Maybe I just don't understand it (I've wanted the Lions to trade out of the top 5-10 for years in the old system).

Is it more of a case where now you can trade up to #5 and get the player you want, as opposed to ten years ago where you'd have to trade up to #3 to get the same caliber player, thus giving the buyer more options?

 

[inkfreq]

I always figured it would be the other way around.

In the old system, teams at the top who didn't need a QB/LT/DE or didn't want ridiculously high contracts would be desperate to get out of that spot.

In the new system, teams at the top have more flexibility on who they can draft without worrying about an outrageous contract.

Maybe I just don't understand it (I've wanted the Lions to trade out of the top 5-10 for years in the old system).

Is it more of a case where now you can trade up to #5 and get the player you want, as opposed to ten years ago where you'd have to trade up to #3 to get the same caliber player, thus giving the buyer more options?

It's actually a combination of several effects....

First, it's easier for teams to absorb extra picks in a trade. Previously, if you traded a first and a second for a first, the team with the extra pick was going to get hammered harder in contracts. So they had to make sure absorbing those picks were worth it to them.

Second, there is just a general view of flexibility now. The top guy is going to get 22-23 million for four years. No more 80 million dollar deals. So you can take a QB, you can take a CB, hell, you could take a kicker if you really felt he was your guy. Think about it, the #15 pick is going to get roughly 12 million for four years. If you thought a guy was better than Janikowski, why not pay him 3 million a year?

So that in itself makes trades easier to pull off now, because you aren't locked into moving around for one guy.

Lastly, it used to be that moving up high in the draft was always a desperation thing. Teams never moved up into the top three to take a LB. It was always the big names at the big positions. Now teams are more willing to move up all over, so it's harder to scalp those guys for picks. They can take the deal, or they can leave it.

On one hand, its made trading during the draft a thousand percent easier to do. Teams aren't trading down now to avoid the big money deals, they are trading down to stockpile picks. And teams are moving up to get the guy they think can help them the most, not just a franchise QB or LT.

On the other hand, it's harder to trade veteran players for picks now, because you're trading a $12M a year deal for a $4M a year deal. No one really wants to take on extra age and vastly more money for a guy that is typically breaking down.

As much as I love the game of football, I love the front office game even more. It's that businessman side of me. The strategy GMs and coaches use in building a team fascinates me. Even as a kid, I never dreamed of being the QB in the SuperBowl. I dreamt of being the GM someday, and making the moves.

So needless to say, I pay a lot of attention to the front office side of things. Last year it was clearly easier for teams to move around in the 1st round, and not give up the farm to do it. Look at Minny. They moved their way into three first round picks, and still have a 1st, 2nd, two 3rds, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th this year. A complete draft, plus a third rounder, just from bouncing around the way they did and moving Percy Harvin.

Lots of factors make it easier to move up now, because it's a buyers market now.

 

[grandy]

Well that seems to sum it up pretty good, thanks.

I also managed to find this if you're interested. Some sports blog for a group of Harvard students, they took career value based on pick and recreated the draft value chart.

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/

 

[detrisin]

So our first and our fifth for Oakland's first?

We don't have a fifth.

Mayhew sucks...Watkins is a pipe dream due to no fifth for Whitehead.

 

[inkfreq]

If we want Oaklands first, it's probably going to take our first and a third, or our first and next years second to get it done.

There is also the possibility of packaging a player, like a Jason Jones and a first.

Oakland is in a very unique position where they simply have too much money available. Remember the salary floor is supposed to escalate to 98% of the cap this year, which means teams will have to spend 130 million to hit the minimum.

Oakland has nearly 66M available, putting them at about 63 million they must spend. In order to do that and not kill themselves on very bad long term contracts, they will need to pick up some veterans that can absorb larger deals that aren't long term.

Jason Jones would be a good fit for them, or someone similar, and could be packaged with a 1st to move up as well.

 

[jdeb]

Atlanta is the perfect example of what can go wrong with this scenario and they were in better shape than Detroit when they made the deal for Julio Jones.

If memory serves correct they gave up 5 picks to move up and grab him. This year the lack of depth caught up to them.

Yeah for like one year. Look out in 2014 with the FA's they been signing.

 

[inkfreq]

I am more than convinced Atalanta's terrible season was nothing more than a blip. I don' think anything "bit them" until they have another blip, and then I'll agree.

Good teams don't fall that far that fast with no major loses on the roster.

 

[detrisin]

I am more than convinced Atalanta's terrible season was nothing more than a blip. I don' think anything "bit them" until they have another blip, and then I'll agree.

Good teams don't fall that far that fast with no major loses on the roster.

Atlanta's LKP? j/k

 

[kmd47]

I am more than convinced Atalanta's terrible season was nothing more than a blip. I don' think anything "bit them" until they have another blip, and then I'll agree.

Good teams don't fall that far that fast with no major loses on the roster.

Yeah sucks when you're top 2 WR are hurt then your lose one for the whole year.... And you have an over the hill slow RB. They should rebound well this year though as long as julio doesn't get hurt again haha

 

[inkfreq]

Atlanta's LKP? j/k

OUCH!

For the record, I dislike the Falcons. I'm not high on the way they built their team, and I agree they gave up way too much in picks for Julio Jones.

Now they have a banged up running game, and their star TE is an analyst. But I think they still have enough weapons to be finishing outside the worst 5 teams in football by far.

I don't know if they have the weapons to win that division, but they should still be 8-8 or better and make a run for the playoffs with what they have.