Mock Draft Central
-
If we trade #12 for JG I will be...unimpressed. Particularly with guys like Humphrey and Thomas still on the board. But, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best. It would be polarising, no doubt.
Garrett #1 seems more and more likely with every passing day.
-
Charlie Cassely's 1.0 is out...
1. Myles Garrett
12. traded to NE for Jimmy G (Pats take Derrick Barnett OLB)
Charlie Cassely's 1.0 is out...
1. Myles Garrett
12. traded to NE for Jimmy G (Pats take Derrick Barnett OLB)
Interesting, but does trading off #12 fit the analytics model?
-
One thing we know about the draft is that we don't know everything that will happen. When you go back and look at virtually every mock draft, NOBODY comes close to getting them right (especially in February). One thing we can say with certainty is that SOMEONE will slide to us at #12, and we have to be ready for it. After his surgeries, could Malik Hooker slide a bit? Should we even contemplate taking him knowing that a shoulder injury is difficult to rehab and can be prone to re-injury? What about another defender like Reuben Foster? If Mitch or Watson is on the board, do we risk taking a QB?
I would almost bet that one of these guys projected to be gone will slide to us, and we'll be smack in the middle of a difficult decision.
One thing we know about the draft is that we don't know everything that will happen. When you go back and look at virtually every mock draft, NOBODY comes close to getting them right (especially in February). One thing we can say with certainty is that SOMEONE will slide to us at #12, and we have to be ready for it. After his surgeries, could Malik Hooker slide a bit? Should we even contemplate taking him knowing that a shoulder injury is difficult to rehab and can be prone to re-injury? What about another defender like Reuben Foster? If Mitch or Watson is on the board, do we risk taking a QB?
I would almost bet that one of these guys projected to be gone will slide to us, and we'll be smack in the middle of a difficult decision.
if all the scouts/FOs in the top 11 watch film - I can't see Foster sliding to #12.
Very good point about Hooker's injury and being prone to re-injury considering how often Safeties involved with big collisions from being in space.
A guy who is returning to us from injury with fresh legs in 2017 is Des Bryant meaning we might not have to consider a guy like Thomas if we're already with Garrett first overall with young guys like Nassib, Ogbah, Orchard (also returning from injury). This reminds me we might be able to consider an offensive guy at #12 and get back to defense at #33 and via free agency. The draft seems deep in the secondary. Lorenzo Jerome had a great Senior Bowl (causing 3 turnovers) and I'm thinking a small school like St Francis puts him in a bargain round.
-
If we trade #12 for JG I will be...unimpressed. Particularly with guys like Humphrey and Thomas still on the board. But, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best. It would be polarising, no doubt.
Garrett #1 seems more and more likely with every passing day.
If we trade #12 for JG I will be...unimpressed. Particularly with guys like Humphrey and Thomas still on the board. But, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best. It would be polarising, no doubt.
Garrett #1 seems more and more likely with every passing day.
Not sure why....other than that we all talk about it. No one who counts is paying one moment of attention to what we say on here.
-
Charlie Cassely's 1.0 is out...
1. Myles Garrett
12. traded to NE for Jimmy G (Pats take Derrick Barnett OLB)
Interesting, but does trading off #12 fit the analytics model?
Interesting, but does trading off #12 fit the analytics model?
Funny you should ask...
A link to a PFF analysis was buried in the article, Why We won't trade for Jimmy, that I posted yesterday somewhere around here. The writer's analysis of our thought process in assessing value is about 1/4 of the way down the page.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-3-possible-trade-destinations-for-patriots-qb-jimmy-garoppolo/
-
Interesting, but does trading off #12 fit the analytics model?
Funny you should ask...
A link to a PFF analysis was buried in the article, Why We won't trade for Jimmy, that I posted yesterday somewhere around here. The writer's analysis of our thought process in assessing value is about 1/4 of the way down the page.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-3-possible-trade-destinations-for-patriots-qb-jimmy-garoppolo/
Funny you should ask...
A link to a PFF analysis was buried in the article, Why We won't trade for Jimmy, that I posted yesterday somewhere around here. The writer's analysis of our thought process in assessing value is about 1/4 of the way down the page.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-3-possible-trade-destinations-for-patriots-qb-jimmy-garoppolo/
Good stuff Tour, was a good read as is the article linked in it by Kevin Meers on draft pick value. If you like that sort of thing.....
https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/
-
Funny you should ask...
A link to a PFF analysis was buried in the article, Why We won't trade for Jimmy, that I posted yesterday somewhere around here. The writer's analysis of our thought process in assessing value is about 1/4 of the way down the page.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-3-possible-trade-destinations-for-patriots-qb-jimmy-garoppolo/
Good stuff Tour, was a good read as is the article linked in it by Kevin Meers on draft pick value. If you like that sort of thing.....
https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/
Good stuff Tour, was a good read as is the article linked in it by Kevin Meers on draft pick value. If you like that sort of thing.....
https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/
Yup... and I've read that as well by Kevin Meers, AKA our "Kevin Meers Director of Research and Strategy".
-
So in trade values we currently have in 2017:
#1-3000
#12-1200
#33-580
#52-380
#65-265 (top of the 3rd)
#128-44
#158-29.2
#159-28.8
So theoretically if we want to move up to say #8 (1400) to get Foster we could give up #12 (1200) plus a conditional 3rd rounder from 2018. Or overpay with #12 and #65 this year.
-
So in trade values we currently have in 2017:
#1-3000
#12-1200
#33-580
#52-380
#65-265 (top of the 3rd)
#128-44
#158-29.2
#159-28.8
So theoretically if we want to move up to say #8 (1400) to get Foster we could give up #12 (1200) plus a conditional 3rd rounder from 2018. Or overpay with #12 and #65 this year.
So in trade values we currently have in 2017:
#1-3000
#12-1200
#33-580
#52-380
#65-265 (top of the 3rd)
#128-44
#158-29.2
#159-28.8
So theoretically if we want to move up to say #8 (1400) to get Foster we could give up #12 (1200) plus a conditional 3rd rounder from 2018. Or overpay with #12 and #65 this year.
Per several references on here, the NFL basically no longer uses that Draft pick value system...which I believe was devised by Jimmy Johnson. They say the new Harvard draft value system is used. Others, like Tour who I think is more familiar with it can give you the scoop on that.
-
So is this the one in use now? Inquiring minds are too lazy to google it up.
Drafttek, Walterfootball and NBC still use the older one. http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp
-
That's the one... when we are trading away picks.
Your earlier choice is the one when we are accumulating picks...
That's the one... when we are trading away picks.
Your earlier choice is the one when we are accumulating picks...
And how does that work when we are trying to trade up from 12 to 8 to get Foster presuming he is there? That the old chart like I illustrated originally?
-
And how does that work when we are trying to trade up from 12 to 8 to get Foster presuming he is there? That the old chart like I illustrated originally?
Well the other team might be using the old chart, or the new chart. They'll have different values perhaps, and if a compromise can be found then great, otherwise sorry.
Eventually, it will become common practise to use the new chart when people stop overvaluing high picks and stop undervaluing mid-round picks, and balance will be found. Until then, we can continue to fleece other teams for more than the pick is worth, unless there's a guy there so great it's worth staying put.
-
Exactly Chris... all in the negotiating, but our starting point on a trade up would be the new chart and its flatter decay curve.
I looked at our two big 2016 trade downs a while back.
In the first with Philly, we got a little better than the old chart value for out #2 overall. When looked at on the new chart, it was killer in our favor.
But when we traded down Philly's #8 overall, that deal was only slightly better than the new chart would green-light.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Exactly Chris... all in the negotiating, but our starting point on a trade up would be the new chart and its flatter decay curve.
I looked at our two big 2016 trade downs a while back.
In the first with Philly, we got a little better than the old chart value for out #2 overall. When looked at on the new chart, it was killer in our favor.
But when we traded down Philly's #8 overall, that deal was only slightly better than the new chart would green-light.
Exactly Chris... all in the negotiating, but our starting point on a trade up would be the new chart and its flatter decay curve.
I looked at our two big 2016 trade downs a while back.
In the first with Philly, we got a little better than the old chart value for out #2 overall. When looked at on the new chart, it was killer in our favor.
But when we traded down Philly's #8 overall, that deal was only slightly better than the new chart would green-light.
I remember that and being slightly confused as to why we traded down further, but we'll see what happens. I don't want to go back into old deals every time, but picking up extra second and third round picks - those guys can become starters almost right away like Ogbah, or be traded for experienced guys like Collins.
-
Garapallo behind our OL is going to look like tim couch to a lot of you.
the garrett kizer mock i'm behind. maybe in 2018 after picking JT's replacement at LT #1 things will come to fruition. trying to win with Jimmy G next year is going to be another huge disappointment. i say throw RG3 in there to get killed for a 1/4 of the season and pick up some scrub vet to get bashed the rest of the year. hell the rookie from last year might surprise us all. showed a little staying power.
-
The rookie from last year - Kessler - looks like McCown 2.0, he's a fine enough guy to carry us to some wins next year if needed, but not the franchise guy we're looking for I think.
-
The rookie from last year - Kessler - looks like McCown 2.0, he's a fine enough guy to carry us to some wins next year if needed, but not the franchise guy we're looking for I think.
The rookie from last year - Kessler - looks like McCown 2.0, he's a fine enough guy to carry us to some wins next year if needed, but not the franchise guy we're looking for I think.
i guess i feel the same...... yes i know his name. just did better than i thought considering his draft 'intangibles'. i put one in hue's win column considering i really didn't like his hire.
-
The rookie from last year - Kessler - looks like McCown 2.0, he's a fine enough guy to carry us to some wins next year if needed, but not the franchise guy we're looking for I think.
i guess i feel the same...... yes i know his name. just did better than i thought considering his draft 'intangibles'. i put one in hue's win column considering i really didn't like his hire.
i guess i feel the same...... yes i know his name. just did better than i thought considering his draft 'intangibles'. i put one in hue's win column considering i really didn't like his hire.
I think his intangibles are pretty good, just his tangibles weren't so good. Not so big, arm strength not so great, but good leader, protects the ball etc. If you want a game manager, then he could be it, if he could just air it out a bit more from time to time and really use guys like Coleman and Pryor.
-
Game managers like Alex Smith are good enough to teach the playoffs. Was disappointed in how they used and treated Kessler last year he was showing promise and should have had the offense tailored to him instead it seemed they were annoyed he couldn't do the things they should have already known he couldn't do when they drafted him.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login