Does the Draft Value Chart Matter Anymore?

[D-Day]

I saw quite a few posters before the draft saying that the Draft Value Chart has no relevance on draft day and that it is an antiquated mythical type object that no team follows anymore. Here are the First 10 trades on Day 1 by the Draft value chart numbers.

**The Draft Value Points are guesstimations (with the later rounds) as comp picks skew the actually value of the pick but only by a few points.

http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/stories/042807acq.html

1, Carolina traded its first- (No. 14) and sixth-round picks to the New York Jets for the Jets' first- (No. 25), second- (No. 59) and sixth-round (No. 164) picks.

Carolina gets 1060 DVP’s for 1115 points given up

2, Jacksonville traded its first-round (No. 17) pick to Denver for the Broncos' first- (No. 21), third- (No. 86) and sixth-round (No. 198) picks.

Jacksonville gets 990 pts for its 950 DVP pick

3, Dallas traded its first-round (No. 22) pick to Cleveland for the Browns' second-round pick (No. 36) and 2008 first-round pick.

Dallas gets 1090 pts for its 780 pts. (Unbelieveable)

4, Philadelphia traded its first-round (No. 26) to Dallas for the Cowboys' second- (No. 36); third- (No. 87) and fifth-round (No. 159) picks.

Philly gets 720 pts for its 700 pts pick.

5, New England traded its first-round (No. 28) to San Francisco for the 49ers' fourth-round (No. 110) pick and 2008 first-round pick.

NE gets 660 pts for its 660 pts.

6, Oakland traded its second-round (No. 33) pick to Arizona for the Cardinals' second- (No. 38) and fourth-round (No. 105) picks.

Oak gets 612 pts for its 580 pts

7, Detroit traded its second-round (No. 34) pick to Buffalo for the Bills' second- (No. 43) and third-round (No. 74) picks.

Det gets 690 for its 560 pts

8, Chicago traded its second-round (No. 37) pick to San Diego for the Chargers' second- (No. 62), third- (No. 93), fifth-round (No. 167) picks and 2008 third-round pick.

Chicago gets 551.8 for its 530 pts (our old pick those ****s). We could have gotten two extra thirds and an extra 5th.

9, Minnesota traded its second-round (No. 41) to Atlanta for the Falcons' second- (No. 44) and fourth-round (No. 121) picks.

Minn gets 512 pts for its 490 pts

10, San Francisco traded its second-round (No. 42) pick to Indianapolis for the Colts' fourth-round (No. 126) pick and 2008 first-round pick.

SF gets 606 pts for its 480 pts.

So to recap out of the first 10 draft trades only one team did not get value on DVC and that is because everyone knew Carolina needed more picks, and it was ok for them as they only went down 11 slots and picked up a second rounder and a later pick (they only were shorted 55 pts or the equivalent of a late fourth round pick). Dallas got what they did for their first because they had multiple teams bidding on their pick (it has been reported that way). Other then that all teams but one of the remaining nine that traded up had to pay more then dictated on the DVA.

So folks yeah teams do still follow the DVC as a guide and the value you can get for a pick is still mostly dependent on

1. The person available

2. The trading teams needs

3. The teams bidding for the piayer

[Art]

Some of this is difficult to project. If Cleveland is picking 30th, say, then the value of the pick they traded to Dallas would be projected on the value of the 30th pick of the second round because you lose a round when making a future trade. Teams that make such trades often take a risk that if the partner is good, they will turn out to get less value and if they are bad they'll get a boon.

Our Campbell trade with Denver was like that. I think it worked out to if we picked No. 7 or higher, the Broncos won the value trade. If we picked 7-24 or something, it was close, tipping either way ever slightly. If it was 25 or lower, we won the value trade. The Cowboys are taking a gamble the Browns will not do well, and it's not a bad gamble.

Good read though. Glad you put that together or found it .

[kappaluvacee]

The question isn't whether the draft chart matters any more, it's really about where teams place the value of the chart. Some teams approach the chart as the absolute bible when it comes to making transactions during the draft. Other teams use it simply as a tool to gauge an appropriate range to properly assess the proposed transaction.

This era of the NFL stresses parity. Additionally, it has diminished the day of "dynasties" in the NFL. In today’s NFL, any team can go from worst to first in one season, thus personnel moves have to be made for the day, not so much the future of the club. That being the case, some teams look at a player or a deal and think "this will push me over the hump." In this scenario, the team needing to get over the hump probably cares less about the draft-chart's value.

[Veretax]

that chart is just a benchmark... I think the more picks you get the less value you may need, because it gives you more of an opportunity to sign possible impact players

[Larry]

Oh, come on. Is this even a real question?

"The draft value chart" doesn't exist. It's an even bigger myth than "best player available".

It's an opinion. Just because (to reference some ESPN commercials) somebody is pulling a bunch of numbers out of his . . . ignorance, doesn't make it real.

And frankly, at least in the first 20 picks or so, people aren't trading draft picks, anyway, they're trading players. Both teams making those deals have people's names attached to those picks. (They know that those names are written in dry erase, but they're still there.)

[D-Day]

Oh, come on. Is this even a real question?

"The draft value chart" doesn't exist. It's an even bigger myth than "best player available".

It's an opinion. Just because (to reference some ESPN commercials) somebody is pulling a bunch of numbers out of his . . . ignorance, doesn't make it real.

And frankly, at least in the first 20 picks or so, people aren't trading draft picks, anyway, they're trading players. Both teams making those deals have people's names attached to those picks. (They know that those names are written in dry erase, but they're still there.)

So nine out of ten teams have trades that equal or exceed the value laid out on the same chart that most experts on the draft use (And mentioned during the draft) and although they happen to work out to just above the value mentioned on this mythical lockness type mystical abberation of someones imagination. Wow that is some serious considences going on.

Although they are trading players no one but the team knows who they want and it is a risk for the team trading down as they will or can lose out on they player they want. So as it clearly shows the teams are getting DVC value for their picks.

Some of this is difficult to project. If Cleveland is picking 30th, say, then the value of the pick they traded to Dallas would be projected on the value of the 30th pick of the second round because you lose a round when making a future trade. Teams that make such trades often take a risk that if the partner is good, they will turn out to get less value and if they are bad they'll get a boon.

Our Campbell trade with Denver was like that. I think it worked out to if we picked No. 7 or higher, the Broncos won the value trade. If we picked 7-24 or something, it was close, tipping either way ever slightly. If it was 25 or lower, we won the value trade. The Cowboys are taking a gamble the Browns will not do well, and it's not a bad gamble.

Good read though. Glad you put that together or found it .

I actually valued the future firsts as equal to the 1st pick in the second round which is what I have always heard (before ES) as the value of the future picks.

Assuming Art is correct then Dallas would get 1090 instead of 1120 in points this year. In order for Dallas to not get value the Browns pick would have to be the 12th pick in the second.

For the Pats trade then San Fran will have to finish with the 24th or 23th pick next year. Anything below that and the Pats are making out. Which the pats may not get value if all pans out in SF.

that chart is just a benchmark... I think the more picks you get the less value you may need, because it gives you more of an opportunity to sign possible impact players

I agree and I stated as much, I have been saying for a while the DVC is a guide and not the Bible. This thread is too refute the dozens of posters who want to throw it out as irrelevant when the facts staring them in faces say it is not.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Art is right in that teams' picks are worth a round less. So, Cleveland's 1st from next year should carry the value of the 3rd pick in this year's 2nd. Of course, the wisdom of those kinds of trades, and the reasons some teams wouldn't want to make them, should be obvious.

The Cleveland/Dallas trade was just horrible. For all the people praising Savage for getting both Quinn and Thomas, he gave up a HUGE price for moving up from pick 36 to pick 22. Given that the team is still likely to struggle this year (LTs and QBs don't generally make a huge impact in year 1), that price could be practically crippling to their future.

Their 3rd round pick should have been enough to get that deal done. Throw in a late round pick and next year's 3rd (or even 2nd) and now the team is wildly overpaying. And yet, they couldn't get that done. Keeping in mind that they had, let's say, 5 or 6 teams they could have made that trade with. Somehow, we are to believe that none of them would trade back a ways for a windfall and Cleveland had to further rape themselves to get it done.

Color me skeptical. I don't think they deserve the praise that's being heaped on them.

[TankRizzo]

I've always thought the whole "value chart" idea is silly. No two drafts are the same and the value of a player and pick can only be determined by the team's needs, the teams picking around them and the talent available. Case in point, Brady Quinn's big drop. There were 11 teams picking in a row that had absolutely no need for a QB. To a team that needed a QB, it might have been worth it to give up more in the point value system to get one of those picks to take him.

The Browns did the right thing in waiting, but if there's a guy you really want, you should be willing to give up a little more to get in there and get him. Conversely, if you're not thrilled by any of the players available at your pick I see no reason why you should pick someone there and pay them that slot's money when you could take a little loss on the trade and move out and get a later pick.

[NavyDave]

Instead of listening to the armchairs dismiss it like the GMs will all of a sudden agree with armchairs, lets.....

Keep

It

Simple

Skinsfans

And say Yes it does matter

[zoony]

It's a good guideline, but for those who hold it up as a compass to judge all things draft-trade related, well... that's just retarded.

For instance Cleveland... their trade for Quinn was outstanding. They gave up a lot... but how much is too much when you're talking about getting a franchise QB to potentially lead your team to the playoffs for the next 10 seasons?

If Cleveland had made that same trade to draft a DT or another Olineman... I would have called the move stupid, no matter how it looked on the Draft Value chart.

....

[ouvan59]

The Cleveland/Dallas trade was just horrible. For all the people praising Savage for getting both Quinn and Thomas, he gave up a HUGE price for moving up from pick 36 to pick 22. Given that the team is still likely to struggle this year (LTs and QBs don't generally make a huge impact in year 1), that price could be practically crippling to their future.

Or it could be the deal that gets them back to being good. It all depends on how high they rate Brady Quinn. If they had him rated as a top 10 pick then his value to them is much higher than the #22 pick they got him with. You could argue that Cleveland should have tried to get a little better deal but since we don't know what happened behind closed doors it's kind of hard to judge.

The value chart is not the bible. It is a tool that is used to negotiate deals. It's a starting point that every team uses. Like with anything there are other variables to consider.

Dallas also apparently ripped off Buffalo a few years ago when they traded out of the first round and got a 2nd and next year's first. They ended up with Julius Jones and Marcus Spears and passed on Stephen Jackson. Jones is on the verge of losing his starting gig and Spears has been underwhelming to say the least. Meanwhile Buffalo picked J.P. Losman, who I am not a big fan of but he had a pretty darn good year last year. So in the end Dallas looked like the big winner that day but both St. Louis and Buffalo are much happier the way it turned out.

[Larry]

Instead of listening to the armchairs dismiss it like the GMs will all of a sudden agree with armchairs, lets.....

Keep

It

Simple

Skinsfans

And say Yes it does matter

Or maybe, instead of the sanctimonious armchairs acting like their excreta is odor-free, maybe both sides could admit that they're discussing personal opinion.

[D-Day]

The purpose of my thread is only to show that the Draft Value Chart does exist and is used. It is by no means the end all be all you must pay this. Of course teams will drop for less if it suits them, the same as a team paying more to get what they want if they value it that high. I am not even saying DVC's on the internet is the right one, for all we know the teams have their own.

But those who before the draft claimed it was stupid to come up with trade scenarios based on it because it didn't exist are well wrong. Something to assign picks to values is in use as demonstrated above, and it is pretty close too that chart.

For those who say that all these variables due come into play (of which I am one) you should be in support of the Value Chart Exists/validity side. Taken into consideration all those variables you support and to see so many of the first 10 trades come out that close to the perceived value then there must be a DVC of some kind in use.

[JRAB]

Dallas also apparently ripped off Buffalo a few years ago when they traded out of the first round and got a 2nd and next year's first. They ended up with Julius Jones and Marcus Spears and passed on Stephen Jackson. Jones is on the verge of losing his starting gig and Spears has been underwhelming to say the least. Meanwhile Buffalo picked J.P. Losman, who I am not a big fan of but he had a pretty darn good year last year. So in the end Dallas looked like the big winner that day but both St. Louis and Buffalo are much happier the way it turned out.

I can see that.

However, there are some differences between the two trades. That year, had Dallas stood pat at their first round pick they would have taken Stephen Jackson, but they traded back and took Julius Jones instead.

This year, had the pukes stood pat at 22, they would have taken Anthony Spencer, the pass rusher they needed. They made the trade with Cleveland and still (thanks to the stupid Philly franchise) were able to land the first rounder they so coveted.

In other words, they got the player they wanted this year and in the trade with Buffalo they had to sacrifice their first round choice to another team.

One other difference that I've seen noted is that Buffalo had Drew Bledsoe still then, and while he isn't great by any means, he still was a legitimate NFL QB who was going to be leading Buffalo the next season... so their next years pick was expected to be a little lower (worse) than top 10.

In Cleveland, they really don't have a good QB to run things and the chances of Quinn being thrown to the wolves is pretty good... therefore Clevelands pick is expected to be top 10. Particularly when you throw in the division they play in (Pitt., Cincy, and Baltimore) and the AFC teams in general.

I do agree that you can't really tell who comes out of a trade best until everything plays itself out. However, in the here and now... Cleveland looks to have made a trade that, at least points wise, really favors the other team. Unfortunately for us, that other team is in our division. I don't like seeing the pukes come out of this draft with Anthony Spencer plus their #1 next year and Cleveland's #1 next year.

Jerrah Jones will probably blow it though. :applause:

[BAFGA]

I'm glad this was brought up, because this just proves that this chart is worthless. I thought the chart was a ridiculous notion to begin with. Do you think Ditka consulted the chart when he traded away every pick for Ricky Williams? do you think Snyder consulted the chart when we traded picks to move up to get Samuels and Lavar?

[wsgully]

One thing I find interesting about the draft value chart is that there are aspects of it that don't really make sense. For example, looking at http://www.theredzone.org/2006/draft/draftvaluechart.asp we see:

1st = 3000

2nd = 2600

3rd = 2200

4th = 1800

5th = 1700

6th = 1600

etc.

The difference between the first four picks is 400 per step. After that the difference is 100, an increment which continues through pick 8 where the increment falls to 50 pts.

When you graph the draft value chart the result looks awkward because of these sudden drastic changes. Sure, it's simple for football folks to get a rough value but that only underscores this chart is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Also ignored by the chart is the salary cap impact of having a very high pick in the first round. I believe the chart was dreamt up in Jimmy Johnson's administration when rookie contracts were not as brutal as they are today. I wouldn't be surprised if teams have altered the dvc accordingly to drop the value of a high first round pick.

G

[Romberjo]

I'm glad this was brought up, because this just proves that this chart is worthless. I thought the chart was a ridiculous notion to begin with. Do you think Ditka consulted the chart when he traded away every pick for Ricky Williams? do you think Snyder consulted the chart when we traded picks to move up to get Samuels and Lavar?

Yes. Those moves were roughly in line with the chart.

There are two issues, one normative and one descriptive: 1) a) what degree of attention, if any, should teams pay to the chart, or to their own tweaks to the chart)? and 2) what degree of attention do they pay?

I think it's fairly obvious that the answer to at least 1b) and 2) is "significant."

I think there are flaws with the untweaked chart/system that many teams apparently use, including the non-smooth gradations and insufficiently adjusted for salary cap aspects that wsgully mentions, along with unduly steep (one-round) discount as it plays out for future first-round picks (given that the curve for value at the top of the draft is a lot steeper than the curve for time depreciation).

[hitmandm]

The Cleveland trade for Quinn was a great trade for Cleveland if Quinn is the goods. Screw the draft value chart. You draft players. Quinn, a potential franchise QB, was rated as a top 10 pick and maybe a top 3 pick. He fell to 22nd because of stupidity (Miami) or the fact that no one needed QBs. To get him and a year of development for just a second rounder is well worth it.

[DeaconBlue]

The Draft Value chart like time itself is a matter of perception. If you are having the time of your life a minute goes by like nothing. If your hand is caught in a pot of boiling water a minute is an eternity. If the DVC helps you justify a trade/pick it's great. If you don't like that trade/pick it's worthless.

[SouthernStar]

3, Dallas traded its first-round (No. 22) pick to Cleveland for the Browns' second-round pick (No. 36) and 2008 first-round pick.

Dallas gets 1090 pts for its 780 pts. (Unbelieveable)

You're not giving us enough credit!

Cleveland's #36 pick was worth 550 points. They probably draft in the top 10 next year. Let's say around #5 to $10. That makes the points we received between 1850 and 2250!!

Even if they have an exceptionally good season (and draft #15), we'll have gotten 1600 points!

If Cleveland makes the playoffs, we'll end up getting around 1270 points for our 780 point pick!

Heck, if Cleveland wins the SuperBowl, and we get the LAST pick, we'll have gotten 1130 points for our 780....

All that, and we STILL got the #1 player we wanted!

THAT'S using the draft to it's best advantage.

[daveakl]

[quote name=

The Cleveland/Dallas trade was just horrible. For all the people praising Savage for getting both Quinn and Thomas' date=' he gave up a HUGE price for moving up from pick 36 to pick 22. Given that the team is still likely to struggle this year (LTs and QBs don't generally make a huge impact in year 1), that price could be practically crippling to their future.

Color me skeptical. I don't think they deserve the praise that's being heaped on them.[/quote]

I think the problem people have with this trade around here is that it is great for Dallas. But at the same time it is amazing for the Browns as well. Looking at it from both sides:

Browns: Need a franchise QB. Either they take one this year, or they take one next year with their 1st rounder. Having the ability to use just a second round pick to get Quinn a year early (compared to using their 1st next season on a QB) is a huge advantage. You can argue that Cleveland could have taken one of the second teir QB's at 36 and still had their 1st next season to use on something else, but in their position you would much rather have Quinn now then gamble on a second level player and a unkown pick for next season.

Dallas: No brainer for them, they get a 1st rounder next season as well as getting the guy they wanted this season. sucks for fans like us that hate Dallas, but its not like they ripped the Browns off.

[SouthernStar]

its not like they ripped the Browns off.

It was a win-win situation for BOTH teams.....

One that you sometimes "stumble into" (IF you have the full compliment of picks to deal with....)

Better to be prepared (than not be).

[ouvan59]

I can see that.

However, there are some differences between the two trades. That year, had Dallas stood pat at their first round pick they would have taken Stephen Jackson, but they traded back and took Julius Jones instead.

Not true. It was widely reported that Bill Parcells had JJ graded higher than Stephen Jackson because, ironically, of Jackson's injury problems. That, of course, makes the trade all the better for Dallas since they got the player they reportedly wanted and an extra 2nd rounder. Of course, that doesn't mean the picks they made were good.

[Moseley3]

Art is right in that teams' picks are worth a round less. So, Cleveland's 1st from next year should carry the value of the 3rd pick in this year's 2nd. Of course, the wisdom of those kinds of trades, and the reasons some teams wouldn't want to make them, should be obvious.

The Cleveland/Dallas trade was just horrible. For all the people praising Savage for getting both Quinn and Thomas, he gave up a HUGE price for moving up from pick 36 to pick 22. Given that the team is still likely to struggle this year (LTs and QBs don't generally make a huge impact in year 1), that price could be practically crippling to their future.

Their 3rd round pick should have been enough to get that deal done. Throw in a late round pick and next year's 3rd (or even 2nd) and now the team is wildly overpaying. And yet, they couldn't get that done. Keeping in mind that they had, let's say, 5 or 6 teams they could have made that trade with. Somehow, we are to believe that none of them would trade back a ways for a windfall and Cleveland had to further rape themselves to get it done.

Color me skeptical. I don't think they deserve the praise that's being heaped on them.

Dallas no doubt makes out great in that deal but you need to look at it in a different light. The Cowboys weren't going to draft Quinn regardless so that pick didn't have that extra value associated with it that it had for Cleveland who desperately wanted to trade up and grab him. The Browns would have used that draft pick next year on a QB anyway, might as well grab one right now with it and groom him for the next year that he would've been in college anyway. Do you expect many great QBs to come along or would Quinn have been the best QB next year if he were there another year anyway? The Brownies get him at #22 this year, pay him at #22 value and get what they needed and when they would rather have it. Sure Dallas makes out great as it will be a high #1 next year, but it there are other circumstances forcing this move. Romeo doesn't have another year to wait on the franchise QB to get picked and then get groomed when he could do it all this year.

[Rufus T Firefly]

The Cleveland trade for Quinn was a great trade for Cleveland if Quinn is the goods. Screw the draft value chart. You draft players. Quinn, a potential franchise QB, was rated as a top 10 pick and maybe a top 3 pick. He fell to 22nd because of stupidity (Miami) or the fact that no one needed QBs. To get him and a year of development for just a second rounder is well worth it.

That is the problem. People (including those who are paid big bucks to pass themselves off as "experts") insist on judging trades as if they exist a vacuum.

Again, if the team gave up way more than they had to, they have made a mistake. If they could have closed a deal with anyone of 10+ teams to get Quinn, giving up extra value in those deals but not giving up a potential top 10 pick, then they screwed up royally in not doing so. Now, people can choose to ignore logic and history and assume that none of those teams were willing to accept too much value for their picks, but I won't. We all know teams are lloking to deal down all the time, and looking to recover extra value.

In fact, you can just look at what happened. Philly wanted out of the 26 pick and took value to get Cleveland's 2nd. Carolina dealt down from 14 to 25. Neither of those deals required anything resembling a potential top 10 pick to complete. It's pretty easy to put together a scenario where Cleveland made those kinds of deals, got Quinn and kept next year's 1. There is simply no reason to assume that no one would take a deal from Cleveland to do that. Therefore, there is no reason to pretend Cleveland didn't dop the ball and put themselves over a barrell. And nothing Quinn will ever do changes that. No matter how good he is, it doesn't justify giving up more for him than they had to.

As an example, we know the Skins could have had a deal of Briggs and #31 for #6 and Rocky last week. They turned it down (wisely, imo). But, now let's pretend they trade Landy and Rocky stright up for Briggs tomorrow. Would people say "let's wait to see how good Briggs is bfore we judge that deal"? Sadly, a lot of people probably would. But the truth is it wouldn't matter what Landry, Briggs or Rocky did in the future, the team would have effectively forfeited a late 1st round pick for nothing in that hypothetical. And they would deserve a ton of criticism for doing it. People should be able to look beyond simple "x vs y" judgements to decide if a GM has done something well or not.