Flash
- Thread starter Brithawk
- Start date
The Outfield
New member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 2,547
- Reaction score
- 0
I imagine the Browns want high draft picks.
dontbelikethat
New member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 0
Brithawk":gl30bzyx said:
There's word that they were already offered SF's 2nd.
rideaducati
New member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 5,414
- Reaction score
- 0
Not afraid of this. Kaep sucks.
TwistedHusky
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 6,917
- Reaction score
- 1,109
You don't get better trading away solid players for picks when you have an FO that has shown a problem with being able to correctly make use of the picks they have.
The goal of a 1st round pick is to obtain a starter and get a % shot at getting a top tier player. I don't know the percentage but it is most assuredly (based on the math) less than 20% and even more likely less than 10%. So giving up a top tier player for the chance to get a less than 50% chance at ANOTHER top tier player is not a great play. Not unless you have a solid track record of being able to make use of your picks.
The only time this is not true is when you have the opportunity to draft a good QB, since QBs have significantly more value on a per pick basis than almost any other player. Even then, if you have a record of not adequately picking QBs - then you probably are going to repeat the process since it is your evaluation process that is the problem not the lack of picks.
Gordon has some behavioral issues that might change the math a bit but for the most part teams that trade good players away for picks generally do not recover much value unless their GM has an ability to do well on the average pick. More importantly, with a limited amount of "game-changer" QBs per draft it does not make sense to overvalue a QB because the good ones provide so much additional value. IF the 1-3 QBs all end up stellar that does not make a 4-5 QB a good pick and it might even be counter productive (since productivity depends so much on having a top tier QB).
The Browns will probably make another bad decision however, given they already drafted a QB simply because the WR he was throwing to in college was phenomenal.
The goal of a 1st round pick is to obtain a starter and get a % shot at getting a top tier player. I don't know the percentage but it is most assuredly (based on the math) less than 20% and even more likely less than 10%. So giving up a top tier player for the chance to get a less than 50% chance at ANOTHER top tier player is not a great play. Not unless you have a solid track record of being able to make use of your picks.
The only time this is not true is when you have the opportunity to draft a good QB, since QBs have significantly more value on a per pick basis than almost any other player. Even then, if you have a record of not adequately picking QBs - then you probably are going to repeat the process since it is your evaluation process that is the problem not the lack of picks.
Gordon has some behavioral issues that might change the math a bit but for the most part teams that trade good players away for picks generally do not recover much value unless their GM has an ability to do well on the average pick. More importantly, with a limited amount of "game-changer" QBs per draft it does not make sense to overvalue a QB because the good ones provide so much additional value. IF the 1-3 QBs all end up stellar that does not make a 4-5 QB a good pick and it might even be counter productive (since productivity depends so much on having a top tier QB).
The Browns will probably make another bad decision however, given they already drafted a QB simply because the WR he was throwing to in college was phenomenal.
