The 2024 Great Draft Debate

[CactusJack]

The interesting dilemma to consider is, if four of those guys are available when picking at 16 (definitely a possibility from what I am seeing in mock drafts and the consensus big board), and you’ve got a great offer on the table to trade back five spots. What do you do?

Do you take the trade and pick up extra draft capital while still having a high probability of getting one of the guys you’d take at 16. Or, do you stick and pick the best of the four on your board, passing on the chance to get those extra draft picks later?

If it’s me, unless I’ve got one of the four graded significantly higher than the others, I take that trade back 100 times out of 100. Sure there’s a chance all four options on the top of my board disappear by the time I pick five pics later, but that seems like a pretty low probability scenario, and a risk I’m willing to take to pick up the extra draft picks later.

I've already said enough about my point. I don't like trading back. Especially if there are one or two guys still available that I hold in high regard.

From my Pov, fans get overly excited about the concept of adding more picks. Now, if there isn't someone who stands out from the rest, then I might consider moving back. But I'm always going to choose quality over quantity.

In 2012, the Hawks had the 12th pick. But they traded back (15) to select Bruce Irvin. They got a 4th rounder as compensation. The player who was taken with the 12th pick was Fletcher Cox. I think everyone of us, would take Cox in that situation. Right? If we had the choice.

So, that's what I mean. If you have a chance to get a better, more impactful player at a spot, then I'm not trading out. I'm taking the better player.

 

[Chawker]

I've already said enough about my point. I don't like trading back. Especially if there are one or two guys still available that I hold in high regard.

From my Pov, fans get overly excited about the concept of adding more picks. Now, if there isn't someone who stands out from the rest, then I might consider moving back. But I'm always going to choose quality over quantity.

In 2012, the Hawks had the 12th pick. But they traded back (15) to select Bruce Irvin. They got a 4th rounder as compensation. The player who was taken with the 12th pick was Fletcher Cox. I think everyone of us, would take Cox in that situation. Right? If we had the choice.

So, that's what I mean. If you have a chance to get a better, more impactful player at a spot, then I'm not trading out. I'm taking the better player.

We did alright without Cox, and he might of been a bust here in Seattle, who knows.

I don't mind trading back as long as it a small trade back, say to 23 but no more then that. Philly has two second rounders, either one would be fine with me. Sometimes these fancy hybrid players are just begging to be injured.

 

[EverydayImRusselin]

I've already said enough about my point. I don't like trading back. Especially if there are one or two guys still available that I hold in high regard.

From my Pov, fans get overly excited about the concept of adding more picks. Now, if there isn't someone who stands out from the rest, then I might consider moving back. But I'm always going to choose quality over quantity.

In 2012, the Hawks had the 12th pick. But they traded back (15) to select Bruce Irvin. They got a 4th rounder as compensation. The player who was taken with the 12th pick was Fletcher Cox. I think everyone of us, would take Cox in that situation. Right? If we had the choice.

So, that's what I mean. If you have a chance to get a better, more impactful player at a spot, then I'm not trading out. I'm taking the better player.

That trade wasn't terrible IMO.

Traded 2012 first-round pick (#12, DT Fletcher Cox) to Philadelphia for 2012 first-round pick (#15, LB Bruce Irvin), 2012 fourth-round pick (#114, DE Jaye Howard) and 2012 sixth-round pick (#172, CB Jeremy Lane).

If Lane didn't break his arm, they probably win back to back SB. Obviously Cox is a great DT who played for a long time, but maybe they were going to take Irvin at 12 anyway.

 

[Chawker]

The one thing that is in our favor going into this draft is that our coachs Mac and Grubs know the players from both sides of the college championship teams. If we reach a little for a Michigan or UW player this draft is fine by me.

Cheers

 

[CactusJack]

We did alright without Cox, and he might of been a bust here in Seattle, who knows.

I don't mind trading back as long as it a small trade back, say to 23 but no more then that. Philly has two second rounders, either one would be fine with me. Sometimes these fancy hybrid players are just begging to be injured.

Cox was the superior player though. Every team would take Cox in that scenario.

Based on the JJ trade chart, moving back from 16 to 23 would net you a 3rd round pick (value). Realistically, you wouldn't sniff a 2nd.

 

[CactusJack]

That trade wasn't terrible IMO.

Traded 2012 first-round pick (#12, DT Fletcher Cox) to Philadelphia for 2012 first-round pick (#15, LB Bruce Irvin), 2012 fourth-round pick (#114, DE Jaye Howard) and 2012 sixth-round pick (#172, CB Jeremy Lane).

If Lane didn't break his arm, they probably win back to back SB. Obviously Cox is a great DT who played for a long time, but maybe they were going to take Irvin at 12 anyway.

No, Bruce didn't even have his 5th year option picked up. It was a clear misevaluation on their part. Cox would've been a far better pick.

 

[MyrtleHawk]

Cox was the superior player though. An All-Pro DT. Every team would take Cox in that scenario.

Based on the JJ trade chart, moving back from 16 to 23 would net you a 3rd round pick (value). Realistically, you wouldn't sniff a 2nd.

I think that relies mostly on the team doing the trading up and how badly they want their player. If a team is motivated enough to draft the guy they really want, they will give up the draft capital. It happens.

 

[CactusJack]

I think that relies mostly on the team doing the trading up and how badly they want their player. If a team is motivated enough to draft the guy they really want, they will give up the draft capital. It happens.

The only logical way that could happen is if they swap picks, 2nd for 3rd, type of deal. At that point, is it really worth it? Idk...

 

[EverydayImRusselin]

No, Bruce didn't even have his 5th year option picked up. It was a miss. It was a clear misevaluation on their part. Cox would've been a far better pick. Shoot, Chandler Jones went a few picks later (21st). They passed him up as well.

But you don't know they were going to take Cox. What if they just stuck at 12 and picked Bruce?

 

[CactusJack]

But you don't know they were going to take Cox. What if they just stuck at 12 and picked Bruce?

That's part of the problem. You're right. They probably planned on taking Bruce. But either way, it was the wrong decision. Poor judgement on their part.

 

[NoGain]

Why is it so important to have a 2nd round pick vs an impactful pick at 16? Is quantity better than quality?

It all depends on how the team assesses the talent and comprises their tiers of talent. If the Hawks only see, say, 12 players worth taking at #16 and none fall to them, then trading down makes a lot of sense. They might not see that much of a difference between the 13th player on their board and the 50th player on their board, for all we know. If such is the case, then, yes, quantity would be the order of the day for them.

 

[Chawker]

The scouts are doing player evaluation and putting a board together of player with talent that would be valuable to this team.

Then Mac and John can decide who they like and want to target.

If Mac is going to run a 3-4 (and I'm sure he wil) we will need another DE not a edge guy of 250 lbs guy but a 285 lbs guy who can play the run and the pass, like Mike Morris. Somebody who can hold the edge and get his hands up to block passes. Somebody stout ! I'm just not sure if he is selected in the first or later on in the draft.

Pick 16 is a mystery to me, if Mac wants his wall this is where he starts to build it.

Cheers

 

[chris98251]

I've already said enough about my point. I don't like trading back. Especially if there are one or two guys still available that I hold in high regard.

From my Pov, fans get overly excited about the concept of adding more picks. Now, if there isn't someone who stands out from the rest, then I might consider moving back. But I'm always going to choose quality over quantity.

In 2012, the Hawks had the 12th pick. But they traded back (15) to select Bruce Irvin. They got a 4th rounder as compensation. The player who was taken with the 12th pick was Fletcher Cox. I think everyone of us, would take Cox in that situation. Right? If we had the choice.

So, that's what I mean. If you have a chance to get a better, more impactful player at a spot, then I'm not trading out. I'm taking the better player.

It's not who or what you have in high regard, what most guys fall into, it is taking the Draft history of what John does and applying it to this draft. John likes to stockpile picks, he also prefers to pick out of the top 15 or 20, contracts are more favorable, the talent pool typically once out of top 5 is pretty equal from 6 thru 35 or so, and more picks means better chances to fill holes and hit on a prospect.

 

[CactusJack]

The scouts are doing player evaluation and putting a board together of player with talent that would be valuable to this team.

Then Mac and John can decide who they like and want to target.

If Mac is going to run a 3-4 (and I'm sure he wil) we will need another DE not a edge guy of 250 lbs guy but a 285 lbs guy who can play the run and the pass, like Mike Morris. Somebody who can hold the edge and get his hands up to block passes. Somebody stout ! I'm just not sure if he is selected in the first or later on in the draft.

Pick 16 is a mystery to me, if Mac wants his wall this is where he starts to build it.

Cheers

You can get a guy with that profile later on in the draft. A guy like Morris in the mid-rounds.

 

[CactusJack]

It's not who or what you have in high regard, what most guys fall into, it is taking the Draft history of what John does and applying it to this draft. John likes to stockpile picks, he also prefers to pick out of the top 15 or 20, contracts are more favorable, the talent pool typically once out of top 5 is pretty equal from 6 thru 35 or so, and more picks means better chances to fill holes and hit on a prospect.

Teams picking at the bottom of the round, may not have a first-round grade on a guy. So, from that perspective it makes logical sense. But if you're passing on guys just because you're in need to acquire more draft capital, then you have the wrong mindset in my opinion.

John does indeed like to stockpile picks. But it hasn't always been the best decision for the team. Their draft history would suggest as much.

They had a four year stretch of trading down.

2016- Ifedi
2017- Mcdowell
2018- Penny
2019- Collier

None of those guys got a 5th year.

 

[Chawker]

You can get a guy with that profile later on in the draft. A guy like Morris in the mid-rounds.

You bet you can jack, third round Rake Orhorhoro tested very good at the combine.

 

[Chukarhawk]

Many thought Irvin was a 3rd round guy when we picked him, it's not what we think is a 1st round grade or the mediots and other teams, it's what the Seahawks deem a first round grade based on what they want to use them for in their system. So a guy like John Randall could have no Grade and be a UDFA yet get passed over for 14 rounds back in the day and a guy like Art Schlister gets a high round grade, the evacuations by each team is the key.

surprise! he was a 3rd round guy. More like 4th or 5th.

 

[Chawker]

The further along we go, the vib I'm getting is our selection will be Laiatu Latu. His production is good, but health has people concerned with his neck.

 

[chris98251]

nflmockdraftdatabase Draft,

Made a couple trades and it worked out great.

• 
  
• 17
  
  Laiatu Latu
  EDGE | UCLA
  A+
• 48
  
  Michael Penix Jr.
  QB | Washington
  A
• 97
  
  Cole Bishop
  S | Utah
  B+
• 102
  Christian Mahogany
  IOL | Boston College
  A
• 115
  
  McKinnley Jackson
  DL | Texas A&M
  A
• 118
  Trevin Wallace
  LB | Kentucky
  B
• 154
  
  Jaylan Ford
  LB | Texas
  B+
• 179
  Kitan Oladapo
  S | Oregon State
  B+
• 186
  
  A.J. Barner
  TE | Michigan
  B
• 192
  Curtis Jacobs
  LB | Penn State
  B+
• 213
  
  Hunter Nourzad
  IOL | Penn State
  B+
• 235
  Zion Tupuola-Fetui
  EDGE | Washington
  B+
• 237
  
  Walter Rouse
  OT | Oklahoma
  A

 

[AgentDib]

Why is it so important to have a 2nd round pick vs an impactful pick at 16? Is quantity better than quality?

If you view the draft like throwing darts then quantity leads to quality. You had one near bullseye with two darts, while I was less accurate but had three perfect bullseyes after throwing twelve darts.

Of the nine QBs drafted in 2022, here are their relative career valuation ranks:
1) #262
2) #20 (traded)
3) #74
4) #144 (traded)
5) #137
6) #247
7) #86
8) #94
9) #241

Obviously that was a questionable class. However, what odds would you have given at the time that the last QB picked would be the only good one? And of course it isn't just QBs. In that same class, the third CB picked at #21 (UW's McDuffie) has over twice the valuation of the #3 overall pick Derek Stingley, while our #153 selection Woolen is 50% higher. If you play around with draft analysis then the high randomness of outcomes really stand out.

It ultimately comes down to how confident you are that your CB1 is going to be better than your CB2 and so on. The evidence that I've seen is that there are no teams which are consistently better than the rest at those calculations and simply the amount of draft capital alone correlates very well with draft success.