Watt has less value than he should because of the current NFL rules. He was the 11th overall pick (and the best player on that side of the ball in a while) so he's...uh...clearly worth one first. How many more beyond that is mostly a moot point since HOU laughs at most offers for him for other reasons.

Something in the RGIII deal range is probably where things start to get interesting, maybe with one few first and more lower picks thrown in. Of course, for a team with a franchise QB, it's an easier trade to make.

Send Watt to their team HQ to wreck up the place?

No, again, for the other factors involved (PR stuff). He's almost too valuable at his age to make any sort of trade work beyond a team giving up their drafts for the duration of his career or something insanely dumb.

Never understood this. With money, using the NPV makes sense because you can invest it and increase present-day money's value, but draft picks don't mature (Just ask ADP, buhdumtish). It's not as if there's a risk that the draft won't be there next year. Why that rule of thumb, and I agree it is the rule, is around I have no clue.

A dollar next year is worth less than a dollar this year because you lose the utility of that dollar for a year. Which discounts next year's dollar by factors like inflation.

If you trade this year's 2nd for next year's 2nd, you are obviously also losing, because you are losing 1 year of a 2nd round draft pick's utility.

I'm really interested in the actual formula though. I want to know how much work has gone into it to make it as accurate as possible.

Signing a 27-year-old vet is more predictable although that's not necessarily a great thing especially when they're value-type signings. Experience is worth something but then so is youth, upside, a lack of injury history. So your second- and sixth-round free safety picks may not pan out or be ready. You can say the same about the $3m replacement FS you want or the DE on a prove-it 1 year deal coming back from IR. Round 1-3 picks can be weighed against the FA replacement risks without too much thinking.

As far as BPA...I don't know of any NFL teams that are so deep that they can't find someone on their board that can help them nor any who are strict BPA-only drafters. If you're fortunate enough to be megadeep at TE and your top 3 BPA are all TEs, then it's possible you've already drafted one too high. Maybe there's an expendable veteran, or you go 4-deep, or you trade out, pick the BPA non-TE. That's a very non-typical scenario though (and what if you ran into the same with only 7 picks?).

Most of the value of the picks are heavily skewed upwards anyway toward the Day 1 pick and your second-day guys, so it's not really 7 extra guys. Whether a 5th or 7th doesn't make the squad or another fringe guy gets edged out isn't something I'd bean-count too hard.

The market for next year's picks is based on impatient GMs and coaches and the perceived quality of the draft class you're in, and maybe an upcoming CBA change. That's it. A hot-seat front office guy may lose a year of utility on deferred pick but the franchise itself doesn't.

Irsay's suspension ended today

Jim Irsay @JimIrsay · 2h 2 hours ago

What can I say? I could say something,but nothing IS something;nothing isn't nothing,if I say it;it's something.No things are nothing things


Jim Irsay @JimIrsay · 2h 2 hours ago

Oh hell,let's just give away some stuff to the best sports fans in the world,Colts Fans!! 10 best original limericks about 2014 Colts team!


Jim Irsay @JimIrsay · 2h 2 hours ago

Abby's choice in 10 limerick winners! $100 and ColtsHat to ten winners! Good Luck and I mean Luck because 4 in a row and 1st place is sweet!

What you say makes sense, but I see NFL teams as existing in perpetuity (for our purposes). I'm not worried about the lack of utility for one year because I'm getting a guys 3, 5, or 18 year career in total anyway. In life, I have only so many years, so giving one up carries a definite cost.

I guess it works when you consider GM's have only a certain number of years to "save" their job and so they face the same cost when giving up a year, but meh teams =/= GMs in my mind.

That train is never late

He's back! 1st rounder for Doug Martin to celebrate

Even still it's better to fill a roster spot from 2015-2022 if you can than it is to use the same pick to fill the spot from 2016-2023. Because you are losing a tiny edge in present day no for no reason. Yes, you get that guy eventually but why stave him off for a year if you don't have to?*

If 31 teams use their pick this year, and you save yours for next year, you have lost a slight edge to the entire league.

Think of it like this. You get fresh draft picks every year. When are those picks at their most valuable? The soonest you can spend them.

*Not talking about weird instance here. Speaking in general.

I'd have a tough time coming up with the real trade value for Luck. Three firsts now that he's a proven NFL guy and healthy doesn't sound unreasonable. For some reason three classes does.

If a 2p2er took those extra 21 picks in trade and live-picked during the drafts using general consensus, and just focused on finding a QB & supporting offensive players with those picks, I'd think they had a good chance of coming out ahead. Obviously unlikely a QB at Luck's level but maybe a top-15 QB you can win with, a backup, a few decent linemen.

Too bad it would take like 7 years to compare the results

Calling Luck "A proven NFL guy" is underselling his current level by a fair amount and his upside/career by a lot

I'm pretty sure you just wrote 4 sentences, all of which are wrong or flawed

Man, why hasn't someone made a "Right On!" gif of Vakydis from Semi-Pro yet, would've been perfect here.

So people who trade 3 or 4 first rounders for Watt, where's your ceiling?

Just seems like a lot for one player who can play at an elite level all year and still end up 2-14.

That's likely just lol results oriented thinking but I can't shake the idea...

It's pretty obviously team dependent.

Maybe in some thought exercise, but not in practice

But you have to pay all those players, then pay the good ones again in free agency, whereas Luck's going to crush the value of his next contract and probably the one after that. Obviously you're picking up some solid, underpriced rookies, but that's at the cost of giving up a top-5 quarterback and hoping to replace him. I can't see how this is even close.

Not what I meant but I could see how you'd read it that way. I wrote "now that he's a proven NFL guy" meaning as opposed to an unproven draft prospect. I wouldn't have RG3-traded for him during his draft.

If all else was equal, then you'd obviously lose some edge for this year but gain it back in a season 4 or 5 years down the road. That doesn't matter now but I suspect it will matter a lot 4 or 5 years down the road.

But they're not equal. What if you're sitting at #48 and don't have a true second-round grade on any remaining player (that you can use/fits your scheme)? There's a WR tempting you but you think he's probably 3rd round guy most years. Do you reach or would you push the pick into the next year? A weak or strong draft class and its shape has to impact your strategy.

Or what if your franchise is looking at a big housecleaning next year and figures to be 2 or 3 years away from contention? A little more edge this year may not benefit you in a practical way. I don't believe in tanking but you can shift resources into and out of future years and it sometimes make sense to do so.

Yeah, this is the part I'm struggling with. When dealing with money, since the value increases with no end, getting a head start on compounding interest is a huge edge, which we adjust for with NPV. With NFL players, they get better, plateau, and then get worse.

I'm struggling to see why having my player's career arch start at year 1, peak at year 6, hold until year 12, and decline until year 16 is intrinsically better than starting at year 2, peaking at year 7, holding until year 13, and declining until year 17.*

I'm sure it's something I'd learn in my 6 months of GM training if it ever came to that.

*Obv we're talking about the same player here. The strength of draft classes weighs heavily on all this stuff in the real world.

I mean, you cut off the part of my post that said "Not talking weird instances here." then wrote all that. A weird instance.

If you don't have a 2nd round grade on any remaining player, it might just mean that you don't know how to grade players (could also mean weak draft class as you say).

But, if it's a weak draft class, who is going to trade for your pick? If someone trades up to your pick in this weak draft class then it means the BPA fits their team and they think he is a 2nd round (or better) grade. Again, that's a weird instance.

To top it off, why would you trade this year's number 46 pick for next year's #46 pick if you can get more? Which I assume theoretically is always the case.

I mean yeah you do get that edge back that you lose this year eventually. I mis-spoke earlier when I said "for no reason". The reason is that you get the edge back later, when you think it will be of more use.

But why does it make sense (again, generally speaking) to lose an edge now to gain it back later? Why not just use the pick now?

Draft picks are huge but there's a wide discrepancy between how effectively different teams make use of their picks. For the Vikings we're talking about one of those GOAT drafter type teams and I know Luck wouldn't be happy sitting on the bench but I'd still give up 2 1sts just for the security. Good question.

The relevant portion I responded to was before your edit, I didn't change anything and even that's different.

Sure it could, but what difference does that make on draft day? It's too late to hire new scouts and re-grade everyone. You're on the clock and don't see good value, do you just say we suck at drafting so let's reach on this guy, we probably just undervalued him?

Somebody else with different grades on players? There's 31 other front offices out there and chances are they all have different boards, and varying degrees of job security.

You wouldn't, obviously there's even more value in moving out a year and you'd want better for it. All I'm saying is that a #46 or #1 or #whatever will be worth more in some years than others.

Not we suck at drafting. We suck at evaluating. So yeah, you can probably deduce that whoever you identified as BPA in the mid-2nd round is probably a 2nd round value. No matter what your flawed board tells you.

How much variance do you think there is year to year in college when judging the 33rd-64th best prospects? Can't be much. And so many teams draft poorly in the 1st and 2nd round (taking 2nd and 3rd - or worse - rounders) that it's almost not possible to be picking in the 2nd round and just think everyone left is 3rd round (absolute) value or worse.

You'd also be gambling that next year's draft class would be better than this year's, which won't always be the case. It probably will be but some % of time it will be even worse than this year's.

All needs being equal, how would you rank the importance of the positions? Assume you're drafting for an expansion team and have to fill every position before picking back-ups. You have every player in the history of the NFL at their peak available.

Obviously, QB is first, right?

What's next? Is punter really last? How much is a Ray Guy worth?