Colts Vs. Patriots Sunday Night Football Game Thread
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
Back to the original post about this, seems like they got something backwards with their Johnson/Hill numbers. Johnson has decimals, Hill has whole numbers. But chart shows Hill will decimals and Johnson with whole numbers. Johnson - 19 Hill - 6.03 Jimmy Johnson has early 6th round value + 16.4pts - pick 183-184 range https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=Ind Rich Hill has late 5th round value #35 - 170pts #44 - 135pts #110 - 30pts #158 - 10pts #211 - 3pts +8pts - pick 167-172 https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart-Rich-Hill.asp?RequestTeam=Ind Inconsequential, but a little flaw in that data entry. Only thing I don't like about Rich Hill's is the value he places on those top 3 picks, where I think Jimmy Johnson's has the advantage in my eyes. Although I like the value gained on Rich Hill's better. Lol. -
In essense we got Julius Brents, Adetomiwa Adebawore, Daniel Scott and Titus Leo for #35... I really believe that you have to have a great reason not to trade back when that's the value you are getting. To a huge degree the draft is a crapshoot and the difference in expected value between 35 and 44 is probably negligible. And for the price you get 3 more shots at players, some of them with really high upside too. Of course, there might be some exceptions to the rule(QBs as always break that rule... maybe some exceptional talent at another high value position), but in general if you can get that type of a deal, you should almost always do the trade back. And I think this is one area where Ballard has actually been great as a GM. -
I will say, me personally though, I find more value than an early 6th(compilation of trades). We got 4 players for the 1 pick(#35), once the dust settled, and got the guy we would of probably taken at #35 in the first place. So adding (3) guys for "free" essentially, is a big win. So I would say I lean a little more towards value charts than trade charts for that reason. Maybe somewhere in the middle, late 3rd early 4th "value", and that's mainly because I think we would of took Brents at #35 either way. Seems teams are closer to the trade chart when making deals, but claim the value charts after deal, if it shows a big win.
-
I see it now. When I first read it, thought you were saying 1st trade down got 6th round value and 2nd trade got 2nd round value. Then was blinded by just waking up and already looking for a flaw. Clearly teams aren't using the value charts as you stated in post above. Thanks for helping me read out the chart. Should just read the picks we kept and sent out. No need to have them cancel each other out. EDIT: ahh who am I to tell the guy how to do his charts(have to account for the picks). It was my reading comprehension that caused the problem.
-
It is incoming value from one trade... and then it's outgoing value in the next trade. You are not claiming the value of those picks... they cancel out when you put them in the outgoing picks. 35 for 38+141 then 38 for 44+ 110 then 141 for 158 + 211 ... when you draw the line you get 35 for 44+110+158+211 Using Johnson: 35(550) for 44(460) + 110(74) + 158(28) + 211(7)... or 550 points for 569 points. Net gain of 19 points, which by Johnson's chart is equivalent of late 5th, early 6th round pick... Using OTC: 35(1128) for 44(1007) + 110(525) + 158(334) + 211(182) or 1128 points for 2048 points. Net gain of 920 points which is by OTC chart is equivalent to the 60th pick... or thereabout(i.e late second... )
-
-
Members
-
Recommended Posts