Colts have 3rd best draft by major outlet consensus?

[stitches]

17 hours ago, w87r said:

Colts trades breakdown:

 

#35 - 550

 

#38 - 520

#141 - 35.5

 

+ 5.5pts (late 6th difference)

 

#38 - 520

 

#44 - 460

#110 - 74

 

+ 14pts (high 6th difference)

 

#141 - 35.5

 

#158 - 27

#211 - 5.4

 

- 3.1pts (late 6th difference)

Here's a thread about every team's value gained/lost via trades in the draft this year(the guy includes various different charts): 

 

Depending on the chart used the Colts have gained somewhere between 2nd-3d round value(this is according to the modern analytics based value charts - Stuart, Overthecap, PFF charts) or an early 6th round value according to the classic old school trade charts Jimmy Johnson or Rich Hill charts. 

 

So what can we conclude based on those evaluations? The value is much closer on the old school charts thus it's very likely the teams are using the old school charts rather than modern analytics based charts... or at least Ballard is insisting on using those when trading back. 

 

In general, if you believe in modern day draft value analytics, the draft is a great place to gain an advantage... and in general - trading back is a great idea. The reason according to those charts the Colts gained a day 2 pick in this draft is because we traded back 3 times and the value of that extra capital far outweighs the small drop in draft position(8 spots in the second, 20 spots in the 5th).  

 

On a sidenote - according both the value charts and the trade charts the Texans lost a TON of value by trading up to 3. The analytics charts are brutal for them - they lost the equivalent of the no. 1 pick in the draft + more... the traditional charts are a bit more mild but still think they lost a high 1st round pick in that trade. 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Here's a thread about every team's value gained/lost via trades in the draft this year(the guy includes various different charts): 

 

Depending on the chart used the Colts have gained somewhere between 2nd-3d round value(this is according to the modern analytics based value charts - Stuart, Overthecap, PFF charts) or an early 6th round value according to the classic old school trade charts Jimmy Johnson or Rich Hill charts. 

 

So what can we conclude based on those evaluations? The value is much closer on the old school charts thus it's very likely the teams are using the old school charts rather than modern analytics based charts... or at least Ballard is insisting on using those when trading back. 

 

In general, if you believe in modern day draft value analytics, the draft is a great place to gain an advantage... and in general - trading back is a great idea. The reason according to those charts the Colts gained a day 2 pick in this draft is because we traded back 3 times and the value of that extra capital far outweighs the small drop in draft position(8 spots in the second, 20 spots in the 5th).  

 

On a sidenote - according both the value charts and the trade charts the Texans lost a TON of value by trading up to 3. The analytics charts are brutal for them - they lost the equivalent of the no. 1 pick in the draft + more... the traditional charts are a bit more mild but still think they lost a high 1st round pick in that trade. 

Only thing I understood from that exercise is that only two NFL franchises didn't make any draft day trade at all - Chargers and Dolphins.  

[w87r]

4 hours ago, stitches said:

Here's a thread about every team's value gained/lost via trades in the draft this year(the guy includes various different charts): 

 

Depending on the chart used the Colts have gained somewhere between 2nd-3d round value(this is according to the modern analytics based value charts - Stuart, Overthecap, PFF charts) or an early 6th round value according to the classic old school trade charts Jimmy Johnson or Rich Hill charts. 

 

So what can we conclude based on those evaluations? The value is much closer on the old school charts thus it's very likely the teams are using the old school charts rather than modern analytics based charts... or at least Ballard is insisting on using those when trading back. 

 

In general, if you believe in modern day draft value analytics, the draft is a great place to gain an advantage... and in general - trading back is a great idea. The reason according to those charts the Colts gained a day 2 pick in this draft is because we traded back 3 times and the value of that extra capital far outweighs the small drop in draft position(8 spots in the second, 20 spots in the 5th).  

 

On a sidenote - according both the value charts and the trade charts the Texans lost a TON of value by trading up to 3. The analytics charts are brutal for them - they lost the equivalent of the no. 1 pick in the draft + more... the traditional charts are a bit more mild but still think they lost a high 1st round pick in that trade. 

The Colts shouldn't have pick #38 on their 2nd list. They traded it. So that is way off. Should just be #44, That's where the early 2nd value is showing and incorrectly at that.

 

Shouldn't have pick #141 on 2nd list either.

 

 

Don't get to claim value gained on a pick you didn't use.

 

 

Don't know if this is a flaw across all teams but he definitely messed up his colts numbers.

[stitches]

11 minutes ago, w87r said:

The Colts shouldn't have pick #38 on their 2nd list. They traded it. So that is way off. Should just be #44, That's where the early 2nd value is showing and incorrectly at that.

 

Shouldn't have pick #141 on 2nd list either.

this is taken into account in the outgoing assets, They are included in the incoming assets because they are coming from the trades made - 38 and 141 are coming from the trades made down from 35 to 38. 

[w87r]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

this is taken into account in the outgoing assets, 

It is, but it's not.

 

 

They are outgoing, you can't claim the value if you don't use  the pick. It got traded again, it is not incoming value

 

#38 and #141 are not incoming value, because we didn't use the picks.

 

You can't claim both sets of picks as incoming/outgoing value. Just can't 

 

 

 

[stitches]

13 minutes ago, w87r said:

It is, but it's not.

 

 

They are outgoing, you can't claim the value if you don't use it the pick. It got traded again. It is not incoming value

 

#38 and #141 are not incoming value, because we didn't use the picks.

 

You can't claim both sets of picks and incoming/outgoing value. Just can't 

 

 

 

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... )

[w87r]

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.

[w87r]

5 hours ago, stitches said:

In general, if you believe in modern day draft value analytics, the draft is a great place to gain an advantage... and in general - trading back is a great idea. The reason according to those charts the Colts gained a day 2 pick in this draft is because we traded back 3 times and the value of that extra capital far outweighs the small drop in draft position(8 spots in the second, 20 spots in the 5th).  

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.

 

 

[stitches]

12 minutes ago, w87r said:

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.

 

 

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. 

[w87r]

6 hours ago, stitches said:

Depending on the chart used the Colts have gained somewhere between 2nd-3d round value(this is according to the modern analytics based value charts - Stuart, Overthecap, PFF charts) or an early 6th round value according to the classic old school trade charts Jimmy Johnson or Rich Hill charts. 

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.

[throwing BBZ]

 

 So we ended up with 3 more shots, that may provide value if they get on the field and perform well. Yeah! Old news.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, stitches said:

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... )

Doing simple math here:     

 

Johnson:  7 points for pick 211 is 1.27% of the 550 points for pick 35.  7/550 = 1.27%

 

OTC for the picks:  182/1128  = 16.13%

 

So it seems that OTC philosophically puts greater value on the later picks than Johnson does, since each lower pick is worth a larger chunk of the high pick than the Johnson chart..  So yes, the more later round picks a team accumulates adds up to equaling a pick of higher value under OTC.

 

So the question is, who is right?   Should the later round picks be valued more than what Johnson values them, or is OTC too high?

 

[stitches]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Doing simple math here:     

 

Johnson:  7 points for pick 211 is 1.27% of the 550 points for pick 35.  7/550 = 1.27%

 

OTC for the picks:  182/1128  = 16.13%

 

So it seems that OTC philosophically puts greater value on the later picks than Johnson does, since each lower pick is worth a larger chunk of the high pick than the Johnson chart..  So yes, the more later round picks a team accumulates adds up to equaling a pick of higher value under OTC.

 

So the question is, who is right?   Should the later round picks be valued more than what Johnson values them, or is OTC too high?

 

The value based trade charts(OTC, PFF, Stanford) are practically charts of expected value to be returned by players selected in those slots... they take into account the history of performance of players selected at the respective positions, the contracts they are getting after their rookie deals, the value they bring to teams, etc. The value charts are probably closer to the truth, IMO... but teams still operate heavily within the frameworks of the traditional draft charts(Johnson). This is a huge inefficiency in today's league and Ballard has been exploiting it consistently through the years. This IMO is one of his best attributes and philosophies as a GM. 

 

So yeah... probably late round picks should have higher value than they do in the Johnson charts.