Silly draft question
Posted by Doug on March 12, 2008
This is purely hypothetical, because no team would ever be faced with this choice, but I think it's a fun thought experiment and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it.
I'll offer a single question, then I'll give it a couple of twists.
The question: If you were the Miami Dolphins, would you trade the first overall pick for the entire fifth round (all 32 picks)?
For me, two things instantly pop into my mind. First, I wonder about the salary cap impact. Second, I'd be concerned about my ability to evaluate 32 marginal talents during the short duration of a single training camp. So here are a couple of follow-ups.
1. If it were mandated from above that the trade would be salary-cap neutral for the first two years, would you trade #1 for the fifth round?
2. If you got a special practice-squad exemption that allowed you to carry all your fifth-rounders for a full year to evaluate them, would you trade #1 for the fifth round?
Tomorrow, I'll look at the historical data to see how many starters and how many stars generally emerge from the fifth round. For now I'm interested in your gut reactions.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Because of the sheer inability of statistical analysis to seperate a historically great prospect from one who is merely very good, I'd have to take the entire 5th round over the 1st overall pick.
Any team that knows what it's doing is likely to land a very good player with the first overall pick, but they are likely to land a few of those players in the fifth, and have a much, much better chance at picking a greatest ever type with all the extra picks than they do with just one.
The risk of course is that you end up cutting that great player in camp, and that's a legitmate risk, but if you are the Miami Dolphins, you would probably keep any player who showed anything in camp on your 53 man, so that player would have plenty of time to prove his skills before they had to make a decision on him.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
My gut reaction was that I'd do it. But then I started thinking that best case scenario is that you end up with 2 or 3 players who play regularly. Maybe 1 who starts. Probably 0 who are impact players.
With the #1 pick you will most likely have a starter, and maybe a 50% chance he's an impact player.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I think it depends on what we mean by cap-neutral. For those first two years, we spend the same on any 5th-round players we keep as we would on the #1 overall? Because presumably, we'll cut most of those 5th-round picks eventually, and we'll be spending a lot less on the good ones we kept than on that single #1 overall choice.
Based on that, I think I'd lean towards the 5th round unless (a) the #1 pick is John Elway, or (b) I'm missing something.
That said, Doug's second scenario (practice-squad exemption) is much more appealing than trying to "evaluate 32 marginal talents during the short duration of a single training camp." Heck, just fitting them all on the field and getting them practice reps would be tough. I don't think I'd bite without that year-to-evaluate provision.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
It depends a bit on the year. If Peyton Manning is there, then maybe not. Otherwise I would think most GMs would would do it. They want volume. It takes a lot of bodies to find good players and run a team. Plus with 32 picks, the club will get to pick all of the marginal guys who they might have picked in later rounds and then some. Several of those have a good chance of panning out.
Plus, if you're Miami, you're trying to rebuild; you wants the picks.
Are you allowed to trade them too?
March 12th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
My gut reaction is heck no, for all the scenarios.
My equation is not simply #1 overall pick vs. 32 5th round picks.
It is #1 overall pick + [replacement level street free agents that would fill the roster spots otherwise occupied by 5th rounders] vs. 32 5th round picks.
The drop-off from 5th to rookie free agents is not significant at many positions. In regard to the second hypo, I don't even think that matters that much. It's not as much a matter of team's cutting players right away, as employing players on the bench, and then having them leave in a few years before they show anything. Joe Horn was a 5th rounder by the Chiefs. He wasn't cut. He just never moved into the starting lineup before he left for New Orleans. He was one of the few good values in the 5th, but his drafting team didn't get that value.
Of course, if our hypothetical team of 32 rookie fifth rounders did exist, the Joe Horns would be pressed into duty and identified, because it would be difficult to round out a starting roster. And this team would have the first overall pick the next year to draft Manning to throw to him.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Now, the #1 overall for 8 2nd rounders or 16 3rd rounders, if I am a team in need of multiple young players, we may be able to work something out.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Just did a cursory, non-scientific evaluation of the past few years:
2007 1st: JaMarcus Russell
2007 useful 5ths: Kolby Smith, Kevin Boss, Aundrae Allison, Troy Smith
2007 trade? No
2006 1st: Mario Williams
2006 useful 5ths: Parys Haralson, Dawan Landry, Mark Anderson, Omar Gaither, Kyle Williams
2006 trade? Maybe - Anderson makes it close
2005 1st: Alex Smith
2005 useful 5ths: Trent Cole, Michael Boley, Geoff Hangartner
2005 trade? yes
2004 1st: Eli Manning
2004 useful 5ths: Gibril Wilson, Josh Scobee, Jacob Bell, Jake Scott, Erik Coleman, Mike Karney, D.J. Hackett, Michael Turner
2004 trade? tough call... maybe, both sides are good
2003 1st: Carson Palmer
2003 useful 5ths: Robert Mathis, Justin Gage, Donald Lee, Kindal Moorehead, Doug Gabriel, David Diehl, Dan Koppen, Tony Pashos
2003 trade? No
2002 1st: David Carr
2002 useful 5ths: Scott Fujita, Kyle Johnson, Rocky Bernard, Aaron Kampman, Robert Royal, Verron Haynes
2002 trade? totally yes
For the last six years, there's (obviously) the first overall pick, which picks developed into decent NFL starters (subjectively), then whether I would have traded the first pick for the fifth round, in retrospect.
As far as the trades, there are two years I definitely would have traded (both of which involve first-pick QB busts), two years where it's a toss-up, and two years where the first pick would be better.
The way I see it, taking the fifth round would obviously mitigate your risk, but comes with a lower chance of getting a franchise player. In today's NFL, with the salary cap increasing as fast as it is, you could probably sign role players to replace the 4-5 useful starters that you might get out of the fifth round, freeing your team up to take a big swing at a star with the top pick.
Moral of the story: I'm not sure. But if I were a GM, I'd probably hang on to the top pick, or at least trade it for a couple mid-first-rounders.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
whitedawg, the "totally yes" for 2002 is sort of a misnomer: the Texans had the first pick and picked a QB because they were a new franchise, but the best player in the draft that year was Julius Peppers and he would have gone first in a non-expansion year.
With that in mind, the verdict is still a "yes" because kampman and peppers are equal, and the other players are better than what you would have found on the FA market.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Syed, that's fair, but I think the real key is to balance that out by increasing the sample size, not by making subjective determinations of why players were drafted.
For example, in 2005 Alex Smith almost definitely wasn't the best prospect, but the 49ers were desperate for a QB so they took him.
I think that might lead to the most obvious conclusion from past drafts: don't reach for a QB.
March 12th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I agree with JKL in #6--esp. for this year's draft. Having 8 2nd rounders in this year's draft would prob. net 4 starters. In various mock drafts that I have seen, there are a couple of LB's, CB's, & RB's that will prob. end up going between 20 & 40, depending on team needs and which team is in love with which player. Also in a year where several different players could go #1 overall, this would be an even better scenario. Don't know that I would exchange it for 32 5th rounders, though--this year I might, but I doubt it. 32 4th rounders--I would do it in a heartbeat.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
I'd take the 5th. Disclaimer - I'm a Chargers fan & AJ Smith would be doing the picking
.
Picking #1 overall you've got a better than even chance (at best) of getting a top player otherwise you could get a bust killing your salary cap for the next 5 years. People say "Peyton Manning" but that year it was a toss up in many peoples minds between him and "The Joe Montana of Busts" - He who must not be named. All credit to the Colts for getting it right
Also there's injuries to take into account. Get one player & injure them & you're out of luck. Get the 5th round and you WILL get a few starters even if some prove to be too fragile for the NFL. For a team picking #1 overall (something the Chargers sadly know ALL about...) you need more than one warm body to fix up your team and there's some pretty decent players to be found in the 5th round - Shaun Phillips if I recall correctly...
March 13th, 2008 at 1:10 am
I'm with JKL. You can point to 5th rounders that became stars and say "see, chances are, someone worthwhile will come out of the 5th round, and maybe even a great one," but you can say the same thing about undrafted free agents. #1 overall picks have a much greater chance of being elite players. Now, if you can get multiple first round picks, or several second/third round picks, then maybe it's a good idea, because there will still be many talented players available in the second round.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:39 am
People (including NFL GMs) are out-of-date/wrong in their belief in the impossibility of reliable evaluation of top quarterback prospects. David Lewin's quarterback projection system is (to my mind) of limited value in assessing second tier or lower prospects, but it does a very good job indeed with the guys who go in the first half of the first round. In particular, the weak sub-Lewin hypothesis that if your scouts tell you a guy with a high college start total is a truly elite talent then he definitely is is a hugely valuable one. It really is possible to tell the difference between Carson Palmer and David Carr based on their college performance.
Given that, then obviously if there is such a prospect in the draft (which appears to happen roughly one year in five) there is no way you make the trade. There is also no way you make the trade without the practice squad exemption. With it . . . maybe.
Given that whitedawg's list includes three first overall selections which Lewin's research could have told you were mistakes at the time (Carr, Manning and Smith - and yes, I know that from San Diego's point of view Manning wasn't a mistake, but you take my point), let's consider the players who a better GM would have taken with those picks: Julius Peppers, Braylon Edwards, and one of Larry Fitzgerald and Philip Rivers. To my mind, that makes 2002 a "probably trade", 2004 a "probably keep" and 2005 a "keep". I also see Mario Williams as pretty clearly better than the 2006 5th round, but that's because I'm not terribly high on Anderson, whatever the research elsewhere in this blog may suggest. I think that in most years, only a bad front office should trade the pick, and if you think you're the head of a bad front office, you probably want to be thinking about a career change.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:52 am
With 32 5th round picks - why couldn't you trade that into multiple 3rd round picks? Or am I missing something?