Draft Pick Choices

southcarolina* on 12-16-2007 at 10:50 AM said:
Ties within the draft order are supposed to be broken according to opponents winning %. Do you know if they count teams that you play twice, twice in figuring the winning %? In other words, does SF's Opp win % count the other 3 NFC West teams once or twice?

OK i think i just found an answer to my question. Looks like teams only get counted once. Going into play on Dec 13, SF opp had 79 wins, Oaklands had 78.


heres a good explanation of the entire seeding process:

http://www.ourlads.com/draftsequence.cfm
 
southcarolina* on 12-16-2007 at 11:04 AM said:
OK i think i just found an answer to my question. Looks like teams only get counted once. Going into play on Dec 13, SF opp had 79 wins, Oaklands had 78.


heres a good explanation of the entire seeding process:

http://www.ourlads.com/draftsequence.cfm
Thanks for the link. Like I reported, this was Schefter's commentary during the game, he was using Strength of Schedule to predict where SF's pick would wind up, hence the #2 if they lost and the #6 if they won.

Why focus on the "big trade" scenerio? BB/SP may trade down one pick at a time grabbing second day picks. Third round picks have more value this year because the Third is now the first round of Day Two. I wouldn't look to Dallas as a trade partner at #6, look to teams like Baltimore & Chicago (frequent trade partners).

Finally, #6 overall pick Richard Seymour, #13 overall Ty Warren, and #21 overall Vince Wilfork suggest you not fuss over the McFadden wet dreams and "can't miss" players - BB/SP may just have enough rabbits in their hat to handle a later pick. ;)
 
Box_O_Rocks on 12-16-2007 at 11:42 AM said:
Thanks for the link. Like I reported, this was Schefter's commentary during the game, he was using Strength of Schedule to predict where SF's pick would wind up, hence the #2 if they lost and the #6 if they won.


Yes i was counting the teams they played twice two times, which skewed my numbers :)


Box_O_Rocks on 12-16-2007 at 11:42 AM said:

Why focus on the "big trade" scenerio? BB/SP may trade down one pick at a time grabbing second day picks. Third round picks have more value this year because the Third is now the first round of Day Two. I wouldn't look to Dallas as a trade partner at #6, look to teams like Baltimore & Chicago (frequent trade partners).


My whole point was, why would a team like Baltimore or Chicago trade up to #6 when what they need (presumably a QB) will still be available when they draft? Unless they move ahead of Atlanta at #2 right now, one of the 3 QB's most likely will be gone by the time #6 picks. There would be absolutely no reason for Baltimore to trade up, as there isnt a team between #6 and #8 that is going to take a QB. The only other team between #6 and the Chicago pick that might draft a QB is Carolina @ #9, but i seriously doubt they will. So unless Chicago has some inside info that Baltimore is going to take "their guy" at #8, i cant see why the Bears would trade up. One of the three QB's is likely going to fall to them at #12. A trade up for a QB is far more likely from a team like Minnesota. But they will have to give up multiple lower round picks to move up that far, and thats not a good recipe for building a team.


Box_O_Rocks on 12-16-2007 at 11:42 AM said:

Finally, #6 overall pick Richard Seymour, #13 overall Ty Warren, and #21 overall Vince Wilfork suggest you not fuss over the McFadden wet dreams and "can't miss" players - BB/SP may just have enough rabbits in their hat to handle a later pick. ;)

Again you miss my point i think, i was merely suggesting that other teams would not be as apt to trade up for the #6 pick vs the #2 pick, since all the top guys would be gone. After the Big Four, and the QBs, there is not much consensus who the next 10 or so prospects are. Which leads me to believe that there probably isnt a whole lot of drop off talent-wise from pick 6 to pick 15 or 16 or so. So will these teams be apt to trade up, lose later round draft picks, AND pay a higher picks contract for a player whose talent level is not much better than one they could have gotten at their original spot? Would a team in the teens trade up to get Sedrick Ellis, or Malcolm Jenkins, or Sam Baker or Calais Campbell?


I have no doubt that if the Patriots do trade down that the FO will make good use of the picks they acquire. I just have my doubts as to how many partners there are actually going to be for them to trade with, given that at #6 we are out of the elite player pool, that there will competition from those teams that are in the top 4 to trade down as well, and that teams may be reluctant to trade with the Patriots as it is, if that trade gives us even more draft picks to strengthen our already strong team.

I dont have wet dreams about McFadden per se, i just believe that of the Big Four, he is the one who would most impact the Patriots. When the Patriots had the #2 spot, i thought he represented the best value for the Patriots. They dont really need more Def lineman (Dorsey and C Long) , and while J Long may turn out to be a stud, OL isnt really a weak spot for the Patriots either. There is a good chance that any of these three players wouldnt even start next season. Thats alot of money for a second stringer.
 
southcarolina* on 12-16-2007 at 12:22 PM said:
My whole point was, why would a team like Baltimore or Chicago trade up to #6 when what they need (presumably a QB) will still be available when they draft? Unless they move ahead of Atlanta at #2 right now, one of the 3 QB's most likely will be gone by the time #6 picks. There would be absolutely no reason for Baltimore to trade up, as there isnt a team between #6 and #8 that is going to take a QB. The only other team between #6 and the Chicago pick that might draft a QB is Carolina @ #9, but i seriously doubt they will. So unless Chicago has some inside info that Baltimore is going to take "their guy" at #8, i cant see why the Bears would trade up. One of the three QB's is likely going to fall to them at #12. A trade up for a QB is far more likely from a team like Minnesota. But they will have to give up multiple lower round picks to move up that far, and thats not a good recipe for building a team.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...Ted Ginn Jr. anyone? There will be teams who will pull the trigger to move up for a player they think will be perfect for their system. If Chicago wants Matt Ryan and thinks Baltimore might take him they trade up. Let's also wait and see which players have breakout All-Star and Combine numbers and set teams to wetting their pants. Have something fattening with some alcohol and relax - trust the Boxster, we'll be whooping it up when it's all said and done. :thumb:
Again you miss my point i think, i was merely suggesting that other teams would not be as apt to trade up for the #6 pick vs the #2 pick, since all the top guys would be gone.
They'll trade, there are plenty of GMs with no patience or self control whatsoever.
I dont have wet dreams about McFadden per se, i just believe that of the Big Four, he is the one who would most impact the Patriots.
I know bubba, we just disagree here. I believe Maroney is getting better at doing what the Coaches want him to do.
 
Box_O_Rocks on 12-16-2007 at 02:33 PM said:
.I know bubba, we just disagree here. I believe Maroney is getting better at doing what the Coaches want him to do.


This is gonna end with you and me in the back yard each with a pair of 14 ounce gloves on, isnt it?
 
southcarolina* on 12-16-2007 at 02:43 PM said:
This is gonna end with you and me in the back yard each with a pair of 14 ounce gloves on, isnt it?
As long as it's my backyard...there's close to three feet of snow and 14 ounce gloves should have good insulation. :D
 
Back
Top