PDA

View Full Version : Future Draft Strategies



WARHORSE
04-13-2013, 03:57 PM
Been thinking of this for awhile. Strategies to set us up to kill draft day each year should we be able to pull it off.

Decide this year to trade away each of our draft picks for picks next year, most of all our second and first rounders, possibly our third.

The later rounds wont be worth trading away if we are able to trade away our first and second.

What we get in return for our picks:

For our first rounder, a second rounder this year and a first next year.

For our second, (either one since we now have two this year) we get a third this year and a second next year.


We end up with this year: A second rounder, two thirds and the rest of our draft.


Next year.

We have two firsts.
Two seconds.
The rest of the draft.



From here we have a number of possible scenarios in the 2014 draft:


We have two first rounders one or both of which we trade and do the same scenario for the following year.

If we trade one, then we walk into the draft with a first, three seconds and the rest.

This gives a ton of flexibility. Its even possible to trade one of those seconds for a first the following year outright.

But anyway, if we draft with a first and three seconds, we can move all over the draft board. We can accumulate more picks.

The idea is to stockpile picks so that you can do what you want on draft day.

We can draft with our first rounder, then use two of the seconds to trade back into the first. Then you trade the third second rounder away for picks the following year.

If we trade both first rounders away, we end up with three firsts in 2015, four seconds in 2014. With four seconds, you can easily trade back into the first round with two if you wanted to, then pick two seconds and the rest of the draft.

Or you could trade back into the first with two of those seconds, pick a player with one, and trade away the other for a third in 2014 and a second in 2015.




Going into 2015, you have three firsts, possibly two or three seconds.

You use these picks to maneuver, yet ALWAYS trading away some for picks the following year, building your draft pick quiver.

Even agreeing to move down for picks the following year would be advantageous.

Why?

Flexibility in the draft for years to come is worth FAR more than any one or few players in a draft. Since you dont know whether a first rounder or a second will be worth a dang on gameday, the ability to move to get great players on draft day is a strategy that will pay off for years to come.

As you build a roster that has fantastic players on it, you wont be able to keep them all because of money handicaps.

However, you WILL be able to trade those same players for draft picks as well as long as you dont let them get too far into their contracts.

In the end, you will have a deep, deep rosters with great players who are valuable chess pieces not only for winning championships for years to come, but also for possibly trading.

You STILL have your late draft picks as well in which you can find diamonds in the rough.



The thought would be......well what if you have a bunch of first rounders in a draft that is full of bad players?

Thats true. But in the world of dumb GMs, (Scott Pioli actually had people paying him a ton of money for what he did, just one of many examples of GM idiots) you can ALWAYS find one dummy to give up a pick next year for one this year.


Anyway.............whatsayou?:coffee:

Joel
04-13-2013, 06:24 PM
As I mentioned the other day, that's what I do in Madden '07s franchise mode. That's where I learned the NFL deters it by limiting teams to 9 picks. It's also the only place I'd expect many teams to bite; Madden NFL isn't the REAL NFL. Regardless, trading current picks runs directly counter to Win Now Mode, which is where we are until PFM and/or Champ retire. We don't have time to wait for extra early picks in a year or two.

It's a good idea in principle; the rookie cap even provides the equivalent of what I do with high Madden picks (release them after snaking them from other teams, then sign them for FAR less on the FA market.) It's just not good for this team at this time. We're more likely to be on the other end, trading future high picks for the last pieces of the championship puzzle at places they make a big instant difference.

I still think the best draft strategy is:

1) Dogs sieze the brief, rare and painful chance at the BPA, knowing they're Swiss cheese a star almost ANYWHERE improves a lot, and provides someone to build around once they're too good to get top picks.

2) Contenders fill current/imminent critical holes to get/stay on top, knowing many stars leave few holes for the BPA, and he'll be long gone by their pick anyway, allowing just the "best player LEFT."

SR
04-13-2013, 06:31 PM
Learning "real life" NFL strategies from a VIDEO GAME = LMAO

Joel
04-13-2013, 07:43 PM
Learning "real life" NFL strategies from a VIDEO GAME = LMAO
That's what you got from "Madden's not reality"? Keep hearing what you want, I guess. The last thing I'd suggest is getting real strategy from Madden; that's how we got people who think football is just bombs, sacks and picks. I learned my draft strategy from The Hidden Game of Football, which may have influenced the game more over the last 25 years than have any three coaches combined. Check it out if you haven't yet.

TXBRONC
04-13-2013, 09:19 PM
Learning "real life" NFL strategies from a VIDEO GAME = LMAO

No kidding what a freaking joke.

TXBRONC
04-13-2013, 09:28 PM
That's what you got from "Madden's not reality"? Keep hearing what you want, I guess. The last thing I'd suggest is getting real strategy from Madden; that's how we got people who think football is just bombs, sacks and picks. I learned my draft strategy from The Hidden Game of Football, which may have influenced the game more over the last 25 years than have any three coaches combined. Check it out if you haven't yet.

You don't have a stradegy you pretend that you have one based off of six year old video game. :rofl:

Joel
04-13-2013, 09:36 PM
You don't have stradegy you pretend that you have one based off of six year old video game. :rofl:
Fine, my posts mean exactly the opposite of what they specifically state. I guess that was the next natural step from declaring they all have a hidden agenda.

SR
04-13-2013, 09:41 PM
Fine, my posts mean exactly the opposite of what they specifically state. I guess that was the next natural step from declaring they all have a hidden agenda.

You just don't make sense. You're like a more literate, better spoken version of Zam. Not a good thing.

TXBRONC
04-13-2013, 09:48 PM
Fine, my posts mean exactly the opposite of what they specifically state. I guess that was the next natural step from declaring they all have a hidden agenda.

Ah Joel don't be coward now. You said your draft stradegy is based off of a video game but then say the game isn't reality. In other words, you base your real world stradegy off of fiction. That's funny. I suppose Madden 2007 is also where you've develop some of you idea of moving Miller to middle linebacker. :lol:

Joel
04-13-2013, 10:03 PM
Ah Joel don't be coward now. You said your draft stradegy is based off of a video game but then say the game isn't reality. In other words, you base your real world stradegy off of fiction. That's funny. I suppose Madden 2007 is also where you've develop some of you idea of moving Miller to middle linebacker. :lol:

That's where I learned the NFL deters it by limiting teams to 9 picks. It's also the only place I'd expect many teams to bite; Madden NFL isn't the REAL NFL.
What's unclear about that? I didn't know the NFL limits teams to 9 picks until I played Madden (and did look it up to confirm it independently of the game.) That doesn't make it where I got my draft strategy; I got my draft strategy before Madden even existed. It's not the one I use in Madden, because Madden emulates reality (and not always well) rather than the reverse; again, Madden NFL isn't the real NFL.

Do you just willfully misread what I type? Did I switch to Swahili or Mandarin or something without realizing? "More literate version of Zam," indeed; literacy may be the problem here, but it's neither his nor mine.

TXBRONC
04-13-2013, 10:13 PM
What's unclear about that? I didn't know the NFL limits teams to 9 picks until I played Madden (and did look it up to confirm it independently of the game.) That doesn't make it where I got my draft strategy; I got my draft strategy before Madden even existed. It's not the one I use in Madden, because Madden emulates reality (and not always well) rather than the reverse; again, Madden NFL isn't the real NFL.

Do you just willfully misread what I type? Did I switch to Swahili or Mandarin or something without realizing? "More literate version of Zam," indeed; literacy may be the problem here, but it's neither his nor mine.

I haven't anything that confirms that the NFL limits teams have no more than nine picks. You try pass a lot of things off as facts that aren't facts.

Joel
04-13-2013, 10:49 PM
I haven't anything that confirms that the NFL limits teams have no more than nine picks. You try pass a lot of things off as facts that aren't facts.
I concede "confirm" might've been overstating it; what I found was WikiAnswers saying 10 (not 9, my bad there) pre-draft, and it didn't cite a source. So OK, maybe I learned NOTHING from Madden; not shocking. That doesn't mean I haven't learned anything, and isn't where I got my draft strategy: I got that from THGoF a year or two before a friend introduced me to the original Madden.

That book's also, incidentally, where it was pointed out to me how overrated sacks are. Unfortunately THGoF may be the biggest reason fantasy football exists, which I suspect is, combined with Madden, why so many people have reduced the NFL to bombs, picks and sacks. Worse still, the resulting demand for more of those things has prompted the NFL to try increasing them at the expense of the rest of the game. I'm grateful for the plethora of insights THoF taught me, and it inspired Football Outsiders, but wish more people would bear in mind stats are for analysis, deduction and illustration, not an end in themselves.

If you want to believe sacks are more important than Mikes, fine. Unless they push a team out of field goal range on third down they don't mean any more than any other stop, but whatever makes you happy. :)

Now, is it OK if we actually discuss WARHORSES proposed draft strategy (I'm pretty sure that's why he created the thread)? Is it too much to ask that ONE thread on the whole site—just one—doesn't deteriorate into a debate of my player preferences, intelligence and (a "personal" favorite) APPEARANCE the moment I have the temerity to post? Since there's been some confusion about whether I'm hurt or intimidated, I'll be blunt: I don't give a dead rats rump whether disagreement costs me respect, but would welcome a bit more SELF respect in some, and consideration for the people whose threads are hijacked just to attack me.

WARHORSE
04-14-2013, 12:53 AM
I concede "confirm" might've been overstating it; what I found was WikiAnswers saying 10 (not 9, my bad there) pre-draft, and it didn't cite a source. So OK, maybe I learned NOTHING from Madden; not shocking. That doesn't mean I haven't learned anything, and isn't where I got my draft strategy: I got that from THGoF a year or two before a friend introduced me to the original Madden.

That book's also, incidentally, where it was pointed out to me how overrated sacks are. Unfortunately THGoF may be the biggest reason fantasy football exists, which I suspect is, combined with Madden, why so many people have reduced the NFL to bombs, picks and sacks. Worse still, the resulting demand for more of those things has prompted the NFL to try increasing them at the expense of the rest of the game. I'm grateful for the plethora of insights THoF taught me, and it inspired Football Outsiders, but wish more people would bear in mind stats are for analysis, deduction and illustration, not an end in themselves.

If you want to believe sacks are more important than Mikes, fine. Unless they push a team out of field goal range on third down they don't mean any more than any other stop, but whatever makes you happy. :)

Now, is it OK if we actually discuss WARHORSES proposed draft strategy (I'm pretty sure that's why he created the thread)? Is it too much to ask that ONE thread on the whole site—just one—doesn't deteriorate into a debate of my player preferences, intelligence and (a "personal" favorite) APPEARANCE the moment I have the temerity to post? Since there's been some confusion about whether I'm hurt or intimidated, I'll be blunt: I don't give a dead rats rump whether disagreement costs me respect, but would welcome a bit more SELF respect in some, and consideration for the people whose threads are hijacked just to attack me.

Whats the deal Joel? Seems like every time I enter a thread, two or three guys are tag teaming ya. haha

Anyway, SF and Minnesota both have 11 picks this year to my knowledge.

Back to my thread........... Yes, we are in WIN NOW mode because of Peyton and my strategy doesnt change that a bit.

Heres a quick history of STARTERS coming out of our draft picks.

Last year: Wolfe

2011
Miller
Moore
Franklin

2010
D. Thomas
Beadles
Walton
Decker
Cox

2009
Knowshon
Ayers

2008
Clady
Royal
Hillis
Larsen

2007
None


2006
Cutler
Marshall
Schefler
Doom
Kuper



So looking at this, I dont think you inhibit your ability to add talent at all.

But the reason you stockpile first round picks is for the change at a franchise impact player.

Thats why I think you can do this even though youre in win now mode with Peyton and the boys.
We could go ahead and select our picks, and the first and second rounder could bust thereby adding nothing for the win now cause.

Since we would have the same number of picks, but lower in the draft, it doesnt mean we cant get some real help.


It makes sense.


To me anyway.

aulaza
04-14-2013, 06:59 AM
I would question the viability of this strategy. Are you going to get a second and a first for this year's first? I highly doubt it, especially given that it is a low first. I just think that is unrealistic. If this was possible, every team in the NFL would be doing it!! Especially given the poor quality at the top of this year's class.

Joel
04-14-2013, 11:10 AM
So looking at this, I dont think you inhibit your ability to add talent at all.

But the reason you stockpile first round picks is for the change at a franchise impact player.
Trading todays top picks for more of tomorrows eventually increases ability to add talent, sure; that's the whole point, and I get that: The problem is the "eventually." Take another look at that list:

2012: A 2nd rounder
2011: A 1st, 2nd and 2nd
2010: A 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd and 5th
2009: A 1st and 1st
2008: A 1st and 2nd
2006: A 1st, 4th, 2nd, 4th and and 5th. Four of them are Pro Bowlers and the fifth a solid starter; why did we fire Shanny again? :tongue:

So 12/18 went in the 1st or 2nd: Trading todays top picks for tomorrows in any one year would've cost us two of them; doing it twice would've cost us four. I wouldn't count Cox and Larsen as starters either: Larsen never started >6 games in a season even for us, and that was by far the most productive year for either. That means 75% of the starters we got in the last six drafts were 1st or 2nd rounders.

It's a great way to build a Pro Bowl TEAM rather than just add a scattering of Pro Bowlers, and under normal circumstances I'd endorse it. Yet our circumstances aren't normal: We have two first ballot HoFers in their last days, but only 2-3 other players who look likely to follow in their footsteps. Delayed gratification just isn't logistically practical for us right now.


Thats why I think you can do this even though youre in win now mode with Peyton and the boys.
We could go ahead and select our picks, and the first and second rounder could bust thereby adding nothing for the win now cause.

Since we would have the same number of picks, but lower in the draft, it doesnt mean we cant get some real help.

It makes sense.

To me anyway.
It makes sense, and it's certainly possible to find a Terrell Davis or Tom Brady in late rounds, or even a Rod Smith or Night Train Lane after the draft. However, as we go deeper it gets less likely 31 other teams overlooked that same talent multiple times. In early rounds they might all have someone they need more and/or think better; in the final rounds we'd have to count on everyone else missing a future star among a few dozen scrubs. The whole premise of the proposed strategy is that top picks are far more likely to produce, and quicker, than bottom ones.

It DOES make sense in some situations. After two or three years a team like Cleveland or Oakland could find itself with a dozen first and second round picks over a couple drafts, with two top five natural picks. Of course, the NFL being the NFL, they'd probably also find themselves new GMs and head coaches along the way. Dog team execs who traded away top five picks probably couldn't survive the resulting media criticism and reduced ticket sales. It would still be worth it in the long run if they found trade partners, even though a different group of execs reaped the reward.

It just doesn't make sense for us right now. After Champ and Manning retired I'd endorse it, especially if teams are trading away top picks for less than ever, but not now.

Timmy!
04-14-2013, 11:15 AM
:lol: madden.

Simple Jaded
04-14-2013, 09:10 PM
Maybe there's a limit on draft picks but SF currently has 13, including compensation picks. I would think the NFL would want to do something to limit how many picks a team has per draft but I have never heard of anything specific.

MOtorboat
04-14-2013, 09:33 PM
There's no limit to draft picks in real life.

Joel, I used to pay attention to what you wrote, bud, but now it seems as if you have no clue.

MOtorboat
04-14-2013, 09:35 PM
Also.

And, yes, I'm playing fan police here, don't ever refer to the Broncos as "us" as long as you hate Elway for winning.

TXBRONC
04-15-2013, 06:32 AM
Maybe there's a limit on draft picks but SF currently has 13, including compensation picks. I would think the NFL would want to do something to limit how many picks a team has per draft but I have never heard of anything specific.

I went looking to see if it was true that the NFL limits the number of picks a team gets and I couldn't find anything. I didn't know that the 49ers had 13 picks but I was sure that in the past there have been teams that had more than 9 picks.