_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
| ROUND 1 |
ROUND 2 |
ROUND 3 |
ROUND 4 |
ROUND 5 |
ROUND 6 |
ROUND 7 |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pick | Points | Pick | Points | Pick | Points | Pick | Points | Pick | Points | Pick | Points | Pick | Points |
| 1 | 1000 | 33 | 250 | 65 | 160 | 97 | 100 | 129 | 50 | 166 | 20 | 202 | 8 |
| 2 | 975 | 34 | 245 | 66 | 158 | 98 | 98 | 130 | 49 | 167 | 20 | 203 | 8 |
| 3 | 950 | 35 | 240 | 67 | 156 | 99 | 96 | 131 | 48 | 168 | 19 | 204 | 8 |
| 4 | 900 | 36 | 235 | 68 | 154 | 100 | 94 | 132 | 47 | 169 | 19 | 205 | 8 |
| 5 | 880 | 37 | 230 | 69 | 152 | 101 | 92 | 133 | 46 | 170 | 18 | 206 | 8 |
| 6 | 860 | 38 | 225 | 70 | 144 | 102 | 90 | 134 | 45 | 171 | 18 | 207 | 8 |
| 7 | 845 | 39 | 220 | 71 | 141 | 103 | 88 | 135 | 44 | 172 | 17 | 208 | 7 |
| 8 | 830 | 40 | 215 | 72 | 138 | 104 | 86 | 136 | 43 | 173 | 17 | 209 | 7 |
| 9 | 820 | 41 | 200 | 73 | 135 | 105 | 84 | 137 | 42 | 174 | 17 | 210 | 7 |
| 10 | 810 | 42 | 198 | 74 | 132 | 106 | 82 | 138 | 41 | 175 | 16 | 211 | 7 |
| 11 | 800 | 43 | 196 | 75 | 130 | 107 | 80 | 139 | 40 | 176 | 16 | 212 | 7 |
| 12 | 790 | 44 | 194 | 76 | 127 | 108 | 78 | 140 | 39 | 177 | 16 | 213 | 7 |
| 13 | 750 | 45 | 192 | 77 | 124 | 109 | 76 | 141 | 38 | 178 | 15 | 214 | 7 |
| 14 | 735 | 46 | 190 | 78 | 121 | 110 | 74 | 142 | 37 | 179 | 15 | 215 | 6 |
| 15 | 720 | 47 | 188 | 79 | 118 | 111 | 72 | 143 | 36 | 180 | 15 | 216 | 6 |
| 16 | 700 | 48 | 186 | 80 | 116 | 112 | 70 | 144 | 35 | 181 | 14 | 217 | 6 |
| 17 | 600 | 49 | 184 | 81 | 115 | 113 | 68 | 145 | 34 | 182 | 14 | 218 | 6 |
| 18 | 580 | 50 | 182 | 82 | 114 | 114 | 67 | 146 | 34 | 183 | 14 | 219 | 6 |
| 19 | 560 | 51 | 180 | 83 | 113 | 115 | 66 | 147 | 32 | 184 | 13 | 220 | 5 |
| 20 | 540 | 52 | 178 | 84 | 112 | 116 | 65 | 148 | 32 | 185 | 13 | 221 | 5 |
| 21 | 525 | 53 | 176 | 85 | 111 | 117 | 64 | 149 | 31 | 186 | 13 | 222 | 5 |
| 22 | 510 | 54 | 174 | 86 | 110 | 118 | 63 | 150 | 31 | 187 | 12 | 223 | 5 |
| 23 | 495 | 55 | 172 | 87 | 109 | 119 | 62 | 151 | 30 | 188 | 12 | 224 | 4 |
| 24 | 480 | 56 | 170 | 88 | 108 | 120 | 61 | 152 | 30 | 189 | 12 | 225 | 4 |
| 25 | 465 | 57 | 168 | 89 | 107 | 121 | 60 | 153 | 29 | 190 | 11 | 226 | 4 |
| 26 | 450 | 58 | 166 | 90 | 106 | 122 | 59 | 154 | 29 | 191 | 11 | 227 | 4 |
| 27 | 440 | 59 | 165 | 91 | 105 | 123 | 58 | 155 | 28 | 192 | 11 | 228 | 3 |
| 28 | 430 | 60 | 164 | 92 | 104 | 124 | 57 | 156 | 28 | 193 | 10 | 229 | 3 |
| 29 | 420 | 61 | 163 | 93 | 103 | 125 | 56 | 157 | 27 | 194 | 10 | 230 | 3 |
| 30 | 415 | 62 | 162 | 94 | 103 | 126 | 55 | 158 | 27 | 195 | 10 | 231 | 3 |
| 31 | 410 | 63 | 161 | 95 | 102 | 127 | 54 | 159 | 26 | 196 | 10 | 232 | 3 |
| 32 | 405 | 64 | 160 | 96 | 102 | 128 | 53 | 160 | 26 | 197 | 10 | 233 | 2 |
| comp | 101 | comp | 52 | comp | 25 | comp | 9 | comp | 2 | ||||
| comp | 101 | comp | 52 | comp | 25 | comp | 9 | comp | 2 | ||||
| comp | 101 | comp | 52 | comp | 25 | comp | 9 | comp | 1 | ||||
| comp | 52 | comp | 25 | comp | 9 | comp | 1 | ||||||
| comp | 25 | comp | 9 | comp | 1 | ||||||||
| comp | 25 | comp | 9 | comp | 1 | ||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 | ||||||||||||
| comp | 1 |
April 4th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
The huge gap between a late first and early 2nd pick seems quite odd.
In terms of the first round, this would also seem to be overswinging it. That is, going from ridiculously hard to deal up to undervaluing the top picks.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
The combined point totals for the first picks in rounds 2-7 add up to 588 points. The value of the other 6 picks fall between the 17th and 18th picks of the first round? I don’t think so.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
How many points is Lito Sheppard worth?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 4th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Yeah but pick 40 would get about $3M guaranteed at 250 pts while pick one is getting is getting $35M guaranteed for quadruple the points.
This is a good start.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I agree — the gap between Round 1 and Round 2 is too large.
As an illustration, under the old trade chart, a team with 41 and 42 could trade up to pick 16 or 17. However, under this chart, a team with picks 41 (200 points) and 42 (198 points) could not even trade up into Round 1 (the 32nd pick has a value of 405 points).
In practice, I would be amazed if the team with the 32nd overall pick would not take the 41st and 42nd picks in a trade.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
The difference with the late 1st and early 2nd, I saw that as well. I figure it’s the ’status’ of being a 1st rounder when it comes to salary.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
So you need 3-4 years worth of #2’s to move into the equivalent spot in round 1. HAHA.
Why not derive the chart off of trades that actually happened. There has been enough of them.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Interesting math. The difference between the 11th and 12th pick is only 10 points, yet the difference between the 12th and 13th pick is 40 points, and then the difference between the 13th and 14th pick is 15 points.
So according to your chart, it will cost a team MORE to trade up from 13 to 12 than it will from 12 to 11?
Also, the difference between the 1st and 2nd round is huge. There should be a difference, but not that much. Adding 1 year to a players contract isnt worth 155 points.
The 155 points is the difference from #33 to #32, which is the same as moving up from #32 to almost #25. I dont think so.
The “real” value chart is probably somewhere in between JJ’s chart and this one.
Say the Atlanta Falcons really wanted Matt Ryan and thought the Fins might take him, it would only take their 5th rounder to move up to #1 to get the player they want? The extra amount of money from #1 to #3 is well worth throwing a 5th rounder to move up if yo can get the guy you want. If this is the “real” value chart, then teams should be moving up constantly a few spaces to get the player they want because it wont cost them anything!
Also, should comp picks even have point values? I thought you couldnt trade comp picks?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
It’s a step in the right direction and appears do have been put together with a great deal of forethought.
But, there’s still not enough of a change at least in my opinion.
Any changes made to the chart need to make it more likely that a team would be willing to trade up to the top of round one, or there’s no point in making a change.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Great start because the old chart is seriously outdated, but if you had the #1 pick, would you take the #11 and #41? There has to be a bit more of a weight at the top in order to get “your guy.”
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
whats the algorithm you created?
In the first round, I checked on excel and it isn’t a linear trend, which would give greater value to the picks than you have in your chart.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
toonsterwu, Florio says:
“There’s an even bigger dip from the bottom of round one to the top of round two, since the maximum contract length beginning with round two is four years.”
I agree that it’s odd though. I don’t think that the length of the contract they are allowed to be signed to affects the value of the pick THAT much, ‘cept the dropoff from 17-32.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I agree with Toon, the gap from last pick in first round to first pick in second round is off. Also, you might consider upping some of those later round picks, the drop off is staggering. For example, if someone wanted to trade into the first round, your gap creates situation where the team with a top second round pick would have to give up their third as well just to “swap” for the last pick in the first round.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I agree, the gap between the first and second rd is too much. You are putting too much value on the length of contracts. Also why is it 25 points from 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, then 50 from 3 to 4? It should be more like 1000, 950, 925, 900.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
This makes alot of sense! Now, come up with a Rookie PayRate Chart. That’s the biggest issue with the draft!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I hope this doesn’t show up again….
I like the new chart alot. Levels the playing field a bit. The real issue is that guarunteed money upfront! I wish you had a chart for a Rookie Payscale?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
This is flawed because the price to move from #2 to #1 overall is a mere bottom of the 5th round selection.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Looks interesting and I commend the attempt but the first thing that jumps out to me is that, according to your chart it takes only the 16th pick in the 4th (4.16) round to move up from 1.10 to 1.05 in the first.
1.05 = 880
1.10 = 810
Difference 70pts which equals pick 112 in the fourth which is pick 4.16
Seems a little light to move from 10 to 5 in the first
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Mike,
Outstanding job! Hopefully, the league’s oldtimers will look over their playbooks and see the reality of your chart.
As for the previous comment, the value of the players between the 32nd and 33rd pick is truly the LENGTH of their contract. Paying for the extra year explains perfectly the large distinction between points. I love it.
Since the front offices live and die by the cap, they sohuld value their picks (their future contracts) just as they value their current contracts; by the cost/year.
The old system was just swag based on experience and “feel”. This does not truly change the real values of the picks, just the perceived value. I also love it based on the plausibilty of trading up and down on the first day…it makes it easier. The old system truly pused the blockbuster (read: absurd) deals such as that for Ricky Williams.
I am certain your new draft list will be poo-poo’ed for 2008, and perhaps beyond until someone with enough front office sense can over-rule the old-timer sense. If money talks, so does your list.
I ‘m not sure if this was your intention, but here is an interesting observation:
I did a short test to evaluate the pick list, and here is what I came up with:
to get the #33 pick (250pts), I need a #88 (108) and #78 (121) (teo mid 3rd rounders to buy the top 2nd round pick)
to get #65 (160pts), I need a #121 (60) and #97 (100) (the first in the 4th and a late 4th, to buy the top 3rd round pick)
to get #97 (100pts), I need 143, 146, and 151 (three 5th rounders all mids to buy the top 4th round pick)
to get the #129 (50pts), I only need 178, 179, 193 (three 6 rounders, two mids and a late, to buy the top 5th round pick)
but to get #166 (20 pts), I only need 188 and 207 (a low 6 and a high 7 t buy the top 6th rounder)
most importantly, it takes first rounders, to get first rounders.
Finally, you need to figure out how FUTURE rounds can be valued. How do I account for my pick in 2009 or 10, if I make a trade today? (point-wise). The late rounds are too small invalue to take a portion of them.
Let us know! You did a GREAT job, and the NFL front offices should adopt your work immediately (for Draft 08), and sunset the old, irrelevent gospel.
-Red
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I like it. And I agree that the current version is obsolete!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
April 4th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Hmmm. It’s a good idea, and probably better than the currently used chart, but I do see some issues eg. Pick 1 being worth Pick 11 and Pick 41.
That’s not a trade I’d make - although I would consider it.
I think its close, but not quite there yet. Hopefully some league insiders will give you their insight and we’ll see a tweaked version sometime.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 4th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
How does this chart work for this year with only 31 picks in round one? I know it is a very rare case but I would like to know?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 10th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I don’t think that rounds 2-7 need to be changed. Their
values seem to be evenly proportioned to each other. Round 1
should just be modified so that pick #1 is worth 2000 points,
16 = 1000, 15 = 900, 32 = 680. That would create 100 points
for an added year of contract eligibility at both spots, and
lower the values of round 1 picks relative to these new giant
contracts. It may also be a good idea to make the last 3-5
picks of round 2 equal to the first 3-5 picks of round 3. The
extra 15-20 hours to make a pick should be worth 3 or 4 decent
players that teams may or may not want.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
April 10th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
As far as picks from the following year I crunched the numbers on the deals from last year(rd 1 only) using the JJ draft chart. The Quinn deal netted the Cowboys Cleveland’s 2008 #1 for 240 pts (equivalent of pick #70). The Ugoh deal brought SF the Colts pick for 434 pts (= to pick #46). The Patriots received SFs first for 586 pts (= to pick 32/33). Does this mean the Colts first-rounder was projected to be higher than the Browns. Obviously not. Essentially, what all this means is there is no set rate through the league, and there probably shouldn’t be because there is no way to measure desperation of a team with outstanding needs.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated