Good article. I really watched the Texans D-line also, and was really impressed by Mario. Omobi Okoye seemed like he was back there a lot also and was getting a lot of pressure, despite not getting the sacks. I wonder how much of that has to do with the struggle vs Mario Williams or just a general synergy effect?

More importantly, if the Texans hadn't taken Mario Williams, we may never have gotten ROBO-PUNTER.

#1 - Okoye's been very effective at getting pressure on quarterbacks all season. His play against the run could use some work - and the Texans could do with a genuine run stuffing nose tackle to play alongside him - but he's having a nice rookie season.

As for Williams, what's interesting for me is how much he's improved over the course of the season. I watched every Texans game early in the year on the internet feed, but then I got broke (perils of being a student), so since then I've only seen such games as have been aired on Sky over here - ie the Saints and Broncos games. In that early part of the season, Williams looked much as he did the second half of last year: mostly very good against the run, and a pretty effective bull-rusher, but without many other ways of getting to the quarterback. He also sometimes gave the impression of being unfocussed or lazy. That has apparently changed, as evidenced by his, what, 8.5 sacks in his last 5 games? Which is nice, from the point of view of a Houston fan. My pre-draft view, incidentally, was that the Texans should desperately try to trade down, but that if they had to stand pat they should take Ferguson, so there'll be no "I told you so"s from this corner.

I had little opinion of Williams coming out of college, because I hadn't seen him play much, but in general the only type of player I would value more than a defensive lineman who is a great pass rusher, while also playing the run well, is a dominant quarterback. Other than that sort of qb, no other player can single-handedly dominate a game like that sort of defensive lineman. The fact that they tend to have longer careers is also helpful.

With Williams and Okoye, being defensive coordinator for the Texans oughta' be a lot of fun for the next ten years or so, despite having to play Peyton Manning twice a year for the next six to eight years. Okoye is ridiculously young; who knows where his performance will top out? Especially, as was mentioned above, if the Texans get a Pat Williams-type tackle to play alongside him, which would enable Okoye to shoot gaps and create utter havoc at will.

I enjoy how the perception of the #1 pick last year has changed. It's gone from "they should have taken Bush" to "they should have taken Vince Young" to "they took the right guy."

Re 4:

I think Keyshawn Johnson said, and I agree with him, that the 3 most important positions are QB, LT, and pass rushing DE.

I always felt that if the Texans GM trusted their scouts who thought that Williams was going to be a great end, that they made the right decision. Bush always seemed way overhyped to me. To the point where, if he wasn't the next Gale Sayers he was a bust.

Here’s my prediction for Williams’ future: A couple of years from now, we’ll be hearing from a lot of people who knew all along that he was the best player in the 2006 draft.

According to Dr. Z (link in my name), Tiki has already hopped on the bandwagon. Luckily for him, no one was asking him his opinion in April '06, so we'll probably never know if he's telling the truth.

#6 - actually, I thought most people around here were in Crushinator's camp - that HOU should either take D'Brick, or trade down. The ROBO-PUNTER discussion had its genesis in the question of whether a RB could ever be good enough to be worth the #1 pick.

As interesting as Young or Bush might have been, it was apparent from watching the Texans in 2005 that their main problem was their inability to get the opposing offense off the field. So it was only common sense for Kubiak to break out the "Building a Winning Football Team For Dummies" book and start drafting defensive linemen and linebackers. In that light, the pick of Williams made total sense.

Hmm...I thought the "consensus" problem of the Texans was their inability to keep any of their quarterbacks upright. In retrospect, that might have been more Carr's problem than Houston's.

I was in the D'Brickashaw or trade down camp.

I think the Texans need to be given credit for an awesome 2006 draft.

I thought the general consensus of the staff here was that they had no problem with the Texans taking Williams over Reggie Bush, the problem was that they drafted him first overall when they could have traded down to the number 3 or 4 spot and still landed him and an extra pick. If not, I'd like to claim this opinion as my own.

#12

I'll say. The Texans draft in 2006

Rd 1: Mario Williams
Rd 2: DeMeco Ryans
Rd 3: Charles Spenser & Eric Winston
Rd 4: Owen Daniels

With the exception of the oft-injured Eric Winston, that looks like a terrific draft class.

MDS, in the article you stated that Doug Farrar keeps track of referee tendencies pretty closely. Is this information available anywhere on the internet? I am definitely interested in seeing it.

Reggie Bush has always seemed to me like a Johnny Rodgers or Greg Pruitt. Pruitt made some pro bowls, and Rodgers was a star in the CFL, and I don't doubt that Bush will do well, too. But not well enough to be worth the #1 pick and corresponding cost. Vince Young was too big a gamble. But I won't say I told you so, either - I thought they should draft down and take Leinart.

#9: I was in the "take Mario Williams" camp. DE is a very, very safe position for a first overall pick (along with CB/WR/DT).

RB/FB/S/LB/P/K/G/TE are not worth it unless the LB's a 3-4 OLB pass rusher.

If a QB or LT is bad, you pretty much have to replace him. An average QB or average LT is a limitation that can't be improved other than replacing the player.

The great thing about picking a CB/WR/DT/DE is that all they have to be is an average starter, and you're fine. You can still improve that spot by getting a cheap, good partner at that position.

Take a look at the #1 CB/WR/DT/DE in previous drafts:

2007: Calvin Johnson
2006: Mario Williams
2005: Braylon Edwards
2004: Larry Fitzgerald
2003: Charles Rogers (or Andre Johnson)
2002: Julius Peppers
2001: Gerard Warren (or Justin Smith)
2000: Courtney Brown (or Peter Warrick)

For 2003/2001, it's easy to argue that the Browns/Lions were just bad at player evaluation - the second choice in both cases ended up being solid players who would've been easily worth it. 2000 is really the case where you have to dig pretty far down, but at least in Courtney Brown's case, there were external effects - and even in that case, he didn't hurt the Browns that bad at all. He just didn't help them.

Note that I'm not saying that first-round QBs shouldn't be taken. They should. It's just that you very, very rarely get the first overall pick, and when you do, you should take the lowest-risk position, and that's CB/WR/DE/DT. That gives you the best chance to get a top-flight player at an impact position, but it also gives you the least risk.

Re: #9: No RB is worth taking in the first ROUND. See Bush, Reggie. Running backs are basically fungible commodities; even LaDainian Tomlinson is only marginally scarier than a merely "good" running back, like a Clinton Portis or Willis McGahee. But he runs behind the third best left side of an offensive line in football (fourth best when Tony Ugoh is healthy), so he's a superstar.

Likewise, Quarterbacks are dependent on offensive lines. Carson Palmer is a better quarterback than Tom Brady. But he can't get his feet set, so people think of his year as disappointing.

I have no earthly idea why people take anything other than DE's and LT's in the first round, except maybe the odd really special QB talent (and no, I don't mean Alex Smith, maybe not even Eli Manning, although I think the latter will eventually be a perfectly adequate player).

Running backs don't last long enough and cost too much if you draft them early.

re:18

Furthermore, a competent running back can be had for basically free as undrafted free agent!

exhibits A-F: Denver

18--

You can say that about any position. The best left tackle is not light years better than an above average tackle, etc.

And as for running backs, this very site measures the difference between two runners behind the same line, and there's a reason the Vikings don't trade Adrian Peterson for an all-pro defensive end or cornerback, even though they already have a "merely good" running back in Chester Taylor and the best run-blocking line in football.

Though football is obviously a team game, it is also a game of strength and strategy. A given team is constantly trying to set up and exploit weaknesses in the other team, and having one dominating player at a certain position, particularly a skill position, will completely change the way a given game is played.

My thought on Williams as was that he was a good pick but was not a good pick at #1. I was hoping desperately that they would move down to 2 or 3 and pick up some additional picks. But if that didn't materialize, I really thought Bush was the no-brainer if you stay at #1. So I did think Williams would be good, but I cursed the Texans as did most for taking Williams there because I really did think that although Bush might not have been successful in Houston (the whole no offensive line thing), that he was the best talent in the draft...

18: Well, for one thing, there simply aren't enough quality DEs and LTs to draft only them in the first round but besides that, what do the following players all have in common?

Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, Larry Csonka, O.J. Simpson, John Riggins, Franco Harris, Walter Payton, Tony Dorsett, Earl Campbell, Ottis Anderson, Marcus Allen, Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Jerome Bettis, Marshall Faulk, Fred Taylor, Edgerrin James, Jamal Lewis, Shaun Alexander, LaDainian Tomlinson, Deuce McAllister, Steven Jackson, Ronnie Brown, Adrian Peterson, Otto Graham, Y.A. Tittle, Bob Griese, Terry Bradshaw, Phil Simms, John Elway, Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Troy Aikman, Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, and Carson Palmer.

They are all great QBs or RBs of course, and most are in (or will be in) the HOF, and they were all taken in the first round of the draft!

Are you honestly telling me that the average NFL team WOULDN'T trade Mario Williams straight up for almost anyone on that list (in their prime)?

Reggie Bush has 15 career tds and helped the Saints make the NFC championship as a rookie, making some key plays along the way. He has made some key plays in getting them back into the playoff race while Brees was busy celebrating last year for the first 4 games this year.

Mario Williams is having one good season, with most of the production coming in 5 games. 5games!!!

Reggie Bush will always be a playmaker and the Saints need to get this guy in space. Let him return punts and kickoffs. Put him in the slot or in the pro set or next to brees in shotgun. BUt for the love of all things beautiful stop putting him behind Carney and 8 yards deep like he's an I-back at Nebraska. Krikies! Please rewind tape of game against the Bears from 10 months ago and then keep doing that.

Is he Gale Sayers? I think we're finding out he isn't. Can he be the most dangerous guy in the open field? I think he might make that notion debatable if New Orleans would use him properly.

#14:

eric winston has started every game this year and started 12 (the first 4 he was sitting on the bench), i believe, last year. since he has been moved into the starting line up he has been durable and i would say that he is now, far and away, the best o-lineman the texans have.

charles spencer is the one who was hurt, he wasn't oft-injured, he broke his leg/knee in his second game ever, one in which he was the starting left tackle, and hasn't played in the nearly two years since. kubiak does expect him back and ready to go for training camp next season though.

otherwise you are correct. it was a great draft. the top two picks are quickly becoming superstars and owen daniels is one hell of a 4th round pick.

#25

My bad on confusing the tackles. Also, when I said "oft-injured" I should have said "had one really bad injury and hasn't played" (Benny Joppru anyone?).

But 4 from 5 and an injury wash is a terrfic draft.

Re 23:

I would definitely take Mario Williams over Bob Griese. Honestly, probably over a couple of the running backs too.

However, you are comparing apples to oranges. A player available in that draft to HOFers. A better comparison would be Reggie White to those guys. I think that muddies the water a little bit.

Re: #9: No RB is worth taking in the first ROUND.

That's insane - the mid-to-low first round is a perfectly fine place to draft a solid RB prospect.

The running ability of a running back is fungible - for the most part, it's the offensive line that produces the majority of the performance. But the pass-blocking and receiving abilities of a running back are certainly not fungible.

A running back who can block and receive is certainly worth a first round pick. Just not a top-5 pick, since money-wise, it's not worth it.

I have no idea why you think you shouldn't grab a QB in the first round, either. There are just so few good QBs that you'd be a fool to wait until later in the draft to take one you're confident about.

The main reason I said "only draft a CB/DE/WR/DT at #1" is because every year, you have a first-round pick - but you very rarely have a first overall pick. So if you've got the first overall pick, you want to maximize the benefit you get from it, which means picking the best player at an impact position which has the least risk. The idea that there's ever a top talent who's just 'so good that you can't pass on him' is, in my mind, ludicrous. Injuries are the great equalizer, if nothing else, but plenty of 'can't miss' talents have, in fact, missed.

That logic probably works for about the top 3 to 5 draft choices. After that, you're back into an "average" draft position, where you could easily end up there again the next year. At that point, you switch over to QB/LT, and maybe LB/RB as well.

Pat - I was under the impression that if you have the #1 pick in the draft, you should pretty much always trade down. You know, Massey & Thaler, "The Loser's Curse" and all that. Surely there are exceptional situations where using the #1 pick would be the best decision, but teams' abilities to identify those situations are so limited that it's probably better to plan on trading down every time.

That said, in the real world of unshakeable NFL conservatism, where most teams are (irrationally) reluctant to trade #1 picks, picking a player at a lower-risk position certainly makes more sense than laying it all on the line for a QB gamble.

24

The thing about Reggie Bush is that numerically, he's nearly identical to another NFL player of the past decade - Kevin Faulk (Actually, Kevin Faulk is a better receiver on average than Bush is).

I think you're looking at the real problem with Bush - is that he's supposed to be a homerun threat and not a RB - but he's being paid top NFL RB money. It's a hugely inefficient use of cap.

Against the Bears, he had the one long play and was mostly shut down the rest of the game.

Assume you'd never watched a college game in your life, and didn't follow the draft or the Heisman trophy, and you just saw Reggie Bush from his Saints career onwards - what would make you think he's a decent back? What would make you think he's even a top 30 back in the league?

Interesting thread. It's entirely possible Miami will have a very similar decision to make this year with the #1 pick.

Do you:

Draft the stellar RB (McFadden){bush}
Draft the best OT (Jake Long) {Ferguson}
Draft the best DL (Dorsey) {Williams}
Draft the best QB (Ryan?) {Young/Leinart}

Trade down (if possible)

(not being a college ball follower, the above are 'consensus' picks; feel free to disagree.)

I was in the Mario Williams camp on draft day, and have even defended him on this site before. The only knock on him out of college was that he was a streaky player, but nobody questioned that when he brought his A game, he was the best player in the draft. And the idea is to take the best player, right? Reggie Bush came with a ton of hype, as did Vince Young (really, did anybody have him in their first round before the USC game?). Bush and Young would have sold tickets, but coaches aren't in the marketing game, the sportswriters who blasted the Texans for passing on "obvious talent" are. Now these same guys are reversing their story. And boo on ANYBODY who labels a player as a bust after their rookie season. That's completely unfair

27: Really? Over a HOF QB? I was in the MW camp and even I wouldn't take him over a HOF QB. But in any case, that isn't really the point. The poster I responded to stated that he would never draft a RB or QB in the first round of the draft and would stick to tackles and DEs. He made an exception for really really good QBs, so I am going to exclude them from this and just stick to RBs. Of course, as I asserted, there simply aren't enough good tackles and DEs to go around and just draft them in the first round, so that alone kills that argument.But let's ignore that for a moment and look at your example of Reggie White. Would you trade him for Jim Brown, or Walter Payton, or Emmitt Smith, or Barry Sanders, or well the list goes on? You might not. Or maybe you would, I don't know. But can you really say that Reggie White is better then say, Jim Brown? My point isn't that RB is better then DE, my point is that it is stupid to say drafting a RB in the first round is bad.
29: The problem with that idea is that if you know it, your opposition probably knows it too, and so who is going to trade up to get your unenviable number one pick?

Pat - I was under the impression that if you have the #1 pick in the draft, you should pretty much always trade down. You know, Massey & Thaler, “The Loser’s Curse” and all that.

Massey and Thaler are wrong. They completely neglected to take into account roster size limitations, which makes their conclusions inapplicable to the actual game. Simple example: suppose you have the first pick in the draft, and another team has the last pick in the first round of the draft. Look at the value curve that Massey and Thaler have, and you'll note that you're still getting a better average player than the other team. You're also paying more, but that's not exactly a big deal. First off, the chances are, if you've got the first pick in the draft, you don't have a lot of high-priced players anyway, and rookie contracts are dirt compared to free agent contracts.

Or, to put it another way: good teams are looking for projects/backups, and bad teams are looking for starters. In order for a draft pick to be a worthwhile starter, he needs to contribute probably 3-4X as much as a project/backup - which means the majority of the picks in the draft are useless to a team looking for starters.

The best players in football are never available in free agency, to a good approximation. The only way to get them is through the draft, and the best players in the draft are at the top.

The cost of rookies - even the #1 overall draft pick - is nothing, for at least the first three-four years. After that the hit for cutting them isn't that big - but if you would really want to manage it, then you take the advice I gave, and go with a CB/WR/DT/DE, any of whom can be hidden alongside a cheaper, better alternative, still contribute somewhat, for the last two expensive years.

The only way you should trade out of the #1 pick is if you're positive the guy you want won't be picked, and you can pick him up at the traded-for spot. Then it's just a net win. Picking up a bunch of middle round guys is what you need when you're already a good team - that's depth, and a future foundation. When you're bad, trading down just means you don't have that good a chance of upgrading your starting roster.

"DE is a very, very safe position for a first overall pick (along with CB/WR/DT)."

What is that statement based on?

The Texans were willing to draft Bush. However, he was just not reasonable on contract demands. I am surprised more teams do not pass on over-hyped players who have an inflated sense of ego (and demand the paycheck to go with it).

Will we see FO analysis of Cap issues? Sometimes top player makes sense (Colts offense). Other times it seems to make sense to have a lot of decent players (you would think Patriots, although a number of players take less money to play for New England - hence, a much better sign of cap management?).

Reggie Bush has gone from great to "not good enough to carry a team."

Vince Young has gone from great to "he just wins games", to terrible, and back to "he's kinda winning SOME games."

I will accept this as Mario Williams has gone from terrible to "he has played a handful of good games in his young career."
Let's come back to him in 2-3 years. But if you wanna crown him, then crown his a$$!

#35: Uh, I spell it out right afterwards, but the simple thing is: CB/WR/DT/DE/QB/LT (note 'DT' here is really 'pass rushing DT') are the positions that have major impact on winning - they're basically the core of the passing game.

However, QB and LT are single-spot positions. You can't afford to keep an average or below-average player at those spots.

CB/WR/DT/DE are paired positions. You can afford to have an average player at one of the two if you've got an above-average player at the other.

A bad pick at QB means you've got a bad QB. A bad pick at DE means you need to do better at the other spot.

29 - I think people in this topic are getting a little carried away. It's not exactly easy to trade away a #1 pick. You could trade from #1 overall to #3 overall and take some junk along with it, but you'll draw the ire of future #1 pick owners by dicking up the sacred Draft Trade Chart (which is somewhat silly). And your trade partners are severely limited anyway. You could maybe work with 4 other teams? Not only that, but you get the incredible spotlight that comes with having the #1 overall pick, of course.

The #1 overall pick is also a huge cap burden. You're already (presumably) a really crappy team, and now you have to pay an unproven player like you would pay a pro-bowl player? Talk about setting franchises up for failure.

Trading out of the top spot is incredibly hard to manage. I'm a Texans fan, and wasn't too high on any of the top 3 guys taken; ideally, I would have seen the Texans get to #4 or #5 and take the D'Brick, but it's soooo much easier said than done.

You’re already (presumably) a really crappy team, and now you have to pay an unproven player like you would pay a pro-bowl player?

Draft choices are, cap wise, free - at least for the first 3 years or so. After that they get a bit expensive, but they're also completely cuttable at that point.

Mario Williams is costing the Texans ~$3M this year in cap space. He cost less than that last year in cap space. That's a tiny fraction of what the Pro Bowl DEs cost.

Don't believe players' agents marketroid hype. Draft picks are cheap.

34 - I am not familiar with Massey and whatever, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're making some fairly large generalizations here. You're assuming everyone hits a home-run with their 1st-round picks.

How easy is it to find yourself back in the top 5 year after year? Suppose you swing and miss on a QB, and a DE in another year, and a LT in another year... it could easily get away from you, and suddenly you find yourself burdened with these contracts that you are getting nowhere near approaching in terms of cost vs. production. And there's been plenty of occassions, all too numerous to mention, of very good, and even elite, players being found in late round 2 and rounds 3 and 4. Granted, you're more likely to find them in round 1, but you'd be a fool to trade away your lower round picks to get higher 1st-round picks for the first five years of a franchise, and then to just plan on surrounding these 5 (hopefully) elite players with a bunch of league-minimum scrubs.

I'm taking what you're saying to a bit of an extreme, I'll admit, but my point is that getting little to nothing out of these high picks can kill your salary cap and doom you to high picks in future drafts.

40 - Assuming what you're saying is true, then I also call for a Pro Football Prospectus analysis of the salary cap and draft picks!

38:

So you used the term "safe" to mean a team would be less hurt by the pick not living up to its draft position as opposed to the term "safe" as in "less likely to be a bust."

So you used the term “safe” to mean a team would be less hurt by the pick not living up to its draft position as opposed to the term “safe” as in “less likely to be a bust.”

Exactly - certainly, they're not less likely to be a bust, not in general. But the thing is, there aren't just Pro Bowlers and guys who are out of football in three years. Picking a QB/LT means you get little to no benefit from the guys who aren't busts, but aren't major successes, either. Picking a paired position means you can.

34 - I am not familiar with Massey and whatever, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re making some fairly large generalizations here. You’re assuming everyone hits a home-run with their 1st-round picks.

No, actually, I'm not. Massey and Thaler computed average production for each draft position after four years based on their free market contracts. Based on that, you find that the most successful position is the top draft position. It's just not "exactly" worth the amount that they get paid, but that doesn't really matter.

Suppose you swing and miss on a QB, and a DE in another year, and a LT in another year…

First, if you suck that much at talent evaluation, no amount of draft picks will help you at all. You have to make the assumption that you're not Matt Millen. You can't approach the draft by saying "Suppose I am an idiot."

Think about it: if you suck so much at talent evaluation that you can't pick decent talent when no one else has picked yet, what makes you think you're going to be any better at doing it when all the other teams have already picked?

Even if you take the approach of "I'm just going to use the stock draft rankings, and if I pick 5 third round guys, I'll be bound to get lucky" - how do you know you'd even have enough roster space to figure it out? A lot of the low-round or undrafted rookies take a while to adapt - they're projects, in other words. How do you have enough roster space to keep 5 multiyear projects?

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this:

Granted, you’re more likely to find them in round 1, but you’d be a fool to trade away your lower round picks to get higher 1st-round picks for the first five years of a franchise, and then to just plan on surrounding these 5 (hopefully) elite players with a bunch of league-minimum scrubs.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. In general, moving around in the draft - either up or down - is a bit of a losing proposition if it changes the number of picks you have significantly.

The way the draft value chart works, a team couldn't get a second top 16 draft pick if they traded all of their later-round picks together - and no one would want to, as no one could handle having 15+ drafted rookies.

And the marginal value of moving up a few slots (which is all you can do with all of the rest of the picks) isn't worth it, since while the average production of the rest of the picks isn't great, it's still above replacement level (what you can get easily in free agency/UDFA).

So it's a bit of a balancing act. Bad teams need to upgrade poor impact positions beyond what they can do in free agency, but they also need to make sure they're replacing the remainder of the team as well, which includes finding special-teams project guys late in the second day.

Pat, very insightful commentary... whether you're 100% right or not, I can't argue with your logic. This is why I peruse FO message boards.

44 - You can’t approach the draft by saying “Suppose I am an idiot.” Touche, good sir.

I disagree with you, Pat, about the cost of rookies.

Levi Brown, the #5 pick, signed a contract of 6 years, 60 million. Whether he only costs 3 million in the first year or not (as you say Mario does), that just means his average salary in the next 5 just went up a bit.

So it does cost you-- unless they are busts, I have never heard of a team cutting a productive top 5 pick over money. It just limits them.

I like front-loaded contracts, so I would prefer that Mario cost 10 million in his rookie year, to lessen the load later. I think Houston wanted the cap room for other things though, and they will pay, at some point.

Trading down is much easier said than done.

Pat,
If you don't suck at talent evaluation and have a terrible team with multiple needs doesn't trading for more mid-level picks make sense? Doesn't it make sense to trade up when you are good since you likely already have depth? I guess I think its much more of case by case than your making it out to be.

Levi Brown, the #5 pick, signed a contract of 6 years, 60 million.

All early round contract details are complete crocks. The "realistic" amounts are almost always near the guaranteed money.

The first year amounts have to be low - they're forced that way by the rookie salary cap.

Whether he only costs 3 million in the first year or not (as you say Mario does), that just means his average salary in the next 5 just went up a bit.

The $60M amount is definitely a crock - that's on order the "maximum amount" ones, which, for Williams, would include stuff like "leading the league in sacks," etc., stuff that would never happen for a bust. Anyway, it's not just me - the salaries are available in the USA Today database.

And yes, the salary in the later years is high. So what? If he's a bust, he won't be earning that much in earlier years, and you'll cut him in the 4th-5th year anyway when you've already paid most of the guaranteed money off.

And if he's not a bust, the later year salaries make sense. The only real problem you get is if the guy's marginal - and that's why I suggested a paired position, because you can always absorb a marginal player in those positions.

If you don’t suck at talent evaluation and have a terrible team with multiple needs doesn’t trading for more mid-level picks make sense?

Why? Assume an ideal draft: in that case, you're trading away a player you're very high on (the high pick) for a pair of players you're not that high on (the mid-level picks). If you don't suck at talent evaluation, that doesn't seem to be a way to upgrade the talent of your team - you're replacing guys you're not that high on (the guys on your own team) with guys... you're not that high on. Remember, with picks in the 3rd round or so, you're talking about guys with 50-60 players ahead of them.

Unless your team really, really sucks, and a couple of average guys would improve you significantly. But still, that's not a great path to long term improvement - plenty of really bad teams are made up primarily of average players.

Trading up and trading down should be completely dependent on the talent level in the draft. I've been talking about an "ideal draft" - one where the talent level drops steadily (or, as the "Loser's Curse" paper showed, this is also an 'average draft').

Realistically, there are no ideal drafts, and drafts have "shelves," where the talent is pretty much identical for large numbers of picks. Trading down when you think you're at a place where there are a lot of players with equivalent talent is a given, and trading up when you're near a place where the talent drops off quickly is also a given.

I was in the Mario Williams camp. Reggie Bush is a poor mans Bryan Westbrook and that is NOT worth the #1 pick. Sure, you might want to trade down but you don't always get offers.

Mario Williams is a manchild and him turning into a stud DE is better than Bryan Westbrook.

Julious Peppers is worth more than Bryan Westbrook, and Bush can't even run inbetween the tackles.