"Also: In this week’s episode of “Technology and You�, Peter King discovers text messaging!"

Really? Next you'll be telling me he's got a Playstation 2, Windows XP on his PC, and Sat Nav in his car.

The Lions are thrilled to get Calvin Johnson. Just look at the smiles on Millen and Marinelli (in the photo)standing next to Johnson. Of course Johnson looks equally excited. I look at that picture and wonder 'who died?'.

The Brady Quinn bowl? Game of the Year? I don't even know where to begin.

And I thought you were joking about the text messaging...

I wouldn't assume that Quinn signs for #23 money.

What does " Detroit is a nice starbucks town" mean?

I know I should just avoid reading him if it annoys me, but how on earth did ol' Kingy decide that people would want to read his reviews of various Starbucks' latte making performances? I expect him any week now to provide penetrating insights regarding various Kinko's locales.

On the other hand, ya' gotta hand it to a guy who turned the most mundane aspects of his existence into a paycheck.

The Brownies potentially traded away a high first rounder in 08, and a high 2nd rounder for a mid/low first rounder.

I know they wanted Quinn, but they gave up more than what the #23 pick was worth.

Has Kingy ever raved about his electric toothbrush?

6

I think at that point, it just became a matter of beating out Baltimore. They did dramatically overpay, and I think KC would have let him go, but who knows. and he was probably so far ahead of everyone else on their draft board by that point, they'd take the shot.

#6: Yeah, but they didn't trade for the 22nd pick. They traded for Brady Quinn. There's a big difference.

In the end the only thing that will matter is did the Browns give up more than Brady Quinn was worth.

Re: 7

I don't think so, but those two pages about 'pay at the pump' will live forever in my memory.

#4: That gets tricky, because if BQ signs for #13 money, as PK suggests, it throws the Browns' rookie pool out of whack. I know that creative accounting can help some of that, but there will still be difficulties fitting in a larger-than-slotted contract for BQ with the standard contracts for the rest of the Browns' picks.

6: It's not as simple as what the #23 pick is worth. After all, the Browns reportedly had Quinn rated as pick #3a.
See link in name for Pro-Football-Reference.com's very good take on this subject.

Is it news that draft day with the Seahawks was a catered event? Holmgren probaly has an omelet station in his car.

Re: 12

Quinn seems like a pretty smart guy. I'm guessing he'll realize that a holdout will cost him more in endorsements than he'll gain in salary. If he demonstrates he's worth more (and that's a lot more likely if he's in camp on time), the Browns will be more than happy to renegotiate and extend his deal early.

Re: 9 You're right. It makes the deal even worse ;)

14: right, but Quinn alone isn't making the decision. His agent is whispering in his ear, realizing that any nearby clients can get larger deals if Quinn gets a big deal, and that he can advertise himself as a great agent if he can pull off the 13 spot deal for the 22 spot player.

Re: 16

I don't think Condon (by the way, did that guy seem like a mortician when they were interviewing him prior to Quinn and Peterson being picked?) has any other clients in that area, but you're right he will certainly want to do what he can to preserve his reputation. The fact that Quinn didn't get picked before #22 makes all the rest of this damage control for him. The Browns will do what they can to help Condon save face (it's not in their interests to embarrass him), but they aren't going to do a stupid deal. If Condon insists on a overly inflated deal, Quinn may have to can him (it's happened before). And that sure as hell isn't going to help Condon's reputation.

Anybody like MIA's selections? I'm indifferent to Ginn, but like Beck. Although, they should start him sooner rather than later, as he is 26 (which is the average age for a BYU grad). Great opportunity for Beck, especially if MIA is able to score Trent Green.

And what was Sean Payton smoking that made him take a WR #1 and another RB? Does the #1 scoring offense in the NFL really need another young WR? I would have thought that they would shore up their D.

Anybody else think Jordan Palmer was a waste of a 5th rounder? Don't get me started on the WAS selections.

If you check out his comments on page 6 of the article, exactly why would it be a good thing if Randy Moss turned into Pete Rose?

I mean, I know he was going for the "constant effort" thing, but with Rose's checkered past and the general tone of the remarks about Randy, there was probably a better analogy to be made there.

Brady Quinn deal: I think that the Browns got beaten in the trade, not the pick of brady quinn. How? Look at what the cowboys payed for #26 - a second, third and fifth.

also, i think it is simplistic to equate a first round pick of the next year to a second round pick, esp. if it worth a top 10. i think a top 10 in the next year is worth a lower first round pick this year.

so whatz would be a more equal price? a first round swap in the next draft, a second and another (maybe a fourth). if the cowboys end up worse than the browns, the browns will lose the pick. i know it is a little complex but in that case, the browns still retain atleast the first round pick.

I forgot it was Condon. Condon seems like one of the better (well, more human) sports agents, so I think the odds are good a deal will get done. I do wonder if the deal will have big performance incentives, though. That would seem to be a bone the Browns could throw to BQ and Condon, so that he could report a higher contract value.

18: Here's one NOLA sports writer's take on the Saints' picks: http://www.nola.com/sports/t-p/index.ssf?/base/sports-30/117791128415484...

I tend to agree with his assement.

They feel that they have addressed their needs on defense primarily via free agency, and I think that they will continue to make moves to shore up the defense in that manner, or through trades.

18- Sometimes teams just want to keep a strength a strength. The offense now has a good core but they lost Joe Horn. You could argue that plugging Meachum into that saints offensive machine, has a higher probabilty of success, than a LB or DB on the Saints not so effecient defensive machine.

Sort of like the Jags going defense early in the draft or back in the day when Denny Green was still picking offense when the Vikings offense was already good.

It's very simplistic to treat next year as a round back. If you look at the other trades (from New England, mainly) it's clear that none of the teams in the draft think very highly of this year's draft overall.

I think Cleveland gave up too much for the value of that draft slot, but not for who they got. When you add in the fact that Quinn will be cheap for a few years (compared to his price at, say, 9 or so where he should've gone) they did very well.

Ah -- a venue where PK's high school gossip skills actually work!

This discussion about whether the Quinn trade was good or not is fairly elucidating of the various contingent ways one might value draft selections.

As a tangent, and I posted this on Pro Football Reference as wellI'd love to see FO re-engineer the old draft point value chart, given the frequency with which it's now cited as the arbiter of these trades. PFT is citing it these days like it's holy writ ... and not only is it debatable on its own terms, AFAICT it pays no attention whatsoever to the value proposition of the contracts one has to pay at various draft positions.

#22 & 23 - I think those are good justifications for taking a WR. Not a pick I would have made, since I would consider that they had adequate depth at WR already.

I have to believe their are some teams out there with their own proprietary value charts. I always seem to see the Bears trading back into the second round for instance. I would like to see it re-engineered for the FO public though

re: #25

I took a look at a couple of years worth of trades (pain in the butt to track this information down!), and found that the draft chart was generally pretty close to accurate (or rather, it was clear teams were mutually relying on it) in a specific set of circumstances:

- Pick was outside of top 10 picks - picks in the top 10 get valued wildly different from year to year, player to player, team to team. Tremendous variance.

- Pick does not include future year picks (i.e., next year's first rounder, next year's second rounder). Its genuinely tough to tell how team's value these because they are all over the place.

As an example, both of the Jets trades in this year's draft came close to the chart value. But trades like the Manning / Rivers trade, the Leaf for #3 and picks trade, etc ... are very tough to fit into a coherent framework.

Trades, like the draft, are best evaluated 2 to 3 years down the road. If you look at FO's QB draft preview Quinn's closest comparables are Palmer, McNabb and Cutler (not bad company). Russell's are Vick, Leaf, Couch and Carr. I would consider that a major risk. This doesn't mean that Russell will bust out or that Quinn will be a star but it would cause me concern if I were a Raiders fan. John Beck was closest to Matt Schaub in the round 2 comparisons.

Re #18
I thought Meachem was probably the best pick of the first round. The problem the Saints had was that without Horn in the lineup they didn't have a reliable target in the intermediate passing game. Colston wasn't bad, but they had to keep throwing short to him. And Henderson to me is much more a deep threat than an all-around WR. The rest of the Saints draft doesn't excite me; I like Pittman, and would rather the Titans have drafted him in the third than Chris Henry in the second, but he seems like a more marginal improvement than an impact pick like an LB could have been.

"I think Cleveland gave up too much for the value of that draft slot, but not for who they got. When you add in the fact that Quinn will be cheap for a few years (compared to his price at, say, 9 or so where he should’ve gone) they did very well."

exactly. the fact that they gave up their first isn't really a big deal, since quinn basically IS next year's first for them. I dont think there's a GM in the league who would say that the Browns got gypped here. not that I talk with a lot of GMs or anything.

28 -- I guess the more intriguing question to me is whether the chart bears any relation to what the picks are REALLY worth. If it's the one everyone's using, then almost by definition there's mischief to be made (and in the very vein of this site's mission) exposing its fallacies and modeling anew.

Of course, if anyone's got a better one, selling it to a pro franchise would probably be somewhat more lucrative.

What do you guys think about the Colts trading a 1st rounder ( which figures to be late) for a second rounder ( a guy that slid). I say this not for a player value standpoint, but a pay scale and availability standpoint. I'd think you guys would love the move.

The Saints wanted to keep their passing game a strength. Colston proved his worth, Henderson is worthy, but Terrance Copper is trash. If Meachum were to play half as good as Colston last year, he would replace Horn ( he was injury plagued and had 2 catches more than half of Colston.) The Saints can't fix their defense with 1 draft pick, but that offensive machine should keep rolling.

Per PK

"Amazing how Matt Millen stays so positive with the daily barrage of negativity in the community about him."

Yes, as far as negativity is concerned, Millen is just a carrier.

exactly. the fact that they gave up their first isn’t really a big deal, since quinn basically IS next year’s first for them. I dont think there’s a GM in the league who would say that the Browns got gypped here. not that I talk with a lot of GMs or anything.

They gave up their first and second, though. I personally think there's a good chance the Browns will be drafting in the teens next year, so a first and a second for a #5 pick isn't so bad. Especially when you take into account the "contract discount" they got on Quinn.

That being said, though, I find it hilarious that everyone was constantly saying "Quinn's losing out on X dollars!" I thought he had a great attitude, in that he never had that money in the first place. Second, you're still talking about over $1M signing bonus, so it's not like he's going to be destitute. Third, assuming he does play well, the fact that he only makes $5M or so his first few years is going to be completely pointless. If Quinn is full-time starting by year 3, he'll make enough money that that difference will be paltry.

Well played #13. Your post caused a spit take.

#18 See my name for my thoughts on my former favorite team's draft.

#36 - Don't let one bad draft turn you off on your team. If its any consolation I'm a skins fan. We know how to cope.

Sorry guys, I'd love to talk about the draft and all, but this is hilarious:

One other thing about hotel upkeep, while I'm at it: I wrote about this a few years ago, and it continues to confound me.

It must be shocking for him that everyone reads his columns, but never realy cares.

and
What's the deal with housekeepers stopping up the drain in the bathtub every time they clean the room?

wel, Peter, if your going to use the bath, it might as well be ready for it.

38 - I actually didn't mind his second point there. When I'm at a hotel for travel I'm not going to waste time taking a bath. I imagine most people just want a shower.

#33 - The thing I don't understand is that NO added David Patten as a semi-Joe Horn replacement, or so I would think. He's at least a marginal mid-field receiver, and when the ball was thrown his way the last two years he was decent. He has good hands. Patten's lack of productivity in DC was due to injury.

NO's depth at WR pre-draft as
#1 - Colston
#2 - Henderson
#3 - Copper
#4/5 - Patten

...and some other cats. With Reggie Bush catching balls out of the backfield and now Meachem they will be crowded at receiver positions. I suspect Bush takes on a more of a receiving back role with Antonio Pittman drafted, presumably to spell McAllister and run between the tackles.

Nonetheless, should make for an exciting offense.

Re: 25, 27, 32

The current draft point value chart is reasonably reflective of the actual market value of draft picks (i.e., the price in terms of draft picks that teams actually are willing to pay to move up in the draft). The problem, if you believe Massey and Thaler, is that the market value of draft picks is far out of whack with the "true" surplus value (performance value minus cost) of the players picked. According to Massey and Thaler in "The Loser's Curse" (2005), the surplus value of draft picks increases throughout the first round of the draft and peaks in the early second round before beginning a gradual decline. This is because players picked early in the first round are so highly financially compensated relative to later picks that the gap between their performance value and their cost is relatively small (although still positive).

Thus, for instance, the first pick of the second round should actually be preferable to the first pick overall if those picks are actually used by the teams that hold them. Therefore, in a "true" draft value chart (as opposed to market draft value chart), which you seem to be requesting, it actually could take an early first round pick plus perhaps a late round pick to "trade for" a single early second round pick. It's an absurd result, but it illustrates how shockingly inefficient the current market for NFL draft picks is.

This analysis ignores the fact that a team could slide in the draft voluntarily and pick at any point (a la the Vikings in 2003), such that the first overall pick could be considered equal to the most valuable pick in the draft because it theoretically could be employed at the point of the most valuable spot in the draft. In addition, such a "true" draft value chart inherently would ignore the most valuable aspect of holding an early pick, which is the ability to trade that pick to a sucker team that is following the classic, market draft value chart, and gain multiple and more "truly" valuable picks in exchange.

Effectively, Massey and Thaler already have produced a radically better draft value chart, and it will be interesting to see to what extent it becomes embraced by NFL teams over the coming years. Until the thinking behind the Massey and Thaler paper becomes widely adopted among NFL teams' brass, there will be a significant arbitrage opportunity for any team that is willing to trade down from an early pick. Again, all of this is assuming that Massey and Thaler are right.

"We'll look back on this draft one day and say Amobi Okoye was a steal at No. 10 to Houston. He's a clean-as-a-whistle Warren Sapp."

That's my nominee for King's best item of all time (among those not involving sexual terms and his daughter). What, exactly, was the issue that made Sapp not clean-as-a-whistle?

I guess I should discuss the Quinn trade. Obviously things could only be evaluated later when we know how good Quinn is and where the pick winds up, blah blah blah. But instant analysis is - I think it's a great move for the Browns, a risk worth taking. If they actually had him rated that high (top 6), then getting him now is worth what they gave up. Dallas played their hand well and got a premium for their pick (much kudos to Jerry Jones), and Cleveland got a guy they think is a franchise QB, at an early career discount, a year earlier than if they had waited and really sucked this year. Good move for both teams.

King also mentioned that Jared Allen got off easy, only getting a four game suspension for two DUIs. Isn't that the CBA-mandated penalty, though? I don't think it's an issue of Goodell letting him off easy; I thought the CBA mandates that DUIs count as a strike in the substance abuse policy, and two strikes equals four games.

Now, whether the Commish can go above and beyond that is another matter. I'd think he'd have a hard time imposing further sanctions than what the CBA allows, and the NFLPA would have an easy appeal if he tried.

CA:

I think many teams have caught on to the draft value. Belichick said the day before the draft that you could throw the value charts out the window because most of the league was trying to trade down and nobody was left to buy.

Part of that was the fact that there just weren't enough players with grades high enough to fill each round, so it was better to get out of not only the top of the first, but the bottom of the first, the bottom of the second, the bottom of the third, etc. Part of it is a growing recognition that the big dollar players in the draft are too risky unless they have can't miss grades.

Re #42
Sorry, Burninator, can't bash PK for this one. Sapp reportedly failed a drug test (or seven, see this NYT piece).

I didn't like the Browns' decision to trade for Quinn, but it makes sense if they have him rated really highly. OTOH, I did like the 49ers' decision to trade for pick up Staley. Maybe those two positions are inconsistent, but I've managed to reconcile them in my mind. Also, remember Roger Ebert's book I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie, based on a comment he made on North? That's how I felt about the Titans draft (see link).

The surplus value of draft picks increases throughout the first round of the draft and peaks in the early second round before beginning a gradual decline.

Surplus value doesn't make a roster better. Just look at the PFR blog: there's absolutely no correlation between total surplus value and winning.

Building an NFL team is about getting the best players on the field at the same time, not the "most cost effective" players.

Just take a look at the 2006 Browns vs the 2006 Colts. The Browns had Charlie Frye, an early 3rd round pick starting. The Colts had Peyton Manning, the first overall pick starting. Frye's probably performed about what an early 3rd round pick should in terms of quarterbacking. Manning's definitely performed like a first overall pick should (if you feel Manning's too extreme, hell, even the Giants are a better comparison).

According to the Massey/Thaler "Surplus Value" chart, pick 67 has more value. And they're right that the Browns were getting more from Frye, in terms of "performance/dollar", than the Colts were getting from Manning.

You go ask the Browns if that made them feel better.

So "surplus value" doesn't really work, because you don't need everyone on your team to be cost-efficient. You need backups to be cost-efficient. You need starters to have the highest performance possible, within a given cost structure that you've set up for a team. That is, "I'm going to pay $10M/year for a QB. What's the best performance I can get for that $10M in one player?"

Massey/Thaler's "performance" chart might work as a draft value chart, you might think. But that ignores roster limitations: when you trade 2 2nd round picks for a 1st overall pick, you get to stick another player in that extra roster spot.

Do I think you could do better than the current chart? Probably. But you'd have to be more intelligent than just using "surplus value" or "average performance".

But any chart you come up with will still look stupid, because someone like TMQ will note that you can trade a 1st round pick for like, 100 7th round picks (ignoring the fact that you could only use probably 10 of those 7th round picks before you run into offseason roster limits), because the implicit assumption that one pick can ever equal multiple other picks exactly is wrong.

Re #4 & #11 - The question of how much Quinn should be paid is an interesting one. My idea is that instead of paying him as the #22 pick, he should be paid the value of the traded pick. After all, the Browns were willing to overpay in draft picks to get him, so why shouldn't he be overpaid in his contract too? It's obvious he is worth more than the typical #22 pick due to the trade.

How do we work this out? Well we had the Cowboys and Browns swapping the #22 and #36 picks, giving a difference of 300 points on the trade chart to the Browns. Plus the 1st rounder next year which is worth anywhere between 500 and 700 points to the Cowboys depending on where you project the Browns to finish. So purely by picks, the Cowboys are up 200-400 points (more likely toward 400 since the Browns probably will be finish in the lower half of the NFL again next year). Now add that 200-400 onto the value of the #22 pick and you get the 'true' price of the Brady Quinn pick.

If you add 200 points, the pick is equivalent to #15, if you add 400 points, the pick is equivalent to #11. I feel he should get paid like the picks in this range. Probably won't happen of course, but I think that would be a fair way to work out his value.

What, exactly, was the issue that made Sapp not clean-as-a-whistle?

Ask Chad Clifton.

I know that everyone now wants to trade down - even many casual fans seem to favor that approach. When it comes to investing, I am largely a contrarian, and that works pretty well for me. That makes me wonder if the new value in the draft is in trading up?

As a contrarian, I am also going to get an omelette station in my car, as that goes against the grain.

Pat,

You've been pounding this point for a while, and I see the point you are trying to make. But I would counter that you don't want (or rather, can't attain) highest performance possible for all your starters. That's because there is a cap, and at current salaries getting the highest performers at every starting position would put you over it.

For an extreme case, consider some amazing QB, a ROBO-Manning if you will, who was twice as good as Peyton Manning came along, but to get him you would have to consume 99% of your cap. Obviously your team would not be very good, because ROBO-Manning would have to have someone to throw to, and if that someone was named Bam Childress, then you're not going to win many games. Or for another example, consider a CB. Let's call him Paul. Say he's amazing, loads better than Champ Bailey. But if you acquire him, you have to pay him so much that you have to cut your other above average CB, let's call him Peter, and replace him with Duane Starks. Your secondary will probably be lit up like a torch, because opponents will ignore Paul and throw to Starks all day.

I agree that at some positions, especially QB, you want to maximize performance (as long as doing so doesn't cripple the team elsewhere). However, you can't do so everywhere, so at some level value has to enter into the equation, even for starters.

Put another way...you're correctly arguing that 1 QB or RB who is worth, say, 10 units of value is more worth having than two RB's that are each worth 7 for the same cost, because you generally only have one RB or QB in the game at a time. However, I would maintain that it's better to have two WR's, or two D-linemen, or two CB's that are each worth 7 units of value over one that is worth 10 for the same cost. And even the QB/RB case, assume 5 units of value is average. I would seriously consider taking a QB worth 7 units of value and a CB worth 7 units of value for the same price as just a QB worth 10 units...filling two starting roster spots with above average talent instead of one for the same price, saving dollars to be spent on an elite position elsewhere and better depth, is worth something, maybe more than going from a 7 unit QB to a 10 unit QB.

Sorry that was very rambly...it's the end of the day on a Monday...

I guess a simpler way of putting what I was just trying to argue is that there are diminishing returns as a player's skill gets very high. Some positions (especially on defense, and especially especially for DB's I would imagine) diminish faster than others (like QB), but at some point, upgrading from Larry Johnson to LdT doesn't buy you all that much, whereas the cost of doing so might cost you skill at another position which hasn't started to hit diminishing returns yet.

So value has value...

OK, so Sapp is a bad character guy because he did drugs and got caught. Okoye is a good character guy because he did drugs but didn't get caught. Got it.

Re: 46

According to the Massey/Thaler “Surplus Value� chart, pick 67 has more value. And they’re right that the Browns were getting more from Frye, in terms of “performance/dollar�, than the Colts were getting from Manning.

I need to clarify the definition of surplus value. To quote "The Loser's Curse," "We define surplus value as the player's performance value -- estimated from the labor market for NFL veterans -- less his compensation." It’s a dollar value, not a ratio, contrary to what you imply. You seem to me either to be misunderstanding the authors’ arguments or to be disagreeing with the basis of them.

Manning’s definitely performed like a first overall pick should (if you feel Manning’s too extreme, hell, even the Giants are a better comparison).

Actually, Peyton Manning has definitely performed far, far better than a first overall pick “should.� There is no doubt that Peyton Manning did in fact produce a much higher surplus value than Frye, but that is the exception rather than the rule when comparing an early first round pick to an early third round pick. As for Eli Manning, well, yes, he probably has performed roughly as one should expect from a #1 overall pick, but his large contract may be crowding out the ability of his team to improve in other areas in a way that Frye’s small contract is not, perhaps an illustration of the hypothetical example that I discuss below:

So “surplus value� doesn’t really work, because you don’t need everyone on your team to be cost-efficient. You need backups to be cost-efficient. You need starters to have the highest performance possible, within a given cost structure that you’ve set up for a team. That is, “I’m going to pay $10M/year for a QB. What’s the best performance I can get for that $10M in one player?�

Let’s flesh out this example a bit. What if the answer to your question is $11 million? And what if you have $15 million to spend between QB and LT? Let’s say that while a team can get $11 million in performance value from a QB that counts $10 million against the cap, a team can get $5 million in performance value from a QB who counts $3 million against the cap. Now, let’s say that all LTs are “appropriately valued,� such that the performance value of an LT equals his cap cost. You can have your $10 million cap cost QB, and I’ll take the $3 million guy. Therefore, you get an $11 million QB and a $5 million LT (in terms of performance value) for that $15 million in cap cost, while I get a $5 million QB and a $12 million LT (in terms of performance value) for the same price. That’s $1 million in total surplus value for your superior (say, early first round) QB and his accompanying tackle, and $2 million in total surplus value for my inferior (say, early second round) QB and his accompanying tackle. If the free agent market is efficient, then I’ve got the better pair of players, even though you’ve got the better QB. Hence, obtaining the higher surplus value player leads directly to building the better team.

Yes, Massey and Thaler ignore roster size limitations, but I think that you are seriously underemphasizing salary cap limitations. To me, the more relevant complaints about “The Loser’s Curse� are that it relies on an obviously flawed assumption that free agent players are efficiently priced and that it uses questionable metrics to calculate performance value (primarily starts and Pro Bowls).

CA- You make very good points. It's funny that the Massey/Thaler paper is called "The Loser's Curse", because the fact that free agents are not priced efficiently (as you mentioned) is what keeps their theory from completely working.

In auction theory, the "loser's curse" refers to the fact that the party who submits an irrationally high bid is usually the one who wins the auction when item values are not definite. This is what happens most often during free agency, and why free agents are almost always more expensive for a given performance value than a player on his rookie contract.

Re: 18

As I have thought more about it, I am more open minded about what Miami did in this draft.
The guy that Quinn hired to polish up his game for pre-draft workouts was Terry Shea, who Miami hired as their QB coach soon thereafter. One would think he would know Quinn better than anyone.
Also Cam Cameron had this quote about Quinn:
>
"You kind of teach guys that are accurate to be even more accurate," Cameron said. "Can you teach somebody that isn't accurate to be accurate? I haven't had any luck doing that."

The quarterback Miami did take, John Beck of BYU, has a reputation for being precise with his passes. That's a big reason the Dolphins had Beck rated higher than Quinn, a source said.
-Palm Beach Post
>
If they liked Beck better, so be it - time will tell.
I do feel they reached a bit for Ginn though at #9 and I wonder why they couldn't have traded down for him.

MJK, I think you put it well.
Pat's argument against the surplus value is king theory is somewhat valid, but it just doesn't have that much of an effect, because of the reasons you state. I would argue that QB is the only position on the field important enough to justify overvaluing top picks because of the scarcity of highest end talent.

Surplus value is almost king.

There must be some teams out there that have a good idea of where the value is and are taking some arbitrage... I'm just surprised you don't see it more.

I'm surprised no one has commented yet on this prediction by King:

"I think the Lions might be exceptional on offense this year. Imagine a three-wide set with Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson split wide, with Mike Furrey, the 2006 NFC receptions leaders with 98, in the slot."

Peter, you've made some ridiculous comments and predictions before, and this one surely belongs among your greatest hits. He's always predicting the Lions are going to be a sleeper team, a breakout team, a team on the rise, etc. Last year, he predicted they would win the NFC North.

Has he looked at the Lions' QB, offensive line and RB situation? Maybe someone spiked his double grande vanilla cappuccino mocha latte with a hallucinogen while he was in his hotel bathroom freaking out about the soap and the bathtub stopper.

FYI..

I thought the attached article in the Las Vegas Sun was an interesting take on the draft and projected wins for the following season.

The piece on the Brown's draft day and quest for Quinn was vintage PK. His accessibility and easy style is why we read him. But I'm sure JJ is loving the TMI that PK left on him. Who doesn't think now that JJ is quite the elbow bender -- slimmer or not.

Lemme see....most beer has about 150 calories per 12 oz. serving, and a light beer has about 100. One has to metabolize about 3000 calories in excess of intake to lose a pound, so at fifty calories a can, ol' Helmet Hair has drank 780 barley pops on the way to losing 13 pounds.

I'll drink with that fellow any time!

58: Pythagorean wins are good, but I'm not convinced that Pythagorean wins last season is the best predictor of wins this season.

And if you try to adjust manually for personnel changes, you've made the system subjective.

Warning, this will be god awful long.

I need to clarify the definition of surplus value. To quote “The Loser’s Curse,� “We define surplus value as the player’s performance value — estimated from the labor market for NFL veterans — less his compensation.� It’s a dollar value, not a ratio, contrary to what you imply.

Yes, you're right. But it doesn't matter. If Manning's performance value was $10M, and his cost was $10M, his surplus value would be $0. If Frye's performance value was $3M+$1, and his compensation was $3M, Frye's surplus value would be $1, and the Browns would still lose.

Surplus value can't be the end-all, be-all of a team. For one thing - second round players are too cheap to fill the salary minimum.

Yes, Massey and Thaler ignore roster size limitations, but I think that you are seriously underemphasizing salary cap limitations.

No, I'm not. Salary cap limitations are very real, but they affect the roster in a very specific way. Note this:

Top QB: $10M
Top LT: $10M
Top RT: $5M
Top C: $5M
Top Gx2: $10M
Top WRx2: $5M
Top TE: $5M
Top RB: $5M
Top FB: $5M
===========
Total: $60M

(I'm obviously being aggressive on LT/FB, and a bit conservative on RB/WR)

In other words, you can build a top-shelf offense for about half of the salary cap. All of those salaries could be garnered at various draft spots in the first round, so let's assume that you took first-round players at each spot.

But they would have no backups. Starters don't constrain a salary cap. Backups do. If a team (let's call them the Blueskins, just for fun) managed to build a great team with those first round picks, and then backed them up with second and third round rookies, they'd win the Super Bowl.

I should note that the other thing Massey and Thaler are ignoring is time. The distributions that they have for each draft position aren't normally distributed. They're pretty much bimodal - you either get players that work out, or players that don't. At the top of the draft, you get players that do work out, frequently. A little more than half of the time.

Suppose you need a quarterback, for instance. How many years would you need to pick a third round pick QB to get a starter? You can only start one QB a year, so you can only pick one a year. From history, it looks like about 1/4 to 1/3 of the QBs in the third round are successful. That's 2-3 years before you're more likely than not to get a QB who actually works. But it's worse than that: the number of years you'd have to pick a QB before no team in the league would miss a QB (that's the way you'd define a viable strategy for the entire league) is about 8-9 years. At which point all the "valuable players" you've gotten elsewhere have wasted their careers playing with Billy Joe Hobert, Jonathan Quinn, and Bobby Hoying (Bobby Hoying!).

Therefore, you get an $11 million QB and a $5 million LT (in terms of performance value) for that $15 million in cap cost, while I get a $5 million QB and a $12 million LT (in terms of performance value) for the same price.

Congratulations! Go ask Seattle how that worked out last year when Seneca Wallace was at QB. Kidding, kidding.

For an extreme case, consider some amazing QB, a ROBO-Manning if you will, who was twice as good as Peyton Manning came along, but to get him you would have to consume 99% of your cap.

Do you remember what I said about a "salary structure" for a team?

There's a place at each position where spending more money gets you diminishing returns, like you said. But that's different for each position. The "ideal team," for instance, will have all of their starters at that inflection point, and all of the surplus value of their backups maximized, with the highest-performance spots dedicated to the positions with the highest return.

Yes, you'd never spend 99% of the cap on a QB. But likewise, you'd be an idiot to be going through a season with a quarterback who performs at a $2-3M/year level. I mean, c'mon. That's what, Brad Johnson? What idiot would keep Brad Johnson at QB the entire year?

A draft value chart could try to take that into account. Maybe picks with an expected value above the "average point of diminishing returns" would also have diminishing returns, and picks below would rapidly diminish in value (an NFL team made out of 7th round picks from a single year sucks). The problem with that is that not all positions have the same point of diminishing returns. Denver last year, for instance, would easily trade up and grab a QB, with little pain.

61. Out of curiosity I ran the numbers for the 2005 and 2006 seasons to see what it "predicted" for 2006 and 2007. Easy to do using copy, paste and Excel.

Eleven teams had a Pythagorean # in their 2005 final standings that was +/- at least 1.5 wins from their actual win total:

(Team, 2005 wins/2005 Pythagorean wins/2006 wins)

Indianapolis 14/12/12
Jacksonville 12/10.5/8
Tennessee 4/5.5/8
Houston 2/4.5/6
Denver 13/11/9
San Diego 9/10.5/14
Oakland 4/6/2
Minnesota 9/7/6
Green Bay 4/7/8
Tampa Bay 11/8.5/4
Arizona 5/6.5/5

All teams with the exception of Oakland and Arizona (9/11) went in the direction of their Pythagorean number the following season. Seven of the nine teams isolated had at least a 4-win differential.

For the 2007 season there are 12 teams with a 1.5-win variance:

(Team, 2006 wins/2006 Pythagorean wins)

Going UP:
Miami 6/7.5
Jacksonville 8/10.5
Oakland 2/3.5
Washington 5/6.5
Detroit 3/6
Arizona 5/6.5

Going DOWN:
NY Jets 10/8.5
Indianapolis 12/9.5
Tennessee 8/6.5
San Diego 14/11.5
Green Bay 8/6.5
San Francisco 7/5.5

Of course Oakland going Up. Have nowhere to go but up. Doesn't take genius to figure out that. ? is how up Raiders go. I say 11-5. Defense top 5 in league and getting better. Could be tops in league in 2007 with addition of Q Moses DE Georgia. Raiders may convert to linebacker. Good edge rusher. Play opposite side of T Howard. Offense can only improve. Raiders going to zone blocking scheme. Josh McCown good. Hold fort till rookie Jamarcus Russell QB LSU 6'5 260 4.68 ready. J Morant, J Porter, R Curry, J Higgins, A Whitted good WR core. M Bush L Jordan duo can be best in league. Line guru Alex Gibbs brought in to work with line. Tom Martinez, Tom Brady's personal mentor, to work with Russell.
A Brooks and M Tuiasosopo out of town. Raiders QB crew better just by having those bums gone. L McCown, J Russell, A Walter nice young crew. J Russell black John Elway. Al Davis said Russell is best QB since J Elway and Russell has best arm since Elway.
Chargers take step back with Nerv Tuner. Broncos not yet ready for prime time. QB too young.
Chiefs hurting with W Shields 6-3 320 G Nebraska retirment.

Division wide open for Raiders to burst through.

Further to 63 ...

I realize that a one-year test does not validate the theory but thought it was interesting nonetheless.

65. Actually, the Raiders were supposed to go up from 4 wins the year previous but still managed to drop to 2 wins...last time Raiders won the Super Bowl was Elway's first season...for Raiders to make it to 11-5 Russell will have to have a much better first year than Elway did

#65

AGREE RAIDERS GOING ALL THE WAY STOP KOOL-AID ALMOST EMPTY HERE THOUGH STOP SEND MORE ASAP STOP

Division wide open for Raiders to burst through.
It's not unheard of for a team to go from last in its division to first. (cf. 2001 Patriots) But I find the proposition dubious, that a team which had the worst record in the NFL the previous season, would take their division from the team which had the best. All while breaking in a new coach AND a new quarterback, behind one of the worst offensive lines in the league.

Glancing at the schedule, what would Oakland have to do to to get Raiderjoe's eleven wins? Let's assume wins against the two other last-in-division finishers to start, then add three wins against the NFC North. Then they must win six of ten from the AFC South and their own division.

That's a tall order, though not impossible, I suppose. Even assuming JaMarcus Russell turns out to be as good a quarterback as John Elway, it still took those Broncos a year to win the division. And that O-line had better stop sucking pretty quickly.

"Judging by last year's contracts -- quarterback Vince Young went No. 3 to Tennessee, defensive lineman Manny Lawson went No. 22 to San Francisco -- "

More evidence that Peter King does not understand football.

Aaron rogers was picked around the same time...what, 2 years ago? He has IIRC, 5m guaranteed, and has playing time escalators that can push the contract up to 30m.

Yes, Quinn is POTENTIALLY losing a lot of money here, but its not as much as it initially looks.

#68: The one thing that's important to realize about the Raiders is that they aren't a bad team. They're a bad offense. If that offense suddenly becomes even mediocre, they're an average team. If that offense becomes average, they're a top 10 team.

Assuming the defense stays the same, that is. So while 11 wins seems pretty unlikely, I'd say 8 wins is entirely possible.

Pat (#70 )--
If that offense becomes average, they’re a top 10 team.
Hence my point about the O-line stopping sucking. If they can get the blocking all the way up from "dismal" (29th in adjusted line yards, 32nd in adjusted sack rate) to "below average," they have a shot at a winning record.

That would be an impressive feat, though.

Raiderjoe - Love your optimism! However, as one of your fellow (and few) Raider fans on FO, please try to temper the rhetoric. It's hard enough to wade through the usual bad Raider stereotypes, poor jokes, and sanctimonious postings of some gloaters/haters that trod these boards without providing additional fodder. I too am pleased with the makeup of the coaching staff, the appearance of an actual modern gameplan, and the reasoned acquisition of players. While our o-line was an unmitigated disaster, it's clear the new coaches believe they can maximize the latent/misused/miscoached o-line talent moving forward. I'll give the new offensive staff the benefit of the doubt in deference to the previous "milquetoast and cookies" regimes of recent years. I'll take the OVER on 5 wins and with a bounce here or there, I'll push for 8 or 9. Raider on!

Generally have surplus value on your roster... but if your going to overpay for a position, make it the ones that count...

QB, WR, LT, CB, DE, DT

68: New Orleans accomplished much of what you describe, and as Pat mentioned, Oakland's defense is solid already.

#71: I'm not sure how surprising it would be - it all depends on how much was the talent, and how much was the coaching. That's one of the reasons I'm loathe to heavily criticize Gallery.

When you throw in the 'new head coach, new offensive coordinator, new quarterback' effect, though, they're probably going to stay well below average.

#69: The better example is Chad Pennington, who got picked near there in 2000, and did hit all of those escalators. His injury forced him to restructure his contract, of course, but still, he probably ended up making as much, or more, as some of the top picks that year.

Sophandros (#74 )--

I expect the AFC West to be a wee bit more of a challenge than was the NFC South last year (and the AFC East in 2001, for that matter).

Besides, the Saints only won ten games last season. ;)

Raiderjoe...so simple a caveman could understand!

:-) No offense. Seriously, you raise some good points about the Raiders. Their defense is good. Also, I would argue against this:

'new head coach, new offensive coordinator, new quarterback’ effect, though, they’re probably going to stay well below average.

This is generally true when you're replacing good or even average coaches (see Marty Schottenheimer, Bill Cowher) or QB's. However, as the Saints proved last year, replacing the likes of Aaron Brooks (who the Raiders will also be replacing this year) and Jim Haslett...i.e. BAD QB's and coaches, can have the opposite effect. I.e. an inexperienced good QB and newly implemented good scheme can represent an improvement over an experienced bad QB and an entrenched bad scheme.

I can see them improving, but not to 11-5. I expect both the Chargers (in spite of Turner) and the Broncos to be in the thick of the playoff race, and you just don't see many divisions fielding 3 playoff teams, especially when KC still could be decent and when the Raiders have so much work to do on the offensive side. If the new coach knows what he's doing, and if Russel works out (both very big IF's), I could see the Raiders challenging for the division in a year or so. But not this year...

I actually hope the Raiders do improve. I'm living in Raider country now, and it's no fun to hate them when they are this pathetic...

Pat,

I think your numbers to truly field a "top shelf" offense are a little on the low side...at least compared to the franchise numbers for each position last year. But your point is taken.

I personally feel, though, that half the cap is too much to spend on just offensive starters...that leaves less than half the cap to spend on defensive starters (and you actually need more than 11 starting calibur defenders, because most teams rotate their defenders to keep them fresh, and one bad defender opens a hole for offenses to attack) AND on all your backups, and you still haven't taken special teamers into account.

Plus there's the problem of injuries...you're hypothetical top shelf offense is an injury away from starting a 3rd round rookie in a key position and 3 major injuries away from a major collapse.

I think it's possilbe to overcount value and forget that performance is the most important measure, which is your point. But I would be leary of discounting value too much.

Anyone know what the Raiders plan on doing with Russell? Starting him this year would be a serious gamble, in my mind. There's a big difference between replacing Brooks with a top 10 veteran and replacing him with a first-overall rookie (especially one who didn't play a ton in college!).

Pat, the interviews with Kiffen seemed to indicate that there was no way in hell he was starting this year.

If they can keep him off the field, it will be for the best.... I just dont know how much the "raidas fanboyz" will put up with Russel riding pine.

Re: 80, 81

In the interview of Kiffin that I watched on the NFL Network, he indicated that there would be an open competition for the starting job among Walter, Russell, and McCown. My guess? McCown gets the starts at the beginning of the season, struggles for several games behind that awful O-line, and is benched in favor of Russell, who struggles for the rest of the season behind that awful O-line.

Plus there’s the problem of injuries…you’re hypothetical top shelf offense is an injury away from starting a 3rd round rookie in a key position and 3 major injuries away from a major collapse.

MJK:

Wait, no, that's the point (didn't you catch the Blueskins reference?). The only way that team is feasible is if you max out surplus value of the backups. If, for instance, you're fantastic at finding UDFAs, and fill your entire backup roster with them, and they all perform at the normal level of backups in the league (so incredible surplus value) you'll have a fantastic offense and the same depth as other teams in the league.

Obviously, that team's an extreme example, but that was the point. Teams can't possibly get an "all top-10 offense" anyway - not enough of them hit free agency each year, and teams can't possibly get enough first round draft picks.

In a more realistic world, though, the point still stands. You don't try to find cheap starting quarterbacks, or cheap starting tackles, or other important positions. You try to find the best quarterbacks and tackles.

Charlie Frye might not have been the best example, because he was bad. AJ Feeley is probably a better example. AJ was a 5th round pick, who vastly overproduced, on average, for a 5th round pick. You still wouldn't start him. Does he make your team better? Yes. But only as a backup, and you can't build a team with only backups.

Surplus value just isn't a good measure, because it ignores the fact that replacement level players are, well, replaceable. How cheap they are is pretty much irrelevant.

It's pretty simple: the fact that backups and starters exist implies that there are two criteria. You want your starters to be as good as possible. You want your backups to be as big a value as possible.

Therefore, your drafting strategy varies from team to team: do you need starters? If so, draft for maximum performance. Do you need backups? If so, draft for maximum surplus value.

If you look at the draft, that's almost precisely what the Eagles did, for instance. They don't need a starter. Not one. Every starting position, in their mind, is filled. So they drafted for maximum value.

"k. And H.B. Blades going in the fifth? The Redskins stole him. Just stole him."

6th round, actually.

Raiderjoe-You make some good points (and some questionable ones), but I think your post could be greatly improved with the use of words such as 'the', 'they', 'it', and others.

I do think Oakland could easily be an 8-8 team next year.

"JaMarcus Russell to the Raiders scares " Peter King.

But who should be scared? JaMarcus Russell himself.

Beg for the bench, kid. Or you'll end up like David Carr.

Wow, could Peter King be more obsessed with Brady Quinn? He dropped 73 names in the column with nary a single mention of Brett Favre. The torch has apparently passed.

When's the last time ANYTHING you bought at an airport was oustanding? I'd say the Detroit Starbucks are just living down to their location. And, as much as King writes about them, how can he be so in the dark regarding how Starbucks operates? Their airport locations are just like the ones you see in grocery stores--franchises run by third parties, which they resisted allowing for years because of problems with maintaining consistency in service and training.

Not enough has been made about what a poor hire the Raiders made with Lane Kiffin, and how poorly the fact that the Raiders couldn't hire a QUALIFIED NFL coach reflects on the franchise.

I don't have anything against Lane Kiffin, but he's a college ASSISTANT with ZERO NFL coaching experience. Based on his resume, he's not qualified to be an NFL head coach, and I predict a David Shula-type disaster in Oakland. Rob Ryan would have been a far better choice.

0 - 16 is not out of the question, and I'm saying that to rankle the Raiders fans here. I mean, where has the team improved itself? Does anyone really think Russell will contribute in 2007?

#89: They fired Tom Walsh. That's good for another 3-4 wins right there.

I wasn't a fan of what New Orleans did either. If the Saints thought Meachem was awesome value there, they were probably one of the only teams that did. I didn't think Meachem or Pittman were that great of value picks to warrant ignoring their real needs. The Saints have WRs. They obviously have RBs. Is Meachem going to instantly going to become a #1 quality WR. Nope. In fact, he's going to be hard-pressed to beat out all the other receivers they have. IMO, the Saints still had major needs on defense and should've focused on addressing them. If they didn't like the defensive players available, maybe they could've looked into trading down.

RE: 52

OK, so Sapp is a bad character guy because he did drugs and got caught. Okoye is a good character guy because he did drugs but didn’t get caught. Got it.

Surely you can't be comparing Okoye to Sapp character-wise. That would be an indefensible position.