Lose for draft choice?

So, other than the 'nobody should ever even think of it' position (primarily on other, more fervent sites), the answer really seems to be that it just doesn't matter. In some years, even 20/20 hindsight doesn't provide a better player with a higher pick. In others, a better choice is available, but the GM has to be smart enough to know that. Finally, my Mandarich example shows that, even if Aikman would have been acknowledged as the best pick, he might have been bypassed because of the rhetoric AND, having missed on him, picking Tony over the next three (future HOFers).

I think it matters. Drafting in the top/middle of rounds gives you a shot at players who slip a little, or the last players who are at the bottom of your various player tiers. Look at the 2015 draft when we needed an ILB - the top three guys all went early/mid second, leaving us looking for help further down the board. Or last year when we traded up for Spriggs - he may have been the last player on GBs board with a 1st or 2nd round grade. If you're at the top or middle of that round you either have a choice of another similarly rated player or you don't need to move to get him.

Maybe for each each individual round in a vacuum it's not as big a deal, but year over year over year it adds up. I think it absolutely makes a difference drafting higher in each round.

every year, there are some really fine players that get picked in the later rounds. do you have a better chance of getting a great player if you have a top ten pick? of course you do. but if you have good scouts, you can get pro bowl caliber players in almost any round - or even as undrafted street free agents. i won't go so far as to say that draft position is irrelevant, but it certainly isn't worth tanking games for (imho).

What is interesting about that list, 11 or about 50% only appeared in one Pro Pro Bowl. At least 2 made it via special teams. Matt Cassel? And how many would you consider impact players? I guess my point is that finding that late round guy who is an impact guy and / or contributes on a consistent basis is rare

Also interesting how the number dropped off after 2011 which speaks to the point of how the talent at the college level has dropped off

It could also speak to teams getting better at evaluating talent and not letting these guys make it into rds 5-7. I'm not saying either theory is correct.

The list above reminds me of an article some years ago by a university that did a study on the NFL draft and concluded that the 2nd round was the highest value round. I don't remember their criteria, but I think they essentially suggested that a GM would be most successful trading as many picks as they could to acquire 2nd round talent. You get lots of capable starters, good depth and a reasonable number of impact players. Not sure that is true anymore either, but it was an interesting notion at the time.

Also, just to comment, "rp" is right above IMO. Individually you can always find where lower picks were better than higher picks, but overall, if you can pick 15-20 spots higher on a consistent basis you will get better players. Of course you can still screw it up with bad coaching, bad free agent signings, bad CAP mgmt., etc. It reminds me of the arguments you hear from people on college website arguing that their 3-star recruit/player end up being just as good as so-and-so's 5-star recruit. Sure, it's true when you look at the players one at a time, but there is a reason that Alabama is at the top every year and while I agree Saban is a fine coach, it all works because of the dump-truck load of 5-star and high 4-star recruits they pull in every year.

rpiotr01 said:

I think it matters. Drafting in the top/middle of rounds gives you a shot at players who slip a little, or the last players who are at the bottom of your various player tiers. Look at the 2015 draft when we needed an ILB - the top three guys all went early/mid second, leaving us looking for help further down the board. Or last year when we traded up for Spriggs - he may have been the last player on GBs board with a 1st or 2nd round grade. If you're at the top or middle of that round you either have a choice of another similarly rated player or you don't need to move to get him.

Maybe for each each individual round in a vacuum it's not as big a deal, but year over year over year it adds up. I think it absolutely makes a difference drafting higher in each round.

Click to expand...

Don't think anyone is going to argue this, unless one is a Cleveland fan . The point I was driving at was 'this year'. When the Pack is eliminated from the playoffs, is it worth it to lose and extra game in order to move up? In that case, rather than the heated arguments that evolve in some other forums, I maintain that the answer is basically 'who cares?'.

Half Empty said:

Don't think anyone is going to argue this, unless one is a Cleveland fan . The point I was driving at was 'this year'. When the Pack is eliminated from the playoffs, is it worth it to lose and extra game in order to move up? In that case, rather than the heated arguments that evolve in some other forums, I maintain that the answer is basically 'who cares?'.

Click to expand...

The one thing I wouldn't mind seeing is if Pack is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs before end of the season you let Hundley start the final game to see what he's got. It's basically throwing the game, but, if/when he falls on his face and GB moves up a notch, who knows, maybe a QB falls to them like it did with Arod and TT can grab him and let him sit for 3 years or so.

Half Empty said:

Don't think anyone is going to argue this, unless one is a Cleveland fan . The point I was driving at was 'this year'. When the Pack is eliminated from the playoffs, is it worth it to lose and extra game in order to move up? In that case, rather than the heated arguments that evolve in some other forums, I maintain that the answer is basically 'who cares?'.

Click to expand...

Got it. In that case then yes, there would be a positive side to the losses, but no it would not be worth throwing games intentionally or playing not to win (MM standard play calling not withstanding) Does that make sense?

Cheesedog said:

The one thing I wouldn't mind seeing is if Pack is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs before end of the season you let Hundley start the final game to see what he's got. It's basically throwing the game, but, if/when he falls on his face and GB moves up a notch, who knows, maybe a QB falls to them like it did with Arod and TT can grab him and let him sit for 3 years or so.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the QB class is thin. No Rodgers or Luck out there. I've never want to judge a guy on one game....see Matt Flynn. And let's say Minnesota and Detroit are tied in week 17 for the integrity of the game you play your starters

diesel said:

Yes we did. Although in fairness, Aikmen made public if drafted by Packers, he would refuse to play here

Click to expand...

He did? I don't remember that. I remember Deion Sanders saying that...but not Aikman. Am I wrong?...again?! wideeye))