DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2013 NFL Season NFL Draft (2013) NFL Point Value Charts

I know there has been a lot of chatter in terms of trades in this draft, and while I have my opinions and I know everyone has their own as well, I just wanted to get an idea of what people think about the "point value charts."

One of the popular copies that seems to be floating around (as listed here http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670) says that the #1 overall is 3,000 points. As I said elsewhere, if you only used point values, then you would end up having to take the #1 overall instead of the first three picks in every round from 2 through 6 (6 included). Meaning that the first overall pick had better be amazing, because he is more important than 15 other players combined.

I just found this interesting and wasn't sure why so many people tend to hype up the top few picks and then undervalue other picks relative to that. I would rather have 3 2nds, thirds, fourths, and fifths and sixths as well than having a first rounder and maybe even two or three first rounders personally ....

Thoughts?

Your link isn't a good one, Stu.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670

My Mistake. Thanks for pointing that out ... it included the parenthesis ...

And I don't understand what is wrong with the linking because I literally copied it directly from the address bar, yet when I click back through the link it only sends me to the homepage? So I'm not sure if there is a bug there or something ... but if you copy the link manually into the address bar it works...

I believe the chart one you posted is the same point values until the end of the fifth round where the points differ by only a point or a fraction of a point. The concept and argument remains.

I tend to agree. The top of the chart starts off way to high points wise.

Thanks cfrs ... very interesting story. I appreciate it!

Most people have tended to just use the one that's been linked here for a few years... https://www.dawgtalkers.net/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/69223/an/0/page/0#Post69223

Thank you .. never saw that one.

It has the same values as the chart listed on the ESPN site.

Point is still the same where the first overall pick (supposedly) equals the first three picks from rounds 2 through 6 inclusive.

It also has the idea that the first overall pick is twice as valuable as the 7th. Not sure I can buy into that. Yes you get your top player, but I would much rather have 2 -7th overalls (or how about the 7th and the 8th) than only having the first. I understand the argument that there are only a top tier of elite players ... but this isn't the NBA. There are more than just 3 or 5 amazing players per year, and some don't go until the third or fourth rounds.

If I was a GM or coach with draft day power then I would trade out of the first round every year to teams that overvalued the first round pick. And then I would scoop up extra seconds and thirds and revolutionize how to build a team. Then I would be called Bill Belichick.

Did Bill even build that team, or was him GM and their scouting staff just that good? I know which one I feel is far more likely.


I believe that chart is as close to a replica of the original created by -Bill Walsh or was it Jimmy Johnson?? - as anyone has found.
It is reportedly what many, many teams have used over the years as the basis for trades -- but note the word basis. As in, it is a guideline, not something that is carved in stone. It is intended as a guideline as a beginning ballpark for negotiations... not as some absolute metric that must be adhered to.

Good Points all .. as far as top ten picks ... I didn't look back over specific picks earned, but I do know that since Bill was made coach in 2000 they have only had 1 season without a winning record. That was in 2000 when they went 5-11. So, unless the rest were earned by trades... I want to say that they have only "earned" a single pick in the top 10 (from the 5-11 record) while he was coaching. The year before they were 8-8 so I doubt that would give them a .500 record.

Yes the drafting in itself has been pretty good and I don't think you can credit that all to him. But I am sure that he has had a lot to do with it and I believe he has all of the GM responsibilities unless I am mistaken.

And I get the idea you bring up prp that it is only a basis .. but I almost think that the chart itself is outdated. I want to say that because the teams themselves dont follow the same criteria when evaluating prospects, how can they value the picks themselves the same (if that logic makes)?

It is as much about the value of the prospects as it is the ability to have choice.

#1 is that much more valuable because you can have absolutely anyone you choose. You don't get what's left after 'x' teams have selected.

Perception is value.

most of those top10 picks were from when he was coaching the Browns.

jc

As a general rule, I think the draft value chart has traditionally undervalued the second round picks and late first rounders. With a rookie wage scale (likely) coming, I think that will even out a bit but still hold true, just to a lesser extent.

As an example from this draft, the Pats have #17 (950), #28 (660), and #33 (580), which comes out to 2190. I would consider those 3 picks combined to be far more valuable than the #3 overall pick (2200). Likewise, I would consider the 17 and 28 picks (1610) to be a lot more valuable than our #6 pick (1600). So does Belichick, unfortunately.

Franchise QBs usually are the wild card.. e.g. Carolina's pick this year diminished in value a great deal when Luck declared that he would be returning to Stanford.

Also in the later rounds I think the chart just sort of loses all value because the points drop to such insignificant amounts. For example:

Pick #80: 190 points
Pick #129: 43 points

That's way off.

I agree with you on some of the point dropoffs are silly and why it's used as a basis and not a hard rule by teams that even use it.

however, if Belicheck really thought that way about top10 picks, he would have traded back when he was in the top10 more than he has ('95 we had the 11th pick and we traded back to 30. that's it when he has held a top10 pick).

Elite talent >> Good talent. It's worth the point discrepancy. The problem is that every draft is different in how much Elite Talent there is, so the dropoff is different for the points value depending on who you can get when.

For example: If we can get Peterson or Dareus at #6 (or Bowers if he checks out physically), then I do not want to trade back at all because I want the elite talent. However, if they are gone and someone wants to trade up, then I am all for taking the extra picks.