Risk/Reward factor for top 10 picks

[Throne Logic]

The more I think about it, I'm not sure it's worth the risk / CAP hit to ever have a pick in the top 10. Possible exception might be a QB as they are going to command big contracts anyway. However, their risk factor is very high. How many QBs picked in the top 10 actually pan out?

Risk/reward factor seems to dictate shooting for the mid to late first round with a trade-down if you have a top 10 pick. Besides, most of the great teams seem to be built with guys picked after the first round.

This way you don't have to deal with CAP killer contracts like what Mike Williams commanded. Plus, you'll wind up with more players instead of just one. With the Draft being the crap shot it is, why not hedge your bets with multiple picks?

[juice]

Careful consideration should be taken before drafting a 360 lb OT with the 4th overall pick.. MW had weight issues long before leaving college, it was just last off-season that the problem grew outta control.

Stick to the skilled positions inside the top 10 picks.

[Dozerdog]

The more I think about it, I'm not sure it's worth the risk / CAP hit to ever have a pick in the top 10. Possible exception might be a QB as they are going to command big contracts anyway. However, their risk factor is very high. How many QBs picked in the top 10 actually pan out?

Risk/reward factor seems to dictate shooting for the mid to late first round with a trade-down if you have a top 10 pick. Besides, most of the great teams seem to be built with guys picked after the first round.

This way you don't have to deal with CAP killer contracts like what Mike Williams commanded. Plus, you'll wind up with more players instead of just one. With the Draft being the crap shot it is, why not hedge your bets with multiple picks?

It really depends on the players available / holes needed to fill /market for the picks. Knowing what we know now on how TD wheels and deals- I'll bet you that there were no takers for the #4 overall pick in 2002.

Many years teams will get screwed in the top 10- and because of the history of whom signed for what and where they will be drafted- guys like Alex Smith this season will be grossly overpaid.

[Dozerdog]

Careful consideration should be taken before drafting a 360 lb OT with the 4th overall pick.. MW had weight issues long before leaving college, it was just last off-season that the problem grew outta control.

Stick to the skilled positions inside the top 10 picks.

Who would you have selected at #4 in 2002, Juice?

[Throne Logic]

Careful consideration should be taken before drafting a 360 lb OT with the 4th overall pick.. MW had weight issues long before leaving college, it was just last off-season that the problem grew outta control.

Stick to the skilled positions inside the top 10 picks.

I see your point. But you could likely trade your top 10 pick for a lower 1st round and a 2nd round pick (if not more). That could be 2 high-profile skill position players who will play for not too much more of a combined CAP hit than that single top 10 pick.

In fact, as I continue to think about it, I'm inclined to say I might always trade 1st round picks in exchange for known-commodity NFL veterans who are young enough to play through a 4-5 year contract. Here's my thinking:

1) NFL teams covet 1st round picks (even with the risk factor involved).
This would make the potential trade that much more likely.
2) A solid vet (not necessarily the superstars) won't likely be making more
money than a 1st round pick (I'm not entirely sure on this one. Clump or
Eb?).
3) Over the coarse of a 4-5 year deal, that veteran is going to give you 4-5
years of solid service. The draft pick is most likely going to ease slowly
into things, resulting in his productivity being something less than the 4-5
years your paying him for. Plus, this assumes that your draft pick doesn't
turn out to be a bust. (injury could effect either, so I left it out)
4) Taking the last point a bit further, a veteran has a much better chance to
be that instantaneous fix for the holes on your team.

I guess the bulk of my argument centers around the same concept as I started this thread with. The risk/reward factor. A known commodity vs. an unknown "potential".

As a mental exercise:

Part I: Evans turned out to be productive half way through his rookie campaign. That's above average on the scale and it assumes that he'll continue to produce into the future (which I feel is likely). Now, which veteran receivers might we have traded that #13 pick to obtain? I'm thinking some team would have bit.

Part II: Eric Flowers. . .

Part III: Mike Williams is improving. Does anyone think that we might have traded that #4 overall pick for a good RT who would have already given us a couple good years without the growing pains or the screwed up contract?

[Throne Logic]

It really depends on the players available / holes needed to fill /market for the picks. Knowing what we know now on how TD wheels and deals- I'll bet you that there were no takers for the #4 overall pick in 2002.

You might be right about that. But I do find it hard to believe. Maybe TD was asking too much? I'd bet someone would have given up a solid RT straight up for that #4.

[Throne Logic]

You might be right about that. But I do find it hard to believe. Maybe TD was asking too much? I'd bet someone would have given up a solid RT straight up for that #4.

Please note: I stated "solid" not "superstar".

[juice]

Who would you have selected at #4 in 2002, Juice?

Why would you pick #4 at all Dozer.. didn't this team go like 3-13 the year before?

Wouldn't it make more sense to trade down for more picks since it was obvious that we needed more than just a RT - and now look 3 yrs later and we've yet to make the playoffs.

What do you think Dozer?

[Dicknoze69]

Why would you pick #4 at all Dozer.. didn't this team go like 3-13 the year before?

Wouldn't it make more sense to trade down for more picks since it was obvious that we needed more than just a RT - and now look 3 yrs later and we've yet to make the playoffs.

What do you think Dozer?

It's much easier said than done. It's very possible that TD tried to trade down and found no willing partners.

Other teams also know the risk/reward potential of very high picks and don't like giving out massive contracts to unproven players.

You can't just give the pick away either, you need to receive value in return for an asset.

[juice]

It's much easier said than done. It's very possible that TD tried to trade down and found no willing partners.

Other teams also know the risk/reward potential of very high picks and don't like giving out massive contracts to unproven players.

You can't just give the pick away either, you need to receive value in return for an asset.

There are alot of options besides taking a RT with the #4 overall pick.. You can trade down or you can draft a player then trade that player to another team for another player and picks or you can trade a certain pick for another teams total picks in the Draft that year like the R. Williams deal.

Plenty of scenarios besides picking a non-skilled position with a #4 overall pick..
especially when the team is in as much need as we were that year prior.

[Sportsuser101]

I don't know about you but I thought it was the right move to take an o-lineman I just wanted the other o-lineman. I wanted McKinnie. It is much easier to get a RT then it is a LT that was my reasoning.. that and McKinnie didn't give up a sack.

[Throne Logic]

You can't just give the pick away either, you need to receive value in return for an asset.

Part of my argument is that the perceived value of this pick is much higher than the actual value. I would not demand the equivilent of that "perceived value", thus making the bait all the more sweeter. I'm suggesting that I'd take advantage of the situation and trade the pick to someone with that false perception and get something I can count on in return.

[Throne Logic]

I don't know about you but I thought it was the right move to take an o-lineman I just wanted the other o-lineman. I wanted McKinnie. It is much easier to get a RT then it is a LT that was my reasoning.. that and McKinnie didn't give up a sack.

A bit off-topic for the tread, but if I remember correctly, McKinnie had some issues to start his career and most folks were happy we picked Williams over McKinnie at the time.

Besides, Williams isn't a bust. I just think we could have gotten a solid veteran in exchange for that pick. Even exchange. I don't think TD was willing to do that.

[Dozerdog]

Why would you pick #4 at all Dozer.. didn't this team go like 3-13 the year before?

Wouldn't it make more sense to trade down for more picks since it was obvious that we needed more than just a RT - and now look 3 yrs later and we've yet to make the playoffs.

What do you think Dozer?

Would i try to trade down? Sure- if the deal was right. But that's a lot of "Ifs" and "Buts"


You stated Careful consideration should be taken before drafting a 360 lb OT with the 4th overall pick.. ................Stick to the skilled positions inside the top 10 picks.

What skilled guy did you want? Or is this all 20/20 hindsight?

[Sportsuser101]

A bit off-topic for the tread, but if I remember correctly, McKinnie had some issues to start his career and most folks were happy we picked Williams over McKinnie at the time.

Besides, Williams isn't a bust. I just think we could have gotten a solid veteran in exchange for that pick. Even exchange. I don't think TD was willing to do that.

No I'm not saying he is a bust. In fact he impressed me last year. I just thought at the time that getting a LT was better then getting a RT especially what McKinnie brought to the table.