05/03/2007 12:02 PM ET Draft trades were big mistakes Jets fail to play the percentages by moving up By Michael Salfino The Jets' Young Turks, GM Mike Tannenbaum and head coach Eric Mangini, made some old school mistakes last weekend at the NFL draft. How the players the Jets traded up for ultimately turn out is irrelevant. As I stated in my draft preview, trading up is always a mistake given the way these picks are valued. To explain why, let's present all the points presented by the Jets and people outside the organization, who not only defended, but also generally lauded the decisions to trade up for Pittsburgh cornerback Darrelle Revis and Michigan linebacker David Harris. Argument: According to the draft value chart -- used by teams to gauge the value of draft picks -- the Jets didn't pay too great a price to move up because the points for the draft slots they gave up was only slightly less than the points they acquired. I love it when people with no scientific, economic or statistical background fabricate things like draft value charts out of whole cloth. Can you imagine Jimmy Johnson, the man who popularized the chart, sitting on his boat with bare feet, a Corona in one hand and a pencil in the other, coming up with this nonsense? But don't take my word for it. Some real economists -- Duke's Cade Massey and the University of Chicago's Richard Thaler -- researched the 1999-2004 drafts. They concluded that this value chart is a farce that all teams should look to exploit by trading down whenever they find a partner willing to pay close to the chart price. Massey and Thaler determined that by measuring how first-round picks actually performed, assigning value to that performance and then subtracting what it cost to sign the draft pick, the assigned values are grossly inflated. So, according to this objective evidence, the Jets were very likely fleeced by essentially paying chart value in both trades. Argument: Even if the chart is poorly conceived, the Jets, by all accounts, drafted two very good players. If most everyone who claims to be an expert actually proved it by accurately predicting who the best players in each draft class were going to be, opinions like this would be meaningful. But even professional NFL GMs and scouts are not nearly as good at identifying amateur talent as they believe. That's why higher draft picks cost too much to trade up for and sign. If the NFL draft were a rational market, high draftees would have a high probability of earning their keep. They do not. In fact, Massey and Thaler concluded that there's about a 47 percent chance that a player drafted at a given position has about a 47 percent chance to outperform the previous player drafted as his position. Argument: Who cares what the Jets are paying Revis? Woody Johnson can afford it. As a second-round pick, Harris will make barely more than the veteran minimum. The salary cap makes the cost of signing players important. It's not just that the Jets are paying Revis more money than the player they would have taken had they stayed put at No. 25. The trades also cost the Jets second and third-round picks, which, if you are fortunate, are very cheap and locked up at a low cost for a minimum of four years. Saving money on the players selected with these picks gives you the opportunity to use your money on proven difference makers in the highly competitive free agent market. Argument: The Jets had a need at cornerback and needed to upgrade their run defense with an inside linebacker. They took the best players on their board with these picks. So, give them credit for being aggressive. Even if we accept the silly notion that this Jets team entered the draft with two holes, New York could have kept its extra picks and taken two corners and two run stuffers instead of one each. If you're trying to win the door prize, do you want four raffle tickets or two? It's at best 50/50 that Revis will be the best cornerback in the draft. The first corners drafted in the last few years were DeAngelo Hall (2004), Terrence Newman (2003), Quentin Jammer (2002), Nate Clements (2001), Deltha O'Neal (2000). Only Hall and Clements made the Pro Bowl with the teams that drafted them. O'Neal eventually did after he was traded to Cincinnati by Denver, which drafted him at No. 15 and saw him struggle mightily. Let's include O'Neal anyway and say the chance of the first corner drafted turning into a top player is 50 percent. As for Harris, he may well have been a value pick, but one of the reasons you play the 3-4 defense is because you're looking for different types of players than the crowd. Why not just wait and let these players come to you? Argument: If the odds of finding a great corner in the first round and an inside linebacker in the second aren't great, imagine how much worse they are later on. The odds are worse, but there's a better chance than most think of finding great players and even greater values later in the draft. The Jets hope that Revis turns into another Asante Samuel. Yet Samuel was drafted with the 23rd pick in the fourth round! Jacksonville Pro Bowler Rashean Mathis was the ninth defensive back selected in 2003. When scouts were drooling over Jammer (drafted No. 5), the Eagles found Pro Bowler Lito Sheppard at No. 26. The Jets were slated to pick No. 25 last week. Cornerback Ronde Barber is probably going to the Hall of Fame and he was a third-round pick, the 17th defensive back taken in 1997. Great inside linebackers can also be found in later rounds. Witness recent Pro Bowlers Zach Thomas (fifth round) and Jeremiah Trotter (third round). Throughout football history, inside backers have largely been products of their defensive systems. For example, 3-4 teams such as the Jets don't generally send inside linebackers to the Pro Bowl because these linebackers have to split tackles with another inside linebacker, while the middle linebackers in a 4-3 roam the middle alone. Argument: What you say may be true most years, but this was, by most accounts, a weak draft. Teams say drafts are weak or strong based on the solely on projected first-round talents. But all drafts generally produce the same number of really good players if you look beyond the first round. Half of the guys named to the Pro Bowl every year weren't drafted in the first round. Argument: Even if I buy all your points, how can you say that how the players turn out doesn't matter? If the these two guys end up being stars, those were great draft moves. Period. You hear teams talk all the time about playing the percentages. The trades for Revis and Harris both went against the percentages. If you play for an inside straight and get it, does that mean you played the hand well? No. You're also emboldened to repeat your error. The odds are against you at the casinos, too. But if you have a good day and beat them, you're only that much more likely to press your luck again and end up losing it all back, and then some. I agree that the Jets didn't risk too much here. But I was hoping this regime would be smart enough to exploit the value chart like the Patriots shrewdly did. Jets fans should worry that Tannenbaum and Mangini will make a habit of trading up and end up paying steep prices that could haunt the franchise for years. Ask Giants fans how trading Philip Rivers and what turned out to be Shawne Merriman and Nate Kaeding for Eli Manning has worked out thus far. Michael Salfino is a nationally syndicated football and baseball newspaper columnist and regular contributor to SNY.tv. __________________
"How the players the Jets traded up for ultimately turn out is irrelevant. " All credibility of the writer is lost the moment he wrote this. 20 years into the future...."Hey Revis is a Hall of Famer with three Jets Super Bowl rings, the only superstar to come out the 2007 draft, but that was a bad trade the Jets made to get him"
While I believe that the outcome is relevant. The author makes some very good points. First round draft picks have extremely high values on the points charts. Second through fourth rounders (especially considering their lower compensation) do seem undervalued. As long as NFL GMs consider first round players to be a slam dunk (guaranteed starter) I think that the points charts that have been floating around will still be used. Personally I think that most drafts (including this one) are deep enough to make the team trading down the winner in most cases.
When we traded up for Santanna Moss, who ended up being selected with our traded picks? I know I dont care, it turned out to be a good deal even though he was injured a lot in the begining and doesnt even play for us anymore. I bring it up because there were a lot of complaints about that deal too. Funny thing is, he was taken after Koren Robinson, David Terrell and Rod Gardner, 3 big receivers most people wanted instead of Moss. Sometimes you gotta trust the front office.
This was one of the worst and most poorly used references to the Young Turks revolution of the 1970's in the Middle East. Just for that statement alone, the author should be slapped in the face and ridiculed publically.
On the whole, a pretty interesting article but, you're right, this little gem was just a little too much to overcome.
Basically, the title of this article should be "Why You Should Never Trade Up in the NFL Draft." Normally, I'd be inclined to agree but obviously Tanenbaum really liked Revis and Harris. If they are assets to the team, then that's all that matters.
There is a new trend developing with Mangini and Tannenbaum - they are developing a screening process that will predict better than most scouting systems of picking players that will become very good players in the NFL. If you do not have confidence in your scouting then you opt for trading down to get hopeful contributors. In the Jets system they saw two players that they felt fit need and were locks and they made the move. If they had multiple players that they felt were high quality then they would have stayed put or traded down.
This was similarly one of the worst and most historically inaccurate attempts at intellectual elitism I've seen on this board. The Young Turks revolution was the last decade of the 1800s and the first couple of decades of the 20th century, NOT the 1970's.
and to think all these years living in agony because the jets didn't trade up in front of atlanta for brett favre and stood ground and drafted browning nagle instead. wow, maybe it is irrelevant.:breakdance:
I remember saying something like this last season in reference to a similar article, but Who the hell is Michael Salfino?
In addition to the "how the players turn out is irrelevant" part, I had to stop reading after the part about how a couple of university economists know more abou the draft than Jimmy Johnson. I hate Jimmy Johnson, but the assertion is still rediculous!
This article is spot on. I have made this arguement repeatedly. Trading up, except in very rare circumstances is dumb. Scouting schmouting. It is a crap shoot, period. It is like monkeys picking stocks and beating analysts. I am disappointed we gave away gave away our picks in rounds 2, 3, 4, 5. I thought we were "building through the draft". It is easy to pick guys in the top of the draft. The challange is to get talent in the mid and late rounds. If our scouts were so good, they would not need to take the easy route by trading up to cherry pick. Hopefully, what we got was good, but here is no doubt we gave away way to much to get what we got.
Trading up in the draft is a loser move 90% of the time. I'm hoping we're in the other 10% right now. And for those wondering the players taken in 2001 for the picks the Jets gave up for Santana Moss were: Casey Hampton (3 time Pro Bowl NT), Mathis Nkwenti (retired) and Roger Knight (retired). In 2003 the Jets traded the 13 and the 22 and the 116 to Chicago for the 4 pick. The Bears then traded the 13 to the Patriots for the 14 and the 193. On the 13 the Patriots took Ty Warren, on the 22 Chicago took Rex Grossman and on the 116 Ian Scott. Anybody want to defend getting D-Rob over those 3? Particularly given that Dallas Clark, Larry Johnson, Nick Barnett and Eric Steinbach were all on the board and plausible choices on the 22 over Grossman? This year the Jets traded the 25 and 59 plus a swap of a 5th for a 6th to get Revis. That means no Anthony Spencer or Ben Grubbs or Alan Branch or Paul Posluzny (the latter two we could have traded down for and gotten depth instead of giving it away) on the 25 and no Ryan Kalil or James Marten on the 59. To get Harris they gave away the 63 and the 89 which could have been Sabby Piscitelli or Usama Young or Marcus McCauley and a small trade-up for Tank Tyler or a small one down for Paul Soliai. This is not the way good teams operate. The trade-ups for Santana Moss and D-Rob were one of the big reasons the Jet's run D has been bad and that the offensive line collapsed. Now we just went through a draft where there were solutions available on both the offensive and defensive lines and what we got out of that draft with were very expensive (pick-wise) CB and LB. I'm hoping that Mangini and Tannenbaum put this all together and we're ok, but what I saw on the first day of the draft was vintage Bradway and that's why we got in trouble in the first place.
I have to agree that this year's draft feels like it has Bradway's pawprints all over it. It was totally inefficient. The only way it pays off is if Harris and Revis are full-time starters, the best at their position on the team, and play into their second contract. Bradway loved the longshots and that's what this sounds like to me.
I think I read this last year on this board. Don't fall in love with whatever draft profile you like, it will just cause you unneeded pain when the players you like don't get picked. Darrelle Revis, David Harris, Jacob Bender, Chansi Stuckey is a better Draft then adding two extra players in the bottom 60th of the draft plus taking our two top players 10 spots lower. Get over it, it's not like the jets lost 5 picks, they lost two. We traded the 59th and 89th picks pretty much to get who they wanted at 15 instead of 25th and 47th instead of 59th. We did not lose four players. LOL
For this team Revis and Harris are NOT worth more than Spencer, Marten, Young and Tyler, as the injuries will likely prove.
