Favorite_Toon Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 RAIDERS GA-GA FOR GHOLSTON? Posted by Mike Florio on April 9, 2008, 9:20 p.m. At a time when many league observers believe that the Oakland Raiders won Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aec4 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Using Florio's new trade value chart, which values the amount you have to pay to the pick too, #22 + #28 would only be 20 points short of #6. I don't know if I want to slide down that far to be totally honest, but I wouldn't be so upset. With that said, if the Raiders take Gholston, can we all send gift certificates for chiropractor work so he can fix the back he is going to hurt reaching so hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Using Florio's new trade value chart, which values the amount you have to pay to the pick too, #22 + #28 would only be 20 points short of #6. I don't know if I want to slide down that far to be totally honest, but I wouldn't be so upset. With that said, if the Raiders take Gholston, can we all send gift certificates for chiropractor work so he can fix the back he is going to hurt reaching so hard? I hadn't seen his chart before, but it's really no better than the one currently used (other than the very top of the draft). Even taking into account that a late first round pick is almost always signed for 5 yrs & any pick after that has a max of 4 years, to say that a team picking at 2(1) would need to also give up 3(1) to move up one space in the draft at that point in the draft is as ludicrous as the 3000 points assigned to a rip-off contract draftee on the old chart. It costs more to move up from #33 to #32 than it does to move up from #26 to #17. The problem with both of these charts is that it's obvious they started at the top & dropped value as they went down. So by the time you get to round 5, there is such negligible difference in value from the top to the bottom of a round, that it takes away from the trade value of the higher one. They should start at the end of the draft, start adding 1 point difference from the last pick to the 2nd-last pick, then gradually change those jumps to 2 pts, 3 pts, etc. This way your chart is open-ended by the time you finish. You don't need to "end" at any number; when you start at the top and work your way to the end, you have to keep the last pick(s) above zero, which alters the value being placed on dozens of picks. Not because they're worth this much or that much, but because you can't have a chart end with the value of the last pick at -46 pts. I agree there's a need for a new draft chart, but this isn't it. In some ways, it's even worse than the current one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aec4 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I hadn't seen his chart before, but it's really no better than the one currently used (other than the very top of the draft). Even taking into account that a late first round pick is almost always signed for 5 yrs & any pick after that has a max of 4 years, to say that a team picking at 2(1) would need to also give up 3(1) to move up one space in the draft at that point in the draft is as ludicrous as the 3000 points assigned to a rip-off contract draftee on the old chart. It costs more to move up from #33 to #32 than it does to move up from #26 to #17. The problem with both of these charts is that it's obvious they started at the top & dropped value as they went down. So by the time you get to round 5, there is such negligible difference in value from the top to the bottom of a round, that it takes away from the trade value of the higher one. They should start at the end of the draft, start adding 1 point difference from the last pick to the 2nd-last pick, then gradually change those jumps to 2 pts, 3 pts, etc. This way your chart is open-ended by the time you finish. You don't need to "end" at any number; when you start at the top and work your way to the end, you have to keep the last pick(s) above zero, which alters the value being placed on dozens of picks. Not because they're worth this much or that much, but because you can't have a chart end with the value of the last pick at -46 pts. I agree there's a need for a new draft chart, but this isn't it. In some ways, it's even worse than the current one. Weird thing is the one I saw the other day on there is totally different than the one posted now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJoe12 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 This doesn't surprise me, but i still don't see the raiders spending all the money they did on their defense and than investing even more with a player like mcfadden sitting in their lap. I will say that i do prefer gholston in a 43 and think he would be a good fit in oakland, but i guess we'll be able to tell in a few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 If the Jets were in a position to trade down from 6 to 22 and 28, especially with the money they spent this offseason, they have to do it. Not only will they not draft Darren McFadden in that case (YESSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) they will save money and will be able to address areas of NEED 3 times between 22 and 36. WR CB ILB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Weird thing is the one I saw the other day on there is totally different than the one posted now. You're kidding. That's odd. Well this one just sucks. How hard is this really? Start at pick #250 or whatever is typically the last pick in the draft (counting the comp picks); assign that last pick one point & work your way up to the top. After round 1, it doesn't really matter trade-wise what round you're in; it's what pick # you have. Contracts get cheap & level off in a hurry after round 2 in particular, so that really shouldn't factor into the trade value of those picks at all. Contract amount only becomes a negative/positive as you move in/out of the top 15 or top 10 or top 5 or top 3. Isn't much difference contract-wise (usually) even from #30 to #20. They're usually 5 yrs/$10M give or take. If one is 5 yrs/$9M and 10 slots earlier is 5 yrs/$12M, it's really negligible on a cap now approaching $120M. No one is making draft day trades at that point with contract $ in mind. The other reason you start at the bottom is because it is the only logical way to determine how much the top should be for trade value. To move from slot X to slot Y, you can now look at the draft values below that & determine what lower pick should be required to make that move up & assign point values accordingly as you work your way to the top. When you see 5-8 picks in a row with the identical trade value it's obvious they ran out of value to drop down because they started at 1000 or 3000 or whatever & worked their way down. The value of the top pick doesn't have to be an even number (1000, 3000, etc.). It can be 1828. Or if it comes to a number like that, then add 172 pts to every pick & it goes from 2000 down to 173 instead of 1000 or 3000 down to zero. These guys think inside the box too much and have set arbitrary parameters as to the range from the bottom pick to the top. Assign your value and the difference from the last pick to the first ends up being what it ends up being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted April 10, 2008 Author Share Posted April 10, 2008 This doesn't surprise me, but i still don't see the raiders spending all the money they did on their defense and than investing even more with a player like mcfadden sitting in their lap. I will say that i do prefer gholston in a 43 and think he would be a good fit in oakland, but i guess we'll be able to tell in a few weeks. I cant see them drafting a running back to make to make 5... Bush was a top 5 pick before he got hurt... (louisville) hes healthy now.. fargus just resigned and they have D rhodes... lamont jordan wil probaly be released soon.. and to pay a top 5 back?? I just dont buy it... and if Howies boy is there? that would be a slam dunk for them.. Al wil jog out himself in his glasses and jump suit with the pick.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 this is not what PFW said - they believe Al Davis is not a fan of gholston because of Rickey Dudley. http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFLDraft/Draft+Extras/2008/wwhi040908.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Favorite_Toon Posted April 10, 2008 Author Share Posted April 10, 2008 This doesn't surprise me, but i still don't see the raiders spending all the money they did on their defense and than investing even more with a player like mcfadden sitting in their lap. I will say that i do prefer gholston in a 43 and think he would be a good fit in oakland, but i guess we'll be able to tell in a few weeks. this is not what PFW said - they believe Al Davis is not a fan of gholston because of Rickey Dudley. http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFLDraft/Draft+Extras/2008/wwhi040908.htm well this makes winning that last game even more ridiculous... if we lose..we have the third pick and none of this matters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aec4 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 If the Jets were in a position to trade down from 6 to 22 and 28, especially with the money they spent this offseason, they have to do it. Not only will they not draft Darren McFadden in that case (YESSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) they will save money and will be able to address areas of NEED 3 times between 22 and 36. WR CB ILB Maybe with the money they save they can refund PSLs or your $250? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 well this makes winning that last game even more ridiculous... if we lose..we have the third pick and none of this matters... Stop it. You gotta beat Herm. Anyway, its easier to deal the sixth pick than it would have been to deal the third pick. And I have to believe the Jets' goal on draft day will be to amass draft picks so that they can relatively inexpensively fill the remaining glaring holes at LB, CB, WR and DE. I can see the Jets making several trades in the first round, dropping a few slot each time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Maybe with the money they save they can refund PSLs or your $250? Obviously you can't do simple math. My prices were upped from $1,650 to $1,800. Its $150 there champ. Sorry, but there is always right to bitch when a team goes 4-12 and they raise prices, whether you like it or not. However, its shut me and fellow season ticket holders up when they went out and signed Faneca, traded for Jenkins and actually looked like they wanted to win for once. As for Gholston, let the Raiders have him if it means the 22nd and 28th overall selections instead of drafting a bust at number 6 in McFadden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aec4 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 My prices were upped from $1,650 to $1,800. Its $150 there champ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 this is not what PFW said - they believe Al Davis is not a fan of gholston because of Rickey Dudley. http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFLDraft/Draft+Extras/2008/wwhi040908.htm Anyone who tells you they know what Al Davis is gonna do is lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Obviously you can't do simple math. My prices were upped from $1,650 to $1,800. Its $150 there champ. Sorry, but there is always right to bitch when a team goes 4-12 and they raise prices, whether you like it or not. However, its shut me and fellow season ticket holders up when they went out and signed Faneca, traded for Jenkins and actually looked like they wanted to win for once. As for Gholston, let the Raiders have him if it means the 22nd and 28th overall selections instead of drafting a bust at number 6 in McFadden. 22, 28 and Barber. Just 22 and 28 would be robbery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aec4 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 22, 28 and Barber. Just 22 and 28 would be robbery. This would be a steal... I doubt they do this. Barber has more value, in my mind, than #22 or #28. They'd probably want to do #28 + Barber and that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 This would be a steal... I doubt they do this. Barber has more value, in my mind, than #22 or #28. They'd probably want to do #28 + Barber and that's it. 22+28 aren't worth 6 so they would need to throw in a player or a 2nd... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 well this makes winning that last game even more ridiculous... if we lose..we have the third pick and none of this matters... Its always better to win than to lose - ALWAYS. Woody doesn't pay that huge payroll and all the salaries so they can try to lose a game. It's absurd. Little known stat - teams that finish 3-13 almost never go over .500 the next year. However teams that go 4-12 can turn it around, sometimes dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.