Draft Theory - Investing

[NinerSickness]

Drafting NFL prospects is not just about determining how good a player is, it's about projecting how good he will be over the course of his career. It's the exact same thing as investing in the stock market. Looking at what a stock has done in the past tells you next to nothing about what it's going to do in the future.

Most people invest by looking at what something has done and thinking it will continue that way. I don't know how many people were telling me to invest in silver back in 2011. My reaction was always the same: there are 3 words you want to avoid when investing - ALL TIME HIGH. Silver was near an all-time high, and I thought that people had already missed the boat. I was right.

As it pertains to NFL prospects, determining a player's true value s about a lot of variables, but one is looking at the things that make them go up or down on a big board and then figuring whether that movement was (1) too big of a movement (2) not a big enough movement or (3) right around the right movement. For example - Jarvis Jones' neck issue dropped his stock. We'll know how much on draft day. Was the drop too much? Not enough? Just right? If you think a player's stock took WAY too big of a hit, you move up or down to get him. If it wasn't a big enough hit, just pass on him. And the reverse is true when their stocks go up.

Another variable is things you see that most people don't. This is rare because the NFL is getting really good at crossing all their t's and dotting all their i's. But they're only human, and some of them are downright inept (Terry Donahue, Al Davis, Howie Roseman, etc). Some of them are geniuses (Bill Walsh, Jimmy Johnson, Ozzie Newsome, etc).

All of these variables go into 2 different things - (1) bang for yer buck and (2) need. Need is the tie-breaker IMO. Bang for yer buck means if there are 2 players whom you see as equal value, you take the one who drops lower. It also means that if there's a player who's great in the top 10 but there's a player who's ALMOST as good as him in the 7th round, the 7th round pick is a lot more bang for yer buck (except with elite QBs; and this is an extreme example anyway).

What's the point of all of this? I'm writing this because of my interest in Tyler Bray. Tyler Bray is a penny sock that will turn into 5 dollars in a few years. He's by far the most talented passer in the draft, and he should have gone back to school because he needs more time to develop as a QB. However, he left early before the NFL got a chance to see him as a mature QB. His biggest problems are short-term problems. Maturity - time fixes that. Accuracy - working with Harbaugh will go a long way towards fixing that.

What coaching cannot help is a QB's ability to make any possible throw. Bray can do that. He's tall & stands tall in the pocket. And he doesn't have to wind up very much at all or even step very much into the throw to put it on a rope 30 yards downfield. And with the lack of talent at QB in college football right now, his value is even higher. Basically, he's a franchise QB in waiting. If a team takes him & gives him a year & a half to sit & learn, they're going to thank their lucky stars. There's no good reason he should be there outside of the top 15 picks, and if you can get that kind of value in the 2nd round, it's a steal.

 

[NinerSickness]

By the way, if Bray were being looked at as a top 10 pick like he should be, I wouldn't be hyping him this much.

 

[imac_21]

You don't spend a second round pick on a penny stock.

You've also missed the point of the draft. The point of the draft is to improve your product. To do this you have to look short term and long term. You (Sick) always get wrapped up in the long term. By now everyone knows that future draft picks are devalued by one round per year. If we're looking at drafting a guy in the 2nd round, to get full value for that pick, you have to be able to turn around the next year and get a first round pick for him. If it's going to take 3 or 4 years for that player to develop into a first round asset, you're losing on that investment.

When discussing second round picks, you have to look at the expectation of that pick in the short term and the long term. All teams expect a significant contribution from a second round pick throughout the first three years of his career. By drafting Bray in 2013 with the plan to develop and trade him in 2016, you're losing 3 years of production. That 2016 first round pick does nothing for the team in 13, 14 or 15.

Furthermore, if you're looking at 3 years to develop Bray before you trade him, you're eating up 3 years of a 4 year contract. That will significantly hurt his trade value. What team is going to give up a top 15 pick for an unproven QB going into the last year of his contract?

Your comparison to playing the stock market misses when you start adding players to it. You can loosely look at draft picks as stocks, however, players have a real-world value that draft picks/stocks don't have. When you buy a stock with the intention of selling it at a high point, you aren't getting anything significant out of that stock until you sell it down the road. However, when you draft a player you are expecting significant, concrete contributions as long as the player is on the roster.

 

[NinerSickness]

First of all, a young potential franchise QB's value doesn't go down because he only has a year or 2 left on his contract. Teams would pay out the nose for one even if he just gets the franchise tag. It's not like he's a left tackle.

Second of all, the Niners don't "lose" 3 years of production from him. He'd be the backup QB. That's an important position, especially when they have a running QB. So there's no telling how much time he'd get to show off his ability. It comes down to the last variable I forgot to mention: luck.

And "Penny stock" is just a metaphor.

And I'm not making a mistake at all getting wrapped up in the long-term when it comes to the draft. Short term production usually comes from high picks and free agency. If your plan is to count on the 63rd pick to make a significant contribution as a rookie, it's a huge mistake unless that guy is a runningback (and the Niners don't need a RB). Any production the Niners can get from a rookie 63rd pick can easily be found in free agency.

It is highly unlikely that players like DJ Swearinger or Bennie Logan or whoever is there at 63 (as rookies) are going to out-play a veteran free agent on a 1-year contract.

 

[badazzk9]

You don't spend a second round pick on a penny stock.

You've also missed the point of the draft. The point of the draft is to improve your product. To do this you have to look short term and long term. You (Sick) always get wrapped up in the long term. By now everyone knows that future draft picks are devalued by one round per year. If we're looking at drafting a guy in the 2nd round, to get full value for that pick, you have to be able to turn around the next year and get a first round pick for him. If it's going to take 3 or 4 years for that player to develop into a first round asset, you're losing on that investment.

When discussing second round picks, you have to look at the expectation of that pick in the short term and the long term. All teams expect a significant contribution from a second round pick throughout the first three years of his career. By drafting Bray in 2013 with the plan to develop and trade him in 2016, you're losing 3 years of production. That 2016 first round pick does nothing for the team in 13, 14 or 15.

Furthermore, if you're looking at 3 years to develop Bray before you trade him, you're eating up 3 years of a 4 year contract. That will significantly hurt his trade value. What team is going to give up a top 15 pick for an unproven QB going into the last year of his contract?

Your comparison to playing the stock market misses when you start adding players to it. You can loosely look at draft picks as stocks, however, players have a real-world value that draft picks/stocks don't have. When you buy a stock with the intention of selling it at a high point, you aren't getting anything significant out of that stock until you sell it down the road. However, when you draft a player you are expecting significant, concrete contributions as long as the player is on the roster.

Nicely stated.

 

[imac_21]

First of all, a young potential franchise QB's value doesn't go down because he only has a year or 2 left on his contract. Teams would pay out the nose for one even if he just gets the franchise tag. It's not like he's a left tackle.

Second of all, the Niners don't "lose" 3 years of production from him. He'd be the backup QB. That's an important position, especially when they have a running QB. So there's no telling how much time he'd get to show off his ability. It comes down to the last variable I forgot to mention: luck.

And "Penny stock" is just a metaphor.

And I'm not making a mistake at all getting wrapped up in the long-term when it comes to the draft. Short term production usually comes from high picks and free agency. If your plan is to count on the 63rd pick to make a significant contribution as a rookie, it's a huge mistake unless that guy is a runningback (and the Niners don't need a RB). Any production the Niners can get from a rookie 63rd pick can easily be found in free agency.

It is highly unlikely that players like DJ Swearinger or Bennie Logan or whoever is there at 63 (as rookies) are going to out-play a veteran free agent on a 1-year contract.

First, yes, having one year remaining on his contract would take away his value. Particularly if you're selling him based strictly off preseason. What did the Packers get for Matt Flynn last year when they franchised him? What did New England get for Matt Cassell? A second round pick. And they had to throw in a starting LB. What did Philly get for Kolb?

If you're plan is to bring this kid along and trade him for a top 15 pick, shouldn't there be some precedence for that happening?

Second, they do lose three years of production. It's a second round pick that is not contributing during games. That's a poor investment.

Third, it's a pretty poor metaphor.

Lastly, a rookie safety MAY contribute as little as Tyler Bray to the Niners next year. I doubt it (a position player like Swearinger would at least contribute on ST, and possibly in sub packages). But he would almost certainly contribute more in year 2 and year 3.

Now, what happens if you can't convince anyone Bray is worth a top 15 pick in 2016?

 

[NinerSickness]

If you're plan is to bring this kid along and trade him for a top 15 pick, shouldn't there be some precedence for that happening?

That isn't my "plan." It's one option. It's an option I like, but I would be more than happy to have Bray as the backup QB for 4 years. And who's to say he couldn't even steal Kaepernick's job from him if Kaep gets hurt?

Second, they do lose three years of production. It's a second round pick that is not contributing during games. That's a poor investment.

Then you need to go give draft investment lessons to Bill Belichick because he spent the 74th pick on Ryan Mallett. And Bray is a better prospect than Mallett was. Or does that 11-pick gap make all the difference?

Third, it's a pretty poor metaphor.

Lastly, a rookie safety MAY contribute as little as Tyler Bray to the Niners next year. I doubt it (a position player like Swearinger would at least contribute on ST, and possibly in sub packages). But he would almost certainly contribute more in year 2 and year 3.

Ok, then who's your backup QB? Give me a name.

Now, what happens if you can't convince anyone Bray is worth a top 15 pick in 2016?

You take the compensatory pick you get from him leaving. That's not a bad worst-case scenario.

 

[imac_21]

That isn't my "plan." It's one option. It's an option I like, but I would be more than happy to have Bray as the backup QB for 4 years. And who's to say he couldn't even steal Kaepernick's job from him if Kaep gets hurt?

So now it's an insurance policy? Drafting a guy in the 2nd round and trading him for a top 15 pick is an option I think most people would like. I'd also like to go to the bank, ask for change for a $50 and get 5 $100 bills back.

Then you need to go give draft investment lessons to Bill Belichick because he spent the 74th pick on Ryan Mallett. And Bray is a better prospect than Mallett was. Or does that 11-pick gap make all the difference?

Well, there's a fairly significant difference in the age of the starting QB for the Patriots and the 49ers. Mallett wasn't drafted with the goal being to trade him in a few years. He was drafted as a potential replacement for Brady. I also disagree that Bray is a better prospect.

Ok, then who's your backup QB? Give me a name.

At this point, I don't know. We've had this conversation. I was looking at Manuel but when he started to climb draft boards I realized it's unlikely. If he's there in the late 3rd/early 4th then I would take him.

You take the compensatory pick you get from him leaving. That's not a bad worst-case scenario.

So it's not a bad worst case scenario get, at best, the 97th pick in the 2016 draft for the 63rd pick in the 2013 draft? That sounds like a pretty bad scenario. Particularly given your "draft=investment" theory. I suppose the worst case scenario would be Bray not making it and us getting nothing for him a la Gio Carmazzi.

 

[NinerSickness]

You keep missing the benefit of having Bray as a the backup QB for 4 years. That isn't worthless. The backup QB is an important position.

Yes, he could be an all-out bust. Anyone could. So having him leave & getting a compensatory pick isn't a bad 2nd-worst case scenario. Best case scenario: Kaep gets hurt, and Bray turns into an all-pro' & plays 15 years en route to making it to the HOF.

Your problem with Manuel is the exact same problem with Bray. Manuel will be a 2nd round pick too (if not a 1st). So reailstically, your backup QB is Scott Tolzien. I think that's a terrible, borderline irresponsible option.

You think Mallett was drafted to be Brady's replacement? I don't. It doesn't seem to coincide with the Mallett-to-Cleveland reports:

Report: Ryan Mallett trade remains on Browns' radar - NFL.com

 

[Flyingiguana]

By the way, if Bray were being looked at as a top 10 pick like he should be, I wouldn't be hyping him this much.

a top 10 pick? you're really putting lipstick on a pig

 

[NinerSickness]

a top 10 pick? you're really putting lipstick on a pig

A pig huh? Let's remember to re-visit this in 2017. I won't forget.

 

[imac_21]

You keep missing the benefit of having Bray as a the backup QB for 4 years. That isn't worthless. The backup QB is an important position.

Yes, he could be an all-out bust. Anyone could. So having him leave & getting a compensatory pick isn't a bad 2nd-worst case scenario. Best case scenario: Kaep gets hurt, and Bray turns into an all-pro' & plays 15 years en route to making it to the HOF.

Your problem with Manuel is the exact same problem with Bray. Manuel will be a 2nd round pick too (if not a 1st). So reailstically, your backup QB is Scott Tolzien. I think that's a terrible, borderline irresponsible option.

You think Mallett was drafted to be Brady's replacement? I don't. It doesn't seem to coincide with the Mallett-to-Cleveland reports:

Report: Ryan Mallett trade remains on Browns' radar - NFL.com

A second round pick for a guy that ideally doesn't see the field is a bad investment. You've created a "best case scenario" that involves having a dynamic young QB showing signs of being a superstar who led us to within 5 yards of winning a Super Bowl getting injured. I assume you have this happening this year, because if he plays in 2013 like he did in 2012 he'll be getting a fat extension. Your best case scenario can't have a franchise QB's contract on IR or the bench.

I acknowledged that Manuel's climbing stock takes him out of my sights.

You're talking about drafting Bray with the intent of trading him in the future. That's the plan. The plan is not for him to replace an injured Kaepernick. (Is it?)

The Pats drafted Mallett with the intent of him replacing Brady. It hasn't worked out that way. In the link you posted as evidence the Pats are looking to trade him it says it's believed "Belichick will be reluctant to trade him." That leads me to question the idea that he was drafted to be traded.

When Mallett was drafted, Brady was 34 years old and had 2 years remaining on his contract. There was talk, once Mallett fell to the third, of either Indy or NE taking him as an heir apparent.

Kapernick has two years left on his contract, but is 25. I don't think we're looking for an heir apparent yet.

 

[imac_21]

A pig huh? Let's remember to re-visit this in 2017. I won't forget.

2017 now? If we were to draft him and wait until 2017 to trade him, he would be in the first year of his second contract. Could we afford to pay two franchise QBs?

But, remember, in your proposed circumstance of Bray becoming a top 10 QB with us, it involves him being a backup.

I'm still trying to remember a backup QB who was traded for a top 10 pick without first playing in the regular season. Can anyone help me out?

I'm also wondering, Sick, do you think the Redskins would have rather trade for Flacco or Ryan last year rather than RG3?

 

[NinerSickness]

All that said and, realistically, the plan for the backup QB you support is Scott Tolzien. I can't get behind that.

I could live with Landry Jones as the backup too, but I wouldn't take him before the 4th round. He was severely disappointing this year.

 

[NinerSickness]

I said 2017 because I think he'll be starting SOMEWHERE by then. And he'll be one of the better QBs in the league. Lipstick on a pig implies Bray isn't any good.

If Bray gets zero starts, he won't be traded for a top 10 pick. But there's no telling if or when Keap might get hurt. This all boils down to the fact that I think Bray has the potential to be a great QB, and guys like that do not belong in the 2nd round.

No I don't think the Redskins would've taken Flacco over RGIII. But I think the Dolphins would've taken him over Tannehill.

 

[numone9er]

All that said and, realistically, the plan for the backup QB you support is Scott Tolzien. I can't get behind that.

I could live with Landry Jones as the backup too, but I wouldn't take him before the 4th round. He was severely disappointing this year.

I'd take Landry in the 3rd, but that's just me. There is enough talented QB's in the 2nd-4th round range that Harbaugh and Roman could into potential Franchise QB's. Whether they pick a guy like Tyler Wilson, Tyler Bray, Landry Jones, or Mike Glennon, I have confidence in their choice as well as their ability to coach them up.

 

[NinerSickness]

Harbaugh can work magic, but I don't like Glennon. I like Tyler Wilson, but I have no idea how high he's gonna go. He has tiny hands though.

After Jones there's nuthin' IMO.

 

[imac_21]

I said 2017 because I think he'll be starting SOMEWHERE by then. And he'll be one of the better QBs in the league. Lipstick on a pig implies Bray isn't any good.

If Bray gets zero starts, he won't be traded for a top 10 pick. But there's no telling if or when Keap might get hurt. This all boils down to the fact that I think Bray has the potential to be a great QB, and guys like that do not belong in the 2nd round.

No I don't think the Redskins would've taken Flacco over RGIII. But I think the Dolphins would've taken him over Tannehill.

Sorry Sick, I'm having all kinds of connection issues lately.

So you want to put a 2nd round pick on a player that will be starting SOMEWHERE in 5 seasons?

Your 2nd paragraph is an interesting one. The implication is that the only way to get a good ROI (to stick to your theme) on Bray, is to take a significant loss on the Kaepernick investment.

Tell me, if you were playing the stock market would you invest in a stock that could only maximize it's return if another, larger, investment, failed to a significant degree, would you buy the second stock?

I disagree about the Fins taking Flacco over Tannehill going into last year. I think you would have struggled to find a team that would take Flacco for a top 10 before late January of this year. I still don't know that many teams would (even ignoring the new contract).

 

[MHSL82]

If an investment means taking a QB in the second round and getting more than a second rounder for that pick, I think we just did that with Kaepernick. He's not playing like a great second rounder, he's playing like a great first rounder. There's arguments of how far he's come and how great he is, but the point is, I'd never really discuss how he is as a second rounder except in this type of talk.

If an investment really just refers to more draft picks, than no, we gave up a lot to move up to get him, aren't trading him, and what we got for him succeeding, pick wise, was the ability to trade Alex for a second rounder and hopefully another next year (as opposed to sticking with Alex or releasing him). Perhaps if we didn't have Kaep and Smith performed like he did last year, we'd sell the "we're keeping him" option better, but I seem to think the image of Smith pushing him up to what we got was helped by stopping at his high point like George Costanza wants to leave on a high. It was reportedly the Bills who raised the stakes, bytheway. They offered a 2013 second and a 6th next year.

 

[NinerSickness]

Your 2nd paragraph is an interesting one. The implication is that the only way to get a good ROI (to stick to your theme) on Bray, is to take a significant loss on the Kaepernick investment.

No. The Niners could lock up the 1 seed w/ 2 games to go & Bray could play a couple of quarters in each of them. Or Kaep could miss some games due to injury but bounce right back afterwards (which doesn't damage the investment of Kaep). If the Steelers invested little more in a backup QB, they might've been in the palyoffs last year. You're essentially saying that the backup QB position isn't important if you have a young, established starter. To that I say, how high of a pick justifies drafting a backup QB? Give me a number (because you still can't come up with a name).

I disagree about the Fins taking Flacco over Tannehill going into last year. I think you would have struggled to find a team that would take Flacco for a top 10 before late January of this year. I still don't know that many teams would (even ignoring the new contract).

That's insane. Flacco is a franchise QB. All 32 teams would take a franchise QB over a raw prospect like Tannehill. There's a reason he was the 8th pick of the draft & not the 3rd.