Bears 2024: 5.0 It's Caleb Williams time

[dice]

you cannot invest a 5th round pick this year such that it accumulates in value to a 4th round pick next year. because...wait for it...draft picks are not money!

No, they are assets, as I said in my comment. Assets have the value that the market applies to them. Hundreds of trades over decades shows us how teams value draft picks.

a market consisting entirely of GMs acting in their own interest does indeed assign a greater value to present assets. so you're onto something!

The rest of your comment is mostly just personal insults. No need to respond.

BS

do you believe the "well accepted fact" that there is a different "blind side" for right and left-handed QBs? or don't you? in the '80s did you believe the "well accepted fact" that ALL o-line positions were created equal? enough avoidance

you are entitled to your religious beliefs. goodnight and god bless

[dice]

Its hard to say because those first 2-3 seasons are massive for QB development. You can coach good habits and coach out bad habits. But if they play for 2-3 seasons in bad situations with bad coaching they can easily build habits that will stick with them the rest of their careers.

IMO a great QB coach and situation can change the trajectory of a player's career in the first 2-3 years. Its one of those things you can just never have the real answer to though.

Jay Cutler is an example of the inverse though? A pro bowl QB who declined when he went to a worse situation. There probably aren’t many examples like that though, since good QBs are rarely on the market. Watson has declined since leaving, but he’s got extenuating circumstances I guess.
Geno Smith and Baker Mayfield are recent guys who’ve improved in new situations.

Cutler's 2nd full season as a starter in Denver he threw for 4500 yards. Never sniffed that here.

Drew Brees blew up to an elite QB when he went to New Orleans with Payton. Though he did start to show improvement tords the end of his San Diego run. But Payton really unlocked him with the Saints

if i'm not mistaken, those denver O-lines were quite good. whereas cutler was routinely on his ass here. and yet he had 3 good seasons here, 4 mediocre and 0 bad...prior to the 5 game final season, anyway

[moorhosj]

do you believe the "well accepted fact" that there is a different "blind side" for right and left-handed QBs, or don't you. enough avoidance

you are entitled to your religious beliefs

What are you even arguing here? 9 of the top 20 paid NFL tackles are Right Tackles.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2023/08/11/nfl-offensive-tackles-2023-salary-rankings/70524894007/

[dougthonus]

the idea is strictly linked to the "better now than later" mentality. it is devoid of intellectual value

The difference in value of present assets versus future assets is well accepted fact.

that's not what a fact is. it used to be a "well accepted fact" that the earth was flat. and football thinking is even more rooted in antiquated thinking than society as a whole. there was a damn book/movie made about it

The discount rate one uses is up for debate, but not the concept. Arguing against it without providing any supporting analysis is the argument devoid of intellectual value.

you haven't provided anything in FAVOR of it other than it's what other people told you. that is a childlike acceptance. it is faith, not science

i assume you also believe in the "blind side", which is also "accepted fact"?

at the risk of repeating myself, the "fact" that present draft picks are worth more is mostly a function of a GM valuing his job over the next guy's job. and also in part because human beings have a tough time with delayed gratification. so they make up excuses for acting in the present ("tomorrow isn't guaranteed!", etc.). that is not team serving. it is self serving. there IS no evidence to back up the "fact" that the current pick is worth more. because it's a totally made up "fact." you cannot invest a 5th round pick this year such that it accumulates in value to a 4th round pick next year. because...wait for it...draft picks are not money! but when enough GMs tell the owner "uh yeah, well...draft picks decrease in value over time, so i'm actually making a good move, boss"...it eventually becomes an "accepted fact" in the industry

more likely than not, a year from now fans will be wishing poles hadn't done what he did. because they'll want their increased draft day entertainment value. which is more important to them in the moment than the team's fortunes on the field that fall and beyond...there's that whole delayed gratification thing again

The value of something is what someone will give you for it.

People will give you more for current picks than future picks largely because of what you said, because more decision makers value the present than value the future. It depends then how you define value in this sense, but in reality of how picks are bought and sold, there is a time premium attached to them in the marketplace.

From my perspective, what that means to me, is I would be constantly, every single chance I get, always trade a current pick for a pick that is one round earlier next year (or a combination of picks that is better next year). Any time that trade is on the board where I am getting more total value, but my cost is delaying it, I would do it.

I guess what that means, more or less, I believe what you say in terms of "true value to the franchise" and recognize the gap between that and "real market value" and would constantly arbitrage that gap. The OKC Thunder have done that in the NBA, and it's been brilliant for a mathy guy to watch how it has worked out.

[TheSuzerain]

Looking ahead to next draft, but there seems like a ton of elite D talent on the edge, DT, and secondary. And we could have three picks in the top 45.

This season should be exciting but we really are positioned to ascend come '25, '26.

[1985Bear]

Dice, really appreciate the data driven approach. My issue with only making moves that have a “win the deal only “ approach, is that at some point you need good players with known value.


Overall I see your approach as:, don’t trade future draft picks ever, only sign guys below market value in free agency and only trade for a player who is on a value contract but somehow don’t give up assets to do it.

How much do you factor bust rate on draft picks? We traded a 2nd for Sweat, which had a 100% success rate based on his actual NFL resume when compared to say Chris Braswell. If we kept that 2nd, what is the likelihood that that pick doesn’t work out 50%?? We had cash but if Sweat deal was too much in Free Agency, so who would be your edge rushers if. I Sweat deal?

For me, you have to have balance of big time vets, rookies , cost controlled value vets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jnrjr79]

nonsensical statement. total fallacy. there is no "time value of draft pick" like there is a time value of money. GMs do that **** when their jobs are on the line. THAT's when this year's pick becomes more valuable

It’s universally understood that you discount a next-year pick by one round for trade value purposes.

which is as nonsensical as many accepted ideas in sports valuation, including "the blind side" theory that LT is more important than RT

and p.s.: it's not universal. some discount by half a round, some i'd assume not at all

the idea is strictly linked to the "better now than later" mentality. it is devoid of intellectual value

Congrats on being a free thinker not subject to the wisdom of crowds.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

It’s universally understood that you discount a next-year pick by one round for trade value purposes.

which is as nonsensical as many accepted ideas in sports valuation, including "the blind side" theory that LT is more important than RT

and p.s.: it's not universal. some discount by half a round, some i'd assume not at all

the idea is strictly linked to the "better now than later" mentality. it is devoid of intellectual value

Congrats on being a free thinker not subject to the wisdom of crowds.

The entire financial system is built on the idea of Time Value of Money. There's a ton of empirical and intellectual "value" in that.

[dougthonus]

The entire financial system is built on the idea of Time Value of Money. There's a ton of empirical and intellectual "value" in that.

Time value of money is backed by inflation and changes in value of money. There is no discount rate for draft picks based on changes in the value of a pick in the future.

$10 today will have more buying power than $10 in 10 years.

Draft picks are not money. A 2nd round draft pick today is going to have the same odds of impacting this year's team as a 2nd round draft pick in 10 years has in impacting the team in 10 years.

The increased value of current draft picks is solely based on prevalence short term thinking of today's GMs because for their jobs, if they have more picks sooner, they will gain the benefit of those picks longer, but from a franchise perspective that is not true.

[dougthonus]

Dice, really appreciate the data driven approach. My issue with only making moves that have a “win the deal only “ approach, is that at some point you need good players with known value.


Overall I see your approach as:, don’t trade future draft picks ever, only sign guys below market value in free agency and only trade for a player who is on a value contract but somehow don’t give up assets to do it.

How much do you factor bust rate on draft picks? We traded a 2nd for Sweat, which had a 100% success rate based on his actual NFL resume when compared to say Chris Braswell. If we kept that 2nd, what is the likelihood that that pick doesn’t work out 50%?? We had cash but if Sweat deal was too much in Free Agency, so who would be your edge rushers if. I Sweat deal?

For me, you have to have balance of big time vets, rookies , cost controlled value vets.

I have no idea who the best Edge rushers are this year or whether we could have gotten one. We paid Sweat to be the 6th highest paid edge rusher in the NFL (quick google search). Is Sweat the 6th best edge rusher in the NFL? I would think for sure no, but I may be wrong, I'm not an expert on edge rushers. Also worth noting that newer contracts are also always higher due to the NFL cap consistently rising, so in 2 years, he probably won't be 6th anymore and might be 15th.

The argument is that you shouldn't give up a 2nd rounder which projects into a starting caliber player for the privilege of paying a guy considerably more than his on field impact and lowering the value per dollar of your roster in a hard cap era.

There are some arguments against that approach, which is that having the best roster per dollar doesn't mean much if the talent is spread too evenly, because really though your roster is 54 (?) deep, probably 10-15 players have outsized impact relative to the others, and so you can't purely look at value per dollar to win, because you also need to maximize the impact of the guys who have the biggest impact on the outcome.

However, say Sweat is the 20th best edge rusher, and you overpaid him by 5M per year and gave up a 2nd rounder that would project into a starter and also a starter on a value contract, is that increasing the value of your top contributors enough relative to what you pay?

I think you could make arguments around that in either direction, but I think ultimately, if you were really modeling things out (and I'm definitely not someone who models the NFL), you would probably be able to have a pretty balanced debate about it. If I were a GM, I'd probably be building out a pretty rigorous model about how much I value each thing analytically to answer these questions with specificity and then try to be methodical about following my model unless I am knocking on the door of the superbowl this year.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

The entire financial system is built on the idea of Time Value of Money. There's a ton of empirical and intellectual "value" in that.

Time value of money is backed by inflation and changes in value of money. There is no discount rate for draft picks based on changes in the value of a pick in the future.

$10 today will have more buying power than $10 in 10 years.

Draft picks are not money. A 2nd round draft pick today is going to have the same odds of impacting this year's team as a 2nd round draft pick in 10 years has in impacting the team in 10 years.

The increased value of current draft picks is solely based on prevalence short term thinking of today's GMs because for their jobs, if they have more picks sooner, they will gain the benefit of those picks longer, but from a franchise perspective that is not true.

You're correct that draft picks are not money, but they do have monetary value. You have to pay a guy you draft this year versus trading it for a pick next year and avoiding that cost. If you draft a player and he helps wins games, then you may see more ticket/concessions revenue. You can buy a pick in the NBA draft with cash.

If someone did enough research, they could certainly create a discount rate for draft picks. It wouldn't surprise me if someone already has, and it happens to be a pick that's a round earlier next season.

[1985Bear]

Dice, really appreciate the data driven approach. My issue with only making moves that have a “win the deal only “ approach, is that at some point you need good players with known value.


Overall I see your approach as:, don’t trade future draft picks ever, only sign guys below market value in free agency and only trade for a player who is on a value contract but somehow don’t give up assets to do it.

How much do you factor bust rate on draft picks? We traded a 2nd for Sweat, which had a 100% success rate based on his actual NFL resume when compared to say Chris Braswell. If we kept that 2nd, what is the likelihood that that pick doesn’t work out 50%?? We had cash but if Sweat deal was too much in Free Agency, so who would be your edge rushers if. I Sweat deal?

For me, you have to have balance of big time vets, rookies , cost controlled value vets.

I have no idea who the best Edge rushers are this year or whether we could have gotten one. We paid Sweat to be the 6th highest paid edge rusher in the NFL (quick google search). Is Sweat the 6th best edge rusher in the NFL? I would think for sure no, but I may be wrong, I'm not an expert on edge rushers. Also worth noting that newer contracts are also always higher due to the NFL cap consistently rising, so in 2 years, he probably won't be 6th anymore and might be 15th.

The argument is that you shouldn't give up a 2nd rounder which projects into a starting caliber player for the privilege of paying a guy considerably more than his on field impact and lowering the value per dollar of your roster in a hard cap era.

There are some arguments against that approach, which is that having the best roster per dollar doesn't mean much if the talent is spread too evenly, because really though your roster is 54 (?) deep, probably 10-15 players have outsized impact relative to the others, and so you can't purely look at value per dollar to win, because you also need to maximize the impact of the guys who have the biggest impact on the outcome.

However, say Sweat is the 20th best edge rusher, and you overpaid him by 5M per year and gave up a 2nd rounder that would project into a starter and also a starter on a value contract, is that increasing the value of your top contributors enough relative to what you pay?

I think you could make arguments around that in either direction, but I think ultimately, if you were really modeling things out (and I'm definitely not someone who models the NFL), you would probably be able to have a pretty balanced debate about it. If I were a GM, I'd probably be building out a pretty rigorous model about how much I value each thing analytically to answer these questions with specificity and then try to be methodical about following my model unless I am knocking on the door of the superbowl this year.

The difference in opinion seems to be that people see draft picks as “2nd round = projected starter” where I see a 50% chance at a starter. And each round, the chance of being an impactful starter goes down way more.

So I don’t care that we traded a 4th round pick for Keenan, since a WR taken 4th rd or later has at best a 5% chance (202 WRs drafted rds 4-7 with 11 starting WRs developing since 2013).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dougthonus]

You're correct that draft picks are not money, but they do have monetary value. You have to pay a guy you draft this year versus trading it for a pick next year and avoiding that cost. If you draft a player and he helps wins games, then you may see more ticket/concessions revenue. You can buy a pick in the NBA draft with cash.

If someone did enough research, they could certainly create a discount rate for draft picks. It wouldn't surprise me if someone already has, and it happens to be a pick that's a round earlier next season.

There are a few problems with that:

1: Winning has a very low correlation to money in the NFL relative to other leagues because 100% of TV money is nationalized an all games effectively all over the league sell out.

2: To the extent that is true that there is a correlation monetarily, the value of winning now vs winning in the future is unchanged and the value of winning in the future will already be worth more money due to the league being worth more money and the discount rate of cash already being applied, so to say it gives you more money by giving you cash earlier, is ignoring that it would already give you much more cash later, so you are double counting.

3: Given the league is actually growing at a much faster rate than the US economy and the cash discount rate, the value of money it would generate in the future is actually much greater than generating it earlier and investing it in the general market. Of course, there's no reason we need to believe that the future NFL growth rate will remain the same, but projecting that is of course a whole other debate.

The majority of the reason why earlier draft picks have more value today than later draft picks is due to the value to the decision makers and the disconnect between that and the value to the franchise. That's obviously not always true, like if you are contending for a superbowl today, juicing your team for this year may have additional true value at the cost of being worse in the future when you aren't contending for the superbowl, but most people making these decisions aren't in that situation.

[dougthonus]

The difference in opinion seems to be that people see draft picks as “2nd round = projected starter” where I see a 50% chance at a starter. And each round, the chance of being an impactful starter goes down way more.

So I don’t care that we traded a 4th round pick for Keenan, since a WR taken 4th rd or later has at best a 5% chance (202 WRs drafted rds 4-7 with 11 starting WRs developing since 2013).

The projection is certainly up in the air, and projected starter is an aggregate. If you were making a model, you would also factor in something like 5% chance of a superstar, 10% chance at an all-pro, whatever and you'd have a curve.

In general, I saw some analysis done a long time ago that draft picks on aggregate provide more value per dollar than veterans up until around the 5th round. Guys who are 6th/7th rounders the bust rate is so high they aren't worth roster spots.

I don't have a big problem giving up a 4th for Keenan either given the odds of a 4th rounder being a meaningful player for you are pretty low, and Keenan is likely to be a very good player for you in the short term and even if you don't extend him, his value in one year has a good probability of being worth more than the value of a 4th rounder over its full lifecycle.

I have a pretty high bar to trade 1st/2nd round picks, I wouldn't simply throw away 3rd rounders, 4th rounders are definitely fully up for grabs if you get a starter (even a short term one), beyond that, I probably care very little overall.

Not to say my approach on all that is correct, just my approach.

[Chi town]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/40038074/nfl-draft-bears-caleb-williams-quarterback-usc

Fun read. CW is crazy competitive.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

You're correct that draft picks are not money, but they do have monetary value. You have to pay a guy you draft this year versus trading it for a pick next year and avoiding that cost. If you draft a player and he helps wins games, then you may see more ticket/concessions revenue. You can buy a pick in the NBA draft with cash.

If someone did enough research, they could certainly create a discount rate for draft picks. It wouldn't surprise me if someone already has, and it happens to be a pick that's a round earlier next season.

There are a few problems with that:

1: Winning has a very low correlation to money in the NFL relative to other leagues because 100% of TV money is nationalized an all games effectively all over the league sell out.

2: To the extent that is true that there is a correlation monetarily, the value of winning now vs winning in the future is unchanged and the value of winning in the future will already be worth more money due to the league being worth more money and the discount rate of cash already being applied, so to say it gives you more money by giving you cash earlier, is ignoring that it would already give you much more cash later, so you are double counting.

3: Given the league is actually growing at a much faster rate than the US economy and the cash discount rate, the value of money it would generate in the future is actually much greater than generating it earlier and investing it in the general market. Of course, there's no reason we need to believe that the future NFL growth rate will remain the same, but projecting that is of course a whole other debate.

The majority of the reason why earlier draft picks have more value today than later draft picks is due to the value to the decision makers and the disconnect between that and the value to the franchise. That's obviously not always true, like if you are contending for a superbowl today, juicing your team for this year may have additional true value at the cost of being worse in the future when you aren't contending for the superbowl, but most people making these decisions aren't in that situation.

Interesting discussion. I feel like I'm correct, but I'd need a lot of time to gather my thoughts and conceptualize them. But because I'm both lazy and don't have that kind of time, I'll concede to your points.

[patryk7754]

Read on Twitter

Rich mentioned on his show that the NFL told him to clear his schedule for a specific day either this week or next week (I forgot when) and he thinks its for the schedule announcement

[patryk7754]

in regards of draft pick value, i think its determined by who you get for the pick(s). Most evaluators had a 4th round grade on Booker and that is essentially what was given up to draft him. If you think you have the opportunity to acquire someone who you think can get you 7/8/9 sacks a season for a few season then it would be probably the wrong the decision not to trade a future 4th to draft him.

If you look at the Kenan Allen trade, is giving up a 4th rounder to acquire someone you know is going to give you elite level production at one of the most important positions for a year or two better than drafting someone who might be good enough to make the roster. Even if that pick plays 5 years as a back up, is it better than what we will get out of Allen for a year? probably not, even at the cost of Allen's contract.

A lot of it depends on what your team's situation is.

[Jeffster81]

I'm going to keep it simple: trading picks for the likes of Dan Feeney and Chase Claypool= bad, trading picks for the likes of Sweat and Allen= good.

[kozelkid]

Dice, really appreciate the data driven approach. My issue with only making moves that have a “win the deal only “ approach, is that at some point you need good players with known value.


Overall I see your approach as:, don’t trade future draft picks ever, only sign guys below market value in free agency and only trade for a player who is on a value contract but somehow don’t give up assets to do it.

How much do you factor bust rate on draft picks? We traded a 2nd for Sweat, which had a 100% success rate based on his actual NFL resume when compared to say Chris Braswell. If we kept that 2nd, what is the likelihood that that pick doesn’t work out 50%?? We had cash but if Sweat deal was too much in Free Agency, so who would be your edge rushers if. I Sweat deal?

For me, you have to have balance of big time vets, rookies , cost controlled value vets.

I have no idea who the best Edge rushers are this year or whether we could have gotten one. We paid Sweat to be the 6th highest paid edge rusher in the NFL (quick google search). Is Sweat the 6th best edge rusher in the NFL? I would think for sure no, but I may be wrong, I'm not an expert on edge rushers. Also worth noting that newer contracts are also always higher due to the NFL cap consistently rising, so in 2 years, he probably won't be 6th anymore and might be 15th.

The argument is that you shouldn't give up a 2nd rounder which projects into a starting caliber player for the privilege of paying a guy considerably more than his on field impact and lowering the value per dollar of your roster in a hard cap era.

There are some arguments against that approach, which is that having the best roster per dollar doesn't mean much if the talent is spread too evenly, because really though your roster is 54 (?) deep, probably 10-15 players have outsized impact relative to the others, and so you can't purely look at value per dollar to win, because you also need to maximize the impact of the guys who have the biggest impact on the outcome.

However, say Sweat is the 20th best edge rusher, and you overpaid him by 5M per year and gave up a 2nd rounder that would project into a starter and also a starter on a value contract, is that increasing the value of your top contributors enough relative to what you pay?

I think you could make arguments around that in either direction, but I think ultimately, if you were really modeling things out (and I'm definitely not someone who models the NFL), you would probably be able to have a pretty balanced debate about it. If I were a GM, I'd probably be building out a pretty rigorous model about how much I value each thing analytically to answer these questions with specificity and then try to be methodical about following my model unless I am knocking on the door of the superbowl this year.

I think you're only making part of the argument here, though.


Aside from the success rate of a 2nd round pass rusher which is very low (I believe first round pass rusher success rate is just under 50%, if I recall correctly), there is this constant assumption that young, talented pass rushers hit free agency every year and want to join your team as well. And frankly, that is not often the case.

Take this year's free agency, Danielle Hunter (29 yo), was by far the most talented and likely will decline within next 2 years. And went to a contender. In other words, we could have easily struck out.

Meanwhile, the rest of the elite pass rushers either signed extensions with their team (Josh Allen) or were traded and then extended (Brian Burns).

So I think there is a major fallacy in thinking here that elite, young pass rushers are available in free agency to sign.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk