04-12-2020, 01:28 PM
The Pats tend to milk trade downs to positive results, though there are certainly exceptions of teams betting the farm on impact players(typically QBs) and being rewarded for it. I'm in the camp of belief that the draft is not a "crap shoot" - some teams just draft better than others. It's part of the process of building a roster and it shows up in their W/L records. How many high draft picks have the Browns whiffed on? Would BB have drafted those same players at those same spots? Oh I forgot, there's a narrative with some folks that the Pats "aren't good at the draft" lmfao. They're good at everything.
Back to OP's question: should teams try to trade down like robots in order to try to replicate the Pats? Not necessarily. I think that the ideal approach involves recognizing where the glut of talent is likely to be in the draft. If there's no one available at 33 who's graded significantly higher than the players who will likely be there at 44, a trade down makes sense. If there's a player at 33 who you have graded as a high impact starter who you believe should've gone in the first 20 picks, a trade down doesn't make sense. You also need to have a better board than other teams.
It also makes sense to work the draft board in order to hit needs. You aren't going to take 6 DBs in a row like a robot even if your board tells you that they're the best players, are you? The ideal answer is likely very complex and involves an awful lot of mathematical constructs which synthesize gobs of raw data into digestible models, paired with an intuitive executive decision maker who can synthesize a lot of input from subordinates and work it into a cohesive strategy.
Back to OP's question: should teams try to trade down like robots in order to try to replicate the Pats? Not necessarily. I think that the ideal approach involves recognizing where the glut of talent is likely to be in the draft. If there's no one available at 33 who's graded significantly higher than the players who will likely be there at 44, a trade down makes sense. If there's a player at 33 who you have graded as a high impact starter who you believe should've gone in the first 20 picks, a trade down doesn't make sense. You also need to have a better board than other teams.
It also makes sense to work the draft board in order to hit needs. You aren't going to take 6 DBs in a row like a robot even if your board tells you that they're the best players, are you? The ideal answer is likely very complex and involves an awful lot of mathematical constructs which synthesize gobs of raw data into digestible models, paired with an intuitive executive decision maker who can synthesize a lot of input from subordinates and work it into a cohesive strategy.
