2012 1st round trades by the chart

[Andy Freeland]

Team (picks received): total trade chart value (http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php)

Redskins (2): 2600
Rams (6, 39, 48, 80): 2720

Browns (3): 2200
Vikings (4, 118, 139, 211): 1901.5

Jaguars (5): 1700
Buccaneers (7, 101): 1596

Cowboys (6): 1600
Rams (14, 45): 1550

Eagles (12): 1200
Seahawks (15, 114, 172): 1138.6

Patriots (21): 800
Bengals (27, 93): 808

Patriots (25): 720
Broncos (31, 126): 646

Vikings (29): 640
Ravens (35, 98): 658

Buccaneers (31, 126): 646
Broncos (36, 101): 636

[Andy Freeland]

I did this mostly to see if Jimmy Johnson's old trade chart still had value. It does. The knock on the chart was that it over-valued the top picks. With the new CBA I assumed that was no longer the case, it still is. In 6 of 9 trades, the team trading up got the better end of the deal according to the chart.

Note on the Rams/Redskins trade. This was the most lopsided according to the chart and I think it was even worse than it appears. The rule on future picks is that they drop down one round for every year and are always the middle pick of the round. So a first round pick next year is worth the same as the 48th pick this year. Using that logic, the 1st round pick in 2014 that the Rams got is only worth 190 points (80th pick this year), which I think is low.

The next trade in which the seller out-pointed the buyer was the Bengals (808) and Patriots (800). Shame on Mike Brown for taking advantage of poor, naive Bill Belichick.

After the Rams, the Browns got the best deal. This was the trade that I liked the least, giving up 3 picks to move up one spot. However, the trade chart disagrees. How the 3rd pick is worth 400 points more than the 4th is beyond me.

[Trumpetbdw]

That Browns trade made perfect sense in the fact that it completely assured them of the guy they wanted. Minnesota made it known they wanted to move (smokescreen?) but it's not like the Browns had to trade their draft to move up. They had a ton of picks, so why not make sure another team didn't sneak up there and snatch him?

Doesn't surprise me the Skins gave up the most, but the way I look at it, they were trading up to get this years #1. There were 2 1s this year, so them essentially splitting the draft chart difference in value with the Rams (1st worth 3000 points) makes sense to me, and justifies that RGIII is generally considered 1b to Luck's 1a.

[wxwax]

The rule on future picks is that they drop down one round for every year and are always the middle pick of the round. So a first round pick next year is worth the same as the 48th pick this year. Using that logic, the 1st round pick in 2014 that the Rams got is only worth 190 points (80th pick this year), which I think is low.

Thanks for putting that together, Andy. It's very helpful.

Could you help me understand the rationale behind what I quoted above?

[Andy Freeland]

Could you help me understand the rationale behind what I quoted above?

Just like the rest of the chart it's completely subjective. Somewhere along the line someone decided that they wanted to get another 2nd round pick and didn't have enough picks to do it so they decided to mortgage the future. Obviously no one is going to trade this year's 2nd rounder for next year's 2nd rounder, so this year's 2nd rounder is worth next year's first and vice versa. Therefore, a first in 2 years has to be worth a 2nd next year which is worth a 3rd this year. I'm not sure it makes sense, but it's accepted wisdom in the NFL.

[wxwax]

Wow, that does sound completely arbitrary. I suppose there's an element of "the future is now" to it, which fits for the NFL. But still, a first is first, unless you know ahead of time that a future draft will be thin on talent.