This may have been posted since it's been around a while but thought I'd put it up. It's by Chase Stuart from Football Perspective (really like his work). The rundown on it (with examples): http://www.footballperspective.com/creating-a-draft-value-chart-part-ii/ The actual chart: http://www.footballperspective.com/draft-value-chart/ I think his is more reasonable. And, to the degree that teams use the old Jimmy Johnson chart (generally they are close - but exact); and to the degree Chase's chart is more accurate - I think he's done some good work to demonstrate that - with all the caveats of the value of particular players, etc., a team would significantly benefit from trading down than trading up (because the older chart overvalues top picks to lower selections). For example if the Dolphins traded their #12 for #10, the old draft value chart would indicate a difference of 100 points. As it turns out that is equal to pick #100 (which would be top of the 4th round). But, in Chase's new chart (and new point scale) the difference would be 1.1 points - which would be equal to pick #192. Obviously (and chase notes this) much of this depends on teams and particular players and needs. If you are looking at a player you see as a future HOF type or a premium position there are different considerations. But as a general guide, I like his chart.
Here are the values for the draft value chart - published on November 19th, 2012: [table="width: 500, align: left"] [tr] [td]Pk AV Val NFL Val 1 34.6 3000 2 30.2 2600 3 27.6 2200 4 25.8 1800 5 24.3 1700 6 23.2 1600 7 22.2 1500 8 21.4 1400 9 20.6 1350 10 19.9 1300 11 19.3 1250 12 18.8 1200 13 18.3 1150 14 17.8 1100 15 17.4 1050 16 16.9 1000 17 16.6 950 18 16.2 900 19 15.8 875 20 15.5 850 21 15.2 800 22 14.9 780 23 14.6 760 24 14.4 740 25 14.1 720 26 13.9 700 27 13.6 680 28 13.4 660 29 13.2 640 30 12.9 620 31 12.7 600 32 12.5 590 33 12.3 580 34 12.1 560 35 12 550 36 11.8 540 37 11.6 530 38 11.4 520 39 11.3 510 40 11.1 500 41 11 490 42 10.8 480 43 10.6 470 44 10.5 460 45 10.4 450 46 10.2 440 47 10.1 430 48 9.9 420 49 9.8 410 50 9.7 400 51 9.6 390 52 9.4 380 53 9.3 370 54 9.2 360 55 9.1 350 56 9 340 57 8.9 330 58 8.7 320 59 8.6 310 60 8.5 300 61 8.4 292 62 8.3 284 63 8.2 276 64 8.1 270 65 8 265 66 7.9 260 67 7.8 255 68 7.7 250 69 7.6 245 70 7.5 240 71 7.5 235 72 7.4 230 73 7.3 225 74 7.2 220 75 7.1 215 76 7 210 77 6.9 205 78 6.9 200 79 6.8 195 80 6.7 190 81 6.6 185 82 6.5 180 83 6.5 175 84 6.4 170 85 6.3 165 86 6.2 160 87 6.2 155 88 6.1 150 89 6 145 90 5.9 140 91 5.9 136 92 5.8 132 93 5.7 128 94 5.7 124 95 5.6 120 96 5.5 116 97 5.5 112 98 5.4 108 99 5.3 104 100 5.3 100 101 5.2 96 102 5.1 92 103 5.1 88 104 5 86 105 5 84 106 4.9 82 107 4.8 80 108 4.8 78 109 4.7 76 110 4.7 74 111 4.6 72 112 4.6 70 113 4.5 68 114 4.4 66 115 4.4 64 116 4.3 62 117 4.3 60 118 4.2 58 119 4.2 56 120 4.1 54 121 4.1 52 122 4 50 123 4 49 124 3.9 48 125 3.9 47 126 3.8 46 127 3.8 45 128 3.7 44 129 3.7 43 130 3.6 42 131 3.6 41 132 3.5 40 133 3.5 39.5 134 3.4 39 135 3.4 38.5 136 3.3 38 137 3.3 37.5 138 3.2 37 139 3.2 36.5 140 3.1 36 141 3.1 35.5 142 3 35 143 3 34.5 144 3 34 145 2.9 33.5 146 2.9 33 147 2.8 32.6 148 2.8 32.2 149 2.7 31.8 150 2.7 31.4 151 2.7 31 152 2.6 30.6 153 2.6 30.2 154 2.5 29.8 155 2.5 29.4 156 2.4 29 157 2.4 28.6 158 2.4 28.2 159 2.3 27.8 160 2.3 27.4 161 2.2 27 162 2.2 26.6 163 2.2 26.2 164 2.1 25.8 165 2.1 25.4 166 2 25 167 2 24.6 168 2 24.2 169 1.9 23.8 170 1.9 23.4 171 1.9 23 172 1.8 22.6 173 1.8 22.2 174 1.7 21.8 175 1.7 21.4 176 1.7 21 177 1.6 20.6 178 1.6 20.2 179 1.6 19.8 180 1.5 19.4 181 1.5 19 182 1.5 18.6 183 1.4 18.2 184 1.4 17.8 185 1.4 17.4 186 1.3 17 187 1.3 16.6 188 1.3 16.2 189 1.2 15.8 190 1.2 15.4 191 1.2 15 192 1.1 14.6 193 1.1 14.2 194 1.1 13.8 195 1 13.4 196 1 13 197 1 12.6 198 0.9 12.2 199 0.9 11.8 200 0.9 11.4[/td] [td][/td] [td][/td] [/tr] [/table]
I think basing a new chart off recent events is the wrong way to go, because GMs are changing as the rookie scale changes strategies. The value of picks has to dramatically change since the penalty (salary) has dramatically changed. What we are seeing is a transition period in draft strategy, that's why his numbers don't feel correct to even him.
Don't agree with this. This is simply a measurement of average value of each player at each relative selection. It is not factoring in salaries. Further, it was published Nov. 19 - 2012. This was during last season. The rookie scale is essentially the same. It's not dramatically different from last year (From the year before it was because there was no rookie scale). Nothing has really changed except incremental adjustments in the rookie scale. Teams that want to trade are going to look at value relative to picks, and not so much at the scale (unless they have no money - even then they are going to want to get relative value). And, even then, it still works out that this chart is probably a better value measure than the old one. The rookie scale itself actually increases tradability because teams know they don't have to pay a massive salary difference in the top picks in round 1. Teams were terrified of trading up a few years ago. Now, it's not that big of an issue unless a team has several picks in round 1. If team A sees this value chart and wants to trade down with team B and team B is more closely following JJs chart - team B will give up more value than team A will in a trade. More than that - which belies your point, They still followed the draft chart loosely. And, the same perspectives are in place from the 2012 draft which had the rookie scale:
I wasn't clear. The value of a player going at 1 is going to change and is changing. It is impossible for it not to happen because the penalty for making the pick (salary) has changed. For example, we picked Long over Ryan because he was the safer bet, and because there was a safe LT bet that year, the value of the first pick was less than in other years. The reason we played safe is because without the rookie scale, you set your team back financially by missing on top of wasting a pick. Now, the safeness of the pick is less important, because a major part of the penalty for missing is gone. In time, that will allow a TE (for example) to be taken first and it not be a big deal. That's because the value of the pick is only dependent on the size of the pool, where as before, it was the size of the pool plus cost. As I said, we are in a transition. Its why we aren't all the way there yet. There are plenty of GMs still under the traditional strategies. But they will change in time.
Perhaps. I think they realized that pretty quickly last year as they knew going in that there was a salary scale and that's why they weren't as afraid to trade. I don't think there's going to be much more transition. Regardless, the draft value chart for Stuart still is not really tied to salary issues - so while there may be some impact in terms of # of trades; it still doesn't change the value of the pick, imo. I don't think it will be as dramatic as you say (for example, your highlighted section of a TE being taken 1st overall - unless he's all-world, 6'6, 280 and runs a 4.4 with insane hands, etc.). The reason is, value to NFL is dependent upon both overall talent and position value. The OG's in this draft may be better at their position than the OT's but the OT's (all three LT's) are valued higher because the position itself is viewed as of greater importance in the offense (with right-handed QBs). That's why they are all projected to go higher. Same reason RB's are not going to go super high for the most part because teams are able to get by on less; often platoon; and the shelf life of a RB is generally a lot shorter than other positions. And, QB's are almost always going to be drafted above their overall quality. I don't think that's going to change.
I know that the value chart isn't tied directly to salary, but position value was tied to salary. As position value changes relative to salary, so to will the value chart. Also, predictable picks effect value because they dictate who is trying to trade and who isn't. If the draft becomes less predictable, trade values will change. What would make the draft less predictable? Removing a penalty for guessing wrong by implementing the rookie scale. There are people who say a TE like Eiffert shouldn't go at 12. The reason isn't because of a flaw, its because he's a Te and that's too high for TE. Why? If he's 2/3 of Gronk that's worth the 5th pick in the draft let alone the 12th. No, because its based on history. You didn't take TEs that high because you had to pay for 12th picks through the nose. All its going to take is some GM, to realize that a TE or MLB is going to be special, and drafts them "too" high for their traditional value, and that player succeeds....then all hell is going to break loose. Because then, GMs will realize, holy crap, that wasn't much of a gamble at all by that rogue GM.
