Ask Jeff Risdon a question thread

[Smooth32]

Icness, I was just about to ask you about Fairley going to the Browns. They seem to really like him.

Heckert was asked a question in his press conference Thursday about why Quinn is publicly perceived to be a better prospect than Fairley and he responded with "that's not everybody's perception." So...yeah, I think they like Fairley. Heckert also constantly defended Fairley whenever he was asked a question about his character, one-year wonder status, etc. I really think they like him a lot. If Dareus, Peterson or Green aren't there, I fully expect them to take Fairley.

[Icness]

I was in Cleveland and Detroit over the long weekend and the biggest thing I got from Cleveland was that they like their current receivers a lot more than people think they do. I caught Heckert's comments on Fairley and I don't think he was blowing smoke either. Also, I don't think Robert Quinn is in play at #6 anymore. Too many people with good knowledge are saying he's in the 11-15 range and I'm not going to fight that anymore.

[Rafael122]

I keep forgetting to ask you this question but do NFL teams use the draft pick value chart at all? As in, they have it in handy just in case?

[Icness]

I keep forgetting to ask you this question but do NFL teams use the draft pick value chart at all? As in, they have it in handy just in case?

The team I was with had their own chart that was very different from the generically accepted one. I can't remember the exact values but the picks from 15-32 were much more valuable than they are in the generic one, as were the bottom 5 picks of every round down to the 5th. IIRC the #1 overall pick was worth 1000, #2 was 995, #10 was 925, #20 was like 885, #32 was around 800. I know the dropoff from the top of the first to the top of the second was only 20% of value, not sure about all the numbers in between. And they didn't hold strictly to it either.

Everyone knows Belichick has his own value chart. Ron Borgess had a good feature on it a couple of years ago, where BB actually has the #5 pick assigned a higher value than the #1 pick because of the ancillary costs, both monetary and stigmatic.

[TSE]

I keep forgetting to ask you this question but do NFL teams use the draft pick value chart at all? As in, they have it in handy just in case?

Of course they use it, cause they don't know how to come up with proper and precise evaluations of what draft picks are worth. You can tell these guys have no clue, as they often reference trade charts and pick charts in conversation, but the whole concept of a pick chart is illogical, because every year the nature of the players in the draft has changes in along with monetary changes. The only logical way to do is to custom create a draft chart for every year and every team should have a slightly different variation if they are doing it correctly. You guys get very analytical with some of these questions, and sure there is a lot of time and effort going into draft plans, but nonetheless the sport as a whole is not run by strategists and thinkers. The analogy I would give is it's like picking teams in elementary school. They don't ask the nerds to intelligently plan on the best way to assemble the best team, rather the most popular kids are chosen and they subsequently make choices for their team that are biased on popularity as opposed to overall value to the team. NFL strategists are like those guys, they have a rather unsophisticated and rudimentary way of trying to understand the game and the team that they are involved in, and so I find it quite amusing that so many of these guys use or reference the so-called "trade chart".

Just as Icness mentioned, some idiot actually believes the 5 pick is worth more but what that moron doesn't realize is that part of the value is determined by how other teams value picks, and you can still market and sell that 1 pick better than 5 if you get stuck with it, there's plenty of margin to compensate for to prove that you can sell that pick for more, cause you could find teams that somehow value the 4th pick as more than a 1 and still do better than having a 5. He's on an extreme end of the spectrum while everybody else tends to value a 1 pick as a you know, 1 pick. And because of that, his logic on his draft chart is screwed and probably in multiple rounds for other reasons based on poor logic on not full criteria of what determines a pick.

[cochiseuofm]

some idiot actually believes the 5 pick is worth more

Some idiot as in Bill Belichick? You mean the guy with three Super Bowl rings, widely considered to be one of the best drafters in the league? I think he is doing OK with his strategy as is...

they have a rather unsophisticated and rudimentary way of trying to understand the game

This is you dude. You see everything as black and white. I have the 1st pick and 1st pick is higher than the 5th pick, so there is absolutely no way that the 5th pick can be worth more. Never mind that 1st picks get paid like Pro Bowlers before they ever see a snap, that to trade for a first pick requires teams to surrender multiple top picks (which no one wants to do unless there is a can't miss player available, in which case why would the team trade the pick in the first place.)

It is hard for me to believe that on the MLB forum, you are blasting the Tigers GM because his cost per win stat is too high, but here you fail to realize that the cost per value of first overall picks, or high first-round picks in general, is terrible.

[TSE]

No I hate the cost of high picks, that's why I aggressively promote to trade them. You're misinterpreting my philosophy and viewpoints.

[cochiseuofm]

No I hate the cost of high picks, that's why I aggressively promote to trade them. You're misinterpreting my philosophy and viewpoints.

No I'm not, I understand you want to trade high picks. I'm saying you don't understand that the value of those high picks are diminished because of the cost of high picks. What makes you think that other teams don't feel just as leary as you do about high picks?

In 2004, the last time the #1 pick overall got traded, the Giants had to give up a 3rd round pick, a future 1st, and a future 5th just to move up from the 4th pick to the 1st pick. That trade ended up being Eli Manning for Philip Rivers, Shawne Merriman, Nate Kaeding, and a fifth round pick which was traded for Roman Oben (not really an important player but part of the deal.)

Now that deal works out for NY because of the Super Bowl win, but I think most people acknowledge that Rivers is the better, or at worst an equal, quartberback than Manning is. Add in two other Pro Bowl calibar players, even with Merriman flaming out, and the Giants paid a high cost to move up three spots. Plus they had to pay Manning more than what Rivers got made. How many teams want to give up multiple valuable picks and pay more money for that?

You're basically mortgaging your short-term future and banking on one player, who already is highly paid and doesn't have to earn a big contract, on working out. I don't see that as good strategy, and I think most teams agree. I think even you agree, you just seem to think you'll be able to find one sucker to take a deal.

[lpsevier]

So what do the Falcons have to give up to ensure the ability to draft AJ Green or Julio Jones?

Matt Ryan? lol

[Icness]

So what do the Falcons have to give up to ensure the ability to draft AJ Green or Julio Jones?

Matt Ryan? lol

I saw those rumors about them moving up and just laughed. Tom Dimitroff is not going to give up #27 and next year's #1 to get into the top 10, just not his style. He's a Belichick disciple. Now moving up in a deal with Belichick...that could happen for the right pass rusher. On a related note, I strongly believe JJ Watt's draft floor is #17

[TSE]

No I hate the cost of high picks, that's why I aggressively promote to trade them. You're misinterpreting my philosophy and viewpoints.

No I'm not, I understand you want to trade high picks. I'm saying you don't understand that the value of those high picks are diminished because of the cost of high picks. What makes you think that other teams don't feel just as leary as you do about high picks?

In 2004, the last time the #1 pick overall got traded, the Giants had to give up a 3rd round pick, a future 1st, and a future 5th just to move up from the 4th pick to the 1st pick. That trade ended up being Eli Manning for Philip Rivers, Shawne Merriman, Nate Kaeding, and a fifth round pick which was traded for Roman Oben (not really an important player but part of the deal.)

Now that deal works out for NY because of the Super Bowl win, but I think most people acknowledge that Rivers is the better, or at worst an equal, quartberback than Manning is. Add in two other Pro Bowl calibar players, even with Merriman flaming out, and the Giants paid a high cost to move up three spots. Plus they had to pay Manning more than what Rivers got made. How many teams want to give up multiple valuable picks and pay more money for that?

You're basically mortgaging your short-term future and banking on one player, who already is highly paid and doesn't have to earn a big contract, on working out. I don't see that as good strategy, and I think most teams agree. I think even you agree, you just seem to think you'll be able to find one sucker to take a deal.

Because I see how teams value those picks and I gauge my value of those picks to be less relative to other strategies that I find to be strategic that NFL teams shy away from.

Your trade scenario isn't relevant to this, as you are just picking one trade that you think a team paid a huge price in order to move up, and I never said that when i trade the #1 pick that I would expect to get that kind of a haul. I expect a very minimal amount of proceeds as compared to previous eras.

And you don't know how I value those picks. What if I'm willing to do a trade like that 2004 one but all I want from a team is their punter? If I said that I would be surprised if you wouldn't jump on me for being crazy for being willing to take so little compensation. You took the position that I couldn't find a trade, but if my value of those high picks is low enough, it could be low to the point that 31 other teams think I'm stupid for giving it away, and that only makes the possibility to trade the pick even more certain. I just think you are confused as to what you are trying to argue, and you are making up misinformation to use as your premise inputs to then come to your illogical conclusions about what I think of these picks and my ability to trade them based upon how I value them and plan to strategically utilize them.

[jakecronus8]

I have an assortment of questions, but let me preface them by thanking you for being so interractive.

Who are some of the guys that you feel are pretty much locked in to a given team?

What are the floors on Blaine Gabbert, Prince Amukamara, Jimmy Smith and Robert Quinn?

I heard a rumor that Miami's pick will be either Pouncey or Kaepernick. My gut tells me the Kaepernick thing is a smokescreen. What do you think?

What order do you think the OT's come off the board?

What do you think will be the biggest shocker of the draft?

Finally, after all is said and done, how many qb's are taken in round one?

[cochiseuofm]

Because I see how teams value those picks and I gauge my value of those picks to be less relative to other strategies that I find to be strategic that NFL teams shy away from.

Your trade scenario isn't relevant to this, as you are just picking one trade that you think a team paid a huge price in order to move up, and I never said that when i trade the #1 pick that I would expect to get that kind of a haul. I expect a very minimal amount of proceeds as compared to previous eras.

And you don't know how I value those picks. What if I'm willing to do a trade like that 2004 one but all I want from a team is their punter? If I said that I would be surprised if you wouldn't jump on me for being crazy for being willing to take so little compensation. You took the position that I couldn't find a trade, but if my value of those high picks is low enough, it could be low to the point that 31 other teams think I'm stupid for giving it away, and that only makes the possibility to trade the pick even more certain. I just think you are confused as to what you are trying to argue, and you are making up misinformation to use as your premise inputs to then come to your illogical conclusions about what I think of these picks and my ability to trade them based upon how I value them and plan to strategically utilize them.

I'm not going to railroad this topic anymore but your argument makes no sense. The whole point of the argument is value, can the 1st pick get you more value, either in player drafted or trade value, than the 5th pick can. If you traded the 1st pick for a punter, or low compensation, you're essentially proving my point...if you traded the 1st pick for same compensation you could get for 5th, same thing...but anyways I'm not going to argue with you. I'm still incredulous that you referred to Bill Belichick as some idiot when it comes to draft strategy....

[TSE]

Because I see how teams value those picks and I gauge my value of those picks to be less relative to other strategies that I find to be strategic that NFL teams shy away from.

Your trade scenario isn't relevant to this, as you are just picking one trade that you think a team paid a huge price in order to move up, and I never said that when i trade the #1 pick that I would expect to get that kind of a haul. I expect a very minimal amount of proceeds as compared to previous eras.

And you don't know how I value those picks. What if I'm willing to do a trade like that 2004 one but all I want from a team is their punter? If I said that I would be surprised if you wouldn't jump on me for being crazy for being willing to take so little compensation. You took the position that I couldn't find a trade, but if my value of those high picks is low enough, it could be low to the point that 31 other teams think I'm stupid for giving it away, and that only makes the possibility to trade the pick even more certain. I just think you are confused as to what you are trying to argue, and you are making up misinformation to use as your premise inputs to then come to your illogical conclusions about what I think of these picks and my ability to trade them based upon how I value them and plan to strategically utilize them.

I'm not going to railroad this topic anymore but your argument makes no sense. The whole point of the argument is value, can the 1st pick get you more value, either in player drafted or trade value, than the 5th pick can. If you traded the 1st pick for a punter, or low compensation, you're essentially proving my point...if you traded the 1st pick for same compensation you could get for 5th, same thing...but anyways I'm not going to argue with you. I'm still incredulous that you referred to Bill Belichick as some idiot when it comes to draft strategy....

I never said Belichick was an idiot when it comes to draft strategy. The claim that a 5th pick is worth more than the 1st is just an idiotic statement, UNLESS it was a freak year where the player distribution of talent was different, but there has never ever been a year like that to make it so. Even Einstein probably said stupid things from time to time, but just because one time a person does something stupid, doesn't mean they are an idiot.

I will say 100% without a doubt that Belichick is inferior when it comes to drafting strategy compared to myself. Obviously you don't know anything about me so spare me your reaction that I'm full of BS, but I wholeheartedly believe he isn't remotely close to my level of understanding draft strategy. He has not done as good of a job as I would have done. He makes all kinds of mistakes as a coach that I wouldn't miake. I have seen him screw up in games, and I have seen them blow draft picks. He is weak-minded compared to me. Even if he is the best in the NFL which I don't know offhand that he is or isn't as I don't have a running scorecard going of every GM w/ respect to ever move they ever made. I just think he's arguably the most overrated person employed in the NFL and I think his intelligence levels are weak. If he was a genius the Patriots would have been able to capitalize a lot more on their good fortune and have done some AMAZING things. He has kept them anchored down w/ a very mediocre and conservative greatness-conversion factor.

[Icness]

I have an assortment of questions, but let me preface them by thanking you for being so interractive.

Who are some of the guys that you feel are pretty much locked in to a given team?

What are the floors on Blaine Gabbert, Prince Amukamara, Jimmy Smith and Robert Quinn?

I heard a rumor that Miami's pick will be either Pouncey or Kaepernick. My gut tells me the Kaepernick thing is a smokescreen. What do you think?

What order do you think the OT's come off the board?

What do you think will be the biggest shocker of the draft?

Finally, after all is said and done, how many qb's are taken in round one?

In order:
Very confident in AJ Green to Cincy and Tyron Smith to Dallas. Nick Fairley to Cleveland seems stronger by the minute. I know people inside the Texans building that will be very surprised if they don't move up to get Peterson or Von Miller. And barring a specific someone else better being available, I think Gabe Carimi to the Giants is a very strong possibility. I am very confident the Cards are not taking Gabbert.

Gabbert's floor is #12. Amukamara can go to #20. Jimmy Smith is a toughie, I'll guesstimate Detroit's 2nd round pick. Robert Quinn's floor is #18. And those of y'all that have been around a long time here, sorry I didn't do more with the floors this year because normally I nail those pretty well.

I think Miami is taking either Pouncey or Ryan Mallett. I think they're in a great spot to move backwards and still get either guy though; that's where the run on OL and second-tier pass rushers should really kick off. IMO Sparano and Jeff Ireland are both in win-or-die mode and don't have time to develop Kaepernick and they know it.

OT order: Tyron Smith, Anthony Castonzo, Gabe Carimi, Derek Sherrod, Danny Watkins (some see him as a RT), Nate Solder, James Carpenter (in the top 50), Ben Ijalana, James Brewer, Orlando Franklin, Marcus Gilbert. That covers the first 70 or so picks.

Biggest shocker? Good question. As I said in the 32 fearless picks, I think Ryan Kerrigan can fall out of the first round. Jake Locker a top 15 pick, I guess that shouldn't be shocking unless you've really watched him play. Monkey-with-dart guess: Da'Quan Bowers falling out of the first. Or Mark Ingram going before #15. Both could happen and that would make Mel Kiper's hair fall out. My wife is watching over my shoulder and she said the correct answer should be "you getting more than 10 picks right this year." Nice to have support at home

First round QBs: Newton, Gabbert, Locker, Dalton, Mallett, Ponder. Kaepernick in the 2nd, maybe Stanzi too, then a huge gap until Nate Enderle and Tyrod Taylor in the very late 4th at the earliest.

[B Mac]

Any news on the Browns trading down with the Vikings, Texans, etc?

[Cammo101]

You think Smith is still a lock to Dallas? I had him mocked there forever but now am reading that Smith is falling and Watt (and possibly Castonzo or Amukamura) is more likely to Dallas than Smith.

[Roger Murdock]

I'm so **** excited for the draft tonight!

[catalyst]

Uncle Norm Hitzges said last week that Cowboys need to add a 1,000 pounds of meat to the roster in the first three picks. We almost get there with the latest mock. IF Boys take Rackley instead of Sheppard, then mission accomplished.

Any trade rumors out there? Some heard in Dallas include #9 for #17 and #60 with NE. Pats take Jordan, Cowboys take one of the following at 17
Smith
Costanzo
Watt
Solder

Then go DT/NG and Guard with 2's.

[kdawg32086]

Jeff, I will make a bold prediction. Only the analysts' consensus #1 (Scam Newton) and #4 (AJ Green) picks will be correct within the top 10.