I wouldn't have minded having Roy Miller DT - TX...300 pounder that can bench 500+ lbs. could have been an end in our 34.

I don't care though, I'm happy with Matthews.

---

Foster.. break out some math on this will ya. :thumbright:

---

Not "a" chart....

THE chart, imo.

A 26 = 700
A 162=26.6

= 726.6

A 41= 490
A 73= 225
An 83=175

= 890

Differential 163.4

= between the 85th and 86th picks in the third round

We got HOSED

out of

(On a purely mathematical trade value chart basis)

Now.. I have to say.. I think that Johnson chart is a pile of outdated rubbish, I thought yesterday and Saturday that the pick should have been something like this.


Our 2nd, (1) of the 3rd's and a late round pick like the 5th or 6th for their first round pick.

---

I love the move, makes me think the aggressive nature that we want to see on D has migrated into the FO as well.

The reason I like it is because there is not enough room on this team for 10 rookies, and this moved helped improve the top end of the roster compared to the middle to bottom as before.

---

Numbers might not lie, but they certainly don't tell the whole truth. If Clay Matthews becomes a star, he would certainly justify a second rounder and two 3rd rounders. The problem with the trade chart is that it is dependent on a single variable - that is, the pick #. It does not incorporate the effective use of draft picks by a team, nor the potential or ability of the player drafted.

Sure, we may have been mathematically screwed, but who's the say the maths is correct in the first place?

For example, is the 8th pick truly worth less than the 5th pick to a mathematical certainty, especially in a weak draft such as this? So you have an earlier selection, but is that not offset by the salary differential that you'll need to pay to whatever player you happen to draft?

There is a notion in economics known as the Joint Hypothesis Problem - that a test of market efficiency is also a test of your model of expectations. In the same way, the way in which we value rookies is also inherently linked to the way in which we value draft picks. And, judging from prior data, it seems plainly evident that drafting players is just short of being a complete crapshoot, so I'm inclined to believe that we can't truly know whether the trade is worthy or not because it is predicated upon the performance of Clay Matthews into the future.

Of course, we already know the price we've paid for Clay Matthews. We shall see in due course whether we've obtained above or below value, supposing that the trade chart mentioned above is an accurate measure of draft pick performance (which I shall vehemently argue that it is not).

---

I agree, those guys were the 3rd rounder that interested me the most. I don't think we need more receiving-TEs with Lee and Finley, but Miller was certainly an intriguing prospect at DE and NT.

I put the math up because some are under the impression that we beat the Pats draft-chart-value wise.

In another thread, some are posting that Ted proved the naysayers wrong, in that he moved up in this draft.

In yet another thread it has been stated that this was a weak draft. That is an over-simplification, imo.

I heard Ted in his presser when he was asked if he contemplated any second day draft trades. This isn't an exact quote, but I'm not very far off. "I was done trading." I kind of laughed at that. I think it ate at the business, "paper" side of Ted to have to "overpay" for the move. I think Ted, (just like me) understood where the "real" value vs. the "paper" value was in this draft lay. Those late 1st, early 2nd round options were the "meat" of this draft.

We did NOT overpay when you factor in that we went dead into the heart of "primetime" in the draft to get the man he wanted.

Don't confuse that with my opinion that it ate at Ted's craw to have to do so...Like I said, I'm betting that it did. This was NOT a weak draft, imo...it was a DEEP draft, with fewer true blue-chippers standing apart from the crowd... It was "weak" only if you are so enamored with the Michael Crabtrees as prospects to be blinded by what makes an NFL team roll, imo.

I really think Ted saw it my way as well.


I am thrilled with this draft, INCLUDING the acquisition of Clay MatthewsIII

The way I see it is, they valued Matthews a certain amount, and they had a general idea of how much they valued picks that may be available at their spots in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, and they talked it over and came to the conclusion that it was worth the move. Fairly straightforward.

---

Not to embarrass anyone but I thought bumping this thread might get people thinking about how Ted may approach the 2011 or last ever draft.

Ted saw something in Matthews that other teams and self proclaimed draft gurus did not see. At the time of the draft I knew it was only the second time Ted moved up in the draft in his career. It was expensive but I gave Ted the benefit of the doubt. After only a couple of regular season games the jury was in.

I doubt anyone now thinks we got hosed.

---