Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Mathematical Proof of the Stupidity of trading DJ for 3rd rounder
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
make_it_rain
Rap sheet is now reporting about teams calling to discuss Jackson.

Pretty sure its safe to say that if theyre not actively shopping him, they're at least open to picking up the phone.

A third rounder would be absurd. But supposedly its "at least a third"....so maybe they get more than that or Jackson attracts teams with cap sapce (Jets, Raiders) that are willing to bid for him?

Regardless, the idea of trading for a third is sickening. There should be blood in the streets. Sadly though its looking more and more likely that Jackson is getting moved for whatever reason. Might as well speculate about what someone could offer for him.

What if Oakland offers their second? A top five pick in the second round of a really deep draft? Think its safe to say Oakland offering their first would be a fantastic (and very unrealistic) deal. But there are possibilties out there, especially with teams that have space like NYJ and OAK.
nephillymike
Jackson for a 3rd?

A third has a 21% of starting for five years and a 6% shot at making a Pro Bowl at any point of his career.
koolaidluke
The idea is not go get equal value for Jackson, it is to get SOME value from a player that they do not want.

Where would Desean even fit in this year? Sproles is the slot guy and Chip is committed to Cooper and Maclin on the outside.


I think it's retarded but I understand where the Eagles are coming from. What I really don't understand is why the Eagles have so much faith in injury prone pussy Maclin. He sucks.
nephillymike
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Mar 22 2014, 03:54 AM) *
The idea is not go get equal value for Jackson, it is to get SOME value from a player that they do not want.

Where would Desean even fit in this year? Sproles is the slot guy and Chip is committed to Cooper and Maclin on the outside.


I think it's retarded but I understand where the Eagles are coming from. What I really don't understand is why the Eagles have so much faith in injury prone pussy Maclin. He sucks.

The opportunity to have Jackson, Maclin, Cooper,McCoy, and Sproles all in the game at the same time is a nightmare for any D. The D would have an issue trying to double team DJ in that set which would make for a huge year for him and us, we need to keep him.
Zero
Here's an article that details the idiocy of trading DJax. And, I don't think anyone can make an argument that trading him is a good thing for the Eagles.

But, as I said before what if they trade him for a player? I have no clue what's out there but I keep thinking of when the Eagles traded a second to the Jets for Hugh Douglas. Parcells came in and switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 and Hugh didn't fit the system. The Eagles benefited. There were lots of coaching changes last year and several this year. Is there a player out there that would fit that profile and make an interesting exchange?

League meetings are coming up this week. Any chance there will be a rule change that makes player for player trades easier with the cap, similar to the NBA? Does either Seattle or New England have a talented pass rusher they would trade for DJax? They're two teams mentioned having interest but with no cap room. How about a three team trade?

Just seeing if anything sticks to the wall because this doesn't make much sense as we're seeing it now.
koolaidluke
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 22 2014, 06:34 AM) *
The opportunity to have Jackson, Maclin, Cooper,McCoy, and Sproles all in the game at the same time is a nightmare for any D. The D would have an issue trying to double team DJ in that set which would make for a huge year for him and us, we need to keep him.


If you ever get the chance to watch some of Chip's games at Oregon you will see that he hates 4 receiver sets. The lineup you just mentioned is something you might see from the Eagles 3 times a game, were Jackson to stay.

If you figure the base is 3 receivers and 1 TE, supplemented with a heavy use of 2 TE sets, then there really isn't room for Jackson. Sproles has to be in the slot, and Kelly is committed to having Cooper and Maclin on the outside. You may not like that, but that's what Kelly wants.

I would be much more okay with that if it wasn't for the fact that Maclin is terrible. The Eagles faith in him boggles my mind.


For the record, I think this whole thing is a big mistake. I'm just saying that I get why the Eagles are doing this.
Zero
Not sure about the cap ramifications, but would you trade DJax straight up for Bruce Irvin?
Linc ...
koolaidluke
QUOTE (Zero @ Mar 22 2014, 07:03 AM) *
Any chance there will be a rule change that makes player for player trades easier with the cap, similar to the NBA?


First of all, how would that even be possible given that the NFL has a hard cap as opposed to the soft cap of the NBA?

Second of all, wouldn't any changes of that nature not go into effect until next season?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Mar 22 2014, 10:14 AM) *
Not sure about the cap ramifications, but would you trade DJax straight up for Bruce Irvin?
Linc ...



That would be attractive.

What about Car OLB Hardy?? That may fit.

This thing with DJax needs to be something really bad for me to be OK with it.

And if they trade him for the crap a 3rd round pick is and take his $10M and roll it forward or try to extend guys whose play hasn't warranted extension, I will be real pissed.

And then to add insult to injury, go and draft a WR in the 1st round when we had AP strength at that spot instead of addressing one of the numerous needs of our porous defense

Did he rob someone? Kill someone? Was it a drug theft in his house?

It's got to be real bad for me to be OK with it now. Next year, I'm more OK with it after we know about Maclin and we pick another WR this year. Not now!

This could have been and still might be a deep playoff team with Jackson. Don't mess it up.
bounty101
In response to the draft statistics that you posted:



joelrapp
2 days ago




@Prof_dude_man @joelrapp well for one I would have gone back further than 6 years for the 5 year measurements. All those are inherently, and one could argue intentionally, skewed to the top picks. Take a Robert Mathis for instance. 5th round pick, didn't start for a few years, and then became a cornerstone of the franchise. I would have made a set start point for my analysis, say 2000. Applied these same data points over the past 13 NFL seasons, and you, I would expect to see a sizable shift in many of these metrics.




Plus this entire analysis stops short of giving us any real meaningful data to draw a conclusion from.




Aside from that the obvious typos makes me question how closely the data was QA'd. Assuming that this compiled in Excel, there are about 20 ways to quickly apply the same formatting to all the percentages, so why is the '$' in there. If you're going to publish "research" into a forum like this, fix mistakes like that. The weight I place on any news article instantly plummets when typos are found in an article.

nephillymike
QUOTE (bounty101 @ Mar 23 2014, 11:44 AM) *
In response to the draft statistics that you posted:



joelrapp
2 days ago




@Prof_dude_man @joelrapp well for one I would have gone back further than 6 years for the 5 year measurements. All those are inherently, and one could argue intentionally, skewed to the top picks. Take a Robert Mathis for instance. 5th round pick, didn't start for a few years, and then became a cornerstone of the franchise. I would have made a set start point for my analysis, say 2000. Applied these same data points over the past 13 NFL seasons, and you, I would expect to see a sizable shift in many of these metrics.




Plus this entire analysis stops short of giving us any real meaningful data to draw a conclusion from.




Aside from that the obvious typos makes me question how closely the data was QA'd. Assuming that this compiled in Excel, there are about 20 ways to quickly apply the same formatting to all the percentages, so why is the '$' in there. If you're going to publish "research" into a forum like this, fix mistakes like that. The weight I place on any news article instantly plummets when typos are found in an article.

Huh? Don't follow you here. Dumb it down for me please.
bounty101
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 23 2014, 01:06 PM) *
Huh? Don't follow you here. Dumb it down for me please.


The guy is saying these numbers aren't statistically significant, especially the 5-year starter percentages, since the only players really qualified to be measured for that statistic are the ones drafted between '94 and '2005, having had a chance to play in the league for at least eight years and thus a legitimate chance to start for 5 years or make a Pro Bowl.

The fact that the guy who did the research included players from after 2005 in the statistics skews the results toward higher draft picks.
Reality Fan
Mikey "numbers" using bad data? and not even realizing it?

What is this board coming to?.....lol
bounty101
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Mar 23 2014, 01:32 PM) *
Mikey "numbers" using bad data? and not even realizing it?

What is this board coming to?.....lol


Imagine that! It's a cool post, no doubt. I just thought that this one guy had a solid point.
nephillymike
QUOTE (bounty101 @ Mar 23 2014, 12:37 PM) *
Imagine that! It's a cool post, no doubt. I just thought that this one guy had a solid point.


Thanks. Now I see says the blind man.

The guy says that in his verbage about his methodology. See his point about the GB WR.

He uses a six year window to achieve the five year status. While I agree it would be more statistically significant if he opend the window a bit (say eight years), given the short NFL career lengths, it's not a big deal.

For instance, he uses 2008 and back to 1994 for his five year starter analysis. Realistically, it's only the '06-'08 years that it could effect and it would only be for those that waited many years before starting AND had a long enough career to get five years starting after their late entry into the starters role.

It's good data, overall. IN the 1994-2008 window, you have 15 years, of which 12 is rock solid and maybe 3% or so of those in years 13 to 15 that could be misclassified.

However, as he updates this year over year, those 3% will be resolved.

I wonder why he didn't just cut it back a few more years?

So instead of a 3rd round pick having a 21% chance of starting 5 years or more, is it really 22%. I don't think it matters much but at least he did state that in his narrative.

For example:

15 years of 32 third round picks per year = 480 sample data of third round picks.
Now assume that the last three years in his study for that metric is possibly incomplete.
that's 3 x 32 or 96 picks that really shouldn't be included.

Now if 3% of those 96 are late bloomers who will achieve 5 year starter status despite not doing it in their first 6, 7, 8, or 9 seasons, then that would mean another 3 players (96x.03) will achieve that level but not be properly counted in his study.

So, if he originally had 21% shot at starting 5 years or more he had 21% x 480 or 101 players in that level.
Now in hindsight, it should be 101 +3 = 104.
The newly stated correct % is now 104/480 = 21.6%.
Not a big deal, but I agree he should have had more complete windows.

samaroo
Jesus, Mikey, swap Kmart for football and you're Rain Man.
bounty101
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 23 2014, 02:00 PM) *
Not a big deal, but I agree he should have had more complete windows.


True that the numbers don't change much, but they still change. It's also important to note that adding one year to a player's career doesn't increase his probability of achieving 5-year starter status as much as adding two years. What I'm saying is, ideally, less than 10% of the pool should still even be playing in the NFL, in order to give these numbers their maximum weight. Would have been better for him to leave out the last four or five years of the sample and add a year to the sample every year rather than updating the results. He did point out the flaw, too, I saw that. I thought the more interesting result of his report was that the probability of a 4th-round pick making a Pro Bowl twice is the same for a 5th and 6th round pick.
nephillymike
QUOTE (samaroo @ Mar 23 2014, 02:06 PM) *
Jesus, Mikey, swap Kmart for football and you're Rain Man.

I'm an excellent driver, slow on the driveway.

I only fly Quantis. biggrin.gif
bounty101
Regardless, I wouldn't trade Jackson for a third. He's worth a 2nd if not two 2nd round picks (Brandon Marshall trade). It looks like the Eagles have exhausted their options at this point, though. They'll either have to take a 4th or 5th or release him at this point. But he would be excellent trade ammo for draft day if they want to trade up to get Anthony Barr or something... or if they have their eye on a particular receiver and get word that a team ahead of them is going to pick that player, they could probably trade their 1st rounder and Jackson straight up to move up as many as six spots. It looks like the Falcons are going to pick Anthony Barr, though, and 1. they don't need a receiver and 2. they're picking way too high. The Draft is still over a month away... I wonder if the Eagles can deal with this crap until then.
nephillymike
QUOTE (bounty101 @ Mar 23 2014, 02:27 PM) *
Regardless, I wouldn't trade Jackson for a third. He's worth a 2nd if not two 2nd round picks (Brandon Marshall trade). It looks like the Eagles have exhausted their options at this point, though. They'll either have to take a 4th or 5th or release him at this point. But he would be excellent trade ammo for draft day if they want to trade up to get Anthony Barr or something... or if they have their eye on a particular receiver and get word that a team ahead of them is going to pick that player, they could probably trade their 1st rounder and Jackson straight up to move up as many as six spots. It looks like the Falcons are going to pick Anthony Barr, though, and they don't need a receiver. The Draft is still over a month away... I wonder if the Eagles can deal with this crap until then.



I am generally not a fan of trading picks to move up in the draft. I would be more inclined, especially in a deep draft like this, to sit tight and if there are a bunch of guys we can use when our turn is up, then offer the pick up to trade down a few and get an extra pick or two.

My ideal situation has us sitting there at 22 with a few guys available that we have rated similarly and for Manziel to still be there and then sell to the highest bidder and still get our guy a few picks later.

If you use the research of how the picks do, I would imagine that trade ups are a losing battle when you add in the pick you need to give up.

If I get a chance, I will look into it.
bounty101
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 23 2014, 03:41 PM) *
My ideal situation has us sitting there at 22 with a few guys available that we have rated similarly and for Manziel to still be there and then sell to the highest bidder and still get our guy a few picks later.

If you use the research of how the picks do, I would imagine that trade ups are a losing battle when you add in the pick you need to give up.


You're probably right, but assume the Eagles don't need to give up an extra pick to trade up --- just Jackson. That would be beneficial for sure.

And that would really be something if Manziel was still on the board at 22!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.