Should the Falcons stockpile picks? Which GM has stockpiled the most draft picks over a 5 year period?

[RunningThePiszOuttaTheBall]

My thinking is, the draft appears to be a crap shoot. There's not any air tight evidence that even the best GMs are much better at drafting than the the GMs the Falcons have had over the years.

If so, then the rational thing to do would be get more picks. Stockpile them.

So I'm wondering, throughout NFL history, have any GMs employed that strategy? Who did it the most? And how did it work out?

 

[kiwifalcon]

[kiwifalcon]

This dudes been the cat in the hen house for decades with regards to pick hoarding.

[k-train]

If you are in the top half of the 1st round... stay put.

If you are picking in the bottom half of the 1st... trade down & stockpile the picks.

I posted this in a different thread, but it shows that since 2010 the % of players taken in the top 15 picks who've made at least one pro bowl is more than double what it is for players selected from picks 16-32.

Number of Pro Bowl players selected in the 1st round each year

2010
1-15: 11
16-32: 6

2011
1-15: 11
16-32: 5

2012
1-15: 8
16-32: 6

2013
1-15: 4
16-32: 8

2014
1-15: 11
16-32: 6

2015
1-15: 8
16-32: 5

2016
1-15: 8
16-32: 3

2017
1-15: 8
16-32: 5

2018
1-15: 9
16-32: 6

2019
1-15: 7
16-32: 4

2020
1-15: 4
16-32: 2

2021
1-15: 6
16-32: 1

2022
1-15: 1
16-32: 0

So over this span, the odds of getting an impact player in the top 15 picks has actually been more than double what it is for players taken with picks 16-32.

Total number of players selected 1-15: 195
Number of Pro Bowlers: 96
49.23%

Total number of players selected 16-32: 255
Number of Pro Bowlers: 57
22.35%

With the Pats regularly picking late in the 1st, perhaps that's why Billy BellyCheck has always seemed so willing to trade down & stockpile picks in later rounds.

[ItsJustMe]

5 hours ago, k-train said:

If you are in the top half of the 1st round... stay put.

If you are picking in the bottom half of the 1st... trade down & stockpile the picks.

I posted this in a different thread, but it shows that since 2010 the % of players taken in the top 15 picks who've made at least one pro bowl is more than double what it is for players selected from picks 16-32.

Number of Pro Bowl players selected in the 1st round each year

2010
1-15: 11
16-32: 6

2011
1-15: 11
16-32: 5

2012
1-15: 8
16-32: 6

2013
1-15: 4
16-32: 8

2014
1-15: 11
16-32: 6

2015
1-15: 8
16-32: 5

2016
1-15: 8
16-32: 3

2017
1-15: 8
16-32: 5

2018
1-15: 9
16-32: 6

2019
1-15: 7
16-32: 4

2020
1-15: 4
16-32: 2

2021
1-15: 6
16-32: 1

2022
1-15: 1
16-32: 0

So over this span, the odds of getting an impact player in the top 15 picks has actually been more than double what it is for players taken with picks 16-32.

Total number of players selected 1-15: 195
Number of Pro Bowlers: 96
49.23%

Total number of players selected 16-32: 255
Number of Pro Bowlers: 57
22.35%

With the Pats regularly picking late in the 1st, perhaps that's why Billy BellyCheck has always seemed so willing to trade down & stockpile picks in later rounds.

Having lower picks doesn't hurt the pocketbook either.

[Ezekiel 25:17]

4 minutes ago, ItsJustMe said:

Having lower picks doesn't hurt the pocketbook either.

On the first contract, at least. 

After that, maybe not so much.

[ItsJustMe]

2 minutes ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

On the first contract, at least. 

After that, maybe not so much.

True, that's why the Pats have such turnover.

[Ezekiel 25:17]

Just now, ItsJustMe said:

True, that's why the Pats have such turnover.

It just doesn’t pay to keep aging expensive talent around. 

I have said half the reason Brady has had so much success is a direct result from him taking cap friendly deals that allowed GMs to bring in/keep other talent around him.

[Jpg428gggg]

1 hour ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

It just doesn’t pay to keep aging expensive talent around. 

I have said half the reason Brady has had so much success is a direct result from him taking cap friendly deals that allowed GMs to bring in/keep other talent around him.

It was also the perfect combination for a dynasty. Great head coach and front office, very consistent QB who stayed healthy, and an awful division. The Bills, Jets, and Dolphins were bad for so long. It allowed the Pats to consistently have home field advantage in the playoffs. This was huge since playing in New England is brutal in Jan and Feb.

[Rings]

I’ve been yelling for us to trade back for what feels like a decade to get back picks from the Julio trade.  Why our roster was so top heavy, why our depth sucked, why our cap space sucked.  The more at bats you have the more likely you are of hitting.  

[Ezekiel 25:17]

2 minutes ago, Jpg428gggg said:

It was also the perfect combination for a dynasty. Great head coach and front office, very consistent QB who stayed healthy, and an awful division. The Bills, Jets, and Dolphins were bad for so long. It allowed the Pats to consistently have home field advantage in the playoffs. This was huge since playing in New England is brutal in Jan and Feb.

I have always said if Brady played in ANY OTHER division, he might have one or two rings. 

That’s it.

[Rings]

6 hours ago, k-train said:

If you are in the top half of the 1st round... stay put.

If you are picking in the bottom half of the 1st... trade down & stockpile the picks.

I posted this in a different thread, but it shows that since 2010 the % of players taken in the top 15 picks who've made at least one pro bowl is more than double what it is for players selected from picks 16-32.

Number of Pro Bowl players selected in the 1st round each year

2010
1-15: 11
16-32: 6

2011
1-15: 11
16-32: 5

2012
1-15: 8
16-32: 6

2013
1-15: 4
16-32: 8

2014
1-15: 11
16-32: 6

2015
1-15: 8
16-32: 5

2016
1-15: 8
16-32: 3

2017
1-15: 8
16-32: 5

2018
1-15: 9
16-32: 6

2019
1-15: 7
16-32: 4

2020
1-15: 4
16-32: 2

2021
1-15: 6
16-32: 1

2022
1-15: 1
16-32: 0

So over this span, the odds of getting an impact player in the top 15 picks has actually been more than double what it is for players taken with picks 16-32.

Total number of players selected 1-15: 195
Number of Pro Bowlers: 96
49.23%

Total number of players selected 16-32: 255
Number of Pro Bowlers: 57
22.35%

With the Pats regularly picking late in the 1st, perhaps that's why Billy BellyCheck has always seemed so willing to trade down & stockpile picks in later rounds.

Great post.  While I don’t think the ProBowl is the best indicator anymore since it’s nothing more than a popularity contest, it still does add some good context that more often than not the better talent is at the top of the draft and there are less misses there than later.

[k-train]

11 minutes ago, Rings said:

Great post.  While I don’t think the ProBowl is the best indicator anymore since it’s nothing more than a popularity contest, it still does add some good context that more often than not the better talent is at the top of the draft and there are less misses there than later.

Thanks! Yeah, I fully agree that the Pro Bowl isn't any sorta end-all-be-all determinator of whether a player has been worthy of a 1st round pick; but since judging success is generally quite subjective by nature, it's one of the only ways to try to quantify success in the NFL without having to look at each player's situation & production in a case-by-case manner. So while the info I posted is just a generalization, but I do feel like it does add some weight to the idea the odds of landing an impact player may in fact be significantly higher in those first 15 picks compared to the back half of the first round.

Again though, not all teams are always looking for a single "elite" player. For some, it may be better to trade away a shot at a star player in order to get several picks in later rounds & thus increase the odds of landing a handful of solid contributors. So true value of draft picks is also very subjective & based on the intentions of each team & their team building processes... not just in the immediate time frame, but also their long-term plans.

[Mr.11]

30 minutes ago, Jpg428gggg said:

It was also the perfect combination for a dynasty. Great head coach and front office, very consistent QB who stayed healthy, and an awful division. The Bills, Jets, and Dolphins were bad for so long. It allowed the Pats to consistently have home field advantage in the playoffs. This was huge since playing in New England is brutal in Jan and Feb.

 

27 minutes ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

I have always said if Brady played in ANY OTHER division, he might have one or two rings. 

That’s it.

I don't think it had as much of an impact as you guys are suggesting. If your team is good, they're good, regardless of what division they play in.

The Tom Brady's Patriots played Peyton Manning's Colts/Broncos or Ben Roethlisberger's Steelers pretty much every year, and beat them consistently. They regularly faced off against the AFC's best and beat them on a regular basis. How many rings have Big Ben, Peyton Manning, or other greats missed out on because of those Patriots.

The Packers from Brett Farve to Aaron Rodgers have dominated the NFC North, but how many rings do they have to show for it? The Chiefs from Alex Smith to Patrick Mahomes are dominating the AFC West. How many rings do they have to show for it?

It doesn't matter what the records are. Division games are always hard. The Patriots missed out on the playoffs the one season Brady didn't play due to injury, and they still went 11-5. You can count on one hand how many teams before or since those Pats that have been that good consistently. Give credit where credit is due. The Pats weren't just good because of the division they play in.

[PokerSteve]

2 hours ago, ItsJustMe said:

True, that's why the Pats have such turnover.

Belichick knows to expand his draft picks and max out his talent pool He also knows when to let players go that are about to put a crimp in his cap situation. That's worked out pretty decent for him. That is until Tom Brady left. Things have been a little more challenging for The Genius since those halcyon days of SB rings and goatage.

As far as all GM's being equal in their draft pick success, I don't believe that. I'm already seeing better from TF's first two draft classes than I saw from many of TD's. If he hits it out of the park in this his third draft, he'll be the best GM we've ever had as far as draft acumen imho. 

[FalconAge]

20 minutes ago, Mr.11 said:

 

I don't think it had as much of an impact as you guys are suggesting. If your team is good, they're good, regardless of what division they play in.

The Tom Brady's Patriots played Peyton Manning's Colts/Broncos or Ben Roethlisberger's Steelers pretty much every year, and beat them consistently. They regularly faced off against the AFC's best and beat them on a regular basis. How many rings have Big Ben, Peyton Manning, or other greats missed out on because of those Patriots.

The Packers from Brett Farve to Aaron Rodgers have dominated the NFC North, but how many rings do they have to show for it? The Chiefs from Alex Smith to Patrick Mahomes are dominating the AFC West. How many rings do they have to show for it?

It doesn't matter what the records are. Division games are always hard. The Patriots missed out on the playoffs the one season Brady didn't play due to injury, and they still went 11-5. You can count on one hand how many teams before or since those Pats that have been that good consistently. Give credit where credit is due. The Pats weren't just good because of the division they play in.

Are you similarly willing to discount the fact that for years Brady took a salary far below market value while being paid under the table Via TB12's contract with the Patriots?

[Ezekiel 25:17]

15 minutes ago, FalconAge said:

Are you similarly willing to discount the fact that for years Brady took a salary far below market value while being paid under the table Via TB12's contract with the Patriots?

You beat me to it! 

Because our position wasn’t based on that he ONLY played in a bad division that allowed him to play more home playoff games and giving him byes, we also includes that he made it easier to build a roster around him.(probably a requirement TBH)

[Ezekiel 25:17]

49 minutes ago, Mr.11 said:

 

I don't think it had as much of an impact as you guys are suggesting. If your team is good, they're good, regardless of what division they play in.

The Tom Brady's Patriots played Peyton Manning's Colts/Broncos or Ben Roethlisberger's Steelers pretty much every year, and beat them consistently. They regularly faced off against the AFC's best and beat them on a regular basis. How many rings have Big Ben, Peyton Manning, or other greats missed out on because of those Patriots.

The Packers from Brett Farve to Aaron Rodgers have dominated the NFC North, but how many rings do they have to show for it? The Chiefs from Alex Smith to Patrick Mahomes are dominating the AFC West. How many rings do they have to show for it?

It doesn't matter what the records are. Division games are always hard. The Patriots missed out on the playoffs the one season Brady didn't play due to injury, and they still went 11-5. You can count on one hand how many teams before or since those Pats that have been that good consistently. Give credit where credit is due. The Pats weren't just good because of the division they play in.

Just shows you how truly awful the AFC East was.

No way does having six easy games not give you an advantage over ALL THOSE teams you mentioned when it came to home field throughout the playoffs WITH a bye not factoring into his overall success.

Plus I noticed you didn’t care to dispute the salary cap portion of my comment. Unless you are conceding that.

[Mr.11]

20 minutes ago, FalconAge said:

Are you similarly willing to discount the fact that for years Brady took a salary far below market value while being paid under the table Via TB12's contract with the Patriots?

I'm addressing the claim that the Pats were good because of the division they play in. That's a whole other conversation.

[Mr.11]

10 minutes ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

Just shows you how truly awful the AFC East was.

No way does having six easy games not give you an advantage over ALL THOSE teams you mentioned when it came to home field throughout the playoffs WITH a bye not factoring into his overall success.

Plus I noticed you didn’t care to dispute the salary cap portion of my comment. Unless you are conceding that.

They aren't easy games though. That's the point. You really think the Pats just swept the division every year with Brady?

And even if they won HFA, it doesn't mean an automatic win. It definitely means jack **** for the Falcons half the time. Didnt mean a **** thing when Brady went into Arrowhead against MVP Mahomes' Chiefs and Lambeau Field against MVP Rodgers en route to his 6th and 7th ring.

[Geaux_Falcons]

The thing with stockpiling picks is, you have to draft well, and i've noticed John Lynch does a lot of micro transcations/trades too. Lynch has been willing to slide 1 spot down or trade a pick/player for future compensation. This leads to trading a guy like Trent Brown(7th round pick) for a 3rd round pick.

Or you can afford to trade a player looking for a new deal(Deforest Buckner) for a 1st round pick, and then flip that pick into his replacement(Javon Kinlaw), plus an extra 4th, that later gets used to trade up for another player you want(Brandon Aiyuk).

Or you can use the surplus of picks you acquired, and trade a 3rd round pick for Trent Williams.

Even though Trey Sermon never worked out, I like the sheer ability Lynch had with being able to trade 2 4th round picks for a 3rd. That's only possible because Lynch traded down 5 spots in the 2nd round, and got an additional 4th.

So there's value in stockpiling picks. It's just more so how you use those picks. BB will forego a 1st round pick for a chance at multiple 2nd and 3rd round picks. He'll also trade players for said picks.

Worth mentioning, BB uses the stockpile to find guys to develop in his system, where as Lynch uses the stockpile to get the best talent. Both draft well in the end to justify the means.

 

[Rings]

2 hours ago, k-train said:

Thanks! Yeah, I fully agree that the Pro Bowl isn't any sorta end-all-be-all determinator of whether a player has been worthy of a 1st round pick; but since judging success is generally quite subjective by nature, it's one of the only ways to try to quantify success in the NFL without having to look at each player's situation & production in a case-by-case manner. So while the info I posted is just a generalization, but I do feel like it does add some weight to the idea the odds of landing an impact player may in fact be significantly higher in those first 15 picks compared to the back half of the first round.

Again though, not all teams are always looking for a single "elite" player. For some, it may be better to trade away a shot at a star player in order to get several picks in later rounds & thus increase the odds of landing a handful of solid contributors. So true value of draft picks is also very subjective & based on the intentions of each team & their team building processes... not just in the immediate time frame, but also their long-term plans.

One way Ive seen a few people look at hits or misses in the draft is if they signed a second contract with the team that drafted them.  That has its own issues in itself, but it also shows that if the franchise feels like they were worth keeping around, they would consider them a hit internally.