Eagles in a good draft position according to Mayock

by JasonB on Apr 10, 2009 10:35 AM EDT in News Comment 15 comments

NFL network draft guru Mike Mayock shared some of this general feeling on the draft with Peter King. Several of his thoughts are of particular interest to the Eagles.

His first thought was about value.

1. "This is by far the worst year for the top 10 that I've seen. Down around 18, 20, you'll get every bit the player you'll get in the top 10 for a third of the price.''

So it seems this isn't the year to move up? Mayock thinks the Eagles are just about in the perfect position.

4. Mayock, if he had his choice of first-round picks for talent and value, would be around 22. "The value in this draft is at 15 and beyond.''

He also thinks this will be a good year for tight ends, which the Eagles will certainly be in the market for.

5. He says eight or nine tight ends will be drafted in the first three rounds. He loves the best of the bunch, Oklahoma State's Brandon Pettigrew.

This was first brought up earlier in the week over in the fanshots by bsencore.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I'd agree...

I continue to analyze the draft and the Eagles’ needs, and I can find no pressing reason for the Birds to move up. Everyone knows that, of course, so if they do, in fact, move up they will be able to get a better deal because of it.

The only downside I see to our position is the fact we have too many low rounders so reasonably sign. I’m not certain how the FO will handle this position. Maybe a trade or two for established players?

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant

by NJBammer on Apr 10, 2009 10:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

they will trade a 5th for a 4th next year.

by Clyde Simmons on Apr 10, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mayock, if he had his choice of first-round picks for talent and value, would be around 22. "The value in this draft is at 15 and beyond

Can someone help me understand what this means.

City of Champions!

by yophillybro on Apr 10, 2009 11:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The difference in talent in the early 1st round picks and late 1st round picks is not equivalent to the difference in cost. This has been the sexy thing to say since the Pats traded Cassel for an early second round pick.

www.okupy.com

by royboy on Apr 10, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does that mean that they are still using the old value chart. I heard that they were changing that.

I heard the cost may be lower now that most teams want to trade down, but don’t want to look like chumps receiving sub value in return.

City of Champions!

by yophillybro on Apr 10, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nothin to do with the value chart man. It’s about the cost versus value you get out of the players. Let me spin it like this. Say WR1 is drafted with the 10th pick and signs a rookie contract for 3 years at $9 million. Say WR 2 is drafted with the 20th pick and signs a rookie contract for 3 years at $6 million. Now say they both perform exactly the same in the NFL. You’re getting better value taking essentially the same player with the 20th pick for less money.

This is a good situation to have if it was a top heavy valued draft (meaning there were 20 – 25 players that should be taken in the top ten). However, this is the opposite case, where there are a select few players worth that distinction and then not a lot of difference over the next 20 picks. Oddly enough, I seem to recall reading something like this not so long ago…

2) I think the talent base in the draft is poorly distributed. You have a small % of players who are clearly head and shoulders above the rest. After that, there’s a fairly substantial drop off to the next tier of player. I think picks 1-5 or 1-8 deserve to go that high, but the next 30 picks are actually all players who deserve to be taken between picks 20 and 35. If someone who should be going in the top 8 falls into the 15-17 range, I’d package the #21 pick and a third round pick to grab them. That’s the only way I trade up in this draft.

Hmmm, where did I hear that? Oh yeah, I said it here half way down the page, about three weeks ago. :-)

"I tried to run him over but Eli had his big boy pads on and he kind of stopped me from getting in the end zone. The next time I’ll try to jump over his head.’’ - Asante Samuel

by foos05 on Apr 10, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah thats what he ws saying

however I’m not sure if he thinks that the value in the draft is from 15 and beyond that he doesn’t want the 15th pick instead of the 22nd…

by homestar2281 on Apr 10, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, I got you, I was mentioning the new value chart

because the old one gives higher values for picks 1-10, and significant drop off in value there after. But the Eagles proposed a revision, making picks 1-10 worth less, and picks after worth more. Therefore you can move higher up in value, and not seem like a moron trading the second pick of the draft for 21 and 28.

PFT had an article with the new value chart, it in essance states that you can trade away the #3 pick for 21, 28. And a lot of teams but into that new assessment.

But getting back to your point. That means that you can in essance get a player at 22 who could be considered top 10 correct? But the Value charts they are using show a player at 15 being worth top ten. So if makes no sense for us to trade up into the top 10, being the evaluation of talent stipulates that we are OK at 22, correct?

I makes more sense to stay put IMO.

Thanks for the help.

City of Champions!

by yophillybro on Apr 10, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I read everything again, and totally understand.

We are in a good spot, being that we get true first round value @ 21. Sweet,

No value charts involved.

I thought it was saying that the picks @ 22 were value, and the value charts were scaled for the top 15 players.

But that not the case!!! At all, he is saying, picks 15-22 is of highest value because you get high first round talent at low first round cost. Therefore making it a value pick.

Sorry for making so much noise about something sooo simple. I totally truly got it now. LOL, I feel like a moron for not getting it at first. As Homer would say, Dooooh!

City of Champions!

by yophillybro on Apr 10, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no big deal… the word “value” gets thrown around alot, especially around the draft…

"I tried to run him over but Eli had his big boy pads on and he kind of stopped me from getting in the end zone. The next time I’ll try to jump over his head.’’ - Asante Samuel

by foos05 on Apr 10, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This show me that teams may want to trade down, and get a (value pick) @ 21

They still may get the guy they like or equal caliber player later, while adding more picks.

This means we can go as high as you like, as long as you find a cheap team trying to avoid a top ten contract. We may be able to sneak up to the top 3, and it now cost us both first round picks. Being that the top 22 players are all elite players.

I can see us moving into the top Ten, maybe around 8 or so, and it only costing us @ 21, a third rounder, a fourth rounder, and Reggie Brown or Winston Justice.

City of Champions!

by yophillybro on Apr 10, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Aqn6jXUWUr6tCg7p0ekWgW9DubYF?slug=jc-rookiecontracts040909&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

by JGCarraway on Apr 10, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Too Many Low Choices

Trade 5’s for 4’s next year, he does it pretty often. It’s harder to do, but he might also package a couple together to jump two rounds next year.

by since1961 on Apr 10, 2009 11:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pretty much what everyone else has said. If you get a top 10 pick, he better not be a bust or he kills your salary cap, and when you think of the amount of cap space guy likes Alex Smith have cost their teams over the years, you wonder what they could’ve done with that money instead.

by JGCarraway on Apr 10, 2009 12:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs