NFL draft 2022: Ranking the top in-draft deals and why the Eagles should have not traded up to No. 13

Trade down in the NFL Draft remains one of most important and fruitful edges in football.

The Jimmy Johnson chart is often used by teams to make trades, rather than charts that are based on how each player performs in each NFL draft slot. We can debate the composition of the perfect draft value chart. However, nearly every empirically-based draft table that is based on player performance comes to the same conclusion — teams overpay for moving up early in draft.

Tobias Funke, a general manager of the NFL who is looking to rise up the ranks are basically Tobias Funke. Arrested Development scene.

To be fair, there’s no reason to trade up in the draft early. However, it doesn’t always work in the average case. It is a problem for teams whose GMs trade up, or turn down offers to trade down, and it can lead to a loss of team members.

Another corollary is that basic strategy in blackjack says to stand on 13 against dealer’s 5. While it’s unlikely that hitting on 13 in this scenario will work, it won’t improve your chances.

Based on the draft pick value table,’sThe approximate value is the same as work done by others including Chase Stuart’s AV-based chartStarting in 2013.

This chart will be used to determine five of the best pick-for–pick in-draft trades this year. Please note the “pick for-pick” section. A.J. BrownOr Marquise BrownDeal here and the “indraft” part meaning that there is no Saints Eagles predraft deal. (Though I will admit that this was an absolute heist perpetrated by Howie Roseman). The surplus value created by trades is what determines their grade.

These are the top-value trades of the 2022 draft:

The trade: Chiefs receive pick No. 21; Patriots receive picks Nos. 29, 94, 121
The value winner: Patriots (acquired 6 Chart Points, lost 4.1)
Surplus value: Second-round pick in the final round

If there is no quarterback involved, it is important to separate trades from players selected at those spots. The process is what the trade is, and the outcome is the pick. Although I’ll be briefly addressing the results, we should also evaluate the process. New England’s process was very strong in this trade.

Charts that are based on player performance have shown that the difference in production from a player picked at, for example, pick No. 29 is much closer than what you get with pick No. 21 is closer to what trades usually indicate. The player who is selected at 21 has a better future, but it’s still significantly less than the value of any additional third-round or fourth-round selections.

New England is the clear winner in terms of trade.

Was that a waste of value? Cole StrangeAt No. 29? Yes. Strange was an example of one of the most serious errors teams can make. Our Draft Day Predictor showed that there was a 93% chance Strange could be available at the Patriots second-round selection. Although we may have misread market conditions, the Rams’ reactionIt is likely that it also shocked other teams.

However, the Patriots received a solid return from the trade.

The trade: Eagles receive pick No. 13; Texans receive picks Nos. 15, 124, 162, 166
Value winnerTexans (acquired 7.2 charts points, gave up 4.9).
Surplus value:Pick of the second round in the final

Philadelphia paid a high price to move up two spots, and then take Jordan DavisAt No. 13. The picks were only three on Day 3, but the difference in what you get at 13 or 15 is very small, so the Eagles paid almost nothing for three picks.

According to our Draft Day Predictor, there was a 55% chance that Davis would be available before pick No. 13: Davis would still be available at pick Number. 15. They literally traded the three picks for nothing.

I can understand the argument that there was a. talent drop-off after 14Houston could be argued that this is a negative, but they could also have traded down again. Although this theory may help alleviate the Eagles’ trade-up burden, I doubt any player whose main strength comes in the run play — like Davis — being included in an elite tier. Houston won the deal, however.

The trade: Texans receive pick No. 44; Browns receive picks Nos. 68, 108, 124
Value winnerBrowns (acquired 4.75 chart points, gave away 2.9)
Surplus value:Third round pick

The Texans took most of the value that they gained on Day 1 and passed it along to the analytically-inclined Browns on Day 2 (with a different pick configuration) in order to select WR John Metchie III.

Houston performed this 24 pick jump. You would expect a higher cost for it. This isn’t the case. The pick value curve becomes flatter as the draft progresses. The 24-pick leap from the early third round to the mid second round is much less than a 24-pick move from the middle-first to the late-second.

The trade: Packers receive pick No. 34; Vikings receive picks Nos. 53 and 59
Value winner: Vikings (acquired 5.0 chart points, gave-up 3.3)
Surplus value: Third round pick

Minnesota isn’t just numbers, they also traded with a rival division.

The No. Good to get the No. 90 pick in the draft (or the equivalent pick from the surplus value). The No. It is better to take the No. 90 pick from a divisional rival in exchange for nothing.

Critics will claim this is bad because Minnesota provided a critical need for the Packers with the selection of Christian Watson. This logic is flawed because it ignores the fact that Green Bay allowed Minnesota to have two picks that were more valuable than Watson’s. Plus, the Packers may have traded up and acquired Watson from another source.

It is a positive trait to have a team that is willing to deal with opponents from different divisions. However, it can also magnify an error as was the case for the Packers.



Dan Graziano, Dan Orlovsky and Dan Graziano dive into the Packers’ approach towards the draft.

The trade: Jaguars receive pick No. 27; Buccaneers receive picks Nos. 33, 106 and 180
Value winnerBuccaneers (acquired 5 Chart Points, lost 3.7)
Surplus value: Pick of the third round

Because of the two picks that came before, this trade was especially difficult for Jacksonville (or for Tampa Bay depending on your perspective).

The Jets traded up from No. 35 to No. 26 in a move that cost them the equivalent of pick No. 150. Jacksonville’s surplus value was worth pick No. 95. Prior to that, the Bills only made a slight move up and surrendered surplus worth about pick No. 140.

Even though the market was declining, Jacksonville still had to pay a steep price for the right not to be selected. Devin Lloyd.

Leave a Comment