If the new values of the CBA instituted in the NFL have any meaning it is that what position in the draft a player is taken has a somewhat set value. However, why set a position at a certain value ? Can it be that the NFL knows something we don't ? Probably a study held over a period of time analyzing a players position in the draft and that players performance over a period of time. Taking into account the cost to bring the player into the team, a logical person could arrive at what is known as Career Approximate Value Over Average (CAVOA).
With all that being said, IS there a sweet spot in the draft ? The answer, according to stats held before and after the 2011 CBA, is YES. Picks 25-147 are considered relatively efficient.
Big deal right ? Yes, it is a big deal for the Bengals. We have the number 21 pick whose value would be right around $8,173,000 according to the recent CBA. By calculations that are rough, we could have a little more than 2 (2.46) players who could contribute more in terms of value than the number 21 pick if we moved back to bracket pick 61 which would be paid about $3,318,000. ...and we could still hang onto the number 37 and 53 pick also.
For those that enjoy stats and NUMBERS, the following is presented to you;
Quite possibly the most accurate way to value a draft pick based upon real world performance.
This guy who did this research is on to something that may change the way a team looks at the draft. I can not perform the calculations even with the formulas this guy provided but the results do make sense. This is a moneyball type of perspective look at the NFL draft.
From pick 1-24 are less efficient in terms of value to dollar. Bang for buck in other words. The most efficient picks are 25-147. A look at Pre 2011 contracts to post 2011 contracts makes sense.
I have to lend a little more credence into what this value chart states. Looking at player value in terms of what the CBA the NFL set up dictates. I would tend to believe that the NFL places similar values on players.
1. Andrew Luck $22,100,000
$22,100,000/$874.5 million= Percentage of rookie pool= 0.0252715837621498 (2.52715837621498 %)
2. Robert Griffin III : $21,100,000
$21,100,000/$874.5 million= Percentage of rookie pool= 0.024128073184677 (2.4128073184677 %)
3. Trent Richardson : $20,400,000
$20,400,000/$874.5 million= Percentage of rookie pool= 0.023327615780446 (2.3327615780446 %)
17. Dre Kirkpatrick : $8,620,000
$8,620,000/$874.5 million= Percentage of rookie pool= 0.0098570611778159 (.98570611778159 %)
21. Chandler Jones: $8,173,000
$8,173,000/$874.5 million/= Percentage of rookie pool= 0.0093459119496855 (.93459119496855 %)
27. Kevin Zeitler: $7,544,000
$7,544,000/$874.5 million= Percentage of rookie pool= 0.0086266437964551 (.86266437964551 %)
61. LaMichael James: $3,318,000
$3,318,000/$874.5 million= Percentage of rookie pool= 0.0037941680960549 (.37941680960549 %)
120. James-Michael Johnson :around $2,515,000
$2,515,000/$874.5 million= Percentage of rookie pool= 0.0028759291023442 (.28759291023442 %)
In not so many words, it looks like IF we had a number one pick it would make more sense in regards to value to bracket the number 61 pick (by trading back) and obtain about 6 almost 7 (6.6) players for the same cost as a number 1 pick. Overwhelmingly this would be a better value overall than the number 1 pick.