Skip to content

Chart says Chiefs scored big in trading for Browns’ third-round pick

Scott Pioli AP

The Browns hauled in a bounty of draft picks from the Falcons when they moved down from pick No. 6 to pick No. 27. But a few hours later, when the Browns traded back up to get pick No. 21 from the Chiefs, Cleveland overpaid.

At least, the Browns overpaid according to the draft chart that NFL teams use as a rough approximation of the value of picks when trying to decide what makes for a fair trade. The Chiefs’ official web site notes that of the 18 trades made featuring only 2011 draft picks, the one with the greatest point differential, according to the chart, was that Chiefs-Browns trade, in which Cleveland shipped its third-round pick (No. 70 overall) to Kansas City in order to move up six spots in the first round and select defensive tackle Phil Taylor.

According to the chart, that meant the Browns gave up two picks worth 920 points to get one pick worth 800 points. That 120-point difference was the most for any of the 18 trades.

Mike Sando of ESPN has the full breakdown of all the trades, which shows that in addition to the Browns, the other team that significantly overpaid for a trade was Jacksonville, which gave up the 16th and 49th picks in order to move up to the 10th pick to take Blaine Gabbert.

In other words, two teams that traded down in the first round (Chiefs and Redskins) got great deals from teams wanting to move up (Browns and Jaguars). Of course, if Gabbert becomes the Jaguars’ franchise quarterback and Taylor becomes a Pro Bowler, no one is going to say those teams overpaid.

Ultimately, a look at all 18 trades shows that most of the time, teams follow the chart closely when making trades. In 10 of the 18 trades, the difference in value among the picks traded was nine points or less, according to the chart.

Permalink 27 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Cleveland Browns, Home, Kansas City Chiefs, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors
27 Responses to “Chart says Chiefs scored big in trading for Browns’ third-round pick”
  1. descendency says: May 4, 2011 7:05 PM

    The Patriots got a 1st and a 2nd for the 28th pick in the draft. The only reason this trade isn’t higher is that 1st is a 2012 pick, meaning it could be anywhere from 1 to 32. Even if it is 32, it’s still more value than this trade.

    The same could apply to the Falcons-Browns trade.

  2. sagnam says: May 4, 2011 7:07 PM

    Maybe the chart isn’t as accurate as you assume.

  3. npbrowns says: May 4, 2011 7:11 PM

    Putting Taylor next to Rubin will make it very difficult for any team to run up the middle on the Browns. Worth the 3rd rd pick IMO.

  4. granadosm says: May 4, 2011 7:14 PM

    I’m no Browns fan but they had a ton of ammo after the trade with the Falcons and Taylor was the guy they wanted in the back end of the 1st round so they went up and got him. In all reality, a year down the road we’re not going to be asking what the differential was in points awarded in each draft day trade but how the player panned out. Time will tell

  5. johnnyoclock says: May 4, 2011 7:33 PM

    You’ve got a fallacy of logic and math there, professors.

    The first part of the trade is a swap of first round pics. A swap is not a loss.

    Since a swap is not a loss, you don’t count the value of the first rd pick as part of the total of the loss. They began the day with a 1st round pick, they ended the first round with in fact picking in the first round. You don’t count that as a loss. Swapping pics does not count toward the loss if you’re the team moving up.

    So you need to subtract the value of their first rounder from that 920. That leaves the value of the 3rd rounder as all they lost.

    Oops.

    Yay blogosphere wootwoot.

  6. shivasirons3 says: May 4, 2011 7:47 PM

    Nice spin by the Chiefs….”using the 2011 picks” trying to make it sound like they got the best deal of the year…..Sorry but the Browns got the best deal this year

  7. liltifer says: May 4, 2011 10:13 PM

    “The first part of the trade is a swap of first round pics. A swap is not a loss.”

    So all 1st round picks are equal value, professor? #1 is worth the same number of points as #32? I wonder why more teams down just swap out their late first-rounder for an early first-rounder, then.

  8. arnoldziffel says: May 4, 2011 10:14 PM

    It’s not really possible to tell if the Browns overpaid based on this article. Was there another team looking to move up as well? Maybe that’s what it took to out-bid them.

    While it’s fun now to speculate who overpaid and who got the best deals … we still have to wait about five years to see how these players pan out.

    One thing for sure, the Browns had lots of ammo available, thanks to the Falcons.

  9. pmars64 says: May 4, 2011 10:44 PM

    Pioli needs some love…

  10. ArtModellsPimp says: May 4, 2011 10:51 PM

    I admire Tom Heckert for having the balls to pull the trigger on the Atlanta trade, and for moving up to get Phil Taylor. He obviously had Taylor targeted, and the Falcons gave him the ammo to go get him.

    The “points” be damned. Heckert took away at least two running lanes from the scum-suckers in the AFC North and got a guy who’ll give that Steelers QB some nightmares.

    Well worth it, in my opinion.

  11. normswifevera says: May 4, 2011 10:53 PM

    A far easier way to look at it is that the difference in moving up from #27 to #21 was 120 points. (Pick 21 is worth 800 and pick 27 is worth 680, subtract for 120.)

    The pick Cleveland sent KC (#70) was worth 240, twice that amount.

    So for the price of their 1st round pick, KC got Jon Baldwin and Justin Houston, who was talked about as a late-first round talent before testing positive for pot.

    So definitely a good trade. And Cleveland got a great haul from Atlanta, so what do they care about overpaying once?

    Win/win for both sides.

  12. DarthHoodie says: May 5, 2011 12:19 AM

    The only points that really matter are those that go on or stay off the scoreboard. If Taylor helps anchor that D-line that is all that matters.

  13. couldntthinkofaname says: May 5, 2011 1:12 AM

    ArtModellsPimp says: May 4, 2011 10:51 PM

    I admire Tom Heckert for having the balls to pull the trigger on the Atlanta trade, and for moving up to get Phil Taylor. He obviously had Taylor targeted, and the Falcons gave him the ammo to go get him.

    _______________________________

    It’s awesome living in Cleveland and hearing homer Browns fans defend moves like this. GMs that “target” players (Taylor and Hardesty last year) tend to reach for those guys instead of staying patient and playing it smart. Pitt sat still and got Cam Heyward and the Jets stayed put and got Wilkerson. Of course, I’m sure Browns Homer would say Taylor is better than those two guys (snicker).

    Yeah, a team that continually loses should burn third round draft picks every year. Just because you can move up like that doesn’t mean you should.

    I like Heckert, but if he’s going to keep reaching like this–and it IS a reach–then Cleveland’s going to continue to struggle to improve.

    And Pitt and Balt are “scum-suckers”? I’m not a fan of either of them, but that term is funny coming from a fan of such of bottom-feeding team.

    Typical Cleveland sports fan…….

  14. cylondetector says: May 5, 2011 1:28 AM

    Thanks Johnnyoclock,

    Thanks to your incisive logical thinking I managed to to trade my Cadillac Eldorado for my neighbours classic Ferrari 599 GTO.

    When I explained how “no swap is a loss” he was only too eager to hand the keys over.

  15. enders9 says: May 5, 2011 7:55 AM

    johnnyoclock says: May 4, 2011 7:33 PM

    You’ve got a fallacy of logic and math there, professors.

    The first part of the trade is a swap of first round pics. A swap is not a loss.

    Since a swap is not a loss, you don’t count the value of the first rd pick as part of the total of the loss. They began the day with a 1st round pick, they ended the first round with in fact picking in the first round. You don’t count that as a loss. Swapping pics does not count toward the loss if you’re the team moving up.

    So you need to subtract the value of their first rounder from that 920. That leaves the value of the 3rd rounder as all they lost.

    Oops.

    Yay blogosphere wootwoot.

    —————————————-

    Wow.

    Let’s just play stupid and pretend that your post makes any kind of sense at all. If they didn’t lose anything (because from your point of view they still had a first round pick, which means they didn’t lose a first round pick) then they also didn’t gain anything. They started out having ONE first round pick, and they finished with only ONE first round pick. Thus, they gave up a 3rd rounder for absolutely nothing because all first rounders are of equal value, right?

    Going by your logic, their trade was actually much worse.

  16. gooboy6 says: May 5, 2011 8:04 AM

    If I recall correctly, Browns wanted Pioli BAD to be their GM, but Chiefs got him. Now everyone knows why after fleecing the Browns like that . Hoodie Jr. Knows how to get it done on draft day

  17. sneaky1632 says: May 5, 2011 8:10 AM

    It was such a weak draft class, it’s not a big deal

  18. macbull says: May 5, 2011 8:24 AM

    PFT Smith….but you left out the Falcons trade to move up to the Browns #6 slot…DID THE FALCONS OVERPAY?

    WHAT WAS THE POINT VALUE OF THAT TRADE?

    You mention the Falcons trade, saying the Browns hauled in “a bounty of draft picks”…but you never broke that trade down on a points basis…did you?

    PFT bias showing, again?

    Think of it this way…after getting the Falcons 2nd round pick this year (not to mention the other picks) , the Browns could afford to give a little to make the deal work.

    Not every team had that luxury, did they?

    Mr PFT Smith…I will wait to see you break down the Falcons trade with the Browns, according to the NFL fair value chart….then I will form my final opinion of whether PFT and Mr Smith are biased against the Browns…

    …Mr Smith, that fair, isn’t it?

  19. lbcoach34 says: May 5, 2011 8:32 AM

    What points are deducted if you’re draft picks like weed???

  20. shackdelrio says: May 5, 2011 9:17 AM

    Bill Polian does not like this article.

  21. thetooloftools says: May 5, 2011 9:39 AM

    And if the chipmunck was faster, the cat wouldn’t have eaten him.
    None of this matters if the coaches suck.
    See us here in Cleveland as a perfect example.

  22. macjacmccoy says: May 5, 2011 9:58 AM

    I think its interesting that the Eagles pretty much stayed with in the guidelines of the chart on most of there trades even though they were the team that tried to get everyone else to throw away the old outdated chart a few years ago and to agree on an new updated 1.

    There point was that the old chart was from the time in the NFL when early picks werent getting paid that much which made the picks more vaulable. But now bc the money is so great the risk is that much higher which brings the value of the pick down. The old chart no longer made sense when it came to the value of those picks. Thats why they created and floated the idea to the other teams.

    Obviously not enough people agreed with them bc they are still using the old system. I just find it interesting that they said the old chart was wrong but still are using.

  23. ArtModellsPimp says: May 5, 2011 10:58 AM

    couldntthinkofaname says:

    “It’s awesome living in Cleveland and hearing homer Browns fans defend moves like this.

    And Pitt and Balt are ‘scum-suckers’? I’m not a fan of either of them…”
    ——————

    I assume, then, that you are a Ben-Gals fan. Living in Cleveland, amongst the Browns’ faithful, must really suck for you. Damned shame… LOL!

    Hell of a life you have there, troll-boy.

  24. 440doginthe407 says: May 5, 2011 3:06 PM

    Couldntthinkofaname
    If you knew anything about the AFC North you would know its a ground and pound division. Browns fans don’t need to justify this pick. We needed someone to stop the run up the middle and we got him.

  25. patpatriotagain says: May 5, 2011 3:24 PM

    the WORST value that the pats will receive is exactly 800 points. they gave up 660. 140 points or more value.

  26. tommyjcaps says: May 5, 2011 9:56 PM

    It doesn’t seem like you are really looking at it correctly…

    You need to take into account all trades done by that team…

    If you combine both of the browns trades together and assume it was one big trade…they still made out VERY well…

    They didn’t get fleeced at all…they had a good draft day.

    Just like if I went to Vegas, won $10,000 on the first day, went out that night and “overpaid for dinner” (by going to a nicer restaurant than I normally would)…and I bought for everyone…so I spend $2,000.

    You wouldn’t look at that day and say…wow…Tommy really went crazy on dinner and overpaid…NO…you’d say…wow…Tommy came out $8,000 ahead…nice!!

    – TommyJ

  27. danj3678 says: May 7, 2011 9:54 AM

    Maybe the Browns overpaid maybe they didn’t. We will find out, but I know this… Never let your guy slip. If you can get the guy you want get him. And I am happy the Browns got some guts and did just that. Eff the chart… Why wait and risk losing the guy you wanted regardless of where he SHOULD be drafted?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!