Chiefs getting screwed by coin flips?

[shaneo69]

from gbnreport.com...

Oakland and Atlanta will flip for the 3rd and 4th picks. If Atlanta wins, the Falcons will pick 3rd, the Raiders 4th, while Kansas City will have the 5th pick. If Oakland wins the initial coin flip the Raiders will have the 3rd pick and Atlanta will then flip with Kansas City for the 4th and 5th picks.

Sounds simple enough so far. It occurred to us, though, that it would have been even simpler if the NFL had simply had Atlanta pick a number out of a hat, either a 3, 4, or 5. If Atlanta picks the three, they get the 3rd pick, Oakland would pick fourth and KC fifth. On the other hand, if the Falcons drew the 4, Oakland would pick third, Atlanta 4th and the Chiefs 5th. And of course if Atlanta drew the 5, Oakland would pick 3rd, Kansas City 4th and the Falcons 5th. In the end, though, we figured what does it matter, the odds of each team getting one of the three respective picks would be the same no matter which method was used.

Being a semi-retired statistician with an incurious mind, though, we worked the actual odds just to be sure. And here’s the kicker: they aren’t the same! Logic would dictate that since Atlanta has no competitive advantage over the other two teams in the deal, the Falcons odds of getting each of the three picks should be one in three or 33%. With the double flip method, though, the Falcons odds of getting the 3rd pick are actually 50%, while their odds of getting the 4th or 5th picks are each 25%. At the same time, Oakland’s odds of getting the third pick are 66% using the number out of the hat method, which again makes sense as they have the tie-breaker over one of the other teams in the mix (Kansas City), but only 50% using the double coin flips. Meanwhile, Kansas City has only a 25% chance of getting the 4th pick, and by extension a 75% of getting the 5th pick, using the NFL’s announced method, whereas the Chiefs would have a 33% of getting the 4th pick with the number in the hat scenario.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by Cochise

So when do they actually flip them?

Just a few seconds after they call heads or tales, Mr. Cochise.

FAX

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Normally, I'd agree, and MAY change my stance if a lot of talented Juniors declare.

But this is a sad draft class. There are 5-7 studs and a huge drop off after that, at least at the positions we need the most. (OL, DT, LB, CB)

As it stands, I'd rather have the stud than 2 guys that are going to go a full round a head of where they'd normally go in a decent class.

Depending on how far we trade down, or how badly someone wants to move up, we could always get someone's 1st rounder next year. We have plenty of 2008 picks as it is. And if it is a weak class, would we really be looking to stockpile more?

I know that probably doesn't excite anyone now, but an extra pick first-round pick can open up a lot of possibilities. If we could trade down to the mid-teens, get a first-rounder in 2009, and still get a Michael Oher or somebody, I'd consider that a good day at the office.

[shyguyms]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

At the Combine in February. (20th-26th)

if it is Laurinitus (spelling) we are doomed , he sucks he cannot read a play at al. I have watched him a few times he is a guesser just an athlete not a very good football player, way overrated.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by BigRock

Depending on how far we trade down, or how badly someone wants to move up, we could always get someone's 1st rounder next year. We have plenty of 2008 picks as it is. And if it is a weak class, would we really be looking to stockpile more?

I know that probably doesn't excite anyone now, but an extra pick first-round pick can open up a lot of possibilities. If we could trade down to the mid-teens, get a first-rounder in 2009, and still get a Michael Oher or somebody, I'd consider that a good day at the office.

The problem with trading for a first round pick in the next draft is you really don't know what you'll be getting.

I bet the Cowboys thought they were looking at a top 10 pick in this draft when they traded with the Browns.

[HonestChieffan]

Who is our designated flipper.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Normally, I'd agree, and MAY change my stance if a lot of talented Juniors declare.

But this is a sad draft class. There are 5-7 studs and a huge drop off after that, at least at the positions we need the most. (OL, DT, LB, CB)

As it stands, I'd rather have the stud than 2 guys that are going to go a full round ahead of where they'd normally go in a decent class.

I'd agree with ya. But I don't think the trade down scenerio is all that likely. Here's why..........

Why does anyone trade up? Because their guy will be gone correct?

I see a scenerio where the QB's are the only top studs left when we pick at #5. Everyone in the NFL assumes we are not taking a QB so why trade up to get the QB if he's not going off the board?

[CupidStunt]

No. 5 is actually fine. I was pissed when it appeared as if we'd get it, and I still wouldn't mind being higher to increase the chances at one of the better guys, but I think one of Jake Long or Glenn Dorsey will be available, as Ryan, Long and McFadden go ahead of KC, and that's the two I'm interested in.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I'd agree with ya. But I don't think the trade down scenerio is all that likely. Here's why..........

Why does anyone trade up? Because their guy will be gone correct?

I see a scenerio where the QB's are the only top studs left when we pick at #5. Everyone in the NFL assumes we are not taking a QB so why trade up to get the QB if he's not going off the board?

I'm with you.

Here's a post of mine from the Draft forum re: trading down:

There it is. The answer for everything.

Nevermind that only ONCE in the last 7 years has someone traded out of a Top 5 pick, and it happened to be the #1 overall.

People say "trade down" like it's easy.

Most teams aren't willing to give up a R2 pick to move up 2 spots, or even more to move up further. Plus the right combinations of teams/available players has to be there.

Also, let's face it. This isn't the year a Joe Thomas, Orlando Pace, Carson Palmer or Peyton Manning is going to be there with someone drooling all over them.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

People say "trade down" like it's easy.[/B]

wow carl ..... i'd heard rumors that you actually posted here but i didn't believe it.


playing the old "we didn't trade because nobody would play with us" bit just never gets old.

[Rain Man]

If the author of that article really thought those two scenarios should have produced the same results, I have a hard time believing that they made it to semi-retirement as a statistician. Those scenarios are obviously different in both structure and expected outcomes.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Laz

wow carl ..... i'd heard rumors that you actually posted here but i didn't believe it.


playing the old "we didn't trade because nobody would play with us" bit just never gets old.

Did you even bother to read the rest of the post?

Add to those reasons, most teams would rather not take on the financial responsibility of a Top 5 pick contract.



Hell, even look at it from a fan perspective.

For sake of argument, lets say the Chiefs are drafting 12th. This place would be at DefCon 5 if we gave up a high R2 pick to move up a few spots.

It's not worth it, and most teams realize that. All those reasons add up to no trades out of the Top 5 since Vick/Tomlinson.

[StcChief]

so we call tails on two headed coin.

[Dave Lane]

I figured this was Herms new excuse for why we lost so many games this year...

[CHENZ A!]

they should play paper rock scissors imo