FANSHOTS FANPOSTS

FANPOST

NFL Draft: Why do teams still insist on using

the Jimmy Johnson chart?
By Kyle DeDiminicantanio [0] on Apr 11, 2023, 4:05pm PDT

Last year, I wrote an article breaking down how the Chargers could
reverse their trade-woes by embracing a trade-down philosophy [2] .
Using Pro Football Reference's "Approximate Value [3] ," I proposed an
alternative way of viewing draft capital by calculating 10 year AV averages for each
draft position in the first round, and beyond the first round I expanded each pick to
include the averages of the two picks before and after it, creating 50 data points per
pick to smooth out the extreme outliers. I called this new metric eAV, or
"Expected Approximate Value." The data reinforced what many of us
suspected: although the Chargers trade relatively in-line with the Jimmy Johnson
value chart, they routinely net a "loss" in their eAV by trading up, and in all
instances besides the Melvin Gordon trade have lost a substantial amount of actual
AV when measured against the players our trade partners selected.

Telesco's prior reluctance to trading back and gathering extra draft picks has been a
microcosm of his bland brand of roster management. It wasn't until Tom's 10th
season as the Chargers General Manager that he executed a headline-worthy trade
(and one that was rumored as being driven by Coach Staley), when he shocked the
fanbase by grabbing Khalil Mack from the Bears for a 2nd and a future 6th round
pick. Through Telesco's tenure, the Chargers have been one of the more aggressive
free agency spenders, frequently filling roster holes through free agency - holes that
were largely created by subpar draft classes. As a result, they are rarely on the
positive side of the compensatory pick allocation. With their lack of compensatory
pick flow, along with Tom's habit of falling in love for certain prospects and
packaging multiple picks to trade up and select them, they are one of the few teams
that draft less players than the seven picks they are allocated per season (thus far,
6.9/season), an impressive feat since the addition of compensatory picks brings the
league-wide average to 7.99/per team, per season. In Telesco's ten years with the
Chargers, only the Saints and the Panthers have selected less players. While it may
seem like a small nuance, an extra drafted player signed to a four year rookie
contract each draft equates to a rolling four extra draft picks on your roster. As fans,
we wonder why our serviceable depth has always been a struggle for us...

What Can We Learn From 2022's Draft Day

Trades?
Initially, my goal in doing this research was to see if teams were still trading using
the Jimmy Johnson model, or if teams had seemingly shifted to the Fitzgerald-
Spielberger NFL Draft Trade Value Chart [4] , which appeared to coincide
much closer with my eAV method. My assumption was that we would see a
philosophical shift in what "currency" was being used in trades, since my prior
research indicated the Jimmy Johnson chart was extremely, almost irresponsibly
top-heavy, and wildly favored almost all teams that decided to trade back.

To do so, I looked at draft day trades that involved picks from the 2022 draft
only. Trades with future draft capital consideration or that involved players were
omitted. Initially, I thought this would leave me with little data (perhaps since
Charger fans aren't accustomed to draft day trades), but there were actually 29 such
trades last year.

Within those 29 trades, 11,283 points on the Jimmy Johnson chart were spent to
trade up, but returned 11,482 points back. On average, teams actually spent a little
extra capital to move back in the draft. The collective draft capital spent on such
moves was only 1.76% off from being completely balanced, indicating the league as a
whole still is heavily influenced by JJ's chart.

On the other hand, 42,154 points on the Fitz-Spiel chart were spent on trade ups,
and returned 29,194 points back. Judging against this model, teams that traded up
overpaid by approximately 144.4%.

Using my eAV calculation, teams spent 914.41 eAV points when trading up, and
returned only 665.42. This was approximately 27.2% in value lost to teams trading
up.

Once again, we saw teams heavily favor with the Jimmy Johnson trade-value chart,
when historical averages indicate that these trades have resulted in losing an
exceptional amount of roster value.

I should note - AV is a metric BEST used over many years, as it adds significant
weight to Games Started, and assigns value by determining team performance
and an estimate of the player's contribution to that performance. I mostly chose to
incorporate the single-year AV numbers to see if they somewhat followed the
trends of the eAV projections, and largely just out of curiosity!

Whereas PFF is sometimes weaker when accounting for how many snaps a player
took in a season, and thus can seemingly overvalue role players vs season-long
starters, AV will give value to players that took a large snap/start count, even if
they were the weak link of their position group.

Let's look at some of the marquee trades as examples:

The Chris Olave Trade

Kyle DeDiminicantanio
@TheKyleDe · Follow

Exploring 2022 Draft Day trades. Here is an interesting

one, as it currently grades out as a neutral value for both
sides, but projects to eventually swing in favor of the
trade-down:

9:28 PM · Apr 11, 2023

3 Reply Share

Read more on Twitter

The Chris Olave trade-up is particularly interesting, because in Year One it was an
even trade when measured by AV returns. Furthermore, although it definitely leans
closer to Jimmy Johnson values than Fitz-Spiel, Washington had to actually spend a
little extra to move down.

Both teams achieved a total of 8 AV points in the first year of these players' careers.
Olave scored 8 on his own, Jahan Dotson scored 4, Brian Robinson scored 3, and
Brandon Smith scored 1. However, in looking at the 10-year AV averages of players
drafted at these respective draft positions, you can expect Washington to distance
itself from New Orleans return over time, especially considering Robinson's quick
return to the field last year after recovering from a gunshot wound to his leg.
Let's look at another. Instead of having equal Year 1 returns on AV, this deal was
perfectly balanced on the Jimmy Johnson chart, but saw major differences in draft
returns.

Trading Up for a Generational DT

Kyle DeDiminicantanio
@TheKyleDe · Follow

Here's another example: HOU matches PHI in JJ trade-

value, but actually nets much more in FS value, actual
AV returns, and projected AV returns.

However, HOU packaged three of their picks in

different late round trade-ups, 2 of which actually
resulted in positive AV returns.

10:04 PM · Apr 11, 2023

Reply Share

Read more on Twitter

This trade is particularly interesting in that Houston moved down to gain surplus
value according to the Fitz-Spiel and eAV models, but only drafted with the highest
pick they returned. The remaining three picks were packaged in three separate
deals, including a three pick package to move up and select John Metchie (who
redshirted his rookie year as he recovered from injury), and two small trade-ups
that moved the Texans into position to grab Christian Harris and Thomas Booker.
These two smaller trades accounted for two of the five trades where the team
moving up actually saw a positive return in AV in Year One. The small lesson here is
simple: when you've gained draft capital by trading down, you can afford to make
smaller trade-ups for "Your Guys" later in the draft.

Kenyon Green had a rough year by PFF metrics, and Jordan Davis did well in a role
that saw about 17 snaps a game, so although Green actually outpaced Davis in AV by
scores of 5-3 it will be interesting to monitor these players moving forward.

Below, you can see the total data-dump of all 29 trades. Here is a key:

TU/TD Team - Team Trading Up and Team Trading Down

JJ TU Premium - What percentage the team Trading Up had to overpay
according to the JJ Draft Chart values. If under 100% it's actually measuring
the JJ discount they received
TU/TD Picks - TU Picks represent the picks received by the team Trading Up,
and vise versa
FS TU Premium - Same as JJ TU Premium, but measured against the Fitz-Spiel
Chart
TU AV Net - How many AV points did the team gain (or lose) by trading up
TU AV % Return- Same as above, represented as a percentage
TU eAV Net - What is the expected gain/loss in Expected AV, based on 10 year
averages of players drafted at the respective positions
TU eAV % Return-Same as above, represented as a percentage

TU TU % TU TU %
TU TD TU JJ TU FS TU AV AV eAV eAv
Team Team Picks TD Picks Premium Premium Net Return Net Return
NO WAS 11 16 98 120 93.0% 159.4% 0 100.0% -19.3 67.2%
DET MIN 12 46 32 34 66 86.0% 119.0% -6 33.3% -13.3 83.0%
PHI HOU 13 15 124 162 166 100.0% 177.4% -3 50.0% -19.1 71.0%
KC NE 21 29 94 121 102.0% 175.8% -8 27.3% -15.7 68.0%
BUF BAL 23 25 130 100.3% 134.8% -6 33.3% -17.8 59.0%
NYJ TEN 26 101 35 69 163 103.1% 122.9% -13 7.1% -23.3 63.6%
JAX TB 27 33 106 180 100.1% 167.9% 3 160.0% -5.9 87.6%
GB MIN 34 53 59 121.4% 158.5% -4 63.6% -10.2 75.5%
NYJ NYG 36 38 146 102.4% 137.8% -2 66.7% -7.7 80.5%
ATL NYG 38 43 114 103.1% 146.4% -3 40.0% -7.2 79.2%
MIN IND 42 122 53 77 192 111.3% 127.0% -8 11.1% -21.0 59.8%
HOU CLE 44 68 108 124 81.7% 189.1% -5 0.0% -17.3 57.6%
NE KC 50 54 158 97.0% 138.8% 0 100.0% -7.0 74.4%
TB BUF 57 60 180 96.7% 136.0% -1 75.0% -8.7 69.6%
CIN BUF 60 63 209 94.7% 129.0% -1 80.0% -8.2 72.8%
HOU DEN 75 80 162 100.9% 147.9% 3 200.0% -3.8 84.7%
TEN LV 86 90 169 102.5% 150.7% -6 14.3% -8.4 66.5%
CAR WAS 120 189 144 149 94.3% 102.9% 1 200.0% -4.2 82.4%
LV MIN 122 250 126 227 94.1% 104.3% -1 0.0% 1.4 110.0%
LV MIN 126 165 169 106.5% 147.9% 1 100.0% -8.2 53.8%
KC SEA 145 158 233 85.3% 140.6% 0 0.0% -1.2 91.2%
BUF CHI 148 168 203 106.3% 151.7% -6 25.0% -2.2 83.6%
HOU CHI 150 166 207 109.7% 153.4% 1 100.0% -6.4 59.3%
JAX PHI 154 188 198 93.3% 149.0% -7 0.0% -2.4 78.8%
LAR LV 164 175 238 84.6% 146.6% -1 66.7% 0.7 106.1%
CIN CHI 166 174 226 96.0% 156.2% -3 0.0% -3.1 76.1%
DEN GB 171 179 234 91.3% 153.8% -3 25.0% -6.3 53.1%
PHI DET 181 188 237 89.5% 157.1% -5 16.7% -4.4 57.1%
TB LAR 218 235 261 50.0% 152.4% 0 100.0% 1.1 118.6%

Here are the totals quickly summarized:

Total TU TU AV TU TU
TU Total FS AV % eAV eAV %
Prem Prem Net Return Net Return
98.27% 144.39% -83 45.75% -248.99 72.77%

Here are some interesting takeaways:

1. The Jimmy Johnson draft chart remained teams' go-to. Overall, the capital
exchanged between teams moving up and down had less than a 2% delta, and
was pretty evenly split with 13 teams paying a slight premium to move up, and
15 teams paying a slight premium to move down.
2. According to the Fitz-Spiel Chart, every trade was an overpay for the
teams trading up. The most balanced trades were Carolina trading their 144
and 149 picks for the 120 and 189 picks from Washington, and Las Vegas
trading their 126 and 227 for the 122 and 250 picks from Minnesota.
3. Only three trade-ups resulted in a higher eAV, and only 5 trade-ups resulted in
higher AV scores in Year 1.

It remains this fan's opinion that trading down is one of the easiest ways to bring
immediate value to your team. With teams still insisting on using the archaic Jimmy
Johnson values when trading, there is plenty of room for savvy General Managers to
establish a strategic advantage against their peers by routinely trading back and
adding draft picks.

Moving forward, I plan on exploring hypothetical trade-back scenarios, comparing a

Chargers Day 1 draft target against a replacement player that could be found later in
the draft, along with extra players they could draft with the haul from a trade down.

What do you think, Bolts From the Blue? Does anyone still want to stay put at #21?