Kenneth Walker

[Aseahawkfan]

But will we have a good OL this year? Chances are no, we won't.

We'll still need 15 plus TDs from the RBs.

I don't see how a sixth round pick for a 2nd round pick is a good way to do draft arbitrage. You draft a RB in the 2nd round who is productive, then trade him for a 6th round pick? then spend another 2nd round pick on an RB and repeat? That seems like bad management.

[NorthHawk]

Until you factor in the cost of re-signing him and the inevitable decline in productivity all players get whe they get older near the end of the 2nd contract. In this draft there should be some good RBs in the late 3rd or 4th round.

[Oly]

I don't see how a sixth round pick for a 2nd round pick is a good way to do draft arbitrage. You draft a RB in the 2nd round who is productive, then trade him for a 6th round pick? then spend another 2nd round pick on an RB and repeat? That seems like bad management.

The better yardstick is the future alternative. Is a trade for a 6th rounder better than his potential production for one year plus either the cost of a second contract or the "cost" of losing him for nothing in free agency? Looking at what we paid for him is just how the sunk cost fallacy works. I happen to prefer keeping him because his production, even for one year, is more valuable to me than a 6th. And who knows, maybe he does better in the zone than I'm thinking he will and he earns that second contract. But in any case, I don't think JS should be making decisions based on previous draft slot.

[NorthHawk]

I would think that it really depends on how Kubiak sees him fitting into this Offense.

[Stream Hawk]

I would think that it really depends on how Kubiak sees him fitting into this Offense.

What I understand about the wide zone is they need a fast and a shifty rb. That’s him. I say keep him because we need as many known weapons as possible, and I do think he could flourish in this offense. Plus, me and my 11 yo met him at his camp last year and he’s a really cool guy.

[Aseahawkfan]

The better yardstick is the future alternative. Is a trade for a 6th rounder better than his potential production for one year plus either the cost of a second contract or the "cost" of losing him for nothing in free agency? Looking at what we paid for him is just how the sunk cost fallacy works. I happen to prefer keeping him because his production, even for one year, is more valuable to me than a 6th. And who knows, maybe he does better in the zone than I'm thinking he will and he earns that second contract. But in any case, I don't think JS should be making decisions based on previous draft slot.

Not how I see it. If you're using your 2nd round pick for a player that doesn't work out and trading them for a sixth round pick near the end of their contract, you're really bad at drafting in the 2nd round. 2nd round picks should be players that are worth a second contract. 2nd round picks should be foundational players or you're not drafting well.

I think Ken is worth a second contract unless he overvalues himself and wants a crazy contract.

[Oly]

Not how I see it. If you're using your 2nd round pick for a player that doesn't work out and trading them for a sixth round pick near the end of their contract, you're really bad at drafting in the 2nd round. 2nd round picks should be players that are worth a second contract. 2nd round picks should be foundational players or you're not drafting well.

I 100% agree with all of this. This is all how the front office should do things. But none of that has any bearing on what we should do with this player at this time.

I think Ken is worth a second contract unless he overvalues himself and wants a crazy contract.

I might be with you here. I noted above that I'm in favor of keeping him to see how he works in the wide zone. I'm skeptical, because the most important traits in a zone back are vision and the conviction to make a cut to space. I've seen Walker make those cuts, but his vision is, to me, his worst trait. But I might be wrong, so that's why I want him to stay. To see if he can work in this system, because lord knows he has the athleticism for it. That's the argument for keeping him that I agree with. Looking to his draft status (and the failure of the FO if he doesn't earn a second contract) is a legit reason to criticize the FO. It's not, however, a good basis on which to make any decision about his future. That's nearly a textbook example of the sunk cost fallacy.

[Aseahawkfan]

I might be with you here. I noted above that I'm in favor of keeping him to see how he works in the wide zone. I'm skeptical, because the most important traits in a zone back are vision and the conviction to make a cut to space. I've seen Walker make those cuts, but his vision is, to me, his worst trait. But I might be wrong, so that's why I want him to stay. To see if he can work in this system, because lord knows he has the athleticism for it. That's the argument for keeping him that I agree with. Looking to his draft status (and the failure of the FO if he doesn't earn a second contract) is a legit reason to criticize the FO. It's not, however, a good basis on which to make any decision about his future. That's nearly a textbook example of the sunk cost fallacy.

I don't know how you rate RBs when you have a bad O-line and a bridge QB who doesn't back the defense off the line. No one feared Geno. That's why the bad on bad on bad creates so many layered issues with team building just as good on good on good makes everyone look better than they might be like when even back up DBs were in demand after leaving Seattle because of how good the Legion of Boom was at its peak fueled by the core three.

This FO has had problems for a while. The main reason I'm in wait and see mode is because John Schneider played the good soldier for Pete's entire run. I feel that earned him a shot at being "The Man" at GM with a reasonable time table for showing he can step into that role.

Sunk Cost Fallacy implies I'm overvaluing the player based on his draft position, where I feel I'm properly valuing K9 based on his current production which I feel is more than a 6th round pick and more valuable to the team even if we let him test free agency and go somewhere else. Even a compensatory pick for K9 might be better than a 6th round pick if he produces next year and that compensatory calculation comes into effect. I feel its worth the risk-reward to keep K9 over trading for a 6th round pick. A 4th round pick might be worth it as you can usually find a good LB, depth player, or special teams player. 6th round is too low for K9s production and potential in my opinion.

[Oly]

I don't know how you rate RBs when you have a bad O-line and a bridge QB who doesn't back the defense off the line. No one feared Geno. That's why the bad on bad on bad creates so many layered issues with team building just as good on good on good makes everyone look better than they might be like when even back up DBs were in demand after leaving Seattle because of how good the Legion of Boom was at its peak fueled by the core three.

This FO has had problems for a while. The main reason I'm in wait and see mode is because John Schneider played the good soldier for Pete's entire run. I feel that earned him a shot at being "The Man" at GM with a reasonable time table for showing he can step into that role.

I'm in agreement with most of that. I'm rating him not on stats, but on the number of times, in games, I felt that he made the wrong cut, didn't feel the defense properly, couldn't see the lane, etc. I often felt he left yards on the field.

Sunk Cost Fallacy implies I'm overvaluing the player based on his draft position, where I feel I'm properly valuing K9 based on his current production which I feel is more than a 6th round pick and more valuable to the team even if we let him test free agency and go somewhere else. Even a compensatory pick for K9 might be better than a 6th round pick if he produces next year and that compensatory calculation comes into effect. I feel its worth the risk-reward to keep K9 over trading for a 6th round pick. A 4th round pick might be worth it as you can usually find a good LB, depth player, or special teams player. 6th round is too low for K9s production and potential in my opinion.

That's not what the sunk cost fallacy is. It's not about overvaluing, but rather judging future decisions based on past cost (e.g., "You draft a RB in the 2nd round who is productive, then trade him for a 6th round pick?"). We're totally in agreement that he's more valuable than a 6th rounder. But at no point when thinking about whether to keep/trade him should his draft position be relevant.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's not what the sunk cost fallacy is. It's not about overvaluing, but rather judging future decisions based on past cost (e.g., "You draft a RB in the 2nd round who is productive, then trade him for a 6th round pick?"). We're totally in agreement that he's more valuable than a 6th rounder. But at no point when thinking about whether to keep/trade him should his draft position be relevant.

The context of the response should make it clear I understand the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

The Sunk Cost Fallacy is basing your decision on the value of the draft position or the cost you paid for the item thus overvaluing the item, in this case the player, based on the cost paid. This is why it affects future decision making because you overvalue the initial cost rather than accurately assess the current value or future value of the item. This type of mistake can cost you a lot of money.

The Sunk Cost Fallacy rarely applies when the cost is low and the value is high as that is the goal of any investment is to get more than you paid for it. It almost always applies when you pay a high cost (in this case a 2nd round pick) that you refuse to give up on due to that initial cost. That's why I use the term over-value because it almost always applies in a situation where you overvalue something based on what you paid for it. That is the biggest danger of the Sunk Cost Fallacy is the loss due to overvaluation.

That's why I made it clear I'm valuing K9 based on his current production, not due to overvaluing his draft position.

I noted the 2nd round pick because converting 2nd round picks to 6th round picks is bad investing. It's like buying a stock at 10 bucks then selling it for 2. It's not great at all.

[River Dog]

As far as what we do with Walker now, where he was drafted is completely irrelevant. It only applies in retrospect, when you evaluate our drafting performance once the dust settles. In real time, what matters is what we can expect for performance this season vs. what value we could get for him in a trade, and it's my position that his potential contribution for one season is worth more than a 6th round draft pick.

[NorthHawk]

As far as what we do with Walker now, where he was drafted is completely irrelevant. It only applies in retrospect, when you evaluate our drafting performance once the dust settles. In real time, what matters is what we can expect for performance this season vs. what value we could get for him in a trade, and it's my position that his potential contribution for one season is worth more than a 6th round draft pick.

If he fits the new system, yeah. But if not his relative trade value from last year and probably next year is less this year because teams should be able to find an equivalent for less money and for 4 years. If said team wants Walker, they have the 2 options so the trade value will be less than his worth (in the right Offense).