As it stands now, we have EIGHT (8) Day 3 picks at our disposal.  What follows are the # of picks we have in each round, and the numbers in parentheses represent what # pick overall it is, and the point value assigned to it by the Draftek Trade value chart. provided here https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value...stTeam=Jax


One in the 4th (#105/84 points)

One in the 5th (#157/27 points)

four (4) in the 6th :

(#179/18.2 points)
(#187/15)
(#197/11.4)
(#198/11)

and two in the 7th.

(#220/1.7)
(#233/1)



Per the Drafttek trade value chart the aggregate value of our picks is about 169 points, roughly a mid 3rd round pick, and our 4 6th round picks have a total value of 55 points, which is worth roughly a 4th round pick.

Given the odds of a player making a final roster, much less being a productive player, decrease dramatically as the draft progresses, given the depth of this draft at some positions, and the state of our roster, would you be willing to package those 6th round picks to get another 3rd or 4th round pick?

How many would you be willing to package?

How many Day 3 picks would be too many to trade away?  Is having more bites at the apple preferable to having a better bite at the apple?

Is there a certain player or position you would want to trade up for?

Would your answer change if the team traded back in earlier rounds?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Been advocating the idea of not sitting on all of those selections in RD6. Just seems outlandish if they do so. I would personally be willing to part ways with ALL of them if it means moving back up into RD3 or early RD4 to secure a potential starter. There's a lot of talent in this year's class at WR and TE. If, for whatever reason, a run happens at WR on opening night, which, historically it does happen from time to time.

They're probably screwed on day two. Rather than reaching at the WR position with pick 33. They could opt out by selecting probably the best TE to help out in the passing game, or, a promising tackle or guard prospect in the event they go with Hutchinson or Thibodeaux on the opening night and want to add a competitive RT to breath on Taylor's neck this summer or backfill Norwell's position more than likely.

Being able to come back up into RD3 with a 3rd option would benefit them to some degree I am sure. Maybe they find an undersized guy with top speed ability that they like at WR that's available between Calvin Austin, Danny Gray & Khalil Shakir. Maybe a guy like David Bell plummets because of his 40 time and he ends up being a damn good possession receiver that actually catches the football on 3rd downs. Sometimes guys just have "football" speed and that's all that matters. I don't need a 4.3 40 when I have a wide variety of cuts, dips and route running ability to make you miss in coverage by a yard or two.

If you draft Bell in RD3 and you get a Mohamed Sanu (4.67 40) or Muhsin Muhammad (4.64 40) type career out of him? I'll take it. I'll throw Dontario Drummond's name out there as well for the same reason cited above.

I would also be watching Jelani Woods and Greg Dulcich very, very closely at the TE position to see if I could get up and grab either one of them. Also, I am curious about Connor Heyward. The ultimate "tweener" at HB/TE because of his size but he has that NFL pedigree with his name. He would be somebody that could be there in RD6. BUT... maybe you find a unique role or package in particular with Pederson's offense and you can envision him being in a dual role with Robinson and Etienne in a variety of packages. I wouldn't mind him being a Jaguar.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

As it stands now, we have EIGHT (8) Day 3 picks at our disposal.  What follows are the # of picks we have in each round, and the numbers in parentheses represent what # pick overall it is, and the point value assigned to it by the Draftek Trade value chart. provided here https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value...stTeam=Jax


One in the 4th (#105/84 points)

One in the 5th (#157/27 points)

four (4) in the 6th :

(#179/18.2 points)
(#187/15)
(#197/11.4)
(#198/11)

and two in the 7th.

(#220/1.7)
(#233/1)



Per the Drafttek trade value chart the aggregate value of our picks is about 169 points, roughly a mid 3rd round pick, and our 4 6th round picks have a total value of 55 points, which is worth roughly a 4th round pick.

Given the odds of a player making a final roster, much less being a productive player, decrease dramatically as the draft progresses, given the depth of this draft at some positions, and the state of our roster, would you be willing to package those 6th round picks to get another 3rd or 4th round pick?

How many would you be willing to package?

How many Day 3 picks would be too many to trade away?  Is having more bites at the apple preferable to having a better bite at the apple?

Is there a certain player or position you would want to trade up for?

Would your answer change if the team traded back in earlier rounds?

As a rule, I don't like trading up. I'm more of a "trade back" type of guy. With that said, there are a few ILB's that I probably would trade up for. I don't like either of our current starting ILB's. Wilson just isn't very good and Jack doesn't fit the scheme and it's very obvious. This is not a deep draft for 3-4 ILB's. If we were to trade up for a guy like Chad Muma, Damone Clark, Christian Harris or Troy Andersen, I wouldn't be opposed at all. I believe we gotta get one of these guys, since premier guys like Devin Lloyd and Nakobe Dean will be gone in round 1. After pass rushing DE/OLB, I believe this is by far, our most pressing defensive need. I

As far as what I'd be willing to give up, it depends on how the board plays out to that point. If some really good WR's and TE's are falling further than projected and we already drafted a good WR early on, I might be willing to part with a couple of day 3 picks. If not, it may be one day 3 pick and a current player. I'm really hoping we deal Myles Jack either before the draft or during. I like him as a person and believe he really needs to go to a 4-3 team to get him back on track and we need two starting ILB's who can actually cover opposing TE's.

---

As it stands now, we have EIGHT (8) Day 3 picks at our disposal.  What follows are the # of picks we have in each round, and the numbers in parentheses represent what # pick overall it is, and the point value assigned to it by the Draftek Trade value chart. provided here https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value...stTeam=Jax


One in the 4th (#105/84 points)

One in the 5th (#157/27 points)

four (4) in the 6th :

(#179/18.2 points)
(#187/15)
(#197/11.4)
(#198/11)

and two in the 7th.

(#220/1.7)
(#233/1)



Per the Drafttek trade value chart the aggregate value of our picks is about 169 points, roughly a mid 3rd round pick, and our 4 6th round picks have a total value of 55 points, which is worth roughly a 4th round pick.

Given the odds of a player making a final roster, much less being a productive player, decrease dramatically as the draft progresses, given the depth of this draft at some positions, and the state of our roster, would you be willing to package those 6th round picks to get another 3rd or 4th round pick?

How many would you be willing to package?

How many Day 3 picks would be too many to trade away?  Is having more bites at the apple preferable to having a better bite at the apple?

Is there a certain player or position you would want to trade up for?

Would your answer change if the team traded back in earlier rounds?

As a rule, I don't like trading up. I'm more of a "trade back" type of guy. With that said, there are a few ILB's that I probably would trade up for. I don't like either of our current starting ILB's. Wilson just isn't very good and Jack doesn't fit the scheme and it's very obvious. This is not a deep draft for 3-4 ILB's. If we were to trade up for a guy like Chad Muma, Damone Clark, Christian Harris or Troy Andersen, I wouldn't be opposed at all. I believe we gotta get one of these guys, since premier guys like Devin Lloyd and Nakobe Dean will be gone in round 1. After pass rushing DE/OLB, I believe this is by far, our most pressing defensive need. I

As far as what I'd be willing to give up, it depends on how the board plays out to that point. If some really good WR's and TE's are falling further than projected and we already drafted a good WR early on, I might be willing to part with a couple of day 3 picks. If not, it may be one day 3 pick and a current player. I'm really hoping we deal Myles Jack either before the draft or during. I like him as a person and believe he really needs to go to a 4-3 team to get him back on track and we need two starting ILB's who can actually cover opposing TE's.

I'm not sure of what it would look like.  But I think the system needs to be tweaked if we can't find a way to maximize Myles Jack.  He's too good a talent to send packing just because you're trying to run your system as  D Coordinator.  I've wondered how he would be as a box safety in some packages.  I know he's a little thick to be a safety.  But he covers ok.  And I'd love to see him freed up to lay the wood on people.  He's had years he's been very good for us.  They just tried to miscast him as a MLB.  Maybe just a fantasy football type pipe dream.  But if we draft a big thumping 3/4 ILB, there's still plenty for Myles to do.

---

Fix the O-Line!

Been advocating the idea of not sitting on all of those selections in RD6. Just seems outlandish if they do so. I would personally be willing to part ways with ALL of them if it means moving back up into RD3 or early RD4 to secure a potential starter. There's a lot of talent in this year's class at WR and TE. If, for whatever reason, a run happens at WR on opening night, which, historically it does happen from time to time.

They're probably screwed on day two. Rather than reaching at the WR position with pick 33. They could opt out by selecting probably the best TE to help out in the passing game, or, a promising tackle or guard prospect in the event they go with Hutchinson or Thibodeaux on the opening night and want to add a competitive RT to breath on Taylor's neck this summer or backfill Norwell's position more than likely.

Being able to come back up into RD3 with a 3rd option would benefit them to some degree I am sure. Maybe they find an undersized guy with top speed ability that they like at WR that's available between Calvin Austin, Danny Gray & Khalil Shakir. Maybe a guy like David Bell plummets because of his 40 time and he ends up being a damn good possession receiver that actually catches the football on 3rd downs. Sometimes guys just have "football" speed and that's all that matters. I don't need a 4.3 40 when I have a wide variety of cuts, dips and route running ability to make you miss in coverage by a yard or two.

If you draft Bell in RD3 and you get a Mohamed Sanu (4.67 40) or Muhsin Muhammad (4.64 40) type career out of him? I'll take it. I'll throw Dontario Drummond's name out there as well for the same reason cited above.

I would also be watching Jelani Woods and Greg Dulcich very, very closely at the TE position to see if I could get up and grab either one of them. Also, I am curious about Connor Heyward. The ultimate "tweener" at HB/TE because of his size but he has that NFL pedigree with his name. He would be somebody that could be there in RD6. BUT... maybe you find a unique role or package in particular with Pederson's offense and you can envision him being in a dual role with Robinson and Etienne in a variety of packages. I wouldn't mind him being a Jaguar.

When I first read your post, my initial reaction was "Why would we have to reach for a WR at 33?"  But as I gave it some more thought, it made perfect sense as to why that may be an inssue, and was one of the reasons I made this post in the first place.

I'm not necessarily worried about getting an extra 3rd or 4th round pick, though if the draft played out well, I'd welcome the extra mid round pick.  My concern is the Jets.

I think before we get to 33, there are teams ahead of us in rhe bottom of the first round that could use a WR.

I'm thinking:

18.  New Orleans
19. Philadelphia
21.  New England
22. Las Vegas
23.  Arizona
24.  Dallas
25.  Buffalo
27.  Tampa
28. GB
29.  Miami
30.  Kansas City


If OL is still a need at 33, then these teams could be included:


18.  New Orleans
20.  Pittsburgh
24.  Dallas
25.  Buffahole
27.  Tampa
29.  Miami
31.  Cincinnati
32.  Detroit

As you can see, there are plenty of pentital suitors for guys we may be after at those two positions.  I'm sure we could come up with other teams for other positions as well.

But the Jets pose a different problem.  They drafted right behind us last year and took their franchise signal caller right after we did.  Both of us were at the bottom of the league record wise, and we have many of the same needs-nameley the need to put good pieces around our QB.  But the Jets have two high second round picks at 35 and 38...and that's after having two first round picks in the top ten (4 & 10).

They have the ammunition to move up ahead of us and snatch a guy we may be targeting.

I want to be able to move up back into the bottom of the first round, if necessary, to get our guy.  I don't want the Jets (or anyone else) controlling our board at the top on the 2nd round.

---

As it stands now, we have EIGHT (8) Day 3 picks at our disposal.  What follows are the # of picks we have in each round, and the numbers in parentheses represent what # pick overall it is, and the point value assigned to it by the Draftek Trade value chart. provided here https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value...stTeam=Jax


One in the 4th (#105/84 points)

One in the 5th (#157/27 points)

four (4) in the 6th :

(#179/18.2 points)
(#187/15)
(#197/11.4)
(#198/11)

and two in the 7th.

(#220/1.7)
(#233/1)



Per the Drafttek trade value chart the aggregate value of our picks is about 169 points, roughly a mid 3rd round pick, and our 4 6th round picks have a total value of 55 points, which is worth roughly a 4th round pick.

Given the odds of a player making a final roster, much less being a productive player, decrease dramatically as the draft progresses, given the depth of this draft at some positions, and the state of our roster, would you be willing to package those 6th round picks to get another 3rd or 4th round pick?

How many would you be willing to package?

How many Day 3 picks would be too many to trade away?  Is having more bites at the apple preferable to having a better bite at the apple?

Is there a certain player or position you would want to trade up for?

Would your answer change if the team traded back in earlier rounds?

As a rule, I don't like trading up. I'm more of a "trade back" type of guy. With that said, there are a few ILB's that I probably would trade up for. I don't like either of our current starting ILB's. Wilson just isn't very good and Jack doesn't fit the scheme and it's very obvious. This is not a deep draft for 3-4 ILB's. If we were to trade up for a guy like Chad Muma, Damone Clark, Christian Harris or Troy Andersen, I wouldn't be opposed at all. I believe we gotta get one of these guys, since premier guys like Devin Lloyd and Nakobe Dean will be gone in round 1. After pass rushing DE/OLB, I believe this is by far, our most pressing defensive need. I

As far as what I'd be willing to give up, it depends on how the board plays out to that point. If some really good WR's and TE's are falling further than projected and we already drafted a good WR early on, I might be willing to part with a couple of day 3 picks. If not, it may be one day 3 pick and a current player. I'm really hoping we deal Myles Jack either before the draft or during. I like him as a person and believe he really needs to go to a 4-3 team to get him back on track and we need two starting ILB's who can actually cover opposing TE's.

I think I might include S in that list of pressing defensive needs.  I can't stomach the idea of Wingard starting again this yearthis year, and Jenkins doesn't make me feel much better.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

As a rule, I don't like trading up. I'm more of a "trade back" type of guy. With that said, there are a few ILB's that I probably would trade up for. I don't like either of our current starting ILB's. Wilson just isn't very good and Jack doesn't fit the scheme and it's very obvious. This is not a deep draft for 3-4 ILB's. If we were to trade up for a guy like Chad Muma, Damone Clark, Christian Harris or Troy Andersen, I wouldn't be opposed at all. I believe we gotta get one of these guys, since premier guys like Devin Lloyd and Nakobe Dean will be gone in round 1. After pass rushing DE/OLB, I believe this is by far, our most pressing defensive need. I

As far as what I'd be willing to give up, it depends on how the board plays out to that point. If some really good WR's and TE's are falling further than projected and we already drafted a good WR early on, I might be willing to part with a couple of day 3 picks. If not, it may be one day 3 pick and a current player. I'm really hoping we deal Myles Jack either before the draft or during. I like him as a person and believe he really needs to go to a 4-3 team to get him back on track and we need two starting ILB's who can actually cover opposing TE's.

I'm not sure of what it would look like.  But I think the system needs to be tweaked if we can't find a way to maximize Myles Jack.  He's too good a talent to send packing just because you're trying to run your system as  D Coordinator.  I've wondered how he would be as a box safety in some packages.  I know he's a little thick to be a safety.  But he covers ok.  And I'd love to see him freed up to lay the wood on people.  He's had years he's been very good for us.  They just tried to miscast him as a MLB.  Maybe just a fantasy football type pipe dream.  But if we draft a big thumping 3/4 ILB, there's still plenty for Myles to do.

His coverage ability is nowhere close to being what it used to be. He did have good years for us, but that was when he was a 4-3 OLB. You can't really change your system to benefit one player unless that player is truly elite. Jack was good, but even in his prime and it the right scheme, he wasn't elite. Why not get something for him and get players who will actually thrive in our current system?

---

When drafting in the late rounds, I need to know which 53 man roster spot they are filling.  If the player can't make the team, he is worthless to us.  Using your terminology, I'm definitely one who prefers a better bite at the apple versus two bites.  If you know that you only have 1 roster spot left for a specific position and you have two sixth rounders, I try to trade the two picks for one fifth rounder.  If not, what happens?  You cut one of the sixth rounders and you are left with a sixth round talent.  With the trade, you would have a fifth round talent on the roster.

I don't see six late round picks making our roster.  How many will have a realistic shot is hard to know prior to free agency.  If I had to guess, maybe three.  For the others, I would do one of the following (listed in order of preference):

1. Trade for a veteran.  We have plenty of salary cap room.  Some teams (such as New Orleans) do not.  If it makes sense, I would rather have a veteran who can make the team versus a rookie who cannot.
   
2. Use to trade up.  Prior to the draft, this is hard to be specific as we don't know how the draft will fall and we don't what trades teams ahead of us will be willing to take.  The bad news is that late round picks don't have much value and other teams know it.  However, they sometimes can be used to "leap frog" when a quality player at a position of need falls and we are worried a team right in front of us might take him.
   
3. Trade for future picks.  Typically you can trade a pick in the current draft for one round higher in the next year's draft.  If a seventh rounder isn't going to make this year's team anyway, why not trade it for a sixth rounder next  year when we might need it?  Currently, I believe our only extra pick in next year's draft is one fifth rounder.  We might need more depth next year.
   
4. Swing for the fences.  Sometimes a pick who has higher talent falls because they are seen as risky for some reasons (maybe a major injury, etc.)  If a safe pick won't make our team anyway, I would rather roll the dice and take a chance on someone who might.
   
5. Two bites at the apple.  I guess if all fails, you take two people at the same position and see who is better.  I don't like it, but if it's your last resort, it's your last resort.  Maybe the one who is drafted second is better than the one drafted first.  Injuries might happen to people above them on the depth chart and both make the team.  Maybe you can sneak one onto the practice squad.  However, to me, it just doesn't feel like we are playing the odds here.
   

---

Been advocating the idea of not sitting on all of those selections in RD6. Just seems outlandish if they do so. I would personally be willing to part ways with ALL of them if it means moving back up into RD3 or early RD4 to secure a potential starter. There's a lot of talent in this year's class at WR and TE. If, for whatever reason, a run happens at WR on opening night, which, historically it does happen from time to time.

They're probably screwed on day two. Rather than reaching at the WR position with pick 33. They could opt out by selecting probably the best TE to help out in the passing game, or, a promising tackle or guard prospect in the event they go with Hutchinson or Thibodeaux on the opening night and want to add a competitive RT to breath on Taylor's neck this summer or backfill Norwell's position more than likely.

Being able to come back up into RD3 with a 3rd option would benefit them to some degree I am sure. Maybe they find an undersized guy with top speed ability that they like at WR that's available between Calvin Austin, Danny Gray & Khalil Shakir. Maybe a guy like David Bell plummets because of his 40 time and he ends up being a damn good possession receiver that actually catches the football on 3rd downs. Sometimes guys just have "football" speed and that's all that matters. I don't need a 4.3 40 when I have a wide variety of cuts, dips and route running ability to make you miss in coverage by a yard or two.

If you draft Bell in RD3 and you get a Mohamed Sanu (4.67 40) or Muhsin Muhammad (4.64 40) type career out of him? I'll take it. I'll throw Dontario Drummond's name out there as well for the same reason cited above.

I would also be watching Jelani Woods and Greg Dulcich very, very closely at the TE position to see if I could get up and grab either one of them. Also, I am curious about Connor Heyward. The ultimate "tweener" at HB/TE because of his size but he has that NFL pedigree with his name. He would be somebody that could be there in RD6. BUT... maybe you find a unique role or package in particular with Pederson's offense and you can envision him being in a dual role with Robinson and Etienne in a variety of packages. I wouldn't mind him being a Jaguar.

When I first read your post, my initial reaction was "Why would we have to reach for a WR at 33?"  But as I gave it some more thought, it made perfect sense as to why that may be an inssue, and was one of the reasons I made this post in the first place.

I'm not necessarily worried about getting an extra 3rd or 4th round pick, though if the draft played out well, I'd welcome the extra mid round pick.  My concern is the Jets.

I think before we get to 33, there are teams ahead of us in rhe bottom of the first round that could use a WR.

I'm thinking:

18.  New Orleans
19. Philadelphia
21.  New England
22. Las Vegas
23.  Arizona
24.  Dallas
25.  Buffalo
27.  Tampa
28. GB
29.  Miami
30.  Kansas City


If OL is still a need at 33, then these teams could be included:


18.  New Orleans
20.  Pittsburgh
24.  Dallas
25.  Buffahole
27.  Tampa
29.  Miami
31.  Cincinnati
32.  Detroit

As you can see, there are plenty of pentital suitors for guys we may be after at those two positions.  I'm sure we could come up with other teams for other positions as well.

But the Jets pose a different problem.  They drafted right behind us last year and took their franchise signal caller right after we did.  Both of us were at the bottom of the league record wise, and we have many of the same needs-nameley the need to put good pieces around our QB.  But the Jets have two high second round picks at 35 and 38...and that's after having two first round picks in the top ten (4 & 10).

They have the ammunition to move up ahead of us and snatch a guy we may be targeting.

I want to be able to move up back into the bottom of the first round, if necessary, to get our guy.  I don't want the Jets (or anyone else) controlling our board at the top on the 2nd round.

---

As a rule, I don't like trading up. I'm more of a "trade back" type of guy. With that said, there are a few ILB's that I probably would trade up for. I don't like either of our current starting ILB's. Wilson just isn't very good and Jack doesn't fit the scheme and it's very obvious. This is not a deep draft for 3-4 ILB's. If we were to trade up for a guy like Chad Muma, Damone Clark, Christian Harris or Troy Andersen, I wouldn't be opposed at all. I believe we gotta get one of these guys, since premier guys like Devin Lloyd and Nakobe Dean will be gone in round 1. After pass rushing DE/OLB, I believe this is by far, our most pressing defensive need. I

As far as what I'd be willing to give up, it depends on how the board plays out to that point. If some really good WR's and TE's are falling further than projected and we already drafted a good WR early on, I might be willing to part with a couple of day 3 picks. If not, it may be one day 3 pick and a current player. I'm really hoping we deal Myles Jack either before the draft or during. I like him as a person and believe he really needs to go to a 4-3 team to get him back on track and we need two starting ILB's who can actually cover opposing TE's.

I think I might include S in that list of pressing defensive needs.  I can't stomach the idea of Wingard starting again this yearthis year, and Jenkins doesn't make me feel much better.

I totally agree. I believe Safety is a definite need, I just think ILB is a more urgent need. I really liked what I saw from the very limited playing time Andre Cisco got. Why he was playing behind Andrew Wingard is a testimony to the total incompetence of the last coaching staff. I think once he gets a chance to show the new staff what he can do, I believe he will be a starter. As far as Rashawn Jenkins, I'm with you. Unfortunately, he was one of those 3rd tier players that we drastically over-payed for. He is making almost $10 million this year and his cap hit is $13 million in dead money if we cut him. We're probably stuck with him for another year. Hopefully by having Cisco out there with him instead of Wingard, he will look a little better. He certainly didn't play up to his contract last season.

---

When drafting in the late rounds, I need to know which 53 man roster spot they are filling.  If the player can't make the team, he is worthless to us.  Using your terminology, I'm definitely one who prefers a better bite at the apple versus two bites.  If you know that you only have 1 roster spot left for a specific position and you have two sixth rounders, I try to trade the two picks for one fifth rounder.  If not, what happens?  You cut one of the sixth rounders and you are left with a sixth round talent.  With the trade, you would have a fifth round talent on the roster.

I don't see six late round picks making our roster.  How many will have a realistic shot is hard to know prior to free agency.  If I had to guess, maybe three.  For the others, I would do one of the following (listed in order of preference):

1. Trade for a veteran.  We have plenty of salary cap room.  Some teams (such as New Orleans) do not.  If it makes sense, I would rather have a veteran who can make the team versus a rookie who cannot.
   
2. Use to trade up.  Prior to the draft, this is hard to be specific as we don't know how the draft will fall and we don't what trades teams ahead of us will be willing to take.  The bad news is that late round picks don't have much value and other teams know it.  However, they sometimes can be used to "leap frog" when a quality player at a position of need falls and we are worried a team right in front of us might take him.
   
3. Trade for future picks.  Typically you can trade a pick in the current draft for one round higher in the next year's draft.  If a seventh rounder isn't going to make this year's team anyway, why not trade it for a sixth rounder next  year when we might need it?  Currently, I believe our only extra pick in next year's draft is one fifth rounder.  We might need more depth next year.
   
4. Swing for the fences.  Sometimes a pick who has higher talent falls because they are seen as risky for some reasons (maybe a major injury, etc.)  If a safe pick won't make our team anyway, I would rather roll the dice and take a chance on someone who might.
   
5. Two bites at the apple.  I guess if all fails, you take two people at the same position and see who is better.  I don't like it, but if it's your last resort, it's your last resort.  Maybe the one who is drafted second is better than the one drafted first.  Injuries might happen to people above them on the depth chart and both make the team.  Maybe you can sneak one onto the practice squad.  However, to me, it just doesn't feel like we are playing the odds here.
   

Great post.

My only possible quibble is I might flip #1 and #2 on the priority list.

Well done!

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I posted an article a few years ago charting hits rates by draft pick, and for some reason it really falls off a cliff pretty predictably around the 115 range every year.

I would trade every pick after that to get as many picks above that threshold, or to upgrade the picks we already have above that.

If we could package 65 with a 6th to get to 59, I'm doing it. If we can package 70 with a 5th to get to 61, all day long. If we can package 2 of them to get from 102 to 80, heck yeah.

Also, very much yes to trading day 3 picks for proven players. The Ravens have been doing a clinic on that for years.

---

Been advocating the idea of not sitting on all of those selections in RD6. Just seems outlandish if they do so. I would personally be willing to part ways with ALL of them if it means moving back up into RD3 or early RD4 to secure a potential starter. There's a lot of talent in this year's class at WR and TE. If, for whatever reason, a run happens at WR on opening night, which, historically it does happen from time to time.

They're probably screwed on day two. Rather than reaching at the WR position with pick 33. They could opt out by selecting probably the best TE to help out in the passing game, or, a promising tackle or guard prospect in the event they go with Hutchinson or Thibodeaux on the opening night and want to add a competitive RT to breath on Taylor's neck this summer or backfill Norwell's position more than likely.

Being able to come back up into RD3 with a 3rd option would benefit them to some degree I am sure. Maybe they find an undersized guy with top speed ability that they like at WR that's available between Calvin Austin, Danny Gray & Khalil Shakir. Maybe a guy like David Bell plummets because of his 40 time and he ends up being a damn good possession receiver that actually catches the football on 3rd downs. Sometimes guys just have "football" speed and that's all that matters. I don't need a 4.3 40 when I have a wide variety of cuts, dips and route running ability to make you miss in coverage by a yard or two.

If you draft Bell in RD3 and you get a Mohamed Sanu (4.67 40) or Muhsin Muhammad (4.64 40) type career out of him? I'll take it. I'll throw Dontario Drummond's name out there as well for the same reason cited above.

I would also be watching Jelani Woods and Greg Dulcich very, very closely at the TE position to see if I could get up and grab either one of them. Also, I am curious about Connor Heyward. The ultimate "tweener" at HB/TE because of his size but he has that NFL pedigree with his name. He would be somebody that could be there in RD6. BUT... maybe you find a unique role or package in particular with Pederson's offense and you can envision him being in a dual role with Robinson and Etienne in a variety of packages. I wouldn't mind him being a Jaguar.

When I first read your post, my initial reaction was "Why would we have to reach for a WR at 33?"  But as I gave it some more thought, it made perfect sense as to why that may be an inssue, and was one of the reasons I made this post in the first place.

I'm not necessarily worried about getting an extra 3rd or 4th round pick, though if the draft played out well, I'd welcome the extra mid round pick.  My concern is the Jets.

I think before we get to 33, there are teams ahead of us in rhe bottom of the first round that could use a WR.

I'm thinking:

18.  New Orleans
19. Philadelphia
21.  New England
22. Las Vegas
23.  Arizona
24.  Dallas
25.  Buffalo
27.  Tampa
28. GB
29.  Miami
30.  Kansas City


If OL is still a need at 33, then these teams could be included:


18.  New Orleans
20.  Pittsburgh
24.  Dallas
25.  Buffahole
27.  Tampa
29.  Miami
31.  Cincinnati
32.  Detroit

As you can see, there are plenty of pentital suitors for guys we may be after at those two positions.  I'm sure we could come up with other teams for other positions as well.

But the Jets pose a different problem.  They drafted right behind us last year and took their franchise signal caller right after we did.  Both of us were at the bottom of the league record wise, and we have many of the same needs-nameley the need to put good pieces around our QB.  But the Jets have two high second round picks at 35 and 38...and that's after having two first round picks in the top ten (4 & 10).

They have the ammunition to move up ahead of us and snatch a guy we may be targeting.

I want to be able to move up back into the bottom of the first round, if necessary, to get our guy.  I don't want the Jets (or anyone else) controlling our board at the top on the 2nd round.

---

As a rule, I don't like trading up. I'm more of a "trade back" type of guy. With that said, there are a few ILB's that I probably would trade up for. I don't like either of our current starting ILB's. Wilson just isn't very good and Jack doesn't fit the scheme and it's very obvious. This is not a deep draft for 3-4 ILB's. If we were to trade up for a guy like Chad Muma, Damone Clark, Christian Harris or Troy Andersen, I wouldn't be opposed at all. I believe we gotta get one of these guys, since premier guys like Devin Lloyd and Nakobe Dean will be gone in round 1. After pass rushing DE/OLB, I believe this is by far, our most pressing defensive need. I

As far as what I'd be willing to give up, it depends on how the board plays out to that point. If some really good WR's and TE's are falling further than projected and we already drafted a good WR early on, I might be willing to part with a couple of day 3 picks. If not, it may be one day 3 pick and a current player. I'm really hoping we deal Myles Jack either before the draft or during. I like him as a person and believe he really needs to go to a 4-3 team to get him back on track and we need two starting ILB's who can actually cover opposing TE's.

I think I might include S in that list of pressing defensive needs.  I can't stomach the idea of Wingard starting again this yearthis year, and Jenkins doesn't make me feel much better.

With the exception of quarterback and something special teams (punter, etc.), I think safety may be the position group that we are most likely to return with the exact same players as last year.  Jenkins was just signed last year.  He would cost us more to cut than to keep.  He'll return as a starter.  I think Cisco is given the chance to start at the other spot.  Ford is a good special teams player and also has versatility including playing nickel.  Daniel Thomas is inexpensive depth being still on a rookie deal.  The one player in doubt would be Wingard.  He's a restricted free agent, so we can pretty much have him back if we want.  I'm no fan of Wingard, but I think there is a decent chance he returns as well.  He plays special teams and would also provide depth and also a fall back option if Cisco were to struggle.  I'm not saying we couldn't upgrade safety, but I see other needs being more pressing.

---

As it stands now, we have EIGHT (8) Day 3 picks at our disposal.  What follows are the # of picks we have in each round, and the numbers in parentheses represent what # pick overall it is, and the point value assigned to it by the Draftek Trade value chart. provided here https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value...stTeam=Jax


One in the 4th (#105/84 points)

One in the 5th (#157/27 points)

four (4) in the 6th :

(#179/18.2 points)
(#187/15)
(#197/11.4)
(#198/11)

and two in the 7th.

(#220/1.7)
(#233/1)



Per the Drafttek trade value chart the aggregate value of our picks is about 169 points, roughly a mid 3rd round pick, and our 4 6th round picks have a total value of 55 points, which is worth roughly a 4th round pick.

Given the odds of a player making a final roster, much less being a productive player, decrease dramatically as the draft progresses, given the depth of this draft at some positions, and the state of our roster, would you be willing to package those 6th round picks to get another 3rd or 4th round pick?

How many would you be willing to package?

How many Day 3 picks would be too many to trade away?  Is having more bites at the apple preferable to having a better bite at the apple?

Is there a certain player or position you would want to trade up for?

Would your answer change if the team traded back in earlier rounds?

I could see us combining several of the 6th/7th picks with the fourth or fifth to move that pick around to fit someone we target.

I  don't think any team is going to trade a fourth for 3 sixths, as proposed here. Having those extra picks will allow us to pursue specific players if we wish, or if we're filling our roster without moving, we have the luxury of trading them for future late picks and having the same benefit next darft.

---

As it stands now, we have EIGHT (8) Day 3 picks at our disposal.  What follows are the # of picks we have in each round, and the numbers in parentheses represent what # pick overall it is, and the point value assigned to it by the Draftek Trade value chart. provided here https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value...stTeam=Jax


One in the 4th (#105/84 points)

One in the 5th (#157/27 points)

four (4) in the 6th :

(#179/18.2 points)
(#187/15)
(#197/11.4)
(#198/11)

and two in the 7th.

(#220/1.7)
(#233/1)



Per the Drafttek trade value chart the aggregate value of our picks is about 169 points, roughly a mid 3rd round pick, and our 4 6th round picks have a total value of 55 points, which is worth roughly a 4th round pick.

Given the odds of a player making a final roster, much less being a productive player, decrease dramatically as the draft progresses, given the depth of this draft at some positions, and the state of our roster, would you be willing to package those 6th round picks to get another 3rd or 4th round pick?

How many would you be willing to package?

How many Day 3 picks would be too many to trade away?  Is having more bites at the apple preferable to having a better bite at the apple?

Is there a certain player or position you would want to trade up for?

Would your answer change if the team traded back in earlier rounds?

I could see us combining several of the 6th/7th picks with the fourth or fifth to move that pick around to fit someone we target.

I  don't think any team is going to trade a fourth for 3 sixths, as proposed here. Having those extra picks will allow us to pursue specific players if we wish, or if we're filling our roster without moving, we have the luxury of trading them for future late picks and having the same benefit next darft.

So you wouldn't package all of those picks in one big trade, but may use them in packages of smaller moves up....like from the 3rd round back up into the bottom of the 2nd round?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I could see us combining several of the 6th/7th picks with the fourth or fifth to move that pick around to fit someone we target.

I  don't think any team is going to trade a fourth for 3 sixths, as proposed here. Having those extra picks will allow us to pursue specific players if we wish, or if we're filling our roster without moving, we have the luxury of trading them for future late picks and having the same benefit next darft.

So you wouldn't package all of those picks in one big trade, but may use them in packages of smaller moves up....like from the 3rd round back up into the bottom of the 2nd round?

I mean, if I could, I sure would. Which GM is gonna be drunk enough to trade a fourth for three sixths or two sixths and two sevenths?

---