Quote:Pick #3 --> Pick #12 netted a 2nd rounder last year. Pick #3 --> Pick #16 might net an extra 3rd rounder. Maybe a little more if the team is desperate... Certainly not an extra 1st rounder.
I get your argument here.
I would counter that by all accounts, the talent at the top of this draft is far better than that of last year's, making the value of pick 3 this year greater than pick 3 last year.
Last year, #3 for #12 and #42 was 2200 points vs 1480 points, the difference of another 1st rounder in the 20s.
The previous year might be the best indicator. In 2012, Dallas moved up to #6 for #14 and #45.
You MIGHT be able to get #16, #47, and next year's 1st MAYBE. I'd say its unlikely, but a possibility. You're definitely not getting #16, #47, #78, a 2015 1st and Tony Romo. No way.
Quote:I get your argument here.
I would counter that by all accounts, the talent at the top of this draft is far better than that of last year's, making the value of pick 3 this year greater than pick 3 last year.
And I would counter by saying everyone had Dion Jordan as a top 5 pick last year and many have Manziel as the 3rd or 4th quarterback this year.
Quote:And I would counter by saying everyone had Dion Jordan as a top 5 pick last year and many have Manziel as the 3rd or 4th quarterback this year.
But that's the point. A top 5 pick last year wouldn't be a top 5 this year. Certainly not Jordan.
Jordan wouldn't be a top 10-15 pick this year.
lol, you guys are missing the point.
If teams like Dallas(Eagles, 49ers come draft day maybe?) are actually looking to trade up to our spot for a guy that is about to just fall in our lap at #3, because they think he's worth that much, perhaps instead of just taking the best offer, we should take THAT guy at 3 that all these much bigger and better teams are willing to bend over backwards for.
I remember hearing this great story Holmgren told few years ago, about of how the Browns under his leadership were actually pretty darn serious about trading ALL their picks in every round that year to the Colts in order to grab Luck at #1. Even if it were said in jest, surely the Colts would do so right? No. Holmgren jokes he was turned down when he mentioned it. His offer only proved to the colts just how valuable a guy like Luck really was. Same deal here.
Quote:lol, you guys are missing the point.
If teams like Dallas(Eagles, 49ers come draft day maybe?) are actually looking to trade up to our spot for a guy that is about to just fall in our lap at #3, because they think he's worth that much, perhaps instead of just taking the best offer, we should take THAT guy at 3 that all these much bigger and better teams are willing to bend over backwards for.
I remember hearing this great story Holmgren told few years ago, about of how the Browns under his leadership were actually pretty darn serious about trading ALL their picks in every round that year to the Colts in order to grab Luck at #1. Even if it were said in jest, surely the Colts would do so right? No. Holmgren jokes he was turned down when he mentioned it. His offer only proved to the colts just how valuable a guy like Luck really was. Same deal here.
Not that I am a huge Manziel fan, but there is some merit to the above. Quantity isn't always a substitute for quality.
If there is a star caliber player on the board when we pick...and he is a scheme fit...take him.
Quote:lol, you guys are missing the point.
If teams like Dallas(Eagles, 49ers come draft day maybe?) are actually looking to trade up to our spot for a guy that is about to just fall in our lap at #3, because they think he's worth that much, perhaps instead of just taking the best offer, we should take THAT guy at 3 that all these much bigger and better teams are willing to bend over backwards for.
I remember hearing this great story Holmgren told few years ago, about of how the Browns under his leadership were actually pretty darn serious about trading ALL their picks in every round that year to the Colts in order to grab Luck at #1. Even if it were said in jest, surely the Colts would do so right? No. Holmgren jokes he was turned down when he mentioned it. His offer only proved to the colts just how valuable a guy like Luck really was. Same deal here.
Redskins gave up the farm for RG3, was that worth it? I'd say probably not, as of now anyway. Just because one team is willing to give up that much, doesn't mean he will pan out.
Quote:Redskins gave up the farm for RG3, was that worth it? I'd say probably not, as of now anyway. Just because one team is willing to give up that much, doesn't mean he will pan out.
I dunno...I guess it depends what Rams do this year. But take all the players they got and will get out of that deal, and ask yourself, would you take all them or a healthy RG3? I dunno, I could still see the winner of that deal going either way, when we look back at it in 10-years.
I just had a daydream that made me feel all warm inside:
Dallas trades us a Redskins/RG3 type coup to draft Football, J.
Jags find their franchise QB in the 2nd-3rd round this year.
Dallas Sucks for the foreseeable future.
Jaguars have two firsts for the next couple (few?) Years.
Ppppplllllleeeeeaaaasssseeeeeeee!!!!!!
Quote:lol, you guys are missing the point.
If teams like Dallas(Eagles, 49ers come draft day maybe?) are actually looking to trade up to our spot for a guy that is about to just fall in our lap at #3, because they think he's worth that much, perhaps instead of just taking the best offer, we should take THAT guy at 3 that all these much bigger and better teams are willing to bend over backwards for.
I remember hearing this great story Holmgren told few years ago, about of how the Browns under his leadership were actually pretty darn serious about trading ALL their picks in every round that year to the Colts in order to grab Luck at #1. Even if it were said in jest, surely the Colts would do so right? No. Holmgren jokes he was turned down when he mentioned it. His offer only proved to the colts just how valuable a guy like Luck really was. Same deal here.
For your thought above to be grounded in reality, we'd have to assume that all scouting departments are equal and that a player's projected value is 100% accurate. To carry it further, why would anyone ever trade picks if your above statement is true? Oh if only you could have been the GM for Baltimore when we were trying to go up to get Harvey or if you could have been the GM of Dallas a few years ago when we were trying to go up to get Gabbert. You would have told us "no way" and instead taken those players for yourself, right?
Quote:For your thought above to be grounded in reality, we'd have to assume that all scouting departments are equal and that a player's projected value is 100% accurate. To carry it further, why would anyone ever trade picks if your above statement is true? Oh if only you could have been the GM for Baltimore when we were trying to go up to get Harvey or if you could have been the GM of Dallas a few years ago when we were trying to go up to get Gabbert. You would have told us "no way" and instead taken those players for yourself, right?
1. We traded with Washington to get Gabbert, not Dallas.
2. The decision to trade down should take the available talent into consideration. Do you think New England would rather have Jerry Rice, or the two picks they got in trade from San Francisco? Do you think Pittsburgh preferred Eric Green and the 4th round pick they got from Dallas in 1990 for Emmitt Smith? The Colts wound up trading away Elway when he refused to play for them. They even wound up with extra picks and good players. Do you think they wanted the extra players, or Elway? The night before the draft, Jimmy Johnson and Miami traded down in the 1998 draft from pick 19-29 and got extra picks from the Packers, missing out on Randy Moss, who went 21st overall to the Vikings.
Sometimes the extra picks are not worth what you give up when star caliber talent is on the board.
In 9 days, we are going to look back at this thread and laugh.
Quote:I dunno...I guess it depends what Rams do this year. But take all the players they got and will get out of that deal, and ask yourself, would you take all them or a healthy RG3? I dunno, I could still see the winner of that deal going either way, when we look back at it in 10-years.
That part isn't really relevant. If they squandered those picks then that's their own fault and does not make the deal any less valuable.
Quote:The idea is that he would upgrade Henne while we develop a starter in waiting
Uhhhh not for that contract...
Quote:lol, you guys are missing the point.
If teams like Dallas(Eagles, 49ers come draft day maybe?) are actually looking to trade up to our spot for a guy that is about to just fall in our lap at #3, because they think he's worth that much, perhaps instead of just taking the best offer, we should take THAT guy at 3 that all these much bigger and better teams are willing to bend over backwards for.
I remember hearing this great story Holmgren told few years ago, about of how the Browns under his leadership were actually pretty darn serious about trading ALL their picks in every round that year to the Colts in order to grab Luck at #1. Even if it were said in jest, surely the Colts would do so right? No. Holmgren jokes he was turned down when he mentioned it. His offer only proved to the colts just how valuable a guy like Luck really was. Same deal here.
I remember Caldwell explaining his second round pick last year. Cyprien had a first round grade but fell to the second. Caldwell said he fielded a lot of offers to trade out of that spot but decided on taking Cyp instead of taking any trade.
If the cowboys want the #3 pick to get him, give me there 1st this year, 1st next year, a 2nd round pick this season and a 2nd round pick next season.
Quote:Uhhhh not for that contract...
Oh, sorry I forgot we were strapped for cash.
Quote:Oh, sorry I forgot we were strapped for cash.
Yeah so that means trade for one of the worst contracts in the league. BRILLANT!
Quote:1. We traded with Washington to get Gabbert, not Dallas.
2. The decision to trade down should take the available talent into consideration. Do you think New England would rather have Jerry Rice, or the two picks they got in trade from San Francisco? Do you think Pittsburgh preferred Eric Green and the 4th round pick they got from Dallas in 1990 for Emmitt Smith? The Colts wound up trading away Elway when he refused to play for them. They even wound up with extra picks and good players. Do you think they wanted the extra players, or Elway? The night before the draft, Jimmy Johnson and Miami traded down in the 1998 draft from pick 19-29 and got extra picks from the Packers, missing out on Randy Moss, who went 21st overall to the Vikings.
Sometimes the extra picks are not worth what you give up when star caliber talent is on the board.
Ah yes, Washington. I remember now. I was gravitating to Dallas' pick before that where they were taking forever to select and the speculation was that they were on the phone with someone. Probably us. Maybe that was even confirmed that it was us? I guess we can count our blessings a little that we didn't give up even more to move up the one extra spot. Not that it matters now with the complete gutting of the roster last year.
I'm not sure JohnnyJaguar's original post that I responded to is defensible. He said that if someone is willing to move up to your spot for a guy, that the guy is likely worth it and that you shouldn't do the trade. As if you should just throw your own scouting out the window because someone wants your spot. You've given great examples above of it working out for the team that trades up, but you're actually proving my point. Teams have differing grades on players. Scouting is inexact. To give more credibility to someone else's opinion of a guy than your own on draft day after you've supposedly done your due diligence is ludicrous. You can say you want Manziel or Bridgewater or whoever because you believe they grade out higher than the other options or their value as a player is greater than what's being offered in trade and you might even be right. However, to say you should take one of these QBs BECAUSE someone is willing to trade up to get them is laughable.
Quote:I remember Caldwell explaining his second round pick last year. Cyprien had a first round grade but fell to the second. Caldwell said he fielded a lot of offers to trade out of that spot but decided on taking Cyp instead of taking any trade.
yeah sometimes you actually have to take a player instead of trading or moving around and stock piling potential or lower level players. you can have a whole team of 4th rounders if you want. not going to win games that way.