(05-01-2022, 04:26 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2022, 03:51 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote: [ -> ]The net result is the Jaguars traded two mid 6th round picks and a mid 7th round pick for a future 4th round pick. I like it. Quality over quantity. We'll like having that pick next year. Besides, if we had kept those late round picks, we very well might have used them on players such as Kevin Austin, Andrew Mevis and Nick Ford who we ended up getting in UDFA anyway.
One thing that wasn't mentioned is that this draft was considerably deeper than most. Because of covid giving players an optional extra season there were 1600 entrants into this draft, the normal draft usually has about 1200.
A 15 spot move up in a draft that has 400 fewer players probably puts us in about the same spot depth wise, and we're waiting a year later and gave up a 7th to boot.
So now we're sad that we didn't draft older guys that are likely middling talent?
The horrors.
Next year we have some extra tools to do exactly what we did this year - find talent at the top that we want and move to where they fit. How is that so awful? You'd rather a few practice squad/special teams contributors over the chance to move up and get a potential starter at a position of need?
This is such a short-sighted hill to die upon.
(05-02-2022, 09:10 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2022, 04:26 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]One thing that wasn't mentioned is that this draft was considerably deeper than most. Because of covid giving players an optional extra season there were 1600 entrants into this draft, the normal draft usually has about 1200.
A 15 spot move up in a draft that has 400 fewer players probably puts us in about the same spot depth wise, and we're waiting a year later and gave up a 7th to boot.
So now we're sad that we didn't draft older guys that are likely middling talent?
The horrors.
Next year we have some extra tools to do exactly what we did this year - find talent at the top that we want and move to where they fit. How is that so awful? You'd rather a few practice squad/special teams contributors over the chance to move up and get a potential starter at a position of need?
This is such a short-sighted hill to die upon.
Not to mention next year's draft is just a better draft in general
(05-02-2022, 09:14 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2022, 09:10 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]So now we're sad that we didn't draft older guys that are likely middling talent?
The horrors.
Next year we have some extra tools to do exactly what we did this year - find talent at the top that we want and move to where they fit. How is that so awful? You'd rather a few practice squad/special teams contributors over the chance to move up and get a potential starter at a position of need?
This is such a short-sighted hill to die upon.
Not to mention next year's draft is just a better draft in general
@that all depends on who we don't pick@
(05-02-2022, 09:10 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2022, 04:26 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]One thing that wasn't mentioned is that this draft was considerably deeper than most. Because of covid giving players an optional extra season there were 1600 entrants into this draft, the normal draft usually has about 1200.
A 15 spot move up in a draft that has 400 fewer players probably puts us in about the same spot depth wise, and we're waiting a year later and gave up a 7th to boot.
So now we're sad that we didn't draft older guys that are likely middling talent?
The horrors.
Next year we have some extra tools to do exactly what we did this year - find talent at the top that we want and move to where they fit. How is that so awful? You'd rather a few practice squad/special teams contributors over the chance to move up and get a potential starter at a position of need?
This is such a short-sighted hill to die upon.
I very much like the process of trading day 3 picks to move up in future drafts, but we should have gotten a significantly better pick than we did. That's all. Also, pretty sure I never said I was dying on this hill.
(05-02-2022, 09:14 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Not to mention next year's draft is just a better draft in general
Next year's draft is always better than this years draft. Story old as time. Without actually having a clue about how the players post 100 will be, what we do know is that this draft had 400 extra players that are not in a normal draft because of covid. The odds that next years draft has better players in the 135-140 pick range, which is likely where our pick will be, are slim.
(05-02-2022, 11:34 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2022, 09:10 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]So now we're sad that we didn't draft older guys that are likely middling talent?
The horrors.
Next year we have some extra tools to do exactly what we did this year - find talent at the top that we want and move to where they fit. How is that so awful? You'd rather a few practice squad/special teams contributors over the chance to move up and get a potential starter at a position of need?
This is such a short-sighted hill to die upon.
I very much like the process of trading day 3 picks to move up in future drafts, but we should have gotten a significantly better pick than we did. That's all. Also, pretty sure I never said I was dying on this hill.
(05-02-2022, 09:14 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Not to mention next year's draft is just a better draft in general
Next year's draft is always better than this years draft. Story old as time. Without actually having a clue about how the players post 100 will be, what we do know is that this draft had 400 extra players that are not in a normal draft because of covid. The odds that next years draft has better players in the 135-140 pick range, which is likely where our pick will be, are slim.
Nobody last year said this year's draft will be better than last years. There are a couple WRs that would of likely been drafted over all the WRs if they could come out as sophomores. Qbs and defensive players as well. Not to mention TE. Stroud, Young, Carter, Anderson, Ngiba, Addison, Mayer. All would of been drafted at the top of their positions if sophomore players could come out. It's not that hard to see that next years class will be better when they already are
(05-02-2022, 11:34 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2022, 09:10 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]So now we're sad that we didn't draft older guys that are likely middling talent?
The horrors.
Next year we have some extra tools to do exactly what we did this year - find talent at the top that we want and move to where they fit. How is that so awful? You'd rather a few practice squad/special teams contributors over the chance to move up and get a potential starter at a position of need?
This is such a short-sighted hill to die upon.
I very much like the process of trading day 3 picks to move up in future drafts, but we should have gotten a significantly better pick than we did. That's all. Also, pretty sure I never said I was dying on this hill.
(05-02-2022, 09:14 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Not to mention next year's draft is just a better draft in general
Next year's draft is always better than this years draft. Story old as time. Without actually having a clue about how the players post 100 will be, what we do know is that this draft had 400 extra players that are not in a normal draft because of covid. The odds that next years draft has better players in the 135-140 pick range, which is likely where our pick will be, are slim.
So your stance is that the 400 extra players returned to school in spite of their prospect as an NFL player to do their alma maters proud? I'd venture that most of them were likely looking at bottom-of-the-barrel picks last year and hoped to elevate their status this season. Additionally, if the pool were 400 players deeper, my guess would be that the prime value would be trading out of this darft for future picks, and using UDFA to find the diamonds that escaped 260-odd picks over the weekend.
The funny thing about value charts are that like most every other item of value, the value is defined by whoever is involved in the exchange - a stock certificate, a football card, a draft pick - there are plenty of resources that project value based on prior exchanges, but in the end, if you want to sell and the only acceptable offer is below what the exchanges suggest, you're left to either hold on to your possession or be satisfied to carry out the exchange at the agreed price. The value of a better pick you're seeking probably wasn't a reality. Personally, I feel we got better value in taking the future pick that was offered than had we stood pat and took some bubble players this year.
Do we stay at 135-140 to take a guy with the pick? Maybe. Will they be great? Maybe not. Do we use the pick to trade up? Maybe. Could we have traded up next year without this extra pick? Probably. I don't have answers, but I like that we have more options. Value chart be damned.
(05-02-2022, 12:41 PM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2022, 11:34 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]I very much like the process of trading day 3 picks to move up in future drafts, but we should have gotten a significantly better pick than we did. That's all. Also, pretty sure I never said I was dying on this hill.
Next year's draft is always better than this years draft. Story old as time. Without actually having a clue about how the players post 100 will be, what we do know is that this draft had 400 extra players that are not in a normal draft because of covid. The odds that next years draft has better players in the 135-140 pick range, which is likely where our pick will be, are slim.
So your stance is that the 400 extra players returned to school in spite of their prospect as an NFL player to do their alma maters proud? I'd venture that most of them were likely looking at bottom-of-the-barrel picks last year and hoped to elevate their status this season. Additionally, if the pool were 400 players deeper, my guess would be that the prime value would be trading out of this darft for future picks, and using UDFA to find the diamonds that escaped 260-odd picks over the weekend.
The funny thing about value charts are that like most every other item of value, the value is defined by whoever is involved in the exchange - a stock certificate, a football card, a draft pick - there are plenty of resources that project value based on prior exchanges, but in the end, if you want to sell and the only acceptable offer is below what the exchanges suggest, you're left to either hold on to your possession or be satisfied to carry out the exchange at the agreed price. The value of a better pick you're seeking probably wasn't a reality. Personally, I feel we got better value in taking the future pick that was offered than had we stood pat and took some bubble players this year.
Do we stay at 135-140 to take a guy with the pick? Maybe. Will they be great? Maybe not. Do we use the pick to trade up? Maybe. Could we have traded up next year without this extra pick? Probably. I don't have answers, but I like that we have more options. Value chart be damned.
Exactly, get those extra picks in the better class in case you want to move up. What's comical is right before the draft he said he wanted to trade some of the later picks for an earlier pic, we did exactly that and he complains about it lol
(05-02-2022, 12:40 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody last year said this year's draft will be better than last years. There are a couple WRs that would of likely been drafted over all the WRs if they could come out as sophomores. Qbs and defensive players as well. Not to mention TE. Stroud, Young, Carter, Anderson, Ngiba, Addison, Mayer. All would of been drafted at the top of their positions if sophomore players could come out. It's not that hard to see that next years class will be better when they already are
Well it's a good thing I specifically mentioned the depth is unlikely to be better and not the top! Once again you refuse to read.
(05-01-2022, 08:08 AM)surfon Wrote: [ -> ]So Baalke might be like that boss you had that you hated like all get out at first, but then slowly over time grew to respect and live with.
Baalke has tied his fate not to a qb but to a DE.
His fate is tied to the team's performance, not the QB's. Wins & losses are what will keep or cost him the job.
(05-02-2022, 12:43 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly, get those extra picks in the better class in case you want to move up. What's comical is right before the draft he said he wanted to trade some of the later picks for an earlier pic, we did exactly that and he complains about it lol
I did want to consolidate picks that's true. I did not want to do the first trade in draft history where a team moved picks for a future draft pick and lost value on the pick value chart.
Sorry, I forgot to preface that I wanted to trade back and not make literally the worst in history.
(05-02-2022, 01:19 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2022, 12:43 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly, get those extra picks in the better class in case you want to move up. What's comical is right before the draft he said he wanted to trade some of the later picks for an earlier pic, we did exactly that and he complains about it lol
I did want to consolidate picks that's true. I did not want to do the first trade in draft history where a team moved picks for a future draft pick and lost value on the pick value chart.
Sorry, I forgot to preface that I wanted to trade back and not make literally the worst in history.
I was wondering about this?
We did 3 trades
First Second Third
We got #27 =680 We got #154 =28 We got #4 next year range 38-82 avg 55 points
We gave #2 =580 We gave #188 = 14.6 We gave #157 = 27 points
#4 = 82 #198 = 11 # 235 = 1 points
#6 = 17.8
I showed the range on the future pick and the average. Who knows I could be doing this all wrong?
Our second and third trade were done at the basically at the same time. Looks good to me.
1. Trading the 2 6s for the 5th was a good trade in and of itself. It became bad because we took a guy who was literally over 100 picks farther down the consensus board. We made a big reach for a guy who plays the least valuable position in the sport and one that we have already invested heavily in. That's why that one was bad. If we had taken Waletzko, who went the very next pick, it would have been a nice trade.
2. Your 38-82 range for the points is calculating what the picks are worth as the draft is happening, not a year in advance. In general a year away means it's a full round less valuable. So we traded 28 points and got back around 20.
(05-02-2022, 09:03 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2022, 04:07 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]What's funny is the person that said we needed to do exactly that complains about doing it lol
....notice the trend?
Same person also littered the college forum with posts denigrating the usefulness of picks in the late rounds, so... plenty of contradiction flying around if an opportunity to roast the Jags avails itself, I guess.
Whatevs - seems like a very innocuous trade to me.
(05-02-2022, 02:40 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2022, 09:03 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]....notice the trend?
Same person also littered the college forum with posts denigrating the usefulness of picks in the late rounds, so... plenty of contradiction flying around if an opportunity to roast the Jags avails itself, I guess.
Whatevs - seems like a very innocuous trade to me.
That poster is negative about almost every move the Jags make. And he also denigrates the opinions of most other frequent posters. Life of the party, that one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(05-02-2022, 02:36 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]1. Trading the 2 6s for the 5th was a good trade in and of itself. It became bad because we took a guy who was literally over 100 picks farther down the consensus board. We made a big reach for a guy who plays the least valuable position in the sport and one that we have already invested heavily in. That's why that one was bad. If we had taken Waletzko, who went the very next pick, it would have been a nice trade.
2. Your 38-82 range for the points is calculating what the picks are worth as the draft is happening, not a year in advance. In general a year away means it's a full round less valuable. So we traded 28 points and got back around 20.
I did not know to factor in the the full round less. Thanks.
So since the 2 trades happened at the same time then we need next years pick to be worth 16.6 to break even.
we gave up 14.6+11+27+1 = 42.6 points and got guaranteed 28 so 16.6 left. The 32nd 5th round pick is worth 19.8 so we didn't lose value? Everyone but me must have known the one level less because it appears that is what they did.
It also could be worth a max of 34.
I'm interested to see if these 2 new cbs can win a spot and who will be cut.
(05-02-2022, 02:36 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]1. Trading the 2 6s for the 5th was a good trade in and of itself. It became bad because we took a guy who was literally over 100 picks farther down the consensus board. We made a big reach for a guy who plays the least valuable position in the sport and one that we have already invested heavily in. That's why that one was bad. If we had taken Waletzko, who went the very next pick, it would have been a nice trade.
2. Your 38-82 range for the points is calculating what the picks are worth as the draft is happening, not a year in advance. In general a year away means it's a full round less valuable. So we traded 28 points and got back around 20.
....or you could state #2 as we spent 28 points this year to get 50-60 next year.
If there were any investment that allowed me to double my capital in one year, I'd take that in a heartbeat. The knock in present-day value accounts for the wait period required to get the full value of the pick. So next year, the other team is short 50-60 points in pick value, but can brag on their year-old 28-point pick(s).
If we had no intention of using the pick this year, even if the pick only nets say, 35 next year, we're still ahead on the deal. It not a loss unless you only look at the immediate value. Think longer term.
(05-02-2022, 03:06 PM)Jag88 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm interested to see if these 2 new cbs can win a spot and who will be cut.
One of them is meant to compete with Claybrooks to backup Agnew as a returner and provide DB depth.
I'd say he has a chance.
(05-02-2022, 03:18 PM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2022, 02:36 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]1. Trading the 2 6s for the 5th was a good trade in and of itself. It became bad because we took a guy who was literally over 100 picks farther down the consensus board. We made a big reach for a guy who plays the least valuable position in the sport and one that we have already invested heavily in. That's why that one was bad. If we had taken Waletzko, who went the very next pick, it would have been a nice trade.
2. Your 38-82 range for the points is calculating what the picks are worth as the draft is happening, not a year in advance. In general a year away means it's a full round less valuable. So we traded 28 points and got back around 20.
....or you could state #2 as we spent 28 points this year to get 50-60 next year.
If there were any investment that allowed me to double my capital in one year, I'd take that in a heartbeat. The knock in present-day value accounts for the wait period required to get the full value of the pick. So next year, the other team is short 50-60 points in pick value, but can brag on their year-old 28-point pick(s).
If we had no intention of using the pick this year, even if the pick only nets say, 35 next year, we're still ahead on the deal. It not a loss unless you only look at the immediate value. Think longer term.
Of course I'm thinking long term, so was every other team who has ever traded for a future pick. Yet somehow Baalke is the only one who has managed to do that and not gain serious value by allowing a team to take his pick a year early.
Baalke basically gave the Bucs a loan at a rate far cheaper than any other banker in history. That's bad business.
(05-02-2022, 03:29 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (05-02-2022, 03:18 PM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]....or you could state #2 as we spent 28 points this year to get 50-60 next year.
If there were any investment that allowed me to double my capital in one year, I'd take that in a heartbeat. The knock in present-day value accounts for the wait period required to get the full value of the pick. So next year, the other team is short 50-60 points in pick value, but can brag on their year-old 28-point pick(s).
If we had no intention of using the pick this year, even if the pick only nets say, 35 next year, we're still ahead on the deal. It not a loss unless you only look at the immediate value. Think longer term.
Of course I'm thinking long term, so was every other team who has ever traded for a future pick. Yet somehow Baalke is the only one who has managed to do that and not gain serious value by allowing a team to take his pick a year early.
Baalke basically gave the Bucs a loan at a rate far cheaper than any other banker in history. That's bad business.
Both the 1st and 3rd trades were with Tampa. How do we know they were done completely in isolation?
Baalke said they were, but it way it played out by trading back up right before it seems weird. Almost like the trading for next years pick was already basically agreed to and then the Jags were like oh wow this RB we like is still here, let's go get him.