Every offseason, football fans on message boards everywhere advocate trading down as a strategy for improving their teams of choice.  It is a particularly popular option this year, given how deep this draft class is reported to be.

 

But how viable an option is it?  Under what circumstances would a trade down be likely, and how far would the team deal down?

 

What follows is an examination of the teams in the draft order from 4-10, their needs, the minimum they would have to expend to get to #3, their draft pick allotment, who they might want, and the odds of such a trade developing.

 

4.  Cleveland


 

Picks per round: 


 

1st: 4, 26


2nd:35


3rd: 71, 83


4th:106, 127


5th: 145


6th: 180


7th: 218


 

Points to get to pick 3: 400


 

Needs:  QB, RB, CB


 

Analysis:  With TEN (10) picks in this draft, including 3 in the top 35, Cleveland certainly has the ammunition to move up to 3, but do they really have the need?  I think not.  To me, there is somehow only two scenarios they'd want to go to three.  First, they'd have to think the Jaguars were willing to trade down to a team targeting their desired QB.  Secondly, somehow they'd want Clowney and he's still on the board.  More likely, if they traded up, it would be in the top 2.  However, at the end of the day, I think they stay put.


 

Oakland

 

Picks per round:

 

1st: 5

2nd: 36

3rd:  67

4th: 107

5th: N/A

6th: N/A

7th: 219, 235

 

Points to get to 3: 500

 

Needs:  QB, OL, DE, CB

 

Analysis:  Oakland rivals Cleveland as perhaps the NFL's most dysfunctional front office.  They have added some free agents-very old free agents.  They may get an immediate short term bump from guys like Justin Tuck and MJD, but ultimately they will need a huge infusion of talent in the draft to being in the dregs two years from now.  If they were to deal up, it would likely be for Clowney, if there, or to jump above Cleveland to get a QB.  However, they simply have too many holes and don't have enough picks to afford to move up to three.

 

Atlanta

 

Picks per round:

 

1st: 6

2nd: 37

3rd: 68

4th: 103, 139 (compensatory)

5th: 147

6th: 182

7th: 220, 253

 

Points to get to 3: 600

 

Needs:  T, DE, S

 

Analysis:  I remember seeing Dimitroff indicating he isn't inclined to deal up any higher than three, but if a certain player is there at three, then he might be interested in dealing up.  I think without question, that player would be Clowney.  Despite their fall last year, like Houston, Atlanta may be in position for a short rebound, and Clowney could be that catalyst.  But I could also envision a scenario where Clowney and Robinson could go 1-2, and Atlanta would still want to trade up to ensure Matthews is theirs before Oakland drafts him, because the Falcons desperately need to improve protection for Matt Ryan.  One other consideration. Even though Gene Smith is a 4-3 guy, Atlanta signed NT Paul Soliai and DE Tyson Jackson so they can run some 3-4.  If this is the case, they will need a dominant pass rushing OLB to work it properly.  Given his workout, I think Clowney is also a consideration.  But then Khalil Mack and Anthony Barr also become considerations.  If stocking the 3-4 in Atlanta will dictate their moves, I think they will be less inclined to deal up and stand pat at 6 to get Mack or Barr.  I think because Dimitroff has worked with Caldwell in Atlanta, they may have a good relationship to facilitate a trade.  Right now, I have to think Atlanta represents the best chance for a trade down.

 

Tampa

 

Picks per round:

 

1st: 7

2nd: 38

3rd: 69

4th: N/A

5th: 143

6th: 185

7th: 221

 

Points to get to 3: 700

 

Needs:  QB, OL, WR

 

Analysis:  Usually when a new coach comes to a team, he wants his guy at QB.  It's entirely possible they like Glennon enough and or are not enamored enough with the QBs at the top of this draft to not move up.  But Tampa is in something of a precarious position.  The top talent at each of their positions of greatest need could likely be depleted by the time they are on the board, as no fewer than 4 teams above them (Houston, Jacksonville, Cleveland and Oakland) could go QB, and no fewer than 3 teams above them (St. Louis, Oakland, Atlanta) could go Tackle, and Watkins could well be off the board too at WR.  The lack of a 4th round pick hurts their ability to move up.

 

Minnesota


 

Picks per round


1st: 8


2nd: 40


3rd: 72, 96


4th: 108


5th: 148


6th: 184


7th: 223


 

Points to get to 3: 800


 

Analysis:  Like the Jaguars, their attempt to address the QB position in 2011 failed, and they are back at the drawing board in an effort to obtain a signal caller.  Although they re-signed DE Everson Griffen, they have lost a major contributor in Jared Allen, so DE is a need.  Clowney would be an enticement to move up, and having that extra 3rd round pick helps.  But assuming Clowney is off the board, there is still the gaping hole at QB.  Like Tampa, they have a new defensive coach and are in a precarious position.  I think they would be more inclined to stand pat.


 

Buffalo

 

Picks per round:

1st: 9

2nd: 41

3rd: 73

4th: 109

5th: 149

6th: N/A

7th: 224

 

Points to get to 3: 850

 

Needs: OL, LB

 

Analysis:  The reports of Buffalo trying to trade up to Houston's spot a week or so ago were curious.  They just spent a first round pick last year on E.J. Manuel, who showed some promise before getting injured, and even if they were inclined to take a QB in the first round in back to back years and trade up to do it, there doesn't appear to be an Andrew Luck caliber prospect at the top of the draft.  Arguably, they could have been trying to acquire Clowney, but it isn't as though they couldn't rush the passer last year.  They had 57 sacks.  Maybe the thought of adding Clowney to an already loaded defense appeals to them.  Maybe going after Clowney would enable them to get from under Mario Williams' contract sometimes in the future, but Williams showed signs of dominance last year and is still in his prime. They got a free agent steal in Hughes, who registered ten sacks. To me, even though Clowney is one of the best prospects in recent memory, I don't know if he would be the trade up target.  Now the Bills could use a stud LT to move Cordy Glenn to RT (where he should be a star), and that seems like 9th overall would be a good spot for Taylor Lewan.  But if they want Robinson, they would have to move up.  But for those reports of Buffalo offering to move up to one, I'd say a trade up for Buffalo would be unlikely.  If they were determined to have Clowney and he were there at 3, what would they offer to get him?

 

Detroit

 

Picks per round:

1st: 10

2nd: 45

3rd: 76

4th: 111, 133 & 136 (last two both compensatory)

5th: N/A

6th: 189

7th: 227

 

Points to get to 3: 900

 

Needs: WR, CB, S

 

Analysis:  Detroit is a strange team.  On paper, they appear to be supremely talented, with guys like Stafford, Megatron, Suh and Fairley on the roster, yet here they sit picking in the top ten.  How can a defensive line boasting Ziggy Ansah, Suh, Fairley and Young finish 29th in sacks?  How could a guy like Stafford, with a decent OL in front of him and Megatron catching his passes  finish his last 8 games with a 54.1% completion percentage and 13-13 TD-INT ratio?  I don't see them trading up, but to me a DL of Ansah, Suh, Fairley in a contract year and Clowney would be potentially awesome.  There has been a lot of chatter about pairing Calvin Johnson with Sammy Watkins, but they could stay where they are and offer a red zone nightmare by pairing Johnson with Mike Evans.

 

Caveat 1:  I used the draftcountdown.com trade value chart seen here:  http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

 

Caveat 2:  I understand that these trade value charts are in no way "the law" when it comes to trade compensation.  At best it is a guide, and ultimately trades are determined by supply and demand.

 

Caveat 3:  I understand that trades are much easier done on a message board than on draft day.

Finally, I understand just as there are limits as to how high a team may want to deal up, I think there are limits as to how far the Jaguars want to deal down.  I don't think the Jaguars would want to trade down too far as to preclude getting a playmaker.

 

I welcome your thoughts.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I edited your post to include my responses.

 

...
 

4.  Cleveland


 

Needs:  QB, RB, CB

 

I think the only thing that makes Cleveland move up is a panic. If they think Oakland or Atlanta is going to make a move to jump them, they might move up. Otherwise I think they stay.


 

 

Oakland

 

Needs:  QB, OL, DE, CB

 

It's going to be interesting to watch Reggie McKenzie work this draft. Al would probably have traded the farm for Watkins, but I have no feel for McKenzie. I think he may move up if Watkins or Clowney drops. It's always nice to have an Oakland "future" draft pick in your pocket.

 

 

Atlanta

 

Needs:  T, DE, S

 

I'm not trying to bite the hand that feeds here, but I've never been a fan of how Atlanta has drafted. Just seems like they miss a lot on their mid round guys. I can definitely see them moving up if there's only one OT left or if they feel that there is a team interested in Mack. They know who they want and they're not afraid to spend to go and get him.

 

 

Tampa


Needs:  QB, OL, WR

 

I don't think Lovie is going to move up at all. He's got McCown and seems perfectly happy to let him hold the job for a year. That being said, I just bet they overdraft a Defensive Lineman.

 

 

Minnesota


 

They need a QB and everyone knows it. I can see them biting on Bridgewater if they feel like there is a danger of him going early, but I don't think that'll happen.

 

 

Buffalo

 

Needs: OL, LB
 

I feel like Buffalo needs to stay right where they are and just grab as much talent as they can. They have a decent roster, they just need to add some pieces to it. Let Manuel grow a little and see what he's got. Get him some more weapons and see how things go.

 

 

Detroit

 

Needs: WR, CB, S
 

Detroit, just draft a WR. It'll make you terrifying.

 

...

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Nice breakdown Bullseye. But remember - (unless the rule was changed that I missed) you cannot trade compensatory picks. - So for the teams that have them in this breakdown, we need to remember that. 

---

Nice breakdown Bullseye. But remember - (unless the rule was changed that I missed) you cannot trade compensatory picks. - So for the teams that have them in this breakdown, we need to remember that. 

I didn't forget that, and never meant to imply otherwise. 

 

In fact, I specifically indicated compensatory picks where applicable because I figured most knew they could nto be traded.

 

But I did not make that point clear in my post, so kudos for this addition, TMD.

 

However, you made a brilliant suggestion in another thread to potentially offer picks to Cleveland as an inducement to not match the offer to Mack.   I would have never thought of that as a solution.

 

Now without commenting on the viability of such a move, I do have a question based upon that proposal.

 

Assuming Cleveland accepted the 4th and 5th round picks to let Mack come to us, would the loss of those two picks make you more inclined to trade down to recoup those picks, or would the fact you have adequately filled the C position lessen the need for those mid round picks?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I edited your post to include my responses.

 

I agree it would be highly unlikely for Cleveland to move up to 3, barring a panic pick.  In fact, I think they could stay at 4 and get their QB if they choose.  But as I indicated in another thread, given the high demand for QBs in the top ten of this draft, the prospects in this draft, and how Cleveland has handled the position, they have almost forced their own hands.

 

Good observation on Atlanta's mid round picks.  It has been mystifying how they can miss on so many.

 

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/teams/falcons

 

I agree Minnesota's top priority should be QB and if Bridgewater is there, they almost have to make him their pick.

 

We also agree on Buffalo.  Them trading up for Clowney seems almost gratiutous.  I think they finally have a good head coach who is a good playcaller.  They have a good young prospect at QB.  They just need to add pieces around him.  I happen to be in the minority and think they are actually okay at WR.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I didn't forget that, and never meant to imply otherwise. 

 

In fact, I specifically indicated compensatory picks where applicable because I figured most knew they could nto be traded.

 

But I did not make that point clear in my post, so kudos for this addition, TMD.

 

Yeah, no problem, I just wanted to clear up any confusion that might have arisen from potential responses/ scenarios that might have included those picks. 

 

 

As for my dream scenario's....its still to have Clowney make it to our pick, and then trade down to 6 with Atlanta, and recoup their 2nd + 4th rounder for 2014. Atlanta's motivation being Clowney. 

 

Then while sitting at 6, trade down again with Detroit, recoup their 2nd + 4th rounders as well. Detroit's motivation being Sammy Watkins. 

 

If in either of these scenario's the Jags could squeeze a 2015 first rounder instead of the 2014 second rounder (usually the transfer is when trading future year picks, they go up one round per year of trading, thus the 2nd rounders in 2014, become 2015 first rounders), then by all means, do it. 

 

 

Then at 10, the Jags would likely still have their pick of a number of great prospects like Barr, Evans, Ebron, or Gilbert. 

 

Or, they could even trade back some more and recoup a few more 2nd or 3rd rounders. 

 

I'd say just make sure you don't trade back too much to where you aren't getting a top notch guy with the first rounder for this year. 

---

Yeah, no problem, I just wanted to clear up any confusion that might have arisen from potential responses/ scenarios that might have included those picks. 

 

 

As for my dream scenario's....its still to have Clowney make it to our pick, and then trade down to 6 with Atlanta, and recoup their 2nd + 4th rounder for 2014. Atlanta's motivation being Clowney. 

 

Then while sitting at 6, trade down again with Detroit, recoup their 2nd + 4th rounders as well. Detroit's motivation being Sammy Watkins. 

 

If in either of these scenario's the Jags could squeeze a 2015 first rounder instead of the 2014 second rounder (usually the transfer is when trading future year picks, they go up one round per year of trading, thus the 2nd rounders in 2014, become 2015 first rounders), then by all means, do it. 

 

 

Then at 10, the Jags would likely still have their pick of a number of great prospects like Barr, Evans, Ebron, or Gilbert. 

 

Or, they could even trade back some more and recoup a few more 2nd or 3rd rounders. 

 

I'd say just make sure you don't trade back too much to where you aren't getting a top notch guy with the first rounder for this year. 

 

TMD, before I answer this, I edited my post above.

 

As for this line in bold, that's the conundrum for me.

 

If Clowney is on the board, he would seem to represent the best opportunity for a stud, impact player at 3.  However, he would seem to be the one pick that would drive demand for that pick, which would give us more in trade down.

 

I think even though this is a deep draft and the team needs a lot of help, I would be reluctant to deal down if Clowney is on the board.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

TMD, before I answer this, I edited my post above.

 

As for this line in bold, that's the conundrum for me.

 

If Clowney is on the board, he would seem to represent the best opportunity for a stud, impact player at 3.  However, he would seem to be the one pick that would drive demand for that pick, which would give us more in trade down.

 

I think even though this is a deep draft and the team needs a lot of help, I would be reluctant to deal down if Clowney is on the board.

 

I think in my scenario, drafting at 10 - all four of those players (Evans/ Barr/ Gilbert/ Ebron) will be really good NFL players; on the level of pro bowl players as pro's. 

---

I think in my scenario, drafting at 10 - all four of those players (Evans/ Barr/ Gilbert/ Ebron) will be really good NFL players; on the level of pro bowl players as pro's. 

Answer my hypothetical.

 

If the Jaguars used the 4th and 5th round picks to Cleveland to get them to not match the offer for Mack, would that make you more or less inclined to trade down?

 

On the one hand, the loss of the 4th and 5th round picks could represent, on a talent depleted roster, potential starters/contributors/or ability to maneuver in the draft.

 

On the other hand, getting Mack significantly relieves the pressure of spending the middle of the draft retooling the OL, and we can focus on getting playmakers with the remaining picks.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

 

 

However, you made a brilliant suggestion in another thread to potentially offer picks to Cleveland as an inducement to not match the offer to Mack.   I would have never thought of that as a solution.

 

Now without commenting on the viability of such a move, I do have a question based upon that proposal.

 

Assuming Cleveland accepted the 4th and 5th round picks to let Mack come to us, would the loss of those two picks make you more inclined to trade down to recoup those picks, or would the fact you have adequately filled the C position lessen the need for those mid round picks?

Thanks!

http://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/top.../?p=152552

---

Thanks!

http://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/top.../?p=152552

 

Dang, I thought I was the first one to mention that possibility.....you beat me to it. 

---

Thanks!

http://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/top.../?p=152552

 

Mea culpa, Predator!

 

I somehow overlooked your post.  I want to give credit where due.  Did not mean to slight you or anyone else.

 

Kudos on a brilliant suggestion.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Mea culpa, Predator!

 

I somehow overlooked your post.  I want to give credit where due.  Did not mean to slight you or anyone else.

 

Kudos on a brilliant suggestion.

 

Grrrr....my suggestion isn't any less brilliant just because he said it first. I never ever saw him or anyone else post it, for that matter (until just now), so my offering of the idea was 100% genuine. 

 

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!!!! :angry:

---

Answer my hypothetical.

 

If the Jaguars used the 4th and 5th round picks to Cleveland to get them to not match the offer for Mack, would that make you more or less inclined to trade down?

 

On the one hand, the loss of the 4th and 5th round picks could represent, on a talent depleted roster, potential starters/contributors/or ability to maneuver in the draft.

 

On the other hand, getting Mack significantly relieves the pressure of spending the middle of the draft retooling the OL, and we can focus on getting playmakers with the remaining picks.

 

Less inclined....just as a "gun to my head" first thought kinda thing. 

---

Grrrr....my suggestion isn't any less brilliant just because he said it first. I never ever saw him or anyone else post it, for that matter (until just now), so my offering of the idea was 100% genuine. 

 

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!!!! :angry:

It was in this thread too. You actually posted in this one after I had discussions about it although not about the trade idea.

http://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/top.../?p=152562

---

I didn't forget that, and never meant to imply otherwise. 

 

In fact, I specifically indicated compensatory picks where applicable because I figured most knew they could nto be traded.

 

But I did not make that point clear in my post, so kudos for this addition, TMD.

 

However, you made a brilliant suggestion in another thread to potentially offer picks to Cleveland as an inducement to not match the offer to Mack.   I would have never thought of that as a solution.

 

Now without commenting on the viability of such a move, I do have a question based upon that proposal.

 

Assuming Cleveland accepted the 4th and 5th round picks to let Mack come to us, would the loss of those two picks make you more inclined to trade down to recoup those picks, or would the fact you have adequately filled the C position lessen the need for those mid round picks?

 

 

 

When you have a deep draft like that and 4th and possibly 5th rounders could start.   It is pointless for a center to give them up.   

Ps i am not bullseye.  He is too technical in his own right.

---

Bleeding Teal since 1995. The Icon Teal Time Radio aka ctjags

  #Gojags

 


When you have a deep draft like that and 4th and possibly 5th rounders could start.   It is pointless for a center to give them up.   

<div>Ps i am not bullseye.  He is too technical in his own right.
 

 

 

</div>

4th and 5th rounders rarely amount to much and he's not just a center, he is one of the best in the league.

 

I think a pro bowl player his age at pretty much any position is well worth a 4th and a 5th.

---

4th and 5th rounders rarely amount to much and he's not just a center, he is one of the best in the league.

 

I think a pro bowl player his age at pretty much any position is well worth a 4th and a 5th.

 

I agree with this completely.

 

Only problem is the viability of the proposal.

 

If you were the Browns and you had a Pro Bowl C in his prime on the roster, would you trade him away for a 4th and a 5th?

 

Yes, Monroe played LT, but he wasn't a Pro Bowler, either.  Stroud-a pro bowl defensive lineman-was traded to Buffalo and netted a 3rd and a 4th, IIRC.

 

Were this a straight up trade, I don't think Cleveland would make that deal, which is why, while the idea of sending picks to them as an inducement to not match the offer is a good one, I don't think it would be enough.  I think a 3rd rd pick might do the trick, but a 4th and 5th?  No.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I agree with this completely.

 

Only problem is the viability of the proposal.

 

If you were the Browns and you had a Pro Bowl C in his prime on the roster, would you trade him away for a 4th and a 5th?

 

Yes, Monroe played LT, but he wasn't a Pro Bowler, either.  Stroud-a pro bowl defensive lineman-was traded to Buffalo and netted a 3rd and a 4th, IIRC.

 

Were this a straight up trade, I don't think Cleveland would make that deal, which is why, while the idea of sending picks to them as an inducement to not match the offer is a good one, I don't think it would be enough.  I think a 3rd rd pick might do the trick, but a 4th and 5th?  No.

If they don't deal him, they will have to pay him 10 mil this year then let him walk next year and receive nothing.

 

He's a free agent so it's not like they need compensation for money invested in his contract. We would be financially responsible for the entire contract.

 

If a 4th and 5th weren't enough for Cleveland to release a player this year that doesn't want to be there, then I would just keep my draft picks and and consider him an option next year.

 

Cleveland really doesn't have a lot of leverage. As long as Mack sticks to his guns, they will eventually have to make a decision that is best for them long term and that will probably have to happen before the draft. After that, getting the picks are no longer an option.

---

If they don't deal him, they will have to pay him 10 mil this year then let him walk next year and receive nothing.

 

He's a free agent so it's not like they need compensation for money invested in his contract. We would be financially responsible for the entire contract.

 

If a 4th and 5th weren't enough for Cleveland to release a player this year that doesn't want to be there, then I would just keep my draft picks and and consider him an option next year.

 

Cleveland really doesn't have a lot of leverage. As long as Mack sticks to his guns, they will eventually have to make a decision that is best for them long term and that will probably have to happen before the draft. After that, getting the picks are no longer an option.

I see your point here.  The one thing I would say is that there is the possibility they would get a compensatory pick for him that might be a 3rd...or at least a 4th...if they simply let him walk.  Now it would not be TWO picks for him like it would be under your initial proposal, but they might get something for him if he simply bolts.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!