(12-01-2021, 12:55 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:

(11-30-2021, 11:08 PM)Bullseye Wrote: I don't know if I agree with your "way better" description of the current group over the 2005 group.  I think that 2005 group was amazing.  But if your characterization is true, the Bengals have even less incentive to break them up by trading Higgins.  If they are way better, they are elite or close to it.  That will keep them contending for years.

Unless a QB shoots up the draft boards, I don't see a trade back while remaining in the top ten, nor do I see many teams in the teens or below willing to pay a huge price to move up.

I honestly don't care whether we remain in the top 10 or not. After Hutchinson and Thibodeaux, the talent level is pretty much the same all the way to about #20. That isn't to say there won't be talent available, there will definitely be. It's more a testament to how deep this draft is at a variety of positions. IMO, I trade back no matter what. I take the highest offer no matter what it is, because if we are sitting at #3 and Hutchinson and Thibodeaux are off the board, I don't want that pick at all. There is no one available worthy of the pick, which would match the value of the selection. If the best offer we get would be to move down to #15, I take it, because the players left on the board match the value of the #15 pick. I don't see an elite player that would match the #3 pick. Everyone after Hutchinson and Thibodeaux would seem like a reach, imo.

So then you would be fine with a trade down like the Raiders did in 2013, where they went down from 3 to 11, getting only a 2nd round pick in return?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2013/story...de-tracker

I recall the Raiders getting bashed by some for getting so little in return for such a move.  I can't imagine Baalke would fare any better, even though most of this board have clamored for the team to trade back for years.

---

(12-01-2021, 12:55 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:

(11-30-2021, 11:08 PM)Bullseye Wrote: I don't know if I agree with your "way better" description of the current group over the 2005 group.  I think that 2005 group was amazing.  But if your characterization is true, the Bengals have even less incentive to break them up by trading Higgins.  If they are way better, they are elite or close to it.  That will keep them contending for years.

Unless a QB shoots up the draft boards, I don't see a trade back while remaining in the top ten, nor do I see many teams in the teens or below willing to pay a huge price to move up.

I honestly don't care whether we remain in the top 10 or not. After Hutchinson and Thibodeaux, the talent level is pretty much the same all the way to about #20. That isn't to say there won't be talent available, there will definitely be. It's more a testament to how deep this draft is at a variety of positions. IMO, I trade back no matter what. I take the highest offer no matter what it is, because if we are sitting at #3 and Hutchinson and Thibodeaux are off the board, I don't want that pick at all. There is no one available worthy of the pick, which would match the value of the selection. If the best offer we get would be to move down to #15, I take it, because the players left on the board match the value of the #15 pick. I don't see an elite player that would match the #3 pick. Everyone after Hutchinson and Thibodeaux would seem like a reach, imo.

So then you would be fine with a trade down like the Raiders did in 2013, where they went down from 3 to 11, getting only a 2nd round pick in return?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2013/story...de-tracker

I recall the Raiders getting bashed by some for getting so little in return for such a move.  I can't imagine Baalke would fare any better, even though most of this board have clamored for the team to trade back for years.

---