Quote:I understand you are not thrilled with what appear to be the options in the top five, but no way can I endorse this.

 

If you recall when Minnesota passed in 2003, they were actually trying to execute a trade with Baltimore who was trying to get Leftwich, but due to interference from Jacksonville, the trade was never executed.  There were about 3-4 teams that jumped in ahead of them in rapid succession, and those 3-4 picks came off the board in a pace I had never seen before or since.  Minnesota did not purposefully try to do that, and were lucky the guy they wanted, Kevin Williams, did not get away from them in that flourish.

 

If I were completely dissatisfied with what was there at four (and I'm not.  For the record, I have advocated taking Lattimore or Hooker at 4 under would be an acceptable result for myriad reasons), I would either trade down, or failing that, take the player at the position I would really want even if it turned out to be a reach at 4.  In trading down, there is always the risk that someone now ahead of you will take the player you want, or they will trade out allowing another team targeting your player to leap ahead of you.  At least if you are stuck at 4, you control the talent pool as long as you are on the clock.

 

But no way I intentionally pass because I don't like the value at 4.  You risk surrendering draft position chasing ideal value with no guarantee you will get the guy you want, without anything in terms of additional draft picks or a player to show for it.

 

 

I wasn't really advocating it. I openly advocate trading down, but I was given what I consider an unrealistic scenario where we would get no offers what so ever for the #4 pick. That would in no way change my mind from taking the exact same players I wanted all along though. Under the scenario I used, I would just be getting Lamp at #12 instead of reaching for him at #4. Either way, I want Lamp and he's my target with our first pick. 

---