Earlier today, the league announced a pre draft trade between the Jets and Colts.  To move from #6 to #3, the Jets sent Indy the #6 overall pick, and three second round picks-the #37 and #49 picks this year, and next year's second round pick.

Without question, this represents a good deal for the Colts.  Starting off looking at trade value charts, the #3 pick was worth 2200 points.  The point total for the Jets picks from this year alone equaled 2540 points, which does not factor in the 2019 2nd round pick.  It has been said a future pick goes down a round in value in a year's time.  In other words, a 2019 2nd round pick is worth a 3rd round pick in this year's terms, making it worth, at most, 265 points. If my math is right, that's a 78% "profit" in terms of trade value points. 

Examining the Colts needs and the talent available in this draft, the return from this trade will, theoretically, enable the Colts to get better in a hurry.  At 6, the Colts could still possibly land Bradley Chubb, giving them the pass rusher they desperately need and presumably would have targeted at 3, possibly land Saquon Barkley, if the Browns do the unexpected at 1 or 4, or at the very least, should net them Quentin Nelson, the rare G candidate worthy of top ten consideration.  With their three second round picks this year, the Colts could dig into this deep and talented G class to rebuild their OL, take a young RB, or fill any number of holes.  Or they could package these picks in any number of ways to trade up and down throughout this draft.  Indeed, it puts the Colts in a strong position in this draft, and gives them a head start on next year's haul.

As news of this trade spread, I've seen some Jaguars fans wistfully wonder why the Jaguars don't seem to be able to trade back and get hauls of this nature.  One Jaguars fan astutely observed that the Jaguars had five straight years of top 5 picks without such a haul coming to us, while the tacks and now the Colts have hit draft pick jackpots.

But I submit to you that these draft hauls are not always what they are cracked up to be.  While the abundance of picks and the versatility and potential they offer are nice, those picks still have to turn into productive players, those players have to form a team, and that team has to become winners.  History has proven time and time again there is no guarantee of such a transformation in the aftermath of such trades.

Perhaps the most famous instance of this wasted potential (and certainly the oldest in this discussion) are the Los Angeles rams after the 1987 Eric Dickerson trade.  HOF RB Eric Dickerson, who held the NFL's single season rushing record, becoming the 2nd player in NFL history to eclipse 2000 yards rushing, was perpetually unhappy in Los Angeles due to money issues.  The Rams wound up trading Dickerson to Indianapolis in a 3 way deal that sent unsigned rookie holdout LB Cornelius Bennett to Buffalo.  The Rams wound up with three first round picks and three second round picks in exchange from the Colts and Bills.  https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/01/sport...colts.html.  The Rams botched almost every single pick from that draft haul.  As a result, they went from appearing in the conference championship game in 1989 to one of the worst teams in football by 1991.  http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/teams/rams

The Rams were guilty of botching another draft haul more recently in the aftermath of the RG III trade of 2012.  Washington was desperate for a QB and moved up to get RG III. In exchange for giving up the #2 overall pick that year, the Skins gave the Rams the #6 overall pick that year, a 2nd round pick that year #36 overall, a 2013 first round pick, and a 2014 first round pick.  Unlike their experience from the 1987 Eric Dickerson trade, their post trade drafts were not quite so egregious.  They DID land guys like Janoris Jenkins, Aaron Donald and Michael Brockers.  Yet we sit here five years later, and they have no Super Bowls to show for their efforts.  In fact, the coach they had at the time of the trade, Jeff Fisher, has been fired, many of the players from those drafts are now gone, and the team just now reached the playoffs only last year.  https://www.chatsports.com/nfl/a/revisit...lost-34020

The tacks also epitomize a botched draft trade back bonanza.  Due to prolific suckage, the tacks had the #2 overall pick in 2015, which they used on Marcus Mariota.  Mariota was not enough to stop them from sucking in 2015, so they had the #1 overall in 2016.  I quote the terms directly from the article.

The terms are as follows: Tennessee gets: Rams' first-round pick (2016), two second-round picks (2016), a third-round pick (2016), a first-round pick (2017) and another third-round pick (2017).   
 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...rom-titans

While the Titans have improved from the 2015 ineptitude, nobody thinks they are a juggernaut.  In fact, an examination of their picks show that while they wound up with a stud RT in Conklin, they got nothing out of their second round picks in OLB Kevin Dodd and DT Johnson, both of whom languish on the bench.  They landed RB Derrick Henry in the 3rd, but they could have gotten him without that trade.  Despite all of those deals, they still have holes on the roster.

I could also cite the 2000 Jets (4 first round picks that year) and the Browns of recent years, but that would belabor the point.
Teams and coaches like the 1986 Bill Walsh 49ers and the 1990s Jimmy Johnson coached Cowboys in the aftermath of the Herschel Walker deal, who know how to accumulate picks, evaluate talent, draft and develop the players are the exceptions.  Most teams blow it.

If none of the above convince you to not envy the Colts, let me close with this: the Jaguars never got any of those trade back bonanzas and made it to the AFC Championship game.  None of those other teams who got these draft pick windfalls have.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I'm envious of the deal they got. Don't think anyone is envious of the colts as a whole.

---

It's a great deal for one of our division rivals however you want to slice it.

---

Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.

It's a great deal for one of our division rivals however you want to slice it.

I'm not saying it wasn't a great deal for the Colts.  It was a great deal.

What I am saying is it doesn't mean it will translate into a Colts Super Bowl.  In fact, history tends to show that it doesn't.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

This is considered the best QB draft in a long time. Those top picks are worth a lot more. That's really it.

---

The thing about the Jaguars that makes me wish they would have traded back more often is they've so often seemed to reach for guys they could have had later, (or a player of equal or greater ability, in my opinion) or who were questionable for the spot they were taken in.

The Fournette pick last season epitomizes it to me. He's a talented running back, but the two highest performing backs in the draft weren't even taken on the first day of the draft. Imagine if the Jaguars had traded back with the Panthers and gotten Lattimore in the first instead of Fournette, the Panthers' second round pick last year and this year, maybe even more, and taken someone like Hunt with one of those second round picks last year.

The Jaguars wouldn't have cared about keeping Colvin, would have had a running back that looks to perform, had at least an extra second rounder this year, and have a secondary for the ages right now.

2016 draft everything came together to allow the Jaguars to get Ramsey and Jack, but in 2015 they reached for Fowler, and arguably did the same in 2014 for Bortles.

The draft is all about value and if you're not 100% sure you're getting a great player in a slot then if you can great value for the pick you should be taking the value.

---

The thing about the Jaguars that makes me wish they would have traded back more often is they've so often seemed to reach for guys they could have had later, (or a player of equal or greater ability, in my opinion) or who were questionable for the spot they were taken in.

The Fournette pick last season epitomizes it to me. He's a talented running back, but the two highest performing backs in the draft weren't even taken on the first day of the draft. Imagine if the Jaguars had traded back with the Panthers and gotten Lattimore in the first instead of Fournette, the Panthers' second round pick last year and this year, maybe even more, and taken someone like Hunt with one of those second round picks last year.

The Jaguars wouldn't have cared about keeping Colvin, would have had a running back that looks to perform, had at least an extra second rounder this year, and have a secondary for the ages right now.

2016 draft everything came together to allow the Jaguars to get Ramsey and Jack, but in 2015 they reached for Fowler, and arguably did the same in 2014 for Bortles.

The draft is all about value and if you're not 100% sure you're getting a great player in a slot then if you can great value for the pick you should be taking the value.

Fowler wasnt a reach, was consider the best pass rusher in the class by most

---

It is impressive just how much the Colts got for their pick, and I'm even wondering if they had to go there to beat out a Bills' offer. Looking at the Draft Pick Value Chart, when you add on the 2019 second round pick, the deal basically netted the Colts an extra early 2nd round pick in this draft.

You mention some colossal busts in regard to trading down, but I also recall some epic successes. The 49ers, in particular, come to mind, and I'm thinking maybe the Cowboys, Steelers and/or Dolphins had a good run at trading down in a draft.

---

'02

The thing about the Jaguars that makes me wish they would have traded back more often is they've so often seemed to reach for guys they could have had later, (or a player of equal or greater ability, in my opinion) or who were questionable for the spot they were taken in.

The Fournette pick last season epitomizes it to me. He's a talented running back, but the two highest performing backs in the draft weren't even taken on the first day of the draft. Imagine if the Jaguars had traded back with the Panthers and gotten Lattimore in the first instead of Fournette, the Panthers' second round pick last year and this year, maybe even more, and taken someone like Hunt with one of those second round picks last year.

The Jaguars wouldn't have cared about keeping Colvin, would have had a running back that looks to perform, had at least an extra second rounder this year, and have a secondary for the ages right now.

2016 draft everything came together to allow the Jaguars to get Ramsey and Jack, but in 2015 they reached for Fowler, and arguably did the same in 2014 for Bortles.

The draft is all about value and if you're not 100% sure you're getting a great player in a slot then if you can great value for the pick you should be taking the value.

I am having this debate with TMD as well.

My question to you is when did Caldwell have any real viable opportunity to get a deal like the Colts?

The 2013 draft, especially at the top, was a complete load of crap.  Not only were there no QBs worthy of a top 5 selection in that draft, from a talent perspective outside of QB, there weren't any real game changing players that commanded those kind of trade up offers.  The Raiders originally had the 3rd pick, IIRC.  They only got a 2nd round pick for trading with Miami to move down 9 spots.

The 2014 draft was the Bortles draft.  The team needed a QB and the Jaguars felt Bortles was worthy of a top 3 selection.  Supposedly, the Bills offered the same deal they offered Cleveland at 4 (the 9 overall in 2014 and their first rounder in 2015).  But Caldwell wasn't going to risk missing out on the QB he wanted.  Cleveland traded  the past two years and missed out on Wentz and Watson.  1 win out of 32 games later, the Browns still don't have their QB.  Jacksonville could have suffered a similar fate.  Instead, Bortles had us 2:37 away from the Super Bowl.

The top of the 2015 draft had two potential franchise signal callers in Winston and Mariota.  Jacksonville picked 3rd.  There wasn't the demand for the 3rd pick in 2015 the way there is this year with three QBs presumably carrying top 5 grades.  Even if Caldwell took a player you agreed was not a reach at three, the fact is he still would have failed to get the trade down package the Colts got through no real fault of his own (aside from picking enough good players in 2014 to win enough games to knock them to 3rd overall).

You acknowledge everything came together in 2016.  I'd hate to think that at this stage, anyone can find fault with Caldwell for not trading down and getting a Colts like deal when standing pat got us Ramsey, Jack, and Ngakoue.  To be honest, the Colts, with all their picks, will be damn lucky to get three players of that caliber in this draft.

In referencing last year, there are a few things to consider.  First, TC has a preference for bigger RBs.  To the degree he had influence in the draft room, it influenced the decision to draft Fournette.  Secondly, if we were offered a trade down deal with the Panthers, there's no guarantee we take either of the backs you mention later.  Taking Lattimore at 9 could have altered the course of the draft for everyone between 9 and our pick in the 3rd round and they may not have been available, or they may not have been viewed as a fit by Coughlin.  Furthermore, even if we took one of them in the 3rd, there's no guarantee they have a similar level of success here they had in KC or New Orleans.  Presumably, we'd still have the same holes at G we had last year.  Presumably, defenses still wouldn't respect the passing game, especially after Robinson blew out his knee on the 3rd play.  Why wouldn't they load 8-9 men in the box just like they did last year?  Why would they have significantly more success against those fronts?  By the way, I made a post around this time last year arguing for Lattimore at 4.  There were a few who commented on it who indicated it would be too much allocated to one area, because we just signed Bouye a year after drafting Ramsey.  https://www.duvalpride.com/showthread.ph...#pid978106


At the end of the day, given how well the Jaguars have drafted and the results we finally achieved once we finally got competent coaching and some veteran leadership, lamenting about Caldwell not trading back and getting a Colts like deal is nitpicking.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

You mention some colossal busts in regard to trading down, but I also recall some epic successes. The 49ers, in particular, come to mind, and I'm thinking maybe the Cowboys, Steelers and/or Dolphins had a good run at trading down in a draft.

In my original post, I specifically referenced the Walsh era 49ers draft (1986) and the Jimmy Johnson era Cowboys of examples of teams trading back, accumulating a lot of mid round picks, and stocking Super bowl teams.  I do not know of any Steelers teams to trade back and get a boatload of picks to build their teams and build Super Bowl champions, nor do I know of any Dolphins teams that did that.  In the spirit of full disclosure, however, my draft frame of reference begins in 1983.  If, for instance, the Beathard era 70s Dolphins employed that strategy, I don't know about it and I wouldn't know where to begin.  Same with Pittsburgh.  In other words, I can easily find who those 70s teams picked, but I wouldn't readily know if they traded down to acquire those players.

As to whether the jets had to beat the Bills, I'm sure they had to on some level, but I have also heard the Colts did not want to trade down too far because they still wanted potential access to elite players in this draft.  I'd say mission accomplished on that front.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

My question to you is when did Caldwell have any real viable opportunity to get a deal like the Colts?

We'll never know if he got one the quality of this one or not, but Dave has said in almost every (if not every) post draft press conference that he got calls to trade down but didn't deem them worth it.

---

Yeah the QB in the years we had the high picks have been weak overall. The only high pick I am not so fond of is Fournette. And even then, its not like he is a bust. Just could have gotten similar production from a 2nd or 3rd round back.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

Great post, Bullseye.   It got me to thinking, what is the success rate of draft picks by round in which they are taken?   And I found the following:  
=========================================================================================================
https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20...t-by-round

Historic Success Chart

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)
===========================================================================

So, while the Colts got a nice haul of second round picks, if only half of them become consistent starters, then they got what, one or two consistent starters out of this trade?   And what is that worth in the long run?   Not much.

---

Great post, Bullseye.   It got me to thinking, what is the success rate of draft picks by round in which they are taken?   And I found the following:  
=========================================================================================================
https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20...t-by-round

Historic Success Chart

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)
===========================================================================

So, while the Colts got a nice haul of second round picks, if only half of them become consistent starters, then they got what, one or two consistent starters out of this trade?   And what is that worth in the long run?   Not much.

What's interesting here is that the safest positions in the first three rounds are OL, LB and TE, and these are pretty much the positions we're looking at along with QB. 

---

'02

The thing about the Jaguars that makes me wish they would have traded back more often is they've so often seemed to reach for guys they could have had later, (or a player of equal or greater ability, in my opinion) or who were questionable for the spot they were taken in.

The Fournette pick last season epitomizes it to me. He's a talented running back, but the two highest performing backs in the draft weren't even taken on the first day of the draft. Imagine if the Jaguars had traded back with the Panthers and gotten Lattimore in the first instead of Fournette, the Panthers' second round pick last year and this year, maybe even more, and taken someone like Hunt with one of those second round picks last year.

The Jaguars wouldn't have cared about keeping Colvin, would have had a running back that looks to perform, had at least an extra second rounder this year, and have a secondary for the ages right now.

2016 draft everything came together to allow the Jaguars to get Ramsey and Jack, but in 2015 they reached for Fowler, and arguably did the same in 2014 for Bortles.

The draft is all about value and if you're not 100% sure you're getting a great player in a slot then if you can great value for the pick you should be taking the value.

I am having this debate with TMD as well.

My question to you is when did Caldwell have any real viable opportunity to get a deal like the Colts?

The 2013 draft, especially at the top, was a complete load of crap.  Not only were there no QBs worthy of a top 5 selection in that draft, from a talent perspective outside of QB, there weren't any real game changing players that commanded those kind of trade up offers.  The Raiders originally had the 3rd pick, IIRC.  They only got a 2nd round pick for trading with Miami to move down 9 spots.

The 2014 draft was the Bortles draft.  The team needed a QB and the Jaguars felt Bortles was worthy of a top 3 selection.  Supposedly, the Bills offered the same deal they offered Cleveland at 4 (the 9 overall in 2014 and their first rounder in 2015).  But Caldwell wasn't going to risk missing out on the QB he wanted.  Cleveland traded  the past two years and missed out on Wentz and Watson.  1 win out of 32 games later, the Browns still don't have their QB.  Jacksonville could have suffered a similar fate.  Instead, Bortles had us 2:37 away from the Super Bowl.

The top of the 2015 draft had two potential franchise signal callers in Winston and Mariota.  Jacksonville picked 3rd.  There wasn't the demand for the 3rd pick in 2015 the way there is this year with three QBs presumably carrying top 5 grades.  Even if Caldwell took a player you agreed was not a reach at three, the fact is he still would have failed to get the trade down package the Colts got through no real fault of his own (aside from picking enough good players in 2014 to win enough games to knock them to 3rd overall).

You acknowledge everything came together in 2016.  I'd hate to think that at this stage, anyone can find fault with Caldwell for not trading down and getting a Colts like deal when standing pat got us Ramsey, Jack, and Ngakoue.  To be honest, the Colts, with all their picks, will be damn lucky to get three players of that caliber in this draft.

In referencing last year, there are a few things to consider.  First, TC has a preference for bigger RBs.  To the degree he had influence in the draft room, it influenced the decision to draft Fournette.  Secondly, if we were offered a trade down deal with the Panthers, there's no guarantee we take either of the backs you mention later.  Taking Lattimore at 9 could have altered the course of the draft for everyone between 9 and our pick in the 3rd round and they may not have been available, or they may not have been viewed as a fit by Coughlin.  Furthermore, even if we took one of them in the 3rd, there's no guarantee they have a similar level of success here they had in KC or New Orleans.  Presumably, we'd still have the same holes at G we had last year.  Presumably, defenses still wouldn't respect the passing game, especially after Robinson blew out his knee on the 3rd play.  Why wouldn't they load 8-9 men in the box just like they did last year?  Why would they have significantly more success against those fronts?  By the way, I made a post around this time last year arguing for Lattimore at 4.  There were a few who commented on it who indicated it would be too much allocated to one area, because we just signed Bouye a year after drafting Ramsey.  https://www.duvalpride.com/showthread.ph...#pid978106


At the end of the day, given how well the Jaguars have drafted and the results we finally achieved once we finally got competent coaching and some veteran leadership, lamenting about Caldwell not trading back and getting a Colts like deal is nitpicking.

Clearly we can never know just what was left on the table, because Caldwell won't admit his fixation on certain guys and other teams won't admit they wanted to trade away value to land someone they were in love with, but in every draft there is opportunity to trade around. How do we know this? We can just go back and look at the drafts and observe the number of trades.

The 2014 draft is a great example, there were two trades in the top 5 picks and three in the top 10. Buffalo traded up to get Sammy Watkins (a terrible move) but that could have been a trade the Jaguars made instead, and guys like Odell Beckham Jr, Aaron Donald, and Taylor Lewan were all available after Buffalo's #8 pick. Now that doesn't mean that Buffalo was willing to give the Jaguars what they wanted to get to that spot, but Cleveland clearly understood just how flat the talent level at the top of that draft was. Teams picking 10-15 arguably got players as good as the teams picking 1-5. Would taking Aaron Donald at #8 and getting another 3rd rounder from Buffalo have been worth it? Maybe, or maybe not. All we can do is look at what the results were, and the Jaguars got a middle tier starting QB at #3 when they could have gotten a perennial all pro player there instead.

2015 had no big trades at the top, but that doesn't mean there wasn't some opportunity for it, plus Dante Fowler wasn't even close to a can't miss pass rush prospect. In fact his dings going into the draft have clearly shown to be correct, mostly that he wasn't actually a pass rusher in college and had shown no ability to generate pass rush. If a guy doesn't actually generate pass rush, and instead can only be a complementary rusher when others are the ones creating the mismatches I'd argue he's not even close to being worthy of a #3 overall selection. I was a Leonard Williams advocate going into the 2015 draft, and while he hasn't set the world on fire, either, he's been a more impactful player than Fowler, who would be more aptly named "Fouler" for what seems to be his biggest on field contributions.

2016 has a Golden egg laid right on Caldwell's lap, I can't blame him for not trading back from Ramsey.

2017 is another example of trades being there if Caldwell wanted one. There was a top 10 trade after the Jaguars' pick. Also a lot of noise was made about Carolina badly wanting to get Fournette. Could the Jaguars have gotten an extra 2nd and maybe more? We'll never know, but if they could have then they should have taken it, in my opinion.

Though I will say the Jaguars continual winning of games late in lost seasons has probably contributed to a lot of their draft problems. Moving down several spots in a meaningless late season game under Gus didn't help anything, but happened in several seasons. The Jaguars sucked badly from 2008 to 2017 but never got a #1 overall pick.

---

I am having this debate with TMD as well.

My question to you is when did Caldwell have any real viable opportunity to get a deal like the Colts?

The 2013 draft, especially at the top, was a complete load of crap.  Not only were there no QBs worthy of a top 5 selection in that draft, from a talent perspective outside of QB, there weren't any real game changing players that commanded those kind of trade up offers.  The Raiders originally had the 3rd pick, IIRC.  They only got a 2nd round pick for trading with Miami to move down 9 spots.

The 2014 draft was the Bortles draft.  The team needed a QB and the Jaguars felt Bortles was worthy of a top 3 selection.  Supposedly, the Bills offered the same deal they offered Cleveland at 4 (the 9 overall in 2014 and their first rounder in 2015).  But Caldwell wasn't going to risk missing out on the QB he wanted.  Cleveland traded  the past two years and missed out on Wentz and Watson.  1 win out of 32 games later, the Browns still don't have their QB.  Jacksonville could have suffered a similar fate.  Instead, Bortles had us 2:37 away from the Super Bowl.

The top of the 2015 draft had two potential franchise signal callers in Winston and Mariota.  Jacksonville picked 3rd.  There wasn't the demand for the 3rd pick in 2015 the way there is this year with three QBs presumably carrying top 5 grades.  Even if Caldwell took a player you agreed was not a reach at three, the fact is he still would have failed to get the trade down package the Colts got through no real fault of his own (aside from picking enough good players in 2014 to win enough games to knock them to 3rd overall).

You acknowledge everything came together in 2016.  I'd hate to think that at this stage, anyone can find fault with Caldwell for not trading down and getting a Colts like deal when standing pat got us Ramsey, Jack, and Ngakoue.  To be honest, the Colts, with all their picks, will be damn lucky to get three players of that caliber in this draft.

In referencing last year, there are a few things to consider.  First, TC has a preference for bigger RBs.  To the degree he had influence in the draft room, it influenced the decision to draft Fournette.  Secondly, if we were offered a trade down deal with the Panthers, there's no guarantee we take either of the backs you mention later.  Taking Lattimore at 9 could have altered the course of the draft for everyone between 9 and our pick in the 3rd round and they may not have been available, or they may not have been viewed as a fit by Coughlin.  Furthermore, even if we took one of them in the 3rd, there's no guarantee they have a similar level of success here they had in KC or New Orleans.  Presumably, we'd still have the same holes at G we had last year.  Presumably, defenses still wouldn't respect the passing game, especially after Robinson blew out his knee on the 3rd play.  Why wouldn't they load 8-9 men in the box just like they did last year?  Why would they have significantly more success against those fronts?  By the way, I made a post around this time last year arguing for Lattimore at 4.  There were a few who commented on it who indicated it would be too much allocated to one area, because we just signed Bouye a year after drafting Ramsey.  https://www.duvalpride.com/showthread.ph...#pid978106


At the end of the day, given how well the Jaguars have drafted and the results we finally achieved once we finally got competent coaching and some veteran leadership, lamenting about Caldwell not trading back and getting a Colts like deal is nitpicking.

Clearly we can never know just what was left on the table, because Caldwell won't admit his fixation on certain guys and other teams won't admit they wanted to trade away value to land someone they were in love with, but in every draft there is opportunity to trade around. How do we know this? We can just go back and look at the drafts and observe the number of trades.

1.  The 2014 draft is a great example, there were two trades in the top 5 picks and three in the top 10. Buffalo traded up to get Sammy Watkins (a terrible move) but that could have been a trade the Jaguars made instead, and guys like Odell Beckham Jr, Aaron Donald, and Taylor Lewan were all available after Buffalo's #8 pick. Now that doesn't mean that Buffalo was willing to give the Jaguars what they wanted to get to that spot, but Cleveland clearly understood just how flat the talent level at the top of that draft was. Teams picking 10-15 arguably got players as good as the teams picking 1-5. Would taking Aaron Donald at #8 and getting another 3rd rounder from Buffalo have been worth it? Maybe, or maybe not. All we can do is look at what the results were, and the Jaguars got a middle tier starting QB at #3 when they could have gotten a perennial all pro player there instead.

2.  2015 had no big trades at the top, but that doesn't mean there wasn't some opportunity for it, plus Dante Fowler wasn't even close to a can't miss pass rush prospect. In fact his dings going into the draft have clearly shown to be correct, mostly that he wasn't actually a pass rusher in college and had shown no ability to generate pass rush. If a guy doesn't actually generate pass rush, and instead can only be a complementary rusher when others are the ones creating the mismatches I'd argue he's not even close to being worthy of a #3 overall selection. I was a Leonard Williams advocate going into the 2015 draft, and while he hasn't set the world on fire, either, he's been a more impactful player than Fowler, who would be more aptly named "Fouler" for what seems to be his biggest on field contributions.

3.  2016 has a Golden egg laid right on Caldwell's lap, I can't blame him for not trading back from Ramsey.

4.  2017 is another example of trades being there if Caldwell wanted one. There was a top 10 trade after the Jaguars' pick. Also a lot of noise was made about Carolina badly wanting to get Fournette. Could the Jaguars have gotten an extra 2nd and maybe more? We'll never know, but if they could have then they should have taken it, in my opinion.

Though I will say the Jaguars continual winning of games late in lost seasons has probably contributed to a lot of their draft problems. Moving down several spots in a meaningless late season game under Gus didn't help anything, but happened in several seasons. The Jaguars sucked badly from 2008 to 2017 but never got a #1 overall pick.

(Paragraph numbering added)

You indicated at the end of paragraph #1 that "all we can do is look at what the results were."  I agree completely.  I think there are two objective results based standards we should examine in evaluating these trades down, based upon the context of the discussion.

• Did the team trading down get a deal equal to or better than the Colts deal yesterday?  The whole purpose of the thread was to address the lament that the Jaguars don't get deals like this.  If the team trading down did not get a comparable deal, the trade down can't be in any way persuasive.
  
• The second line of inquiry should be whether the teams trading down, assuming they got comparable deals to the Colts deal yesterday, got any further than the Jaguars in the time since the trade.  To quote Herm Edwards, "Hello?!?  You play to win the game!"
  

With these two objective criteria established, let me address your points.

1.  First, the 2014 NFL draft had only two trades in the top ten of that draft, not three.  Cleveland traded from 4 to Buffalo's pick at 9.  Then Cleveland traded back up to 8 with Minnesota.  http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/0ap200000...-the-moves.  Now in looking at the terms of the Cleveland-Buffalo trade, to move down 5 spots and switch places with Buffalo, the Bills gave the Browns a 2015 first round pick and a 2015 4th round pick.  Because the trade involved a future first round pick and a 4th, let's call it comparable to the Colts deal from yesterday.  The second line of inquiry is whether, in the time since this trade, have the Browns advanced any further than the Jaguars?   Since that 2014 trade down, the Browns have finished 7-9, 3-13, 1-15, and 0-16.  While the three seasons between 2014 and 2016 haven't exactly been smashing successes for the Jaguars, last year saw the Jaguars reach the AFC championship game, being only 2:37 away from reaching the Super Bowl.  By the time the players involved from that trade reached their prime years, the Browns and Jaguars could not be further apart.  Applying this standard to the second trade, Minnesota only got a 5th round pick by moving down one spot with Cleveland, so that trade fails the first criteria.

2.  Since, by your own admission, there were no trades at the top of the 2015 draft, there's not much in the way of examining the objective, results based criteria.  However, since the Jaguars pick at #3 put them below the much desired top two picks, one could surmise there was no team willing to offer the Jaguars a deal comparable to or better than the Colts deal yesterday.  Viewed slightly differently, since that draft had two potential franchise signal callers in Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota, we could reasonably assume there had to have been offers for those picks too, ostensibly more lucrative than whatever offers we may have had for pick 3, and perhaps equal to or better than the Colts deal down yesterday.  But note neither Tampa nor Tennessee traded down from those picks despite the offers they could have had.  Is it possible, then, to conclude there are circumstances under which accepting a trade down, even a very lucrative offer, is not advisable?  Keep reading.

3.  In 2016, the Browns traded down from #2 overall with Philadelphia to #8 overall.  In exchange for the 2nd overall pick and a 4th rounder thrown in, the Browns received the #8 overall pick, a 2016 3rd round pick, a 2016 4th round pick, a 2017 first round pick, and a 2018 2nd round pick.  Considering the picks the Browns received included a future first and a future second, we'll say they got a better deal than the Colts received yesterday.  The Browns traded back again from #8 to #15, and got a 2016 3rd round pick and a 2017 second round pick for their trouble.  That trade was not comparable to what the Colts received.  But as to the 2nd objective criteria, I refer back to the bottom of my answer to paragraph 1.  The tacks also traded down in the first round in 2016. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...rom-titans  Given the consideration received, you could say that deal too was comparable to what the Colts received yesterday.  But based on the second criteria, the titans did not advance further than the Jaguars did since that trade was made.  While the tacks did have two 9-7 seasons and reached the playoffs in 2017 while the Jaguars only had one winning season, the Jaguars did pass the tacks during that time, winning a division title and reaching the AFC championship game.  The tacks have not advanced any further than the Jaguars since that trade.  Back to my closing question from 2.  You have acknowledged you don't blame Caldwell for standing pat when Ramsey is on the board.  While I could easily stop the examination here, let's look at Cleveland, who traded down twice.  They missed out on QB Carson Wentz and T Jack Conklin.   What are their two biggest offensive holes?  QB and T.  What has been their record since making those two trades down?  1-31.  Moral of the story?  Sometimes it's best NOT to trade down even if you receive lucrative deals to do so.

4.  Yes, there was a top 10 trade after the Jaguars picked in 2017.  Buffalo traded the #10 overall pick to Kansas City, in exchange for the 25th overall pick, a 2017 3rd round pick, and a 2018 first round pick.  Considering the Colts got a 1 and 3 second round picks, including 2 this year, for moving down three spots, you could argue the Colts trade down was more lucrative than what the Bills got for moving down 15 last year, but for the purposes of this discussion, we'll call the trades a push.  Since the trade, have the Bills advanced further than the Jaguars?  No.  In fact, the Jaguars knocked the Bills out of the playoffs this year.
 
Looking objectively, the teams that traded down and got deals comparable to what the Colts got went no further than the Jaguars did, who accomplished that without trading down from their top 5 draft positions at all.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

A challenge for those still envying the trade down teams:

Of all the teams who have traded down and gotten lucrative trade down deals since Caldwell arrived in 2013, name one team who got 3 players in their hauls better than or equal to Caldwell's 2016 draft haul of Ramsey, Jack, and Ngakoue, who were acquired in the same draft without trading back.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Great post, Bullseye.   It got me to thinking, what is the success rate of draft picks by round in which they are taken?   And I found the following:  
=========================================================================================================
https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20...t-by-round

Historic Success Chart

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)
===========================================================================

So, while the Colts got a nice haul of second round picks, if only half of them become consistent starters, then they got what, one or two consistent starters out of this trade?   And what is that worth in the long run?   Not much.

I've heard Charlie Casserly speak in even bleaker terms regarding the chances of success by round.

But taking that at face value, your closing analysis is astute.

If they came up with a trio equal to or better than Ramsey, Jack and Ngakoue in this draft, then there is cause for concern.  But the Colts would be damn lucky to accomplish that feat, even with all of those extra picks.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

The thing about the Jaguars that makes me wish they would have traded back more often is they've so often seemed to reach for guys they could have had later, (or a player of equal or greater ability, in my opinion) or who were questionable for the spot they were taken in.

The Fournette pick last season epitomizes it to me. He's a talented running back, but the two highest performing backs in the draft weren't even taken on the first day of the draft. Imagine if the Jaguars had traded back with the Panthers and gotten Lattimore in the first instead of Fournette, the Panthers' second round pick last year and this year, maybe even more, and taken someone like Hunt with one of those second round picks last year.

The Jaguars wouldn't have cared about keeping Colvin, would have had a running back that looks to perform, had at least an extra second rounder this year, and have a secondary for the ages right now.

2016 draft everything came together to allow the Jaguars to get Ramsey and Jack, but in 2015 they reached for Fowler, and arguably did the same in 2014 for Bortles.

The draft is all about value and if you're not 100% sure you're getting a great player in a slot then if you can great value for the pick you should be taking the value.

The concept of "the draft is all about value" is a fantasy-type concept.  You get good players that fit on your team that make a difference.

The above concept is one built on the BAP theory which is also a fantasy that hasn't been employed by teams realistically since FA and the cap began.  

Our running game and concept for it changed completely with the LF pick, and it worked astonishingly well.  That, as a concept, is one that worked and resulted in the playoff run we enjoyed.

You saw from 2012-2016 our leading rusher having 800 yards or less or like 45 yards a game.  There is more to it than assigning some random fantasy "value" number.

I appreciate an attempt at an analytical way of looking at it, but there is a lot more to it.

---

You indicated at the end of paragraph #1 that "all we can do is look at what the results were."  I agree completely.  I think there are two objective results based standards we should examine in evaluating these trades down, based upon the context of the discussion.

• Did the team trading down get a deal equal to or better than the Colts deal yesterday?  The whole purpose of the thread was to address the lament that the Jaguars don't get deals like this.  If the team trading down did not get a comparable deal, the trade down can't be in any way persuasive.
  
• The second line of inquiry should be whether the teams trading down, assuming they got comparable deals to the Colts deal yesterday, got any further than the Jaguars in the time since the trade.  To quote Herm Edwards, "Hello?!?  You play to win the game!"
  

With these two objective criteria established, let me address your points.

1.  First, the 2014 NFL draft had only two trades in the top ten of that draft, not three.  Cleveland traded from 4 to Buffalo's pick at 9.  Then Cleveland traded back up to 8 with Minnesota.  http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/0ap200000...-the-moves.  Now in looking at the terms of the Cleveland-Buffalo trade, to move down 5 spots and switch places with Buffalo, the Bills gave the Browns a 2015 first round pick and a 2015 4th round pick.  Because the trade involved a future first round pick and a 4th, let's call it comparable to the Colts deal from yesterday.  The second line of inquiry is whether, in the time since this trade, have the Browns advanced any further than the Jaguars?   Since that 2014 trade down, the Browns have finished 7-9, 3-13, 1-15, and 0-16.  While the three seasons between 2014 and 2016 haven't exactly been smashing successes for the Jaguars, last year saw the Jaguars reach the AFC championship game, being only 2:37 away from reaching the Super Bowl.  By the time the players involved from that trade reached their prime years, the Browns and Jaguars could not be further apart.  Applying this standard to the second trade, Minnesota only got a 5th round pick by moving down one spot with Cleveland, so that trade fails the first criteria.

2.  Since, by your own admission, there were no trades at the top of the 2015 draft, there's not much in the way of examining the objective, results based criteria.  However, since the Jaguars pick at #3 put them below the much desired top two picks, one could surmise there was no team willing to offer the Jaguars a deal comparable to or better than the Colts deal yesterday.  Viewed slightly differently, since that draft had two potential franchise signal callers in Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota, we could reasonably assume there had to have been offers for those picks too, ostensibly more lucrative than whatever offers we may have had for pick 3, and perhaps equal to or better than the Colts deal down yesterday.  But note neither Tampa nor Tennessee traded down from those picks despite the offers they could have had.  Is it possible, then, to conclude there are circumstances under which accepting a trade down, even a very lucrative offer, is not advisable?  Keep reading.

3.  In 2016, the Browns traded down from #2 overall with Philadelphia to #8 overall.  In exchange for the 2nd overall pick and a 4th rounder thrown in, the Browns received the #8 overall pick, a 2016 3rd round pick, a 2016 4th round pick, a 2017 first round pick, and a 2018 2nd round pick.  Considering the picks the Browns received included a future first and a future second, we'll say they got a better deal than the Colts received yesterday.  The Browns traded back again from #8 to #15, and got a 2016 3rd round pick and a 2017 second round pick for their trouble.  That trade was not comparable to what the Colts received.  But as to the 2nd objective criteria, I refer back to the bottom of my answer to paragraph 1.  The tacks also traded down in the first round in 2016. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...rom-titans  Given the consideration received, you could say that deal too was comparable to what the Colts received yesterday.  But based on the second criteria, the titans did not advance further than the Jaguars did since that trade was made.  While the tacks did have two 9-7 seasons and reached the playoffs in 2017 while the Jaguars only had one winning season, the Jaguars did pass the tacks during that time, winning a division title and reaching the AFC championship game.  The tacks have not advanced any further than the Jaguars since that trade.  Back to my closing question from 2.  You have acknowledged you don't blame Caldwell for standing pat when Ramsey is on the board.  While I could easily stop the examination here, let's look at Cleveland, who traded down twice.  They missed out on QB Carson Wentz and T Jack Conklin.   What are their two biggest offensive holes?  QB and T.  What has been their record since making those two trades down?  1-31.  Moral of the story?  Sometimes it's best NOT to trade down even if you receive lucrative deals to do so.

4.  Yes, there was a top 10 trade after the Jaguars picked in 2017.  Buffalo traded the #10 overall pick to Kansas City, in exchange for the 25th overall pick, a 2017 3rd round pick, and a 2018 first round pick.  Considering the Colts got a 1 and 3 second round picks, including 2 this year, for moving down three spots, you could argue the Colts trade down was more lucrative than what the Bills got for moving down 15 last year, but for the purposes of this discussion, we'll call the trades a push.  Since the trade, have the Bills advanced further than the Jaguars?  No.  In fact, the Jaguars knocked the Bills out of the playoffs this year.
 
Looking objectively, the teams that traded down and got deals comparable to what the Colts got went no further than the Jaguars did, who accomplished that without trading down from their top 5 draft positions at all.

I don't think looking at overall team success is the best way to gauge trade success. I think the best way to gauge trade success is to look at how many players drafted closely after the spot that was traded back to went on to have success. There's a lot of reasons teams can be bad, consistently picking bad players regardless of draft position is one of them. The point I make regarding trades is that if you can get more value out of a trade than you'll get by sticking where you are and taking a guy that isn't better than the next x number of guys in the draft order then you should make the trade, and the Aaron Donald/ODB draft was an excellent example of it. Bortles might still turn out to be good QB, but he sure doesn't look like he's going to be an elite QB at this point in his career, and Caldwell is supposed to be getting paid millions to know who is going to be great and who is going to be marginal.

---

The concept of "the draft is all about value" is a fantasy-type concept.  You get good players that fit on your team that make a difference.

The above concept is one built on the BAP theory which is also a fantasy that hasn't been employed by teams realistically since FA and the cap began.  

Our running game and concept for it changed completely with the LF pick, and it worked astonishingly well.  That, as a concept, is one that worked and resulted in the playoff run we enjoyed.

You saw from 2012-2016 our leading rusher having 800 yards or less or like 45 yards a game.  There is more to it than assigning some random fantasy "value" number.

I appreciate an attempt at an analytical way of looking at it, but there is a lot more to it.

It's no surprise that a good ol' boys network has continued to run things like the good ol' boys network always has, but that doesn't mean it's actually the correct way to do it.

As for the stuff about the running game, the team arguably had more success in the games Fournette didn't play in, so basing your entire argument on the idea that Fournette was the difference isn't an unassailable position.

---