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.

The NFL Draft (and team building as a whole) IS all about value though.   

Teams that consistently disregard value in the draft remain bad. Teams that consistently disregard value in FA remain bad.  

If you aren't trying to get the best combination of value/talent/need with each and every pick in the draft you are doing it incorrectly.  

You saying it's a fantasy doesn't make it so unfortunately. Just look at the best teams every year.

---

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.

The NFL Draft (and team building as a whole) IS all about value though.   

Teams that consistently disregard value in the draft remain bad. Teams that consistently disregard value in FA remain bad.  

If you aren't trying to get the best combination of value/talent/need with each and every pick in the draft you are doing it incorrectly.  

You saying it's a fantasy doesn't make it so unfortunately. Just look at the best teams every year.

I disagree about the NFL draft and team building as a whole being all about value.

First, there's no way to determine at what point the true value of a move has been realized.  Given what Cleveland got from Philadelphia in the immediate aftermath of the trade from 2 to 8 in 2016, you'd think they got great value from the trade.  Several picks for one, including an extra 1 and 2 in the future.  Yet examining the trade two years removed, the Browns sold the family cow (Wentz) for a handful of not so magic beans (the picks not named Wentz) that gave them severe flatulence and indigestion when thinking about the loss of the family cow, yet still left them starving.

If you were looking at the Tom Brady selection in 2000 at the time it was made, very few people would have called it phenomenal value.  Most likely, people responded to that pick with a shrug.  There weren't teams willing to trade future first round picks for the 199th selection in that draft.  Some 18 years later, it was quite possibly the most valuable pick in NFL history.  Conversely, there have been plenty of trades up for first round picks that garnered more in value in return than that 199th pick in 2000 that wound up being worse than less than the face value of the 199th pick in 2000.

It always has been about correctly evaluating talent, however.  It's always has been about knowing how the players remaining on the board best fit your scheme, how their character and physical traits will transition into a career as an NFL player, and making the best decision from there.  NFL teams don't care what outsiders think about the value they got for their pick or picks.  At the end of the day, the concern is the same-did the player help the team win?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

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.

---

But it does speak to the overall effectiveness of the overall draft strategy, which encompasses decisions to trade/not to trade.

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.

Every year there are players that are lower in the draft order that end up more successful than players taken higher in the draft order, even by teams that traded down and accumulated multiple picks.  Furthermore, your proposed standard does not take into account the career of the player you could have taken at the higher spot.   Example:  In 1990, Pittsburgh traded down from the 17th spot to the 21st spot.  The Steelers wound up with TE Eric Green out of Liberty, who went on to two Pro Bowls.  Furthermore, in the 4th round of that same draft, they nabbed RB Barry Foster, who went to two Pro Bowls of his own, and on top of it wound up being named 1st team All Pro.  Using your standard at face value, that was a successful trade for the Steelers, right?  Who could they have taken at 17?  Well, Dallas was the team that traded up from 21 to 17.  They took some guy named Emmitt Smith.

Caldwell is getting paid a handsome salary to know who is going to be great and who is going to be marginal.  I'd say he's done a fantastic job despite never trading down from the first round, and to prove it, I will repeat my challenge from the first page of this thread.

Since 2013 when Caldwell arrived, there have been teams who have traded down in the first round and gotten a bunch of picks in return for doing so.  Some of the picks obtained in return for trading down were even spread over multiple years.  Name one of those teams that has gotten three players the caliber of Caldwell's 2016 draft of Ramsey, Jack and Ngakoue in the aftermath of their trades down, either in one year or over the lifetime of the trade's terms.  (meaning if a team traded down in 2016 and received picks in 2016, 17, and 18 as a result of that trade, any three players taken within that span that are equal or better quality than Ramsey, Jack and Ngakoue).

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

The NFL Draft (and team building as a whole) IS all about value though.   

Teams that consistently disregard value in the draft remain bad. Teams that consistently disregard value in FA remain bad.  

If you aren't trying to get the best combination of value/talent/need with each and every pick in the draft you are doing it incorrectly.  

You saying it's a fantasy doesn't make it so unfortunately. Just look at the best teams every year.

I disagree about the NFL draft and team building as a whole being all about value.

First, there's no way to determine at what point the true value of a move has been realized.  Given what Cleveland got from Philadelphia in the immediate aftermath of the trade from 2 to 8 in 2016, you'd think they got great value from the trade.  Several picks for one, including an extra 1 and 2 in the future.  Yet examining the trade two years removed, the Browns sold the family cow (Wentz) for a handful of not so magic beans (the picks not named Wentz) that gave them severe flatulence and indigestion when thinking about the loss of the family cow, yet still left them starving.

If you were looking at the Tom Brady selection in 2000 at the time it was made, very few people would have called it phenomenal value.  Most likely, people responded to that pick with a shrug.  There weren't teams willing to trade future first round picks for the 199th selection in that draft.  Some 18 years later, it was quite possibly the most valuable pick in NFL history.  Conversely, there have been plenty of trades up for first round picks that garnered more in value in return than that 199th pick in 2000 that wound up being worse than less than the face value of the 199th pick in 2000.

It always has been about correctly evaluating talent, however.  It's always has been about knowing how the players remaining on the board best fit your scheme, how their character and physical traits will transition into a career as an NFL player, and making the best decision from there.  NFL teams don't care what outsiders think about the value they got for their pick or picks.  At the end of the day, the concern is the same-did the player help the team win?

How do you build a consistently good team without being great at getting value? Telvin Smith in the 5th is an example of great value. He fell with his size, test failure and questions marks about his ability to play in different schemes. We selected him and placed him in the perfect role/scheme for him. The result? One of the best LBs in the NFL.  Getting good value also extends to FA. The Patriots do it every year. They take cast offs or undervalued assets from other teams.   

 Important to look at the different parts involved in that Browns trade. They got good value from trading back in the form of quality draft assets. They then made awful use of said assets (and their value) by selecting badly. Wentz would not be 2017 Wentz in Cleveland and he was by no means a sure thing coming out. Good value trade, bad value result through poor drafting.  

Well of course people weren't calling Bradys selection phenomenal value. He ended up being the biggest outlier (and value selection) in the history of the NFL. He was a backup/borderline NFL player who developed into arguably the greatest player ever.   

Correctly evaluating talent is directly linked to the pursuit of "value" though. As is selecting players that best fit your scheme. Of course NFL teams don't care what outsiders think? Why would they?

---

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 felt this way about Fournette at first... but looking back at the draft... Aside from Lattimore, there really isn't anyone I would trade down for. I think we made the best decision by taking Fournette. Yeah, some RB's did well that were taken later in the draft but its so easy to look at drafts a year later and say what if... and also I think Fournette will end up being the best RB in the class.

---

I disagree about the NFL draft and team building as a whole being all about value.

First, there's no way to determine at what point the true value of a move has been realized.  Given what Cleveland got from Philadelphia in the immediate aftermath of the trade from 2 to 8 in 2016, you'd think they got great value from the trade.  Several picks for one, including an extra 1 and 2 in the future.  Yet examining the trade two years removed, the Browns sold the family cow (Wentz) for a handful of not so magic beans (the picks not named Wentz) that gave them severe flatulence and indigestion when thinking about the loss of the family cow, yet still left them starving.

If you were looking at the Tom Brady selection in 2000 at the time it was made, very few people would have called it phenomenal value.  Most likely, people responded to that pick with a shrug.  There weren't teams willing to trade future first round picks for the 199th selection in that draft.  Some 18 years later, it was quite possibly the most valuable pick in NFL history.  Conversely, there have been plenty of trades up for first round picks that garnered more in value in return than that 199th pick in 2000 that wound up being worse than less than the face value of the 199th pick in 2000.

It always has been about correctly evaluating talent, however.  It's always has been about knowing how the players remaining on the board best fit your scheme, how their character and physical traits will transition into a career as an NFL player, and making the best decision from there.  NFL teams don't care what outsiders think about the value they got for their pick or picks.  At the end of the day, the concern is the same-did the player help the team win?

How do you build a consistently good team without being great at getting value? Telvin Smith in the 5th is an example of great value. He fell with his size, test failure and questions marks about his ability to play in different schemes. We selected him and placed him in the perfect role/scheme for him. The result? One of the best LBs in the NFL.  Getting good value also extends to FA. The Patriots do it every year. They take cast offs or undervalued assets from other teams.   

 Important to look at the different parts involved in that Browns trade. They got good value from trading back in the form of quality draft assets. They then made awful use of said assets (and their value) by selecting badly. Wentz would not be 2017 Wentz in Cleveland and he was by no means a sure thing coming out. Good value trade, bad value result through poor drafting.  

Well of course people weren't calling Bradys selection phenomenal value. He ended up being the biggest outlier (and value selection) in the history of the NFL. He was a backup/borderline NFL player who developed into arguably the greatest player ever.   

Correctly evaluating talent is directly linked to the pursuit of "value" though. As is selecting players that best fit your scheme. Of course NFL teams don't care what outsiders think? Why would they?

Totally disagree in every way possible to the assertion about the Pats getting what YOU WOULD call "good value".

They get guys that are THEIR GUYS--guys that are good in THEIR SYSTEM, with the exceptions like Moss noted.

Over and over again, they take guys like Amendola, Hogan, Bennett, Branch, Long, Mcleilin, Browner, Lloyd and make them just fit them better than anyone

The same held true with a great deal of their trades, like with Welker. 

It seems like draftnics and madden-ties don't contemplate the "value" to one team may be completely different to another.

Another way to put this:  Any reasonable person would have to say that Telvin Smith is "value" whether he's a 5th round guy or he was drafted in Round 2.  Some other team may have drafted him and let him be a special teams ace.

---

How do you build a consistently good team without being great at getting value? Telvin Smith in the 5th is an example of great value. He fell with his size, test failure and questions marks about his ability to play in different schemes. We selected him and placed him in the perfect role/scheme for him. The result? One of the best LBs in the NFL.  Getting good value also extends to FA. The Patriots do it every year. They take cast offs or undervalued assets from other teams.   

 Important to look at the different parts involved in that Browns trade. They got good value from trading back in the form of quality draft assets. They then made awful use of said assets (and their value) by selecting badly. Wentz would not be 2017 Wentz in Cleveland and he was by no means a sure thing coming out. Good value trade, bad value result through poor drafting.  

Well of course people weren't calling Bradys selection phenomenal value. He ended up being the biggest outlier (and value selection) in the history of the NFL. He was a backup/borderline NFL player who developed into arguably the greatest player ever.   

Correctly evaluating talent is directly linked to the pursuit of "value" though. As is selecting players that best fit your scheme. Of course NFL teams don't care what outsiders think? Why would they?

Totally disagree in every way possible to the assertion about the Pats getting what YOU WOULD call "good value".

They get guys that are THEIR GUYS--guys that are good in THEIR SYSTEM, with the exceptions like Moss noted.

Over and over again, they take guys like Amendola, Hogan, Bennett, Branch, Long, Mcleilin, Browner, Lloyd and make them just fit them better than anyone

The same held true with a great deal of their trades, like with Welker. 

It seems like draftnics and madden-ties don't contemplate the "value" to one team may be completely different to another.

Another way to put this:  Any reasonable person would have to say that Telvin Smith is "value" whether he's a 5th round guy or he was drafted in Round 2.  Some other team may have drafted him and let him be a special teams ace.

"Over and over again, they take guys like Amendola, Hogan, Bennett, Branch, Long, Mcleilin, Browner, Lloyd and make them just fit them better than anyone"  

All examples of getting good value. The pats take cast offs and undervalued assets and maximise them by putting them in the best possible role to succeed. I'm not sure if you realise it but you are actually arguing my point.   

Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense. Telvin isn't a good value because he was drafted in the 5th. He's good value because he was drafted in the 5th and became a pro bowl type player. If he was drafted by another in the 5th and just played on special teams then he would be bad value.   

Question: How is the pats signing undervalued assets that they know they can maximise better than anyone anything BUT taking advantage of value?

---

I disagree about the NFL draft and team building as a whole being all about value.

First, there's no way to determine at what point the true value of a move has been realized.  Given what Cleveland got from Philadelphia in the immediate aftermath of the trade from 2 to 8 in 2016, you'd think they got great value from the trade.  Several picks for one, including an extra 1 and 2 in the future.  Yet examining the trade two years removed, the Browns sold the family cow (Wentz) for a handful of not so magic beans (the picks not named Wentz) that gave them severe flatulence and indigestion when thinking about the loss of the family cow, yet still left them starving.

If you were looking at the Tom Brady selection in 2000 at the time it was made, very few people would have called it phenomenal value.  Most likely, people responded to that pick with a shrug.  There weren't teams willing to trade future first round picks for the 199th selection in that draft.  Some 18 years later, it was quite possibly the most valuable pick in NFL history.  Conversely, there have been plenty of trades up for first round picks that garnered more in value in return than that 199th pick in 2000 that wound up being worse than less than the face value of the 199th pick in 2000.

It always has been about correctly evaluating talent, however.  It's always has been about knowing how the players remaining on the board best fit your scheme, how their character and physical traits will transition into a career as an NFL player, and making the best decision from there.  NFL teams don't care what outsiders think about the value they got for their pick or picks.  At the end of the day, the concern is the same-did the player help the team win?

How do you build a consistently good team without being great at getting value? ...

Correctly evaluating talent is directly linked to the pursuit of "value" though. As is selecting players that best fit your scheme.

Precisely.  If you correctly evaluate talent, the value takes care of itself.

The problem in this discussion and those like it is that value is way too often determined by whether you traded down to get your guy or not, absent other considerations.

If you spend your time chasing value instead of talent, you end up like Cleveland, who traded their way out of Wentz, Conklin, and Watson.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

How do you build a consistently good team without being great at getting value? ...

Correctly evaluating talent is directly linked to the pursuit of "value" though. As is selecting players that best fit your scheme.

Precisely.  If you correctly evaluate talent, the value takes care of itself.

The problem in this discussion and those like it is that value is way too often determined by whether you traded down to get your guy or not, absent other considerations.

If you spend your time chasing value instead of talent, you end up like Cleveland, who traded their way out of Wentz, Conklin, and Watson.

Another problem of trading down is how many of these rookies will actually make the roster? There are not many spots available right now so if the Jags get 8-9 rookies in the draft, how many will you really have to cut?

---

How do you build a consistently good team without being great at getting value? ...

Correctly evaluating talent is directly linked to the pursuit of "value" though. As is selecting players that best fit your scheme.

Precisely.  If you correctly evaluate talent, the value takes care of itself.

The problem in this discussion and those like it is that value is way too often determined by whether you traded down to get your guy or not, absent other considerations.

If you spend your time chasing value instead of talent, you end up like Cleveland, who traded their way out of Wentz, Conklin, and Watson.

They aren't separate ideas. Getting value doesn't = ignoring talent evaluation. Evaluating talent is part and parcel of attaining value in the NFL. 

The browns failed because they couldn't correctly evaluate talent. Not because they were blindly pursuing value over talent.  

Perhaps my definition of  value is too nebulous or not explained well enough. It isn't a case of talent evaluation Vs value at all.

---

Precisely.  If you correctly evaluate talent, the value takes care of itself.

The problem in this discussion and those like it is that value is way too often determined by whether you traded down to get your guy or not, absent other considerations.

If you spend your time chasing value instead of talent, you end up like Cleveland, who traded their way out of Wentz, Conklin, and Watson.

They aren't separate ideas. Getting value doesn't = ignoring talent evaluation. Evaluating talent is part and parcel of attaining value in the NFL. 

The browns failed because they couldn't correctly evaluate talent. Not because they were blindly pursuing value over talent.  

Perhaps my definition of  value is too nebulous or not explained well enough. It isn't a case of talent evaluation Vs value at all.

So there's never been a case where a team traded back, thinking a player they want would be available a little lower, only to have that player taken in front of them?

I can't recall a specific instance at the moment, but I'm sure it happens more often than you might think.

I'm willing to bet if Chubb is taken before pick 6, that will have happened to the Colts.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Precisely.  If you correctly evaluate talent, the value takes care of itself.

The problem in this discussion and those like it is that value is way too often determined by whether you traded down to get your guy or not, absent other considerations.

If you spend your time chasing value instead of talent, you end up like Cleveland, who traded their way out of Wentz, Conklin, and Watson.

Another problem of trading down is how many of these rookies will actually make the roster? There are not many spots available right now so if the Jags get 8-9 rookies in the draft, how many will you really have to cut?

That's a problem for this team now, though you could argue it still worked for the 1986 49ers and more recently, the Patriots.

I just think those nitpicking over Caldwell's failure to trade back are losing sight of the big picture. 

This team is, as a general rule, more talented than those that have traded back and gotten huge draft pick windfalls in recent years, and it shows in terms of how far the Jaguars have advanced as opposed to these other teams.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

They aren't separate ideas. Getting value doesn't = ignoring talent evaluation. Evaluating talent is part and parcel of attaining value in the NFL. 

The browns failed because they couldn't correctly evaluate talent. Not because they were blindly pursuing value over talent.  

Perhaps my definition of  value is too nebulous or not explained well enough. It isn't a case of talent evaluation Vs value at all.

So there's never been a case where a team traded back, thinking a player they want would be available a little lower, only to have that player taken in front of them?

I can't recall a specific instance at the moment, but I'm sure it happens more often than you might think.

I'm willing to bet if Chubb is taken before pick 6, that will have happened to the Colts.

I'm certain there has been multiple instances of that happening. Losing a player you desperately want to move back a few spots doesn't seem like a sound strategy to attain value.

Again, I'm unsure of the argument AGAINST getting value here. It doesn't mean ignoring talent evaluation and it doesn't mean acquiring draft picks over talent you want.

---

So there's never been a case where a team traded back, thinking a player they want would be available a little lower, only to have that player taken in front of them?

I can't recall a specific instance at the moment, but I'm sure it happens more often than you might think.

I'm willing to bet if Chubb is taken before pick 6, that will have happened to the Colts.

I'm certain there has been multiple instances of that happening. Losing a player you desperately want to move back a few spots doesn't seem like a sound strategy to attain value.  

Again, I'm unsure of the argument AGAINST getting value here. It doesn't mean ignoring talent evaluation and it doesn't mean acquiring draft picks over talent you want.

It's not so much an argument AGAINST getting value, as it is an argument against the presumption that trading back always maximizes value, and that not trading back always minimizes value.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I'm certain there has been multiple instances of that happening. Losing a player you desperately want to move back a few spots doesn't seem like a sound strategy to attain value.  

Again, I'm unsure of the argument AGAINST getting value here. It doesn't mean ignoring talent evaluation and it doesn't mean acquiring draft picks over talent you want.

It's not so much an argument AGAINST getting value, as it is an argument against the presumption that trading back always maximizes value, and that not trading back always minimizes value.

I don't believe I've suggested either of those are true so far. More so, if you have a player you love and value appropriately , take him. If you don't , move back and get better value if possible.

---

It's not so much an argument AGAINST getting value, as it is an argument against the presumption that trading back always maximizes value, and that not trading back always minimizes value.

I don't believe I've suggested either of those are true so far. More so, if you have a player you love and value appropriately , take him. If you don't , move back and get better value if possible.

You haven't, but invariably that's the net result of most of these debates.

The teams trading down haven't gotten more talented players than the Jaguars.

The teams trading down haven't advanced further than the Jaguars.

Very few people on your side have advanced those propositions, even though that's ultimately what teams are going for.  In fact, there was someone else on your side arguing that at least advancing further should not be a criteria for ultimately judging the efficacy of a given draft strategy.

The big criticism is that Caldwell did not maximize value by not trading down.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

A month and a half removed from this thread, and two weeks removed from the draft, I thought it would be a good idea to revisit this thread.

Looking at the Colts' draft, did their selections justify the envy given to them?

Did the Colts' draft cause the Colts to close the gap completely between the Colts and the Jaguars?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

A month and a half removed from this thread, and two weeks removed from the draft, I thought it would be a good idea to revisit this thread.

Looking at the Colts' draft, did their selections justify the envy given to them?

Did the Colts' draft cause the Colts to close the gap completely between the Colts and the Jaguars?

They were never gonna close the gap completely in one draft but they had one of the best drafts imo.  

They got one of the best guard prospects we have seen. Got another guy in Braden Smith I considered a top 5 guard.  Their line suddenly looks at least average.

Got an intriguing pass rusher in Turay who's fairly similar to Yannick. Racks up pressures.  

Hines and Wilkins two good backs with varied skillsets. Fountain is a v good talent at receiver.  

Another 2/3 drafts like this and they'll catch up. Although to be honest everything still depends on Luck.

---

Two fold.

1. They did a good job to get value (it was smart for them to get more picks.)

2. But how did they use them?

They seemed to cover their needs with quality at the top (OL, LB, DL, WR) and depth in the later rounds.

I think they nailed it. I don't think that's enough, they'll need one or two drafts like it to be competitive again.

But I do think they took a big first step forward.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Of course they aren't going to catch up to us in one draft, but they essentially turned Bradley Chubb into Nelson, Smith, Turay and still have an extra 2019 2nd rounder.

Yeah, they still got a deal we should be envious of in hindsight.

---