Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Trading Down From 9

#1

Every year, there is a significant clamoring from many Jaguars fans urging the team to trade down and accumulate extra picks.  It is a strategy that has produced spectacular results in the past.  The Bill Walsh era 49ers utilized that strategy to produce one of the best drafts in NFL history in their 1986 draft, which produced, among others, WR John Taylor, DE/OLB Charles Haley and CB Tim McKyer.  Jimmy Johnson employed a similar strategy in building the Dallas Cowboys into the team of the 1990s.  This was perhaps best epitomized in the 1991 draft (another all time great draft class) which netted the team starting OLB Dixon Edwards, RT Erik Williams and DT Leon Lett.  More recently, the New England Patriots were able to sustain their twenty year dynasty by often trading down.  Most notably, their trading down resulted in the acquisition of TE Rob Gronkowski, among others.
However, in the Jaguars’ 25 years of drafting, trading down is a strategy the team has rarely employed, especially in the early rounds. In 2007, GM Shack Harris traded down sending the #17 overall pick to Denver in exchange for the #21, a 3rd round pick #86)amd a 6th round pick (#198).  The team DID trade down last year in the 7th round, surrendering a 2019 7th round pick to Seattle for a 6th round pick this year.  But that has proven to be the exception rather than the rule. 
 
Consistent with that overarching philosophy, current Jaguars GM Dave Caldwell has been very reluctant to trade down in the early rounds despite yearly public decrees that he is open to the idea of moving back.  He has often operated within the top 5 of the draft and in a position to get one of the players deemed to be elite talent in those drafts.  But this year seems different.  The team has a ton of needs now especially with trading away proven and productive vets like Jalen Ramsey, A.J. Bouye and Calais Campbell.  The team is picking 9th this year, and while that position leaves the Jaguars in a good spot to land a good player, it is outside the likely realm of landing elite talent.  The overall consensus seems to be this draft is deep in some positions the Jaguars have need.  The emphasis, at least for the next couple of drafts, seems to be in accumulating picks to take advantage of that depth.

With that said, I would like to explore the Jaguars possibilities in trading back, first from the 9th overall pick, and then later from the 20th overall pick. Before continuing, I offer the caveat that I know teams are not married to or bound by the trade value chart, or that the trade value chart represented here by draftek necessarily reflects whatever chart guides GMs.  Various things will impact what a team is willing to give up or take in trade.
 
10.  Cleveland-primary need:  LT.
 Why would they trade up?  The top tier of 4 Ts in this draft might be depleted by their pick with the Giants at 4, the Dolphins at 5 the Chargers at 6 and Arizona at 8 needing T.  I do not expect all of those teams to take a T in the top ten.  However, there could be a scenario where 1 or two are left on the board and Cleveland will either want to guarantee they get the last one or their preferred choice of the remaining 2.
Why wouldn’t they trade ?  They are  just one pick behind the Jaguars.  If there are two or more Ts remaining and they like both/all, then there is no point in dealing up.
What would a trade here net for Jacksonville?  According to the trade value chart, there is a 50 point difference between the 9th and 10th picks, which loosely translates into a 4th round pick, but stranger things have happened.  The Browns once traded away a 2nd round pick to ove up from 7 to 6 in the 2004 draft.
 
11.  N.Y. Jets-Primary needs:  LT, WR
Why would they trade up?  Like the Browns, the Jets have a young QB taken high in the 2018 draft they need to protect, and getting a stud LT is key to that protection.  If there is an early run on Ts as I described above, it could come down to them vs. Cleveland for the last or preferred T in that group, and Cleveland is ahead of them.  Given their need at WR, they may also want to guarantee their choice of receiving target for Darnold.  Besides, the Jets have proven repeatedly over the years they are willing to trade up for the player they want.
Why wouldn’t they trade up?  If there are two Ts remaining from that top tier of 4 and they like both, then they might be willing to wait.  Or they may simply decide to give Darnold the best receiver on the board, which would seemingly fall in this range.
What would a trade net for Jacksonville?  According to the Drafttek chart, the difference between 9 and 11 is 100 points, or the equivalent of a low 3rd.  Note they Jets have a desperate need for an edge rusher and are rumored to be one of the teams interested in Ngakoue.  Perhaps they somehow bundle these picks and players together?
 
 
12 and 19.  Las Vegas-Primary need:  WR
Why would they trade up?  With the Cardinals theft of Hopkins from the Texans, they are not likely to pick a WR, which means barring a trade up, the top tier of 3 WRs (Jeudy, Lamb, Ruggs) should still be on the board at 10.  However, if the Raiders want to guarantee their choice of the top 3 are still on the board, they will need to get ahead of the Jets, who also have a desperate need at WR.  Furthermore, with them still reaping the rewards from the Khalil Mack trade, they have the ammo needed.
Why wouldn’t they trade up?  Sitting still should still net them one of the top 3 WRs if they like all three.
What should we get in trade?  There is a 150 point difference between the 9 and the 12th pick-about a 3 and a 6.
 
13.  San Francisco-Primary needs:  WR, CB, DT
Why would they trade up?  Like the Jets and Raiders, if they have a preference for one of the top three WRs in this draft class, they may not be able to sit still and get their guy.  As for CB, the 49ers seem well positioned to land the 2nd best CB in the draft, but considering CB is a premium position, there could be those wanting to trade up to get one.  Not far below them is Tampa, who has been linked to DT and may pursue Kinlaw if the Ts are off the board.  If the 49ers wish to have a plug and play replacement for Buckner, who was traded to the Colts for this pick, they may need Kinlaw, who has been projected as high as pick 9, which means they may need to deal up to get him.
Why wouldn’t they trade up?  They are fresh off an appearance in the Super Bowl, where they controlled the game for three quarters until they succumbed to KCs speed.  Not a whole lot of pressure for Lynch at this point.  They have two first round picks and if they sit tight at 13, they should still have an excellent chance at landing one of the top three receivers, Kinlaw, or the CB of their choice.
What should we get in trade from them?  There is a 200 point difference between 9 and 13, the equivalent of a mid 3rd round pick.  The problem is, after the 31st pick in the draft, the 49ers don’t pick again until round 5.   Don’t expect a trade with them, unless they are somehow willing to surrender a 2 next year.
 
14.  Tampa Bay-Primary needs:  T, RB, DT
Why would they trade up?  See the tackle discussions above.  Tampa needs a T to help give Brady protection.  Even though they have Vita Vea and just re-signed Suh, there has been chatter about the Bucs interest in finding a cheaper and younger longer term replacement for Suh, and Kinlaw would appear to be that guy.  It is highly doubtful any need for a RB would prompt a trade up.
Why wouldn’t they trade up?  Arguably RT is not a premium position, and they may be able to get by with one of the 2md tier Ts like Jones by standing pat.  Also a good chance Kinlaw is there at 14.
What should we get in a trade from them?  There is a 250 point difference between 9 and 14, which is the equivalent of a high 3.  Tampa’s 3rd rounder is worth 210 points, so maybe their 4th round pick thrown in exchange for our 9th overall and a 6th round pick would get it done, but like San Francisco, I don’t see Tampa as being likely to move up.
 
15.  Denver-Primary needs:  WR, LT
Why would they trade up?  Similar rationale for the Jets.  Same needs as them with young QB, but lower in the draft order.   Traded down in the first round last year, may feel they can spare the picks in a smaller trade this year.  Trades are often about relationships between GMs.  Caldwell established a rapport with Elway with the Bouye trade.  Perhaps they collaborate again. 
Why wouldn’t they trade up?  In a deep and talented WR class, may be content to wait and still land a decent wideout .  Josh Jones seems to fit around this point in the draft .
What should we expect to get from them?  Difference of 300 points between 15 and 9-the equivalent of a 2nd round pick.
 
16.  Atlanta-Primary needs:  DT, CB
Why would they trade up?  See the SF discussion on CB and the Tampa rationale for DT.  Caldwell also has a rapport with the Atlanta FO.
Why wouldn’t they trade up?  I don’t believe they would need to get all the way up to 9 to land either Kinlaw or the Cb of their choice not named Okudah.
What should we get in a trade?  Per the trade chart, Jacksonville’s 9th overall, our 3rd and a 5th rounder in exchange for the 16th overall and their 2nd would be fair.
 
17.  Dallas-Primary needs:  DT, CB, WR
Why would they trade up?  See SF discussion on CB.  While they just signed Gerald McCoy to man a DT spot, he is not a long term solution to the problem.  There is a drop off in quality between Kinlaw and Blackstock, just like there is a drop from the top 3 WRs and the next group.  Jerry Jones likes making a splash in the draft.
Why wouldn’t they trade up?  If they sit tight, CB meets need and value at 17, the depth of the WR class enables them to wait until round 2.
What should we get from them?  The 17, 51 and a 5th rounder (#179 in the absence of a 6th rounder) should do the trick.
 
18.  Miami-Primary needs:  QB, LT, RT, WR, RB
Why would they trade up?  They have ample ammunition for the next two drafts.  Assuming they take a QB with their first of three first round picks this year, they still need to protect him.  While Josh Jones would be a decent choice here, there is no guarantee he will be there at 18.  Besides, the Fish may prefer one of the top tier Ts, in which case, they would need to get above Cleveland to get one of them.
Why wouldn’t they trade up?  They accumulated all of those picks and they have a ton of needs.  Just about any pick they make in the first three rounds would potentially upgrade an incumbent.
What should we get from them?  With a difference of 450 points from 18- 9, The easiest route would be Jacksonville sends the 9 and their 3rd rounder to Miami for the 18 and pick 39.  Miami also has the 56th overall pick (340 points) if they don’t want to come off of the 39th pick which would leave a difference of 110 points.  But even though they have the picks to do so, I don’t see Miami trading up to 9.
 
21.  Philadelphia –Primary needs:  WR, Edge, T
Why would they trade up?  They have a desperate need for speed at the WR spot, and all offseason long, they have been linked to Ruggs, who won’t be there for them at 21.  They have also lost two key LTs in Jason Peters (ancient but still good) and the guy who filled in admirably for him during the Eagles last Super Bowl run, Vatai (?), who went to Detroit.
Why wouldn’t they trade up?  I don’t think Caldwell would trade that far down from 9, TBH, but if the Eagles were desperate enough, I could see them wiling to move up-if the price is right.
What should we get from them?   With a point differential of 550, the Eagles would have to surrender the 21 (800), the 53 (370) 103 (88) and still have to make up another 92 points to equal things out.
 
 

As always your thoughts are welcomed.
 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!





Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#2
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2020, 01:10 PM by JagJohn.)

Is it me or are your posts getting wordier? Always worth a read either way.

I, like a few others on here, love the idea of trading down from 9... And then trading up from 20... Leaving us with two picks in the 12-16 range and enabling us to get two of the bonafide studs in that range. The more difficult part will be the trade up from 20, because other teams will also be aware of the point in the draft where the talent drops.

As for specific teams and players that could produce a trade, I think there is a decent chance a run on OTs starts early and Tampa feel pressure to move up and secure a stud to protect Brady. They could come up to 9 for that. Of course, if one of the top 3 QBs is there at 9, I imagine they would get plenty of calls.
Reply

#3

(04-05-2020, 01:10 PM)JagJohn Wrote: Is it me or are your posts getting wordier? Always worth a read either way.

I, like a few others on here, love the idea of trading down from 9... And then trading up from 20... Leaving us with two picks in the 12-16 range and enabling us to get two of the bonafide studs in that range. The more difficult part will be the trade up from 20, because other teams will also be aware of the point in the draft where the talent drops.

As for specific teams and players that could produce a trade, I think there is a decent chance a run on OTs starts early and Tampa feel pressure to move up and secure a stud to protect Brady. They could come up to 9 for that. Of course, if one of the top 3 QBs is there at 9, I imagine they would get plenty of calls.

I got a little carried away with that post.  The result of two weeks of house arrest thanks to COVID 19.

Mea culpa.

As for QBs, trade discussions/speculations usually center around QBs, but I specifically did not mention it here because almost no teams between 9-say 20 will likely need a QB by the time we are on the clock with the 9th pick. 

Cleveland and the Jets are set with 3rd year guys Mayfield and Darnold.  The Raiders and Gruden typically like vets, and they have to decent ones in Carr and Mariota.  Atlanta has Ryan, the 9ers have Garoppolom, Denver just found Lock, Dallas has Dak and Miami likely will have drafted Tua or Herbert.

Teams who might need a QB like New Orleans, New England and Green Bay pick too far down to trade up to 9 and are more appropriate in any trade down discussions with the 20th pick.
 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!





Reply

#4

(04-05-2020, 01:38 PM)Bullseye Wrote:
(04-05-2020, 01:10 PM)JagJohn Wrote: Is it me or are your posts getting wordier? Always worth a read either way.

I, like a few others on here, love the idea of trading down from 9... And then trading up from 20... Leaving us with two picks in the 12-16 range and enabling us to get two of the bonafide studs in that range. The more difficult part will be the trade up from 20, because other teams will also be aware of the point in the draft where the talent drops.

As for specific teams and players that could produce a trade, I think there is a decent chance a run on OTs starts early and Tampa feel pressure to move up and secure a stud to protect Brady. They could come up to 9 for that. Of course, if one of the top 3 QBs is there at 9, I imagine they would get plenty of calls.

I got a little carried away with that post.  The result of two weeks of house arrest thanks to COVID 19.

Mea culpa.

As for QBs, trade discussions/speculations usually center around QBs, but I specifically did not mention it here because almost no teams between 9-say 20 will likely need a QB by the time we are on the clock with the 9th pick. 

Cleveland and the Jets are set with 3rd year guys Mayfield and Darnold.  The Raiders and Gruden typically like vets, and they have to decent ones in Carr and Mariota.  Atlanta has Ryan, the 9ers have Garoppolom, Denver just found Lock, Dallas has Dak and Miami likely will have drafted Tua or Herbert.

Teams who might need a QB like New Orleans, New England and Green Bay pick too far down to trade up to 9 and are more appropriate in any trade down discussions with the 20th pick.

Yeah you're right, with maybe the exception of Miami didn't take one at 5, then looked to move up from 18. Unlikely though.

Always a possibility a team like NE puts together a bumper package including picks for next year to move up. Again unlikely though.
Reply

#5

Great read, love your posts, Bullseye, love how you framed this away from QBs.

Thinking about the GM's involved in these teams:
Browns- don't know anything about their GM but they are the Browns and now think they are a player away
Jests- Joe Douglas...all I know about him is that they are still the Jets
Raiders- the Mayock/Gruden combo...they are smart, be wary of them
49ers- John Lynch also looks to be very smart, will do anything to improve the team, the Buckner trade was bold
Bucs- Arians/Licht...landed Brady, this is their year and they know it
Broncos- Elway thinks he's a GM and has made a couple decent move lately so he'll think he knows what he's doing,
not many agree
Falcons- Dimitroff...I think the relationship twixt he and Dave Caldwell makes them a likely trade partner
Cowboys- Jerry's a bonehead. Who knows what he'll do.
Dolphins- Grier/Flores...young guys, both ascending...not much track record; likely to build slowly and not give up
picks
Eagles- Roseman would love Ruggs but he won't be a mark and will drive a hard bargain
Season Ticket holder since 2004. Smile

 

        
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#6

Great topic, I understand the thought that we have ample needs, but I don’t like the idea of accumulating any more picks this year. Who could we target that would be willing to give up 1st/ 2nd round picks next year?

The Eagles, Bucs, Pats, Cowboys, And Falcons feel like good targets. They are either in closing Super Bowl windows or have other needs that can really only be addressed early.

Give me more early picks next year and see how long we can keep double digit draft picks going. I am especially interested in the Bucs/ Falcons/ Pats. If their vet/ rookie QBs fall apart early they could be picking very early next year.
Reply

#7

Id rather trade down from pick 20 rather than 9
Reply

#8

No thanks, I rather stay at 9 and trade up from 20 to around 13-16.
Reply

#9

I think if there are several players we like still on the board at 9, and we think we can land them a few picks later, then sure, we should trade down. Like if I was the GM and by some chance Brown and Kinlaw are still on the board, and the Jets told me they weren't taking either one of those, then sure, I would not mind trading down.

That's the other part of the equation. Not only why would some teams trade up, and what we would get in return, but also, why would we trade down, other than just accumulating draft picks. 9 is a premium draft pick. I wouldn't want to give it up unless I thought I could still get my guy.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#10

You should always listen to offers. Like the million dollar man said, everything's got a price.
Reply

#11

Albert Breer in MMQB says the Jags have "kicked around the idea" of moving down from 9.

Lions and Raiders in the same boat.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/04/06/jeffre...raft-notes
Reply

#12

One of the thoughts I've had this offseason is that, were our second first rounder a later pick, Dallas would be a perfect trade partner. The retirement of Travis Frederick is going to hurt them, and 17 is simply way too early to go after a replacement. At the same rate, sliding back to 20 is almost negligible in terms of ability to gather some extra draft capital on their part by picking later. Were we at say, 24 or 25, a swap of picks with a few of our extra mid-round picks to balance the deal would have been a slam dunk.

I think the talent is going to be there at 9 that will outweigh any offer from a team looking to acquire the pick. Unfortunately, 20 is that awkward spot where the top-level talent starts to thin out. If someone like Chiason slips, does anyone like him enough to offer us a later first AND some extra darft capital? Do they stand pat and hope that Gross-Matos or Epenesa are still there when they are on the clock?

The best chance we have at a trade back is if we can somehow generate some noise of NE having interest in Love, and he is still there art 20. If so, maybe we can work with NO on a trade to get the jump? Who else would be there that some team will want to jump for?

I'm a pessimist by nature, so 20 is one of those picks I *want* to trade away from, but I just don't know that we'll be able to find a willing partner.
Reply

#13

(04-05-2020, 05:01 PM)PF* Wrote: Great read, love your posts, Bullseye, love how you framed this away from QBs.

Thinking about the GM's involved in these teams:
  Browns- don't know anything about their GM but they are the Browns and now think they are a player away
  Jests- Joe Douglas...all I know about him is that they are still the Jets
  Raiders- the Mayock/Gruden combo...they are smart, be wary of them
  49ers- John Lynch also looks to be very smart, will do anything to improve the team, the Buckner trade was bold
  Bucs- Arians/Licht...landed Brady, this is their year and they know it
  Broncos- Elway thinks he's a GM and has made a couple decent move lately so he'll think he knows what he's doing,
               not many agree
  Falcons- Dimitroff...I think the relationship twixt he and Dave Caldwell makes them a likely trade partner
  Cowboys- Jerry's a bonehead. Who knows what he'll do.
  Dolphins- Grier/Flores...young guys, both ascending...not much track record; likely to build slowly and not give up
                picks
  Eagles- Roseman would love Ruggs but he won't be a mark and will drive a hard bargain

A while back, I said I wanted to explore something like this but didn't get into it the way I had hoped.

However, NFL.com just posted a great video about each team's GM.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-draft/0ap3...2020-draft
 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!





Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#14

(04-05-2020, 07:05 PM)rufftime Wrote: Great topic, I understand the thought that we have ample needs, but I don’t like the idea of accumulating any more picks this year.  Who could we target that would be willing to give up 1st/ 2nd round picks next year?

The Eagles, Bucs, Pats, Cowboys, And Falcons feel like good targets.  They are either in closing Super Bowl windows or have other needs that can really only be addressed early.

Give me more early picks next year and see how long we can keep double digit draft picks going.  I am especially interested in the Bucs/ Falcons/ Pats.  If their vet/ rookie QBs fall apart early they could be picking very early next year.

To me, there are myrad ways to approach this.

From a simple numerical standpoint, we have myriad needs.  I count minimally ten (10) needs on this team:

LT
RG
WR opposite Chark
TE-Oliver unproven; Eifert good but always hurt
DE to replace Yan
DT X 2
CB x 2
S

While it is unrealistic to expect all of these needs to be adequately filled in one draft, the more picks we have the better able we should be able to fill a large number of these needs.  Caldwell has done well in mining the middle rounds for talent, and he has a lot of mid round picks in a deep draft in several positions of need.

We could use a maneuverability approach.  Multiple picks give the team flexibility to trade up if there is a player we want but fear may not be available when we are on the clock at our original draft slot.  While numerically we may not be adequately and completely replenish the roster, the ability to trade up due to the extra picks may put us in a better position to substantially upgrade one or more positions as opposed to simply replacing more positions.

Finally the extra picks could lead future considerations.  As I mentioned in my original post, a 7th round pick last year led to an extra 6th round pick this year.  The more picks we have, the more likely we'll have a team willing to trade into that spot, possibly for a pick or picks in the future.

While there is a limit as to how many picks can reasonably be expected to turn into pro bowl players or even contributors, the benefits of having multiple pick can exceed those base expectations if played properly.
 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!





Reply

#15

(04-05-2020, 07:11 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: Id rather trade down from pick 20 rather than 9

There is merit to this position. 

If you agree that between picks 9-20, not many teams within that range need QBs, and that the QB needs outside of the top ten are with teams picking in the 20s like New England, New Orleans and Green Bay, then if you believe teams would be willing to pay a premium to deal up to get a QB that falls to us, then trading back from 10 may prove to be more lucrative.  In fact, many teams who end up trading up into the bottom of the first round have, on multiple occasions, surrendered future first round picks to do so. 

At this point, I don't see too much difference in quality of talent between the 20th pick and say 28-29-or perhaps even lower.  If moving down from that spot nets us a first round pick next year and an extra pick this year, I won't argue too much.
 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!





Reply

#16

(04-07-2020, 03:46 PM)Bullseye Wrote:
(04-05-2020, 07:05 PM)rufftime Wrote: Great topic, I understand the thought that we have ample needs, but I don’t like the idea of accumulating any more picks this year.  Who could we target that would be willing to give up 1st/ 2nd round picks next year?

The Eagles, Bucs, Pats, Cowboys, And Falcons feel like good targets.  They are either in closing Super Bowl windows or have other needs that can really only be addressed early.

Give me more early picks next year and see how long we can keep double digit draft picks going.  I am especially interested in the Bucs/ Falcons/ Pats.  If their vet/ rookie QBs fall apart early they could be picking very early next year.

To me, there are myrad ways to approach this.

From a simple numerical standpoint, we have myriad needs.  I count minimally ten (10) needs on this team:

LT
RG
WR opposite Chark
TE-Oliver unproven; Eifert good but always hurt
DE to replace Yan
DT X 2
CB x 2
S

While it is unrealistic to expect all of these needs to be adequately filled in one draft, the more picks we have the better able we should be able to fill a large number  of these needs.  Caldwell has done well in mining the middle rounds for talent, and he has a lot of mid round picks in a deep draft in several positions of need.

We could use a maneuverability approach.  Multiple picks give the team flexibility to trade up if there is a player we want but fear may not be available when we are on the clock at our original draft slot.  While numerically we may not be adequately and completely replenish the roster, the ability to trade up due to the extra picks may put us in a better position to substantially upgrade one or more positions as opposed to simply replacing more positions.

Finally the extra picks could lead future considerations.  As I mentioned in my original post, a 7th round pick last year led to an extra 6th round pick this year.  The more picks we have, the more likely we'll have a team willing to trade into that spot, possibly for a pick or picks in the future.

While there is a limit as to how many picks can reasonably be expected to turn into pro bowl players or even contributors, the benefits of having multiple pick can exceed those base expectations if played properly.

Spot on. You're spot on. Especially with Caldwell seeming to historically do better overall once he's outside of RD1 in regards to finding starters. I think based on what they've done or tried to do on defense via free agency also ties into your thoughts about not being able to address every need in this year's draft. 

By making defense the focal point in free agency it's now allowed them to make the offense the focal point via the draft. They did make an effort in signing Tyler Eifert at TE. Seems to be a good move when you consider that he's familiar with Jay Gruden's system and we've been in need of some help at that position. 

This is also telling when you also consider that this year's TE class may not have a prospect worthy of a 1st RD selection or possibly even a 2nd RD selection. I don't think it's likely Caldwell sits on three picks in the 4th round, two picks in the 5th round & two picks in the 6th round. 

I think at some point he's going to package those up and try to steal a really good player he likes in RD2 or RD3 by parting ways with a combination of those picks there. Which is very doable. Especially with teams that are depleted with selections this year. Chicago has six picks this year. 

With no 1st RD picks. I wouldn't put it past Caldwell to flip that 20th pick into the 43rd and 50th pick on the opening night as well. Especially if his guy is off the board and he feels he's going to reach at that point on a position that he shouldn't.
[Image: 4SXW6gC.png]

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."
Reply

#17
(This post was last modified: 04-07-2020, 04:05 PM by Bullseye.)

(04-06-2020, 05:58 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: I think if there are several players we like still on the board at 9, and we think we can land them a few picks later, then sure, we should trade down.  Like if I was the GM and by some chance Brown and Kinlaw are still on the board, and the Jets told me they weren't taking either one of those, then sure, I would not mind trading down.  

That's the other part of the equation.  Not only why would some teams trade up, and what we would get in return, but also, why would we trade down, other than just accumulating draft picks.   9 is a premium draft pick.  I wouldn't want to give it up unless I thought  I could still get my guy.
But this is part of my argument defending Caldwell against not trading down in the first-a constant criticism from his detractors on this board.  Not trading down in the first netted us Ramsey and Allen.  Trading down in the first cost the Browns Carson Wentz and the Bills Watson and Mahomes.

This is from the Albert Breer article linked earlier in the thread.


Quote: My belief is that, really, 11 players are sort of hovering around the top of the class—three quarterbacks (Joe Burrow, Tua Tagovailoa and Justin Herbert), four defensive players (Chase Young, Jeff Okudah, Derrick Brown and Isaiah Simmons) and four tackles (Mekhi Becton, Tristan Wirfs, Andrew Thomas and Jedrick Wills). South Carolina DL Javon Kinlaw or one of the top two receivers might sneak into that crowd on draft day, based on different teams’ preferences, but that’s what I see as the top group.

I think this is accurate, in which case, I trade down from nine only if:  a) it's s short enough drop to still land one of these players; and/oor b) it's worth our while to move down below that point.
 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!





Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#18

(04-07-2020, 03:56 PM)aldrac Wrote:
(04-07-2020, 03:46 PM)Bullseye Wrote: To me, there are myrad ways to approach this.

From a simple numerical standpoint, we have myriad needs.  I count minimally ten (10) needs on this team:

LT
RG
WR opposite Chark
TE-Oliver unproven; Eifert good but always hurt
DE to replace Yan
DT X 2
CB x 2
S

While it is unrealistic to expect all of these needs to be adequately filled in one draft, the more picks we have the better able we should be able to fill a large number  of these needs.  Caldwell has done well in mining the middle rounds for talent, and he has a lot of mid round picks in a deep draft in several positions of need.

We could use a maneuverability approach.  Multiple picks give the team flexibility to trade up if there is a player we want but fear may not be available when we are on the clock at our original draft slot.  While numerically we may not be adequately and completely replenish the roster, the ability to trade up due to the extra picks may put us in a better position to substantially upgrade one or more positions as opposed to simply replacing more positions.

Finally the extra picks could lead future considerations.  As I mentioned in my original post, a 7th round pick last year led to an extra 6th round pick this year.  The more picks we have, the more likely we'll have a team willing to trade into that spot, possibly for a pick or picks in the future.

While there is a limit as to how many picks can reasonably be expected to turn into pro bowl players or even contributors, the benefits of having multiple pick can exceed those base expectations if played properly.

Spot on. You're spot on. Especially with Caldwell seeming to historically do better overall once he's outside of RD1 in regards to finding starters. I think based on what they've done or tried to do on defense via free agency also ties into your thoughts about not being able to address every need in this year's draft. 

By making defense the focal point in free agency it's now allowed them to make the offense the focal point via the draft. They did make an effort in signing Tyler Eifert at TE. Seems to be a good move when you consider that he's familiar with Jay Gruden's system and we've been in need of some help at that position. 

This is also telling when you also consider that this year's TE class may not have a prospect worthy of a 1st RD selection or possibly even a 2nd RD selection. I don't think it's likely Caldwell sits on three picks in the 4th round, two picks in the 5th round & two picks in the 6th round. 

I think at some point he's going to package those up and try to steal a really good player he likes in RD2 or RD3 by parting ways with a combination of those picks there. Which is very doable. Especially with teams that are depleted with selections this year. Chicago has six picks this year. 

With no 1st RD picks. I wouldn't put it past Caldwell to flip that 20th pick into the 43rd and 50th pick on the opening night as well. Especially if his guy is off the board and he feels he's going to reach at that point on a position that he shouldn't.

Given his history of moving up in the 2nd round (Allen Robinson in 2014, Myles Jack in 2016, Cam Robinson in 2017, Jawaan Taylor last year) it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him move up in that round at some point.
 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!





Reply

#19

(04-06-2020, 11:36 AM)Mikey Wrote: One of the thoughts I've had this offseason is that, were our second first rounder a later pick, Dallas would be a perfect trade partner. The retirement of Travis Frederick is going to hurt them, and 17 is simply way too early to go after a replacement. At the same rate, sliding back to 20 is almost negligible in terms of ability to gather some extra draft capital on their part by picking later. Were we at say, 24 or 25, a swap of picks with a few of our extra mid-round picks to balance the deal would have been a slam dunk.

I think the talent is going to be there at 9 that will outweigh any offer from a team looking to acquire the pick. Unfortunately, 20 is that awkward spot where the top-level talent starts to thin out. If someone like Chiason slips, does anyone like him enough to offer us a later first AND some extra darft capital? Do they stand pat and hope that Gross-Matos or Epenesa are still there when they are on the clock?

The best chance we have at a trade back is if we can somehow generate some noise of NE having interest in Love, and he is still there art 20. If so, maybe we can work with NO on a trade to get the jump? Who else would be there that some team will want to jump for?

I'm a pessimist by nature, so 20 is one of those picks I *want* to trade away from, but I just don't know that we'll be able to find a willing partner.

A couple of things to consider:

1.  If we trade Ngakoue to say Seattle at 27, that would be a far enough trade down to entice Dallas.  But who do we go after at 17?  How much would we be willing to give up?

2.  There may be teams willing to come up from the 2nd round if it means landing Love.  Say Detroit trades back and still lands Simmons or Okudah in round one.  Depending on what picks they get, they could get the replacement for Stafford.  In fact, any team in the first round who somehow missed their chance at a QB (right now Carolina is the one other team that leaps to mind).  It's clear Pittsburgh could use an heir to Big Ben, but they didn't have a first round pick this year, and they don't seem to do much trading of first round picks from an historical basis.
 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!





Reply

#20

(04-07-2020, 03:46 PM)Bullseye Wrote: To me, there are myrad ways to approach this.

From a simple numerical standpoint, we have myriad needs.  I count minimally ten (10) needs on this team:

LT
RG
WR opposite Chark
TE-Oliver unproven; Eifert good but always hurt
DE to replace Yan
DT X 2
CB x 2
S

While it is unrealistic to expect all of these needs to be adequately filled in one draft, the more picks we have the better able we should be able to fill a large number of these needs.  Caldwell has done well in mining the middle rounds for talent, and he has a lot of mid round picks in a deep draft in several positions of need.

We could use a maneuverability approach.  Multiple picks give the team flexibility to trade up if there is a player we want but fear may not be available when we are on the clock at our original draft slot.  While numerically we may not be adequately and completely replenish the roster, the ability to trade up due to the extra picks may put us in a better position to substantially upgrade one or more positions as opposed to simply replacing more positions.

Finally the extra picks could lead future considerations.  As I mentioned in my original post, a 7th round pick last year led to an extra 6th round pick this year.  The more picks we have, the more likely we'll have a team willing to trade into that spot, possibly for a pick or picks in the future.

While there is a limit as to how many picks can reasonably be expected to turn into pro bowl players or even contributors, the benefits of having multiple pick can exceed those base expectations if played properly.

I understand that there are plenty of needs on the team, I would say the needs are tiered though. Going by your list:

Desperate
NT
CB

Present/ Upgrade
LT
TE
CB
S
G
RB

Future
WR
G
DE
DT

Based on the talent available I wouldn't object to any of these being filled anywhere in the draft. However, I don't want them to force a position unless those first two are running thin. If we trade up a bit for need to meet value on those, I don't think anyone would have problems with it (to your point). We always are surprised by players growing or falling off year to year. Some of the needs we are concerned with may evaporate, some new needs may open out of nowhere.

I just don't think we have any reasonable chance of keeping 12 (or more) picks on the opening day roster. If I can add better ammo next year and set myself up for success, I would sacrifice some of my excess ammo this year. Perhaps Dave could take both approaches. Trade back in the first for additional picks this year and convert some of our lower picks into better picks next year.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!