Id rather trade down from pick 20 rather than 9

Indeed.

Or... suppose a player that should be selected in the 10-14 range slides to 15, I'd be open for using some of the plethora of picks we have this year to move up from 20.

---

Id rather trade down from pick 20 rather than 9

Indeed.

Or... suppose a player that should be selected in the 10-14 range slides to 15, I'd be open for using some of the plethora of picks we have this year to move up from 20.

Agree, would love to move up for Kinlaw or Thomas

---

Indeed.

Or... suppose a player that should be selected in the 10-14 range slides to 15, I'd be open for using some of the plethora of picks we have this year to move up from 20.

Agree, would love to move up for Kinlaw or Thomas

Agreed here as well. If a blue chip players falls that is a need then trade up from 20 to grab him.

My hope is Miami (#26) or Philly (#21) jumps and trades for Yan. Then use that pick to get a team that wants to trade up to gain more picks this year or next. If not make the pick. BPA.

---

LOVE THEM JAGUARS!

Indeed.

Or... suppose a player that should be selected in the 10-14 range slides to 15, I'd be open for using some of the plethora of picks we have this year to move up from 20.

Agree, would love to move up for Kinlaw or Thomas

Or Henderson or any of the big 3 WRs. I will consider it a fail if we wind up picking at 20.

---

Agree, would love to move up for Kinlaw or Thomas

Or Henderson or any of the big 3 WRs. I will consider it a fail if we wind up picking at 20.

Nonsense.  Our objective isn't to pick as high as possible; our objective is to get the players we want.  And if we get the one we want at 20 instead of 15, that's a win.

---

Or Henderson or any of the big 3 WRs. I will consider it a fail if we wind up picking at 20.

Nonsense.  Our objective isn't to pick as high as possible; our objective is to get the players we want.  And if we get the one we want at 20 instead of 15, that's a win.

As I posted in the 20th pick feels like no man's land thread, I do not think that whoever we want will be there at 20. We're going to be forced to pick from a tier of players who are a large gap in skill from the players going in the few picks ahead of us.

---

Nonsense.  Our objective isn't to pick as high as possible; our objective is to get the players we want.  And if we get the one we want at 20 instead of 15, that's a win.

As I posted in the 20th pick feels like no man's land thread, I do not think that whoever we want will be there at 20. We're going to be forced to pick from a tier of players who are a large gap in skill from the players going in the few picks ahead of us.

It always looks like that and a player or 2 always fall.  It never goes exactly like all these mocks.

---

Agree, would love to move up for Kinlaw or Thomas

Or Henderson or any of the big 3 WRs. I will consider it a fail if we wind up picking at 20.

You dont just trade up to trade up.  If we want to trade up we need to do it for a franchise LT not one of the WRs.  There will be good WRs to be had day 2 or the mid rounds

---

Good ones yes, great ones no. Giving up something like an extra 3rd and 4th to go from good to great is what we have all these extra picks for.

---

Good ones yes, great ones no. Giving up something like an extra 3rd and 4th to go from good to great is what we have all these extra picks for.

A Rob, Michael Thomas, Diggs, Landry, Sutton, AJ Brown, Metcalf, Hill, Thielen, McLaurin, Godwin etc..   Most of the best WRs in the league are drafted out of the 1st round.  If they felt one is elite than go for it but I dont think any are Fitz., Megatron, Jones, Green, Blackmon, Evans et.  I think there would be much better value in getting one of Wirfs Becton or Thomas and getting a WR in the 2nd like Higgins, Shenault etc. than trading up for one of those WRs.  Def. wouldnt trade a 3rd and 4th to get one.

---

Good ones yes, great ones no. Giving up something like an extra 3rd and 4th to go from good to great is what we have all these extra picks for.

A Rob, Michael Thomas, Diggs, Landry, Sutton, AJ Brown, Metcalf, Hill, Thielen, McLaurin, Godwin etc..   Most of the best WRs in the league are drafted out of the 1st round.  If they felt one is elite than go for it but I dont think any are Fitz., Megatron, Jones, Green, Blackmon, Evans et.  I think there would be much better value in getting one of Wirfs Becton or Thomas and getting a WR in the 2nd like Higgins, Shenault etc. than trading up for one of those WRs.  Def. wouldnt trade a 3rd and 4th to get one.

Draft Wirfs or Thomas or Wills at 9 and then trade up for whichever of the 3 falls to 14 or 15. Or Henderson or Kinlaw too any of them is fine. Just don't sit at 20 and take one of the top player after that big tier drop.

---

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.

Absolutely right in that there is, with apologies to Maslow, a hierarchy of needs, although I would move WR opposite Chark to the present category.

I agree we shouldn't force a pick.  But if we were going based on the quality and depth/lack thereof at the positions, NT (D. Brown or Kinlaw) would be the choice at 9, followed by CB.  If somehow we miss out on them, I am hoping for Fotu perhaps in the 3rd.

There is also basis for agreement to be found in your closing paragraph.  Barring an absolutely extraordinary draft, there is little chance of all 12 picks (and possibly more with additional trades making this team, much less upgrading the positions they represent.  Extra picks are as much for maneuverability as picking talent.  My wishful thoughts of the day is making a pick at 9 that not only benefits us but makes it more likely Cleveland or the Jets are willing to trade back, and then we trade up from 20 to get another player we are targeting right behind 9.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Agree, would love to move up for Kinlaw or Thomas

Agreed here as well. If a blue chip players falls that is a need then trade up from 20 to grab him.

My hope is Miami (#26) or Philly (#21) jumps and trades for Yan. Then use that pick to get a team that wants to trade up to gain more picks this year or next. If not make the pick. BPA.

Lingering on the thought of trading up from 20, I think if the Yannick Ngakoue trade happens before the draft and nets the team a first round pick, I think the chances of us moving up from 20 increase because we'd still have that additional buffer at the bottom of the first round to still either get another player or trade back.

I recall a Caldwell interview earlier this year (perhaps at the combine) where he seemed to emphasize the goal this draft was to get immediate impact.  Shortly thereafter, he traded away Bouye, Campbell and Foles.  I just have this lingering suspicion he has at least a couple of guys in the 9-15 range he is targeting.  We know Caldwell has traditionally traded up in the second round because it is typically cheaper than it is trading up in the first.  But most years, we pick in the top ten and only have one pick in the first, with a standard allotment of one pick in each round.  But trading up from 20 into the middle of the first round, I submit, would be more economical than trading up from say 7 into the top 5, and given the extra picks in the mid rounds, is more affordable than what would ordinarily be the case.

---

Id rather trade down from pick 20 rather than 9

Indeed.

Or... suppose a player that should be selected in the 10-14 range slides to 15, I'd be open for using some of the plethora of picks we have this year to move up from 20.

LOL you beat me to it.

Thomas and Jeudy/Ruggs
Brown and Henderson
or some combination thereof would be really nice.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Agree, would love to move up for Kinlaw or Thomas

Or Henderson or any of the big 3 WRs. I will consider it a fail if we wind up picking at 20.

A fail?

Not sure if I would go that far just yet.

If the guy we want fell to us despite not trading up, it's a win.  We could use the picks we didn't trade then to move up later or just pick more players.

But the more I think about it, the more I support moving up from 20.  Cleveland is reportedly interested in trading back.  While trading up to about 15 is certainly more cost effective, trading up to ten would be doable too, especially if Yan is traded pre draft.  The exact same move last year cost Pittsburgh their second round pick last year and a 3rd round pick this year.

https://broncoswire.usatoday.com/2019/04...rst-round/

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

As I posted in the 20th pick feels like no man's land thread, I do not think that whoever we want will be there at 20. We're going to be forced to pick from a tier of players who are a large gap in skill from the players going in the few picks ahead of us.

It always looks like that and a player or 2 always fall.  It never goes exactly like all these mocks.

---

Or Henderson or any of the big 3 WRs. I will consider it a fail if we wind up picking at 20.

You dont just trade up to trade up.  If we want to trade up we need to do it for a franchise LT not one of the WRs.  There will be good WRs to be had day 2 or the mid rounds

As for your first response, yes, a player or two will always fall.  But I have a couple of caveats.  First, the player who falls unexpectedly may or may not be a system fit for you.  2.  By not trading up, you put your hope in the other teams not taking your guy(s) before you.  But I agree you don't trade up just to trade up.  It has to make sense from a draft board perspective and it has to make sense from a draft pick compensation perspective.

Regarding your second, I disagree about an absolute rule against trading up for a WR.  While I agree this is a very deep draft at the position, and we can fill the position later in the draft if necessary if the coaches feel the new offense needs a special type of receiver-one that won't be there at 20-then we should move up if it is affordable to do so.  The 49ers traded up for Jerry Rice.  The Falcons traded up for Julio Jones.  The Vikings traded up the day before the draft and wound up with Randy Moss.  Sometimes trading up for a receiver is the right thing to do.  We have the picks to move up, and there are enough receivers in this draft to still get one later.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Good ones yes, great ones no. Giving up something like an extra 3rd and 4th to go from good to great is what we have all these extra picks for.

Given how deep this class is, we don't know which ones will end up great but wich ones won't, but we can look at the traits of each player and extrapolate whether that player's skills and ability will be available later.

We know Ruggs was the fastest player at the NFL combine.  By definition, no other combine measured receiver ran that fast.  The prevailing thought is Ruggs will not be there at 20.  If Gruden wants an absolute field stretcher, we will have to move up to get him.  Similarly, if Gruden requires a great route runner, the consensus is that the very best route runner is Jerry Jeudy.  The prevailing thought is that Jeudy won't be around at pick 20.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

One thing we need to consider is that all these GMs will be working at home during the draft and they won't have all that war room infrastructure available to them.   This might handicap them from making sudden first round trades that haven't been worked out before hand.  

I could see the usual number of overnight trades between rounds.  But to pull off an unplanned trade in the middle of the first round when the GMs are sitting at home by themselves?   I could see a lot of hesitation there.

---

One thing we need to consider is that all these GMs will be working at home during the draft and they won't have all that war room infrastructure available to them.   This might handicap them from making sudden first round trades that haven't been worked out before hand.  

I could see the usual number of overnight trades between rounds.  But to pull off an unplanned trade in the middle of the first round when the GMs are sitting at home by themselves?   I could see a lot of hesitation there.

I am sure GMs will often discuss the general parameters of potential trades beforehand under normal circumstances.  They may not get into specifics-like which player they are interested in, but they may discuss generally how interested they are in moving and what they would look for to move up/down.   With the reliance on the technology taken to a whole new level this year, and given how complex some trades can get, with possibly no guarantee of extra time allotted to execute the trades, teams will have to move fast.  I'm sure more pre draft work/collaboration between GMs will happen this year.  Teams will have to be more decisive this year to pull off trades and haggling may be limited, especially rounds 3-7 since there are only 5 minutes between picks.

Edit:  Here is a quote from Tampa's GM Jason Licht about adapting to the circumstances...https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/04/10/bucs-g-m-ready-to-phone-it-in-if-need-be/

That said, for those of you who think we already have more picks than we can use, consider the following hypothetical:

Suppose the GMs shared Caldrac's concern about the QBs in this draft class and the top 8 went something like this

1.  Cin-Burrow
2.  Was-Chase Young
3.   Det-Okudah
4.  NYG-Wills
5.  Mia-Wirfs
6.  LAC-Thomas
7.  Car-Brown
8.  Ariz-Becton

Suppose also that pre draft work showed three prospects linked to the Jaguars-Simmons, Kinlaw and Henderson-have some sort of publicly undisclosed medical and/or character issues that make the Jaguars more reluctant to select them at 9 for whatever reason.

What would you do if you are Caldwell under these circumstances?

Would you take a flyer on one of the QBs?
Would you take the receiver of your choice?
Would you reach for another player?
Or would you relent and trade back?

Please explain your answer.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

You don't take flyers in the first round.

---

You don't take flyers in the first round.

Under the right circumstances you might.  


But then again, perhaps our operational definitions of "flyer" differs.

But accepting your interpretation of that word at face value, what would you do if you won't take one of the QBs, the players you would have otherwise wanted are now off your board, and what is left are either receivers (a position most on these boards are loathe to take that high, especially in a generationally deep WR class) or players deemed reaches at the position?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

You don't take flyers in the first round.

Under the right circumstances you might.  


But then again, perhaps our operational definitions of "flyer" differs.

But accepting your interpretation of that word at face value, what would you do if you won't take one of the QBs, the players you would have otherwise wanted are now off your board, and what is left are either receivers (a position most on these boards are loathe to take that high, especially in a generationally deep WR class) or players deemed reaches at the position?

At 9 I am taking Lamb or Kinlaw. Kinlaw because he fills a huge need and is the second highest rated DT and I would take Lamb because I feel he is going to be special and I want to give Minshew the best possible chance ro succeed.

---