Since we have discussed trading up from 20 here, I figured I might as well discuss why the teams above us in that draft order might/might not be willing to move down.
10. Cleveland-primary need: LT.
Why would they trade down? If they miss out on the T of their choice or the top 4 tackles, given their needs and how the talent seems to proect, 20 might be a more appropriate spot under the circumstances. Furthermore, they are one of the analytics teams, and it's my understanding that analytics teams are more inclined to gavor trading down (I may be wrong on this point because the Jaguars have not traded down),
Why wouldn’t they trade down? Simple. If the T they want is still on the board, it would be silly of them to get too cute and overthink this. Just make the pick.
11. N.Y. Jets-Primary needs: LT, WR
Why would they trade down? Actually I can't imagine them trading down given how the board is likely to fall. The only scenario I could see them trading back to 20 is if there was an early run on the LTs and all of the top 4 are gone by now, plus their top choice of WR is gone. That can only happen if the QBs drop, IMO. That plus a desire to recoup the draft choices lost in trading up for Darnold a couple of years ago.
Why wouldn’t they trade down? Their top choices at T or receiver are likely to be there. If they went BPA if their choices are gone, they should still end up with a good player.
What would a trade cost Jacksonville? According to the Drafttek chart, the difference between 11 and 20 is 400 points, or the equivalent of a mid low 2nd. Note the 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?. (Add'l note: each subsequent draft position is worth 50 points less in the trade value chart)
12 and 19. Las Vegas-Primary need: WR
Why would they trade down? 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 12. If they are set on one guy and he is somehow off the board by 12, maybe they move back.
Why wouldn’t they trade down? Sitting still should still net them one of the top 3 WRs if they like all three, and there is a good chaince their top choice may still be on the board. Besides, they alreadty have a bunch of draft picks, and could still upgrade spots on defense like DT or CB if they stand pat.
What should we pay in trade? There is a 350 point difference between the 12 and the 20th pick-about a late 2. Probably the 12 and #91 for 20 and 42
13. San Francisco-Primary needs: WR, CB, DT
Why would they trade down? If they wanted to accumulate depth to soften the blow of inevitable free agency losses from such a young and talented team. The problem is, after the 31st pick in the draft, the 49ers don’t pick again until round 5. If they value Kinlaw or one of the top WRs, they will stand pat. But if they like the depth in this draft class and want to add depth to their roster, they should be interested in moving down.
Why wouldn’t they trade down? Even with the loss of Buckner, this is a very talented team whose Super bowl window is still wide open. If they could add a guy like Kinlaw or Ruggs/Jeudy, their window should be open longer. But not having any picks from rounds 2-4 can limit much needed depth.
What should we expect to pay them to trade down? There is a 300 point difference between 13 and 20, about a mid to late 2. See similar trade to Raiders above. I think this represents one of the best possibilities of a trade up from 20, TBH.
14. Tampa Bay-Primary needs: T, RB, DT
Why would they trade down? If they missed out on a T to protect Brady, 14 might be too low to land a guy like Kinlaw, and too high to take a RB or maybe Josh Jones.
Why wouldn’t they trade down? Good chance Kinlaw is there at 14. A Vea, Suh--Kinlaw triumvirate would be a strong rotation at DT. If one of the top tier Ts are there, forget it. They will do everything they can to give Brady the protection he needs.
What should we expect to pay them in a trade? There is a 250 point difference between 14 and 20, Our 3rd round pick and our first 5th round pick should be enough per the chart is decent price to get the guy we want. But I don't see Tampa moving down.
15. Denver-Primary needs: WR, LT
Why would they trade down? Given the depth of the WR class, I could see Elway wanting to add more depth while still getting Lock a viable weapon opposite Sutton and Fant. Again, trades are often about relationships between GMs. Caldwell established a rapport with Elway with the Bouye trade. Perhaps they collaborate again. Twenty isn't too far down from 15.
Why wouldn’t they trade down? If one of the top 4 WRs fall, forget it. Josh Jones seems to fit around this point in the draft if all of the top 3 receivers fall. Could even take a CB is Henderson is there and pair him with Bouye.
.
What should we expect to get from them? Difference of 200 points between 15 and 20-the equivalent of a 3rd round pick with change. That shouldn't be too expensive for the Jaguars to move up, but would they move down?
16. Atlanta-Primary needs: DT, CB
Why would they trade down? Caldwell also has a rapport with the Atlanta FO.
Why wouldn’t they trade down? They are in a pretty good spot to land the CB of their choice after Okudah.
What should we expect to pay in trade? Per the trade chart, there is a 150 point difference between 16-20-a late 3rd.
17. Dallas-Primary needs: DT, CB, WR
Why would they trade down? See SF discussion on CB. They have a lot of DBs likely to become free agents/cap casualties next year and may need extra picks to supply many cheaper replacements in a deep DB draft. They also like to make a splash.
Why wouldn’t they trade down? 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 exoect to pay them? Hundred point difference between picks-a late 3rd.
18. Miami
Why would they trade down? Even though they have had a good offseason so far and have a ton of picks, considering how talent depleted they were, they could add a pick later and still get a similar caliber player.
Why wouldn’t they trade down? If someone unexpectedly falls, they may not think it is worth whatever minor benefit they would get. Of course given their ammo, I wouldn't think they would just sit and wait if they saw someone fall. I think like the Jaguars, they would try to move u[ from here.
(04-13-2020, 10:24 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: (04-13-2020, 07:32 AM)Bullseye Wrote: Well of course a team in the top 5-10 will take a chance with Tua or Herbert. That's the nature of the QB position.
The initial focus of the thread is trading down from 9.
I deliberately did not discuss QB possibilities because I don't think the team would trade down that far (9 into the 20s), to say nothing of the fact the original post would have become a novel had I done so. I thought it more appropriate/likely in a "Trade down from 20" discussion.
I agree with you that Minnesota, New England, New Orleans and Green Bay are all teams that could take a QB early under the right circumstances. Cousins is on the last year of a three year deal, and given the losses they have suffered on their once great defense and the trade of Diggs, they may be willing to start over at the position. The Patriots let Brady walk. The Saints and Packers have very old QBs. While Brees and Rodgers are still effective, either or both could decline appreciably this year. Besides, the Packers are one of those teams that are proactive in terms of addressing the QB position. They drafted Rodgers and sat him on the bench while they still had Favre and Favre was still a viable passer. If Pittsburgh had a first round pick this year, I would include them in the discussion, and I can't imagine them being without a first round pick in back to back years (were they to send next year's 1 to us in a deal).
Cousins signed an extension a few weeks back
D'oh! Missed that! Mea culpa and thanks.
Worst to 1st. Curse Reversed!
