finomenal
☠️ Banned ☠️
I haven't seen it. He's got a good nonsensical post streak going. I guess Belichick plays a loser's hand, too. He trades down alot.
Locked On First Round...i Like It
- Thread starter mwestberry
- Start date
I haven't seen it. He's got a good nonsensical post streak going. I guess Belichick plays a loser's hand, too. He trades down alot.
lbmclean_nocal
☠️ Banned ☠️
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 2,462
- Reaction score
- 3,852
We are in a BPA position now. So we need to ask for premium quid pro quo. Ergo trading down probably is not just automatic. We need C, RT, WR, QB, DL, CB so why trade down unless we get a premium return? Why assume we get a premium simply because we are picking @ 13? Why create a thread about something that won’t happen?
Burnt Reynolds
Active Roster
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,229
- Reaction score
- 1,043
I like how everyone knows exactly what this regime will do in this draft based upon what Belichick/Grier has done previously. I'm in wait and see mode. This draft will give us good insight on what we'll do in the next few drafts.
Dont like it.
I like the idea of trading back but not for a 3rd or 2 3rds.
At minimum Id want a second rounder, maybe a first next year.
Either way 3rd round picks are huge gambles. Id rather not lose out on a top 10 talent kind of player in the first in order to get 2 most likely medoicre players in the 3rd.
I like the idea of trading back but not for a 3rd or 2 3rds.
At minimum Id want a second rounder, maybe a first next year.
Either way 3rd round picks are huge gambles. Id rather not lose out on a top 10 talent kind of player in the first in order to get 2 most likely medoicre players in the 3rd.
mwestberry
Club Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 4,540
- Reaction score
- 11,631
It's a combination of 2 trades to get to 23....
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2012
- Messages
- 13,248
- Reaction score
- 31,894
In terms of "value" I think this scenario is "OK."
In addition, the "nibble down" is what I've considered to be
the most likely for us -- and getting 2 additional R3 is not bad.
Bottom line is, one way or another, we have to make those picks count.
In the example given, if we hit pay dirt in R1, R2 and then make those
3 R3s really count -- hard to argue with 5 quality players (especially
if we solve OL and DL needs). It will be interesting to see what
actually goes down...
In addition, the "nibble down" is what I've considered to be
the most likely for us -- and getting 2 additional R3 is not bad.
Bottom line is, one way or another, we have to make those picks count.
In the example given, if we hit pay dirt in R1, R2 and then make those
3 R3s really count -- hard to argue with 5 quality players (especially
if we solve OL and DL needs). It will be interesting to see what
actually goes down...
In that case, we got raped twice...
Anyone can trade down, really. The issue is getting value for the pick. Trading down just to trade down isnt smart. You need to get the value.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2012
- Messages
- 13,248
- Reaction score
- 31,894
The "value" is in the acquisition of 2 additional R3 picks!
More specifically -- that would give us 5 picks from the top 100
whereas we have 3 now. If the brain trust can makes those
picks work -- it's good value. If not.
Doesn't matter...
Its not "enough" value.
You can look at the trade value charts as a rule of thumb. Alot of the info is old, but if the culmination of moving down that far is only two 3rd round picks, you are getting taken to the cleaners.
Yes, we need more picks, but lets not be silly about it.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2012
- Messages
- 13,248
- Reaction score
- 31,894
Did you listen to the podcast?
The trade value per the chart was pretty reasonable.
We gave up a little on the first move and got some on the 2nd.
No team in their right mind is going to move up 5 or 6 places to #13
and fork over an R2. If you want an R2 you'll have to drop down
to mid lower 20s... I'd rather have the 2 R3s if there's "VALUE"
in the players we can get... Just my take.
Didnt listen to the podcast and im not going to.
I hope our FO has stronger negotiation sills than those guys, because no matter how you slice it, those 2 picks are not enough value to replace a top 13 player in this draft.
I can't listen. What were the two trade downs specifically? Which spot and which teams?
Someone who's only contribution to the forum is to bash Ryan Tannehill you really aren't in any position to knock anyone.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2012
- Messages
- 13,248
- Reaction score
- 31,894
One for sure was Texans -- I think the other was Vikings...
I thought he laid out a fairy believable scenario in terms of
justifying the trades from both directions.
But of course its sheer fantasy!
:)