EROCK528
Active Roster
The only problem with pick 6 is that you have a very good chance to lose out on both Chase and Pitts...the top 2 offensive playmakers. Only time will tell.
Did the Fins outsmart themselves with draft trades?
- Thread starter EROCK528
- Start date
ANUFan
Club Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 27,965
- Reaction score
- 37,444
That's assuming Chase and Pitts are the only two players they were targeting.
A chance to get Smith and an extra 1st and 3rd round pick? Sign me up every season for that.
IMO you only make the trades if neither Chase nor Pitts is your target.
That's okay because I would be fine with either Smith or Waddle too.
This topic is being beaten to death. They didn't move from 3 to 12 back to 6 if they were only targeting one or two players. They would have just stayed at 3
Trust the plan and stop overthinking it.
Trust the plan and stop overthinking it.
Jimi
The World Is Yours
Also, I would argue the chance of neither of them being available at 6 is pretty low.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2009
- Messages
- 9,174
- Reaction score
- 17,148
If those were the only two Miami had on their short list for trading up to #6, then check in with Carolina and Denver to see what they are offering.
If deciding to stay put or don't have any offers, then it is next man up on their draft board.
If deciding to stay put or don't have any offers, then it is next man up on their draft board.
Then complain that we overdrafted a TE at 3
Dolph N.Fan
Active Roster
I think Miami should just stand pat @#6.
Pigs get fed
Hogs get slaughter
Pigs get fed
Hogs get slaughter
ANUFan
Club Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 27,965
- Reaction score
- 37,444
No more trading down! Need to get the best player maker available @6.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2012
- Messages
- 13,285
- Reaction score
- 32,034
Said this right away and good luck with the incoming.
The net net result of the trade was POOR value. Period.
And it will sink in. Sooner or later.
We traded #3 for #6 and got...
An R3 in '22 and and R1 in '23.
That's not even poor. It's horrible.
Picks in the future are significantly discounted in value terms.
The R1 in '23 is effectively the SAME value as an R3 in '21.
The R3 in '22 is effectively the SAME value as an R4 in '21.
So... we trade that super high value pick and EFFECTIVELY got an R3 and an R4 in present value!
Like I said. That BLOWS.
In addition, we also lost value in the mid rounds with a pick swap.
So as great as the swindle was Grier achieved with O'Brien, he BLEW a ton of value...
The net net result of the trade was POOR value. Period.
And it will sink in. Sooner or later.
We traded #3 for #6 and got...
An R3 in '22 and and R1 in '23.
That's not even poor. It's horrible.
Picks in the future are significantly discounted in value terms.
The R1 in '23 is effectively the SAME value as an R3 in '21.
The R3 in '22 is effectively the SAME value as an R4 in '21.
So... we trade that super high value pick and EFFECTIVELY got an R3 and an R4 in present value!
Like I said. That BLOWS.
In addition, we also lost value in the mid rounds with a pick swap.
So as great as the swindle was Grier achieved with O'Brien, he BLEW a ton of value...
dnespins
Active Roster
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 3,105
- Reaction score
- 3,236
well they've atleast got 1 person fooled