Don't we have enough picks?

[opticblazed]

I am not opposed to trading back, but with so many draft picks already, and obviously not every pick makes the team, isn't it time to just draft best player available and not trade back?. I understand the concept of you can't have too many picks, by trading back aren't we in theory taking lesser players?. Also we already have a very young team. Or, are we so bad at drafting players the more picks we have the likelihood of getting good players increases with more picks?

 

[Kebo]

We have a lot of holes. This draft is very good through 3 rounds. After the top 100 it is not near as good. Trading back is only good if you can get more top 100 picks.

 

[67Stang]

Draft picks aren't just for this year and they aren't for just drafting. I am sure a lot goes in to this decision. Is there anyone available that can help the team that is worth where we are selecting? What are the offers for trades for the pick? If we trade, can we still get a player we want with the pick we get at a lower spot? I don't think you can ever have too many picks though LOL. Future picks can also be ammo for trading during the season.

 

[John813]

Depends on value. If some team is super desperate for Fields/Wilson and there's prospects at the others teams picks that Miami values I don't see why they shouldn't entertain a trade down.

Say Miami is happy with either Chase, Smith or even Pitts. They have a great feeling one will be there at 8(Panthers).

Panthers are willing to send 2 1sts and a 2nd+ to trade up for Fields.

At 8th overall one should still be there and it would be excellent value.

"Lesser" players comment makes no sense. The best players aren't always taken up high in the draft

 

[Geordie]

I am not opposed to trading back, but with so many draft picks already, and obviously not every pick makes the team, isn't it time to just draft best player available and not trade back?. I understand the concept of you can't have too many picks, by trading back aren't we in theory taking lesser players?. Also we already have a very young team. Or, are we so bad at drafting players the more picks we have the likelihood of getting good players increases with more picks?

We've only got 7 picks in total. We are probably one pick short of being able to fill most of our needs through the draft. If we go out and splurge in FA, then yes we probably do have enough. But try doing a mock with just the picks we have, it's very hard to fill all our needs and of course you would be relying a lot on the 6th and 7th rounders.

The other thing that's important to note, is that 3 is a little too high for the players we need. Unless we go Sewell, but that feels more luxury when our needs are in other areas. There's no value in picking a WR at 3, we can easily drop back and still have a choice of who we want to fill the most obvious need. There are no real, stud, "can't miss" D players in this draft. So if you want one of those, you are overpaying taking one at 3.

 

[Nublar7]

I think the idea of trading back this draft is that the player they will likely target at #3 (Chase or Smith) assuming they don't want want Penei Sewell will likely be on the board at like #5 or #6. But by dropping a few spots back and still getting the same player, they could add potentially another 1st round pick in 2022. That is why you explore trading back.

We've only got 7 picks in total. We are probably one pick short of being able to fill most of our needs through the draft. If we go out and splurge in FA, then yes we probably do have enough. But try doing a mock with just the picks we have, it's very hard to fill all our needs and of course you would be relying a lot on the 6th and 7th rounders.

The other thing that's important to note, is that 3 is a little too high for the players we need. Unless we go Sewell, but that feels more luxury when our needs are in other areas. There's no value in picking a WR at 3, we can easily drop back and still have a choice of who we want to fill the most obvious need. There are no real, stud, "can't miss" D players in this draft. So if you want one of those, you are overpaying taking one at 3.

I think we actually have 9 picks, unless I am missing something.

 

[Dolph N.Fan]

Always trading back to give you multiple 1st round picks every draft is a nice way to stay relevant for a long time without having to give up key players.

 

[circumstances]

I am not opposed to trading back, but with so many draft picks already, and obviously not every pick makes the team, isn't it time to just draft best player available and not trade back?. I understand the concept of you can't have too many picks, by trading back aren't we in theory taking lesser players?. Also we already have a very young team. Or, are we so bad at drafting players the more picks we have the likelihood of getting good players increases with more picks?

if a player worthy of the 3rd overall pick (and the picks you are offered as compensation in a trade down) is sitting there, i would have no problem pulling the trigger.

if you could get that same exact player, or a similar player a few spots lower, you have to look at the offers being thrown your way.

if the offer is generous enough, you might move down further than you would like.

this is true for every team and GM.

no idea why you would equate smart, effective, appropriate, and necessary draft management with our (or any team) "needing" to do the correct thing because they're "bad at drafting players."

 

[Mach2]

if a player worthy of the 3rd overall pick (and the picks you are offered as compensation in a trade down) is sitting there, i would have no problem pulling the trigger.

if you could get that same exact player, or a similar player a few spots lower, you have to look at the offers being thrown your way.

if the offer is generous enough, you might move down further than you would like.

this is true for every team and GM.

no idea why you would equate smart, effective, appropriate, and necessary draft management with our (or any team) "needing" to do the correct thing because they're "bad at drafting players."

Agree. You cant really have too many picks in the top 3 rds. After that, yeah, it becomes a numbers game, but if say 1 out of 4 stick, that's one more than you otherwise had.

Of course that only applies when you have the quantity of picks we have had the past two drafts.

Teams that only have 4 or 5 picks are not going to look at it the same way.

 

[Feverdream]

I am not opposed to trading back, but with so many draft picks already, and obviously not every pick makes the team, isn't it time to just draft best player available and not trade back?. I understand the concept of you can't have too many picks, by trading back aren't we in theory taking lesser players?. Also we already have a very young team. Or, are we so bad at drafting players the more picks we have the likelihood of getting good players increases with more picks?

The lesser players argument always falls flat with me for several reasons. The chief one being that these players are all just projections, none of them have an actual measurable value and we treat them like they do. If these players actually performed in a linear, measurable fashion it might make sense to take the higher value ones and get greater players.. like taking Amazon stock before K-Mart stock.

Last year, for instance... just about every single tout had Jerry Jeudy has the hands down, #1 best WR in the draft. In Denver he got 52 receptions and 3 TDs. The Raiders, defying convention as always, chose Henry Ruggs a couple of picks before Jeudy and he ended up contributing a bare 26 receptions for 2 TDs.

These were the BIG 2... neither were very inspiring.

Justin Jefferson was the FIFTH WR taken and he caught 88 passes and got 7 TDs.
Chase Claypool was the THIRTEENTH WR taken... 68 receptions for 10 TDs

Lesser players? Not hardly. More like, lesser hype because they didn't play for Alabama.

 

[juniorseau55]

We have more holes than Pamela Anderson. 2 first round picks, 2 2nd round picks. Botching this draft would be a crime.

 

[Feverdream]

One last thought... Last year, if we had traded down... we could have gotten 2 first round picks and both Justin Jefferson AND Chase Claypool for that pick.

Now, that's a hindsight deal... and immediately questionable about whether we would have taken these actual players... but more shots... more better.

 

[Mach2]

One last thought... Last year, if we had traded down... we could have gotten 2 first round picks and both Justin Jefferson AND Chase Claypool for that pick.

Now, that's a hindsight deal... and immediately questionable about whether we would have taken these actual players... but more shots... more better.

To a point. I'm not trading a rd2 for 4 rd5 and 2 rd7 picks.

It may not be linear, but there is corralation between success and draft position. Some positions more than others. WR, for example is different than pass rushing DE.

 

[Feverdream]

To a point. I'm not trading a rd2 for 4 rd5 and 2 rd7 picks.

It may not be linear, but there is corralation between success and draft position. Some positions more than others. WR, for example is different than pass rushing DE.

This is true... but most of the picks generated from a #3 trade down are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks.

 

[dolphinheel]

I am not opposed to trading back, but with so many draft picks already, and obviously not every pick makes the team, isn't it time to just draft best player available and not trade back?. I understand the concept of you can't have too many picks, by trading back aren't we in theory taking lesser players?. Also we already have a very young team. Or, are we so bad at drafting players the more picks we have the likelihood of getting good players increases with more picks?

Absolutely spot on. We don’t need MORE players we need BETTER players. We need game changing, elite players. Consider that our best two players are a CB and a K. Lol. The history behind the MD trading down has been an historic fail and anyone who doesn’t agree can prove me wrong. I’ve been around since 1966 so I do know a little about how epically bad we’ve been. If we haven’t ID’d a player at 3 by now we’re Fd anyway.