Dirty Job but someone has to do it...Trading down possibility

[patsfaninpa]

Buffalo - Andrew Luck - QB
Carolina - Marcel Dareus - DT
Detroit - Patrick Peterson CB
Cleveland - Robert Quinn - DE
New England - On the clock
Jacksonville
Tampa Bay
San Fran
St. Louis
Cincy
Arizona

Those are the teams coming up after us. And, the guys picked before us. Do we take the BPA? P.Amakamura. Maybe Bowers or Fairley?? There is a highly touted qb (Jake Locker) on board playing in a city already that has an nfl team, aging qb and seeking an identity. Phone rings. Bill ...It's Pete....We'd like to move up and swap picks. We can give you our first this year of course and second rounders this year and next year. Bill...I don't know Pete...There's a kid on the board we really like. Give me a minute....We would need your 1st this year and next year.........Pete says deal.


Pros - The positions we need are still heavily stocked with good players. Seattle is going to really stink next year too. SF will get it together. St Louis is really coming on. Could be a top 5 pick next year. I'll put Seattle at 8-8 this year. So, pick would be about 18. We don't have any of those guys with a Top 5 grade. We really wanted one of the three defensive guys picked before us.

Cons - The board goes nuts. The draftniks keep ripping BB. But, he has bigger stones than anyone in the league and doesn't care what they think. We could miss out on an elite player if this years draft doesn't fall the way we want and Seattle improves.

 

[reflexblue]

Buffalo - Andrew Luck - QB
Carolina - Marcel Dareus - DT
Detroit - Patrick Peterson CB
Cleveland - Robert Quinn - DE
New England - On the clock
Jacksonville
Tampa Bay
San Fran
St. Louis
Cincy
Arizona

Those are the teams coming up after us. And, the guys picked before us. Do we take the BPA? P.Amakamura. Maybe Bowers or Fairley?? There is a highly touted qb (Jake Locker) on board playing in a city already that has an nfl team, aging qb and seeking an identity. Phone rings. Bill ...It's Pete....We'd like to move up and swap picks. We can give you our first this year of course and second rounders this year and next year. Bill...I don't know Pete...There's a kid on the board we really like. Give me a minute....We would need your 1st this year and next year.........Pete says deal.


Pros - The positions we need are still heavily stocked with good players. Seattle is going to really stink next year too. SF will get it together. St Louis is really coming on. Could be a top 5 pick next year. I'll put Seattle at 8-8 this year. So, pick would be about 18. We don't have any of those guys with a Top 5 grade. We really wanted one of the three defensive guys picked before us.

Cons - The board goes nuts. The draftniks keep ripping BB. But, he has bigger stones than anyone in the league and doesn't care what they think. We could miss out on an elite player if this years draft doesn't fall the way we want and Seattle improves.

This is not only a strong possibility its probably whats going to happen. If Oaklands pick turnes out to be in the top six or even top ten i see BB trading out and getting a high pick, i don't know the value chart so im not going to speculate on the round or the year. There are enough DE's in this years draft for example, that he could grab a quality player lower in the first round. Of course the board will go off, i will for a day or so but then calm down and see the logic in it.

 

[TriplecHamp]

If Not AJ Green, trade down to a team thats looking for a WR. Most likely in the 12-16 range.

 

[Peachhead]

I could definitely see that happening, and actually I didn't even think of Seattle calling (I figured it would be someone else). But it makes a ton of sense.

However, I wouldn't do it. We're already an extremely young team. We don't exactly need more draft picks for this or next year (i.e. to get even younger). In this case I take the safer route, the bird in the hand. Even though it's a very deep class in a couple positions we need most. I think I'd rather have the top (or second) 5 technique in a ridiculously talented class than "just" a really good player and more picks. A future all-pro at that position would just make everyone on defense better.

To paraphrase Parcells' Planet Person philosophy: There are only so many 300 lb, supremely athletic, blue chippers on the entire planet. So when you get a chance to get one you better snap him up.

 

[patsfaninpa]

I could definitely see that happening, and actually I didn't even think of Seattle calling (I figured it would be someone else). But it makes a ton of sense.

However, I wouldn't do it. We're already an extremely young team. We don't exactly need more draft picks for this or next year (i.e. to get even younger). In this case I take the safer route, the bird in the hand. Even though it's a very deep class in a couple positions we need most. I think I'd rather have the top (or second) 5 technique in a ridiculously talented class than "just" a really good player and more picks. A future all-pro at that position would just make everyone on defense better.

To paraphrase Parcells' Planet Person philosophy: There are only so many 300 lb, supremely athletic, blue chippers on the entire planet. So when you get a chance to get one you better snap him up.

Would you take Fairley or Bowers? I'd probably take Amakamura if that's the board when we pick

 

[reflexblue]

I could definitely see that happening, and actually I didn't even think of Seattle calling (I figured it would be someone else). But it makes a ton of sense.

However, I wouldn't do it. We're already an extremely young team. We don't exactly need more draft picks for this or next year (i.e. to get even younger). In this case I take the safer route, the bird in the hand. Even though it's a very deep class in a couple positions we need most. I think I'd rather have the top (or second) 5 technique in a ridiculously talented class than "just" a really good player and more picks. A future all-pro at that position would just make everyone on defense better.

To paraphrase Parcells' Planet Person philosophy: There are only so many 300 lb, supremely athletic, blue chippers on the entire planet. So when you get a chance to get one you better snap him up.

I agree with you but im not sure BB will

 

[Peachhead]

Would you take Fairley or Bowers? I'd probably take Amakamura if that's the board when we pick

Fairley (or dare I say JJ Watt)

IMO, It all starts with the D-line. If we have a stellar one it makes everyone else's job easier. Less runners get out to the edges, OL & TEs need to stay home and doubleteam DLs and QBs have much less time to throw before they're flat on their back or running for their life.

Plus, I'd rather not take a DE-to-OLB conversion that early.

 

[CrazedChariot]

I dont understand why people hate trading down.

When looking at the large picture and averages, trading down and aquiring more picks almost always results in the liklihood of landing better players.

Every year there are about 10 pro bowlers in the first round and 5 from the 2nd. The pro bowlers in the first round have a slightly higher chance of being in the top 16 compared to the bottom 16, but the difference isn't as big as you would think. From last 5 years or so it looks to be roughtly 60% are from top 16 picks.

When you look at the past few drafts I think the trading down value is completely out of wack. For example the number 6 pick would net us a late first and three mid 2nd round picks.

Use this example in the 2010 draft. Assuming we were still targeting CB with our first rounder, would you rather have Joe Haden (7th overall) or McCourty , Gronkowski, Spikes, and Cunningham.

Forget what you know about them now and just base it off pre draft potential. Haden has to be so much better than McCourty for this to work in his favor. I just don't believe there is that big a gap in most prospects.

Occasionally it happens, but if you are playing the law of averages you are much better off trading down. Look at the top 5 picks from the past 6 drafts or so, how many of them are really worth 4-5 other 1st/2nd rounders?

 

[MustaphaM0nd]

the problem most fans have with trading down this year is, now that we have young depth, what we are missing is pro-bowl caliber players. Having a blue-chip D-end or cornerback would make our defense THAT much better.

 

[CrazedChariot]

I agree...but my point is that the odds of landing a probowl player actually increases as you trade down because you pick up more chances.

Id rather have 4 picks that each have a 25% chance to be a probowler than 1 pick that has a 50% chance.

 

[patchick]

I generally like trade-down strategies, but each draft is different. Last year's draft was extremely deep with long plateaus of roughly equal prospects. This year's projects to be stronger at the top but to drop off faster. Couple that with a roster with good depth and tons of youth and I'd lean toward focusing firepower on a handful of players you think could make a real impact.

Also, the trading dynamics are up in the air until we know for sure whether there will be a new CBA w/ a sane rookie compensation structure. That would make the top picks far more attractive to keep, but also far more valuable to dangle in trade.

 

[Metaphors]

I generally like trade-down strategies, but each draft is different. Last year's draft was extremely deep with long plateaus of roughly equal prospects. This year's projects to be stronger at the top but to drop off faster. Couple that with a roster with good depth and tons of youth and I'd lean toward focusing firepower on a handful of players you think could make a real impact.

Also, the trading dynamics are up in the air until we know for sure whether there will be a new CBA w/ a sane rookie compensation structure. That would make the top picks far more attractive to keep, but also far more valuable to dangle in trade.

I agree on both points. After a wipeout in 2006 (which seemed like a pretty normal class), Belichick seems to have his pulse on the recent draft classes.

- 2007 was a wasteland and he cashed out his picks in every way except those Coinstar machines
- 2008 was an average to slightly below average class and Belichick took his shots
- 2009 was an above average class with good (not great) talent at the top and Belichick traded like a hedge fund manager to get quality mid-round talent
- 2010 was an unusually deep draft and while Belichick moved around, he pulled the trigger on a lot of picks

If the expected juniors declare, 2011 looks to have significant talent at the top but is painfully thin outside the top 75. As it so happens, Belichick will be armed with 5 picks in that 75. Unless a lot of players return to school or fall on their face between now and April, I expect him to use those 5 picks (moving around using his later picks, where the talent pool is really shallow). Just can't see trading down in a draft with a number of elite players for a bunch of mediocre-to-poor talent later in the draft for an already young team.

 

[Off The Grid]

Fairley (or dare I say JJ Watt)

IMO, It all starts with the D-line.

If we have a stellar one it makes everyone else's job easier. Less runners get out to the edges, OL & TEs need to stay home and doubleteam DLs and QBs have much less time to throw before they're flat on their back or running for their life.

Plus, I'd rather not take a DE-to-OLB conversion that early.

Absolute poetry, my good man.

 

[A.C Vegas]

I think a huge part of the trade down thing will depend on if there is a rookie cap/salary slotting where you know how much a player is going to cost you.

If BB knows that then gauging value is a lot easier

 

[rookBoston]

I like Fairley, but wouldn't take him there.

I actually would trade down. With Marcell Dareus off the board, I would target either Fairley or Ingram in the teens.

 

[jsull87]

I dont understand why people hate trading down.

When looking at the large picture and averages, trading down and aquiring more picks almost always results in the liklihood of landing better players.

Every year there are about 10 pro bowlers in the first round and 5 from the 2nd. The pro bowlers in the first round have a slightly higher chance of being in the top 16 compared to the bottom 16, but the difference isn't as big as you would think. From last 5 years or so it looks to be roughtly 60% are from top 16 picks.

When you look at the past few drafts I think the trading down value is completely out of wack. For example the number 6 pick would net us a late first and three mid 2nd round picks.

Use this example in the 2010 draft. Assuming we were still targeting CB with our first rounder, would you rather have Joe Haden (7th overall) or McCourty , Gronkowski, Spikes, and Cunningham.

Forget what you know about them now and just base it off pre draft potential. Haden has to be so much better than McCourty for this to work in his favor. I just don't believe there is that big a gap in most prospects.

Occasionally it happens, but if you are playing the law of averages you are much better off trading down. Look at the top 5 picks from the past 6 drafts or so, how many of them are really worth 4-5 other 1st/2nd rounders?

I am a big fan of trading down. I also agree with your reaosning and i would also mention that some of the best players e.g chris johnson, clay mathews, Jenkins(cb dalas who i love) came late in the 1st.

I think the people on the board who hate the trade up are thinking of the instead of haden say haden was revis. would you want revis or gronk mccourty cunnigham spikes? But personally i have always been a great purponent of the trade down i just think it creates so much value to the trader down. As bill has showed us that last few years. you miss on brace and butler but you still hit on chung vollmer tate and the late round picks... it to me just seems liek the smart move

 

[SirApropos]

I think the Oakland pick will realistically be in the 7-10 range based off of how bad the AFC West is this year. But I still think a trade down is possible. I think it will be something similar to the 2008 trade wer they got Mayo and moved only a few spots down and swapped 3rd and 5th round picks. Otherwise they stay pat and get a DE like Adrian Clayborn who is a beast.

Here's how I would see the top picks coming off the board.
1. Buffalo - Andrew Luck QB
2. Carolina - A.J Green WR
3. Cleveland - Marcell Dareus DE/DT
4. San Francisco - Jake Locker QB
5. Jacksonville - Patrick Peterson CB
6. Arizona - Prince Amukamara CB
7. Seattle - Robert Quinn DE/OLB
8. Patriots - Adrian Clayborn DE
9. Detroit - Brandon Harris CB
10. Cincinnati - Ryan Mallet QB

 

[patsfaninpa]

I think the Oakland pick will realistically be in the 7-10 range based off of how bad the AFC West is this year. But I still think a trade down is possible. I think it will be something similar to the 2008 trade wer they got Mayo and moved only a few spots down and swapped 3rd and 5th round picks. Otherwise they stay pat and get a DE like Adrian Clayborn who is a beast.

Here's how I would see the top picks coming off the board.
1. Buffalo - Andrew Luck QB
2. Carolina - A.J Green WR
3. Cleveland - Marcell Dareus DE/DT
4. San Francisco - Jake Locker QB
5. Jacksonville - Patrick Peterson CB
6. Arizona - Prince Amukamara CB
7. Seattle - Robert Quinn DE/OLB
8. Patriots - Adrian Clayborn DE
9. Detroit - Brandon Harris CB
10. Cincinnati - Ryan Mallet QB

Maybe, but the NFC West teams get to play each other. That will add wins to their total. I don't see the Raiders winning many divisional games. They got lucky against SD. I say 4-5 wins. Jax,Ariz and Seattle have 3. Oh, and I've changed my mind about trading down. I want Nick Fairley now. Clayborn is good. Fairley is better IMO and more importantly. Fits our system better.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I think the Oakland pick will realistically be in the 7-10 range based off of how bad the AFC West is this year. But I still think a trade down is possible. I think it will be something similar to the 2008 trade wer they got Mayo and moved only a few spots down and swapped 3rd and 5th round picks. Otherwise they stay pat and get a DE like Adrian Clayborn who is a beast.

The "best-case" scenario for a trade would be something like this:

* Patriot pick
* Team that desperately needs a QB
[a small number of picks]
* Another team that desperately needs a QB

 

[Off The Grid]

The "best-case" scenario for a trade would be something like this:

* Patriot pick
* Team that desperately needs a QB
[a small number of picks]
* Another team that desperately needs a QB

Heh!...

I like the way you think, Brother ConPat.

I'm just about done with something ~ Mock 2.0 ~ that you might enjoy.

It'll be a bit long-winded, mind you...

But at this point...I imagine that goes without saying.