We've seen the trade up debate 1000x before. Those against trading up normally point out the multiple selections increase your odds of finding a good-great player and you also get cheap labor from your other lower picks.
However I wanted to pitch a new trade up scenario. Instead of giving 2 or 3 picks for 1, what if the trade up didn't change the quantity of picks the Pats had or even resulted in us having more total picks! It would be 2 picks for a higher pick and a lower pick(s).
To illustrate my point lets look at hypothetical situations for using our 2 1st round picks:
1.) Use them at 27 and 31
2.) 27+31 (value=1280) for 11 (value=1250) or 10 (value=1300)
3.) 27+31(value=1280) for
a.)22+54+86 (value=1300)
b.)19+51 (value=1265)
c.)16+80+112 (value=1260)
So does this change anybodies thoughts on a trade-up? It is the best of both worlds since you get a higher selection w/o sacrificing quantity.
Scenario 3a could play out like this:
22, 48, 54, 86, 95, 128 - players selected
63 - traded for 2013 2nd + 4th
additional 4th - traded for 2013 3rd
6 players selected and 2 additional picks next year
However I wanted to pitch a new trade up scenario. Instead of giving 2 or 3 picks for 1, what if the trade up didn't change the quantity of picks the Pats had or even resulted in us having more total picks! It would be 2 picks for a higher pick and a lower pick(s).
To illustrate my point lets look at hypothetical situations for using our 2 1st round picks:
1.) Use them at 27 and 31
2.) 27+31 (value=1280) for 11 (value=1250) or 10 (value=1300)
3.) 27+31(value=1280) for
a.)22+54+86 (value=1300)
b.)19+51 (value=1265)
c.)16+80+112 (value=1260)
So does this change anybodies thoughts on a trade-up? It is the best of both worlds since you get a higher selection w/o sacrificing quantity.
Scenario 3a could play out like this:
22, 48, 54, 86, 95, 128 - players selected
63 - traded for 2013 2nd + 4th
additional 4th - traded for 2013 3rd
6 players selected and 2 additional picks next year