Can you spare us and just tell us the conclusions?
I skimmed through it. I'm going to need more caffeine to genuinely focus on the full article, it's a very long column.
Basically he is suggesting that a team should trade up for a QB, based on the potential upside.
(On the other hand we had a discussion a few weeks ago based on another ESPN article that trading up for a QB was at best a 50-50 proposition.)
OK, there has been a lot of disagreement regarding the Pats trading out of the #3 spot for a haul or stay put and draft a QB. I am on the side of those who think trading down should be considered. Others have suggested that that would mean the Pats would have to trade a king’s ransom in the...
www.patsfans.com
From the bold moves that paid off -- like Patrick Mahomes -- to the many that didn't, here's a rundown of each QB trade-up from the common draft era.
www.espn.com
Barnwell also states that besides QB, a team should go ahead and trade up for other premium positions (wide receivers, offensive tackles and pass-rushers), again based on the potential upside.
He then hedges his own hypothesis by stating that a team should not overpay, and be realistic about their own roster.
One last note is that Barnwell concludes that
a team should not sacrifice future picks for lesser picks in the current year's draft.
He uses the example of when the Patriots traded a 2nd round pick in the current draft to Baltimore, for the following year's first.
Brian Billick and the Ravens drafted QB Kyle Boller; a year later the Pats drafted Vince Wilfork with that Ravens draft pick.
I may have missed it, but I didn't see a corresponding analysis of the benefit of trading down; to me that would have been a helpful comparison. Barnwell did compare the value of staying put versus trading up, however.
