Is A Stud Worth 2 Low First Rounders, Especially For A Playoff team?

[mgteich]

Is a stud (7-10 per draft plus ab's) worth 2 low firsts, especially to a GM who seems to thing that picks 20-60 are about the same level of player.

If the answer is yes, and I certainly think that it is, which studs are worth moving up for? I would start with those below.

1) a quarterback that the team really likes, and has confidence that they can develop over the next two years.

2) Chubb
============
Yes, I understand that there are many of you that believe that we are likely to get 4 starters plus 2019 first for our first 5 picks. Personally, I think that top studs are worth a lot.

 

[Bcc66duece]

Roquan Smith maybe, Minkah Fitzpatrick and Derwin James, would love either one of those two.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

This question again ?


Trading Into 2019

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Don’t think our 2 first rounders would get us into the top 10. Top 15 maybe.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Don’t think our 2 first rounders would get us into the top 10. Top 15 maybe.

Exactly.

2018 NFL Draft Trade Value Chart

 

[maineman209]

With the exception of the right QB (due to the current circumstance) and possibly LT, I'd say no.

First of all, none of these 2018 college prospects is an NFL "stud" yet.

Second, how much more can a "stud" really contribute versus two players who are merely "good"? Twice as many tackles? Receptions? 25% more? 10% more?

Certainly one "stud" may elevate a team from 6-10 to 10-6. But how much more can he add to a team that's averaged 14.4 wins versus 4 losses for eight consecutive seasons versus two merely "good" players? How much longer can he keep the successful run alive?

What happens if/when your "stud" gets injured and there's no second "good" player to cover for the loss?

 

[micronin127]

Texans traded #25 and 2018 first rounder to move up to #12. As it turns out, Cleveland picks #4 this year. At the time of the trade, with a playoff team, it was #25 and next year's first.

Also, KC traded #27, a 3rd rounder, and future first to move up to #10.

I'm think two firsts, both in this year's draft, is enough to get to around pick #10.

Depends on who is there. So, that is hypothetical until a team is on the clock that is willing to trade with you. I think you can rule out Miami @ 11 and Buffalo @ 12. So we would have to target Tampa @7, Chicago @ 8, SFran @ 9, and Oakland @10. We would also have to have a specific player in mind.

 

[maineman209]

Exactly.

2018 NFL Draft Trade Value Chart

Just barely.

600 (#31) + 760 (#23) = 1360

The #9 pick is listed at 1350.

 

[ZoisKing]

I would love to trade 23 and 31 if it got us Roquan. However, I might also love taking Vander Esch and Rashaan at those spots. Hard to say.

 

[Patstopia]

The draft is such a crap shoot as it is I would not trade up for anyone on offense, but on defense Chubb would be the only player worth the risk. Definitely would not trade up for a QB.

 

[patsfan13]

Just barely.

600 (#31) + 760 (#23) = 1360

The #9 pick is listed at 1350.

What is #8 point value, if Lynch is looking to rebuild he may go for 2 other #1's. He should do a solid for BB in return for their franchise QB.

 

[zipster9]

Is a stud (7-10 per draft plus ab's) worth 2 low firsts, especially to a GM who seems to thing that picks 20-60 are about the same level of player.

If the answer is yes, and I certainly think that it is, which studs are worth moving up for? I would start with those below.

1) a quarterback that the team really likes, and has confidence that they can develop over the next two years.

2) Chubb
============
Yes, I understand that there are many of you that believe that we are likely to get 4 starters plus 2019 first for our first 5 picks. Personally, I think that top studs are worth a lot.

Yes. One guy can make a difference. Von Miller in the SuperBowl.

Yes. Patriots DL was bad through out the year and in SB.

But, unlikely BillB does this. Too many other issues...

Landry and Miller would be my picks in 1st round.

 

[maineman209]

What is #8 point value, if Lynch is looking to rebuild he may go for 2 other #1's. He should do a solid for BB in return for their franchise QB.

#8 = 1400

 

[mgteich]

To me, #9 is a bit more than barely into the top 10, but that's nitpicking. It seems that we might be able to get there.

BTW, the poster said that the two picks would get us only to 15. We could there with 23 plus 63 or by 31 plus 43.

Just barely.

600 (#31) + 760 (#23) = 1360

The #9 pick is listed at 1350.

Just barely.

600 (#31) + 760 (#23) = 1360

The #9 pick is listed at 1350.

 

[maineman209]

Yes. One guy can make a difference. Von Miller in the SuperBowl.

Yes. Patriots DL was bad through out the year and in SB.

But, unlikely BillB does this. Too many other issues...

Landry and Miller would be my picks in 1st round.

After four years wallowing around .500 with no playoff appearances, the Broncos went 4-12 in 2010 and then took Miller at #2 overall in the 2011 draft (no trade-up required).

The Broncos' record since:

2011 = 8-8, lost Divisional Round
... Miller

2012 = 13-3, lost Divisional Round
... Miller + Manning
2013 = 13-3, Lost SB
... Miller + Manning
2014 = 12-4, lost Divisional Round
... Miller + Manning
2015 = 12-4, WON SB
... Miller + Manning

2016 = 9-7
... Miller
2017 = 5-11
... Miller

 

[mgteich]

hmm I'd certainly consider using our 23 and 43 to move up to about 12 with trades of lower picks.

One player is good for FOUR games on a weak team, and can't add to a playoff team?

???

If that's the case, I have no reason to believe that two players (23 and 31) would add much either.
=============
I think one of the issues that we haven't been adding enough top game changers to the roster. Where is McGinist's replacement? I would much rather have a stud than have two good players.

How can it be right for the best franchise over 2 decades to not even want to draft potential top studs? Obviously, we can spread the risk. We have 5 top 100 picks. Should we turn them into 10 top 100 picks? Why not? We'd have a better chance to find good players.
================================
BOTTOM LINE
We are adding two 3's from 2017. We are already at minimum one of the top 5 teams in the NFL. Belichick has added lots of vets to compete, some are "good" enough to likely get major reps: Shelton, Clayborn, McCourty, Matthews. Belichick will find 2-4 UDFA's.

We don't need a dozen draftees. We need game changers. And yes, we also need players who might start in 2019 (at DE and CB).

So, I'd trade 2 of our top picks for a potential stud, in a heartbeat. That would leave us with ONLY 3 picks in the top 100. As an example, if we traded 63 to move up to 15 from 23, we'd still have 31, 43 and 95. Obviously, we could trade down with one of these if we wished (or into 2019 if we didn't find our QB).

QUOTE="maineman209, post: 5297408, member: 38468"]With the exception of the right QB (due to the current circumstance) and possibly LT, I'd say no.

First of all, none of these 2018 college prospects is an NFL "stud" yet.

Second, how much more can a "stud" really contribute versus two players who are merely "good"? Twice as many tackles? Receptions? 25% more? 10% more?

Certainly one "stud" may elevate a team from 6-10 to 10-6. But how much more can he add to a team that's averaged 14.4 wins versus 4 losses for eight consecutive seasons versus two merely "good" players? How much longer can he keep the successful run alive?

What happens if/when your "stud" gets injured and there's no second "good" player to cover for the loss?[/QUOTE]

 

[mgteich]

I strongly disagree, although I won't "rate" it as such.

This would argue for not having top draftees at all. If we ever had a top 10 pick (through trad , of course), then we should trade down for two players rather than to take the risk.

Anyone can get injured, even stars/studs and potential stars. That is not a reason to settle of "good" players and hope that we can make them great.

BOTTOM LINE
Some players have much better potential than others. Thee players usually get drafted in the top 15 (we've been using 7-10 plus quarterbacks). Obviously, the number changes from draft to draft, as well as our evaluation of these players (which includes relative need).

What happens if/when your "stud" gets injured and there's no second "good" player to cover for the loss?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Unimpressed by QBs but I would trade up even using 2 firsts IF a notable talent D player fell into range.

 

[Gwedd]

Unimpressed by QBs but I would trade up even using 2 firsts IF a notable talent D player fell into range.

Fitzpatrick or Harrison would be my choices there, even without my personal bias towards them.

 

[Ring 6]

I strongly disagree, although I won't "rate" it as such.

This would argue for not having top draftees at all. If we ever had a top 10 pick (through trad , of course), then we should trade down for two players rather than to take the risk.

Anyone can get injured, even stars/studs and potential stars. That is not a reason to settle of "good" players and hope that we can make them great.

BOTTOM LINE
Some players have much better potential than others. Thee players usually get drafted in the top 15 (we've been using 7-10 plus quarterbacks). Obviously, the number changes from draft to draft, as well as our evaluation of these players (which includes relative need).

Yes if we had a top 10 and could tradecfiem for 2 firsts we should and would.