The scenerios you've fantasized frequently project Beatty to still be on the board at #34 - hence a reason for you to value the pick over the trade. I don't see Beatty as a priority, I draft "my" priority at #23, so now I can weigh relative values - is S a greater value at #34? is OL? is DL? is WR? - and it made more sense to me to have an extra Day One pick in 2010. Yes, Dallas projects to be competitive for the postseason projecting the 2010 2nd as later pick in the round - BB took a 2008 1st and an early 2007 4th for a late 2007 1st - so I dipped into the 4th round to bring the relative values closer together. If NE has two late seconds in 2010, then they have some ammo for a modest move in the first round - about what we'd expect of them. You can make the argument that Dallas will have a late first which is a better one-to-one value, however; Jerry Jones may be impatient, but he's no dummy. That 2010 first is just too valuable an asset for a team thinking they will make the playoffs - I take what I can get and that's three picks to work with.I've been waiting for your retort, expecting something suitably feisty. My apologies for getting Jason Phillips and Jason Williams confused.
My confusion is not that this is an unreasonable draft scenario, but that you presented it as your "dream draft". With a lot of talent through around the #50 pick, I don't see this as the year to trade back from #34 unless all of our top projected players go really early. Dallas should be a playoff contender, so trading #34 for #51 and a 2010 pick that will probably be in the 50's doesn't seem like optimal value to me, if a player like Gilbert, Beatty or Delmas is available. If you don't believe those are blue chip prospects (like 2007, where BB didn't like the value at 28, and where the SF 1st had a least potential to be significantly higher) or if they're all gone then trading back makes sense, but presenting it as your "dream scenario" puzzles me a bit.