I agree trading up isnt the best idea, but: We would have needed to trade up to get Alshon Jeffrey, who was taken two picks after Hill. If we made the trade and grabbed him instead, it would have looked like a smooth move. If we stayed put and were dead set on taking a receiver, the next taken was Ryan broyles, 7 picks later. His career stats are lower than Hill's.
The most likely result is that we'd just have gotten Hill without spending additional picks. The point is that trading up to reach for need is the worst possible thing you can do in the NFL draft. If you don't trade up you've at least simplified the things that can go wrong with the pick. That's the disciplined approach to take. It works much better in the long run because it gives you more shots in what is essentially a lottery.
We should be prepared for what to do if there is behavior that makes you concerned about landing Watkins, Lee, Evans, Ebron, or Amaro - I think you stay put. I like Lee and Amaro quite a bit, so defo wouldn't trade up for the sake of picking up Evans. It all comes down to how many QBs get picked early on, no? We want a bunch of QBs taken in the top 10 so the strong skill players are around for us. Have seen mocks with the QBs going early that have Lee and Evans picked in the 20s, and others that don't value this years QB class as much and have them gone in the first 10 picks...
No, absolutely not. IMO the only times a team should even consider trading up is to get their franchise QB, if they are a deep team that has gone deep in the playoffs for years and can afford to move up to try to get that one player away from winning the Lombardi Trophy, or if they have been trying for years to fill a key position like LT or pass-rushing OLB/DE and have just not been able to get a good enough player. Even then, they'd better not miss. Aside from that, WRs bust frequently, this draft is loaded with excellent WRs and is very deep at that position. Finally, if I were gonna trade up for a WR, he better have it all...speed, size, great hands, great route running ability, ability to spot blitzes and alter his route or come back to help the QB, ability to get open, and toughness. I don't think that Evans is a great enough prospect to merit trading up. I have seen some question his route running ability, claiming that many of his receptions came off of broken plays where he broke off his pattern and/or came back towards Manziel. In one sense, that's very good, but in another it's not that he wasn't able to get open enough initially with a QB with great accuracy and a quick release so that Manziel had to scramble and then he had to alter his route. I have also seen some question his ability to gain separation and his speed. I'm not saying he's slow at all, but players are drafted for the long haul. It's a known fact that as players age and sustain more hits most of them get slower. It's one thing to draft a WR who has borderline or questionable speed, and you know that within five years or so that he is going to be even slower, which could limit his effectiveness. It's quite another to trade up for him. In last night's bowl game, I saw another reason to have some concern regarding Evans. He's a very emotional player. That's not necessarily a bad thing and can be quite a good thing if kept in check. He hurt A&M with two stupid 15-yard penalties last night and could have cost them the game. In addition, Duke was playing man-to-man coverage, and I think it's interesting that he wasn't A&M's top receiver last night. It was their other receivers that got open and won the game for them. In short, I'm not even sure I want Evans any more, but I sure as heck wouldn't trade up for him.
Excellent post. In spite of my talking of trading up for Bridgewater because I think he will be a franchise QB, I abhor trading up. Hopefully Idzik won't make the same mistakes that Tanny did.
Trading up for a player in general is a bad idea, especially for a WR..... Look at the Falcons, they gave up two 1sts, a 2nd, two 4ths for Julio Jones. Its ridiculous, they could have used those 5 picks and drafted 5 WR's with at least one of them being just as good and paying a lot less. The Falcons could have taken Cobb, Titus Young, Torrey Smith instead of trading all for 1 WR. If the Falcons had stayed put they could have had Torrey Smith and Titus Young in 2011. Then the next year could have drafted Alshon Jefferey with the other 1st round pick they gave up.
What a ridiculous argument. First, Blackmon is a stud I would take him in a second. Second, because your draft status says you are 'elite' does not make it so. People miss all the time. You think Miami wouldnt like to have that Ted Ginn pick back for a guy named Bowe that went later that round. Charles Rogers went second overall the same year Anquan Boldin lit up the league as a rookie after getting picked out of the second round. Stay put at 18.
Regardless of your draft strategy, your talent evaluation is going to be the bottom line. this isn't unique to trading up. It also does not take in to account the situation. Trading 2 picks to move up in a draft where you have 5 picks is alot different then trading 1 pick to move up in a draft where you have 10 picks, for instance. You simply cant compare all instances of trading up as if they are the same. there is a safety net in trading up when you have a stockpile of draft picks. not so much when you have less then the full compliment, which has hurt is in the past with trading away picks. But overall, of course it ALWAYS comes down to talent evaluation. Hoping other teams dont draft well, and that a player drops to you isnt discipline. its wishful thinking. if there is a player there that can be a high impact guy, and you have a chance to get him, roll the dice, and end up with a significantly lesser player - that can you hurt you just as much if not more. we would have had to trade up to get alshon jefferey as well though, right? your chances of getting a star at a skill position(not true at all positions, but at skill positions) decrease the further down in the draft you go -- and whats worse, is that its harder to evaluate talent the further down in the draft you go. which is why its important to replenish your draft picks year to year by trading picks this year for a pick in a higher round in a future draft. as long as you are responible in making sure you have a stockpile of picks you will always have the flexibility to trade up... if you DONT have the extra picks, then you dont move up. THAT is where the discipline should be, i dont buy it. it all comes down to evaluation for the most part. new england has stockpiled and even traded down to get MORE picks and where has it gotten them the past 10 years? outside of maybe OJ mayo where is this talent with all those picks? they havent exactly stockpiled their team with talent, especially in the 3rd round down. they have had a couple guys in the early rounds(solder, gronk, wilfork) in the 1st or second round but outside of that not much talent by holding on to all those extra 3rd and 4th round picks
cobb, young, and smith are all fractions of the player Jones is. not that i agree with that deal, thats a ton to give up for a WR. just pointing out that waiting and drafting multiple guys lower doesnt mean you will hit on talent
If you concentrate draft picks you are going to be screwed eventually. It's just a question of when your critical mass of talent drops below acceptable levels. The one constant in the NFL is that injuries happen and they happen at a horrific rate. That's why you maintain your discipline and just make your picks. You're going to be starving on Tuesday if you keep paying on Tuesday for a hamburger today. A significant part of the time you'll be starving today AND on Tuesday.
again, that only applies if you are significantly depleting the amount of picks you have, specifically in rounds 4 and up. In the past, we HAVE done this. if we did what i suggested, we would not. Having 8-9 picks and at least 1 every round is hardly going to make you "starve" later. thats still drafting more players then you normally would, not to mention and UDFA's we would bring in. To insinuate that our depth will be impacted to the point where we would feel it or we'd be at a heavy risk if injuries occured if we made the trade and came out of the draft with 8 players instead of 9 is simply riddiculous. the discipline comes in that you dont make these moves unless you: 1) have the amount of picks to be able to do it still come out with a full compliment of players drafted(or very close) 2) are sold on the player you are moving up for
You just don't get it, do you? There is no such thing as TOO DEEP ROSTER. Trading up is not really worth wasting your time thinking about. Especially when your offensive talent is severely depleted like the Jets.
It is. It always is. Look at Foreskins and Rams for the latest example. I can hear Les Snead and Ran Carthon laughing all the way to the bank. Rams are already talking about trading #2 pick away. Holy Jesus.
How much of a disaster would it have been for the Giants if they got Ben Roethlisberger on the 4 instead of trading a huge amount of value for Eli Manning?
Chargers got a kicker and Shawn Merriman out of that deal, if I remember. Giants could have been competing earlier with much stronger defensive presence up front. Holy hell.
Exactly. The Giants gave up 1st in 2004, 1st in 2005, 3rd in 2004 and 5th in 2005. They could have just sat there and taken Roethlisberger (or Rivers) with the 4 pick. Going into the draft Roethlisberger was seen as more likely to be the 2nd QB taken. Trading up is like trying to be a super-genius when in fact all you need to do is be smart to win in the NFL. Most of the time when you trade up you wind up looking like an idiot instead. Some times you look like an idiot when you didn't trade up also. At least you didn't trade up to look like an idiot in that case.
If Peyton Manning-like prospect is out there, I wouldn't mind trading up. The problem is, whoever is holding #1 is not trading that pick away either. Corollary to this fact is, you'd have to pay a king's ransom to trade up and get that worthy prospect. [Eli Manning, RGIII, etc etc] Not a good scenario.
Actually, there is. there are roster size limits, and you can really only sign so many of the guys you draft. Having 20 5th round picks would not be better then having 7 picks in rounds 1 thorugh 7, just because it allows you to draft more players. IF trading up doesnt drasitically diminish the amount of drafted players you would sign, you arent scraficing depth. As i mentioned, i dont like trading up unless you have the extra picks. but when you have the extra ones, you arent shooting yourself in the foot trading 1 to move up
if you dont want to trade up because you question the player, i can understand that. i really dont get this "if you trade one of your 8 or 9 pick to move up you are killing your depth" talk
