Pre Draft Thread 2.0

I'd say we're of similar mind, I'm just saying unless you have your eye on 2-3 players in later rounds that you're pretty sure you can nab with those picks AND you don't see the BPA's available at your pick as franchise level stars you want, then trading down doesn't make sense. If you trade back AND then miss out on the guys you wanted then you're left pretty much high and dry. It all hangs on how good you are at assessing talent, as always, but with a trade like this it's about the benefit from those 2-3 plays being greater than that one guy at 19. Simply filling a hole isn't enough in the NFL, you need to put a body in that hole that elevates the position if you have the opportunity to do so.

If you have a potential pro bowl LT or LB in that slot, I say you take them as the longer term benefits to this roster from that one guy outweigh the benefits of picking up guys that just make you better instead of great.

We can agree to disagree, but I think trading down makes sense way more often than people think. You need some elite players at high leverage positions, but there are tons of great players in 2nd round and 3rd round and lots of busts in 1st round--and of course lots of busts in 2nd and 3rd round.

You get more talented in NFL long term by taking long view and maximizing # of picks. The best teams are those that adhere to this philosophy, especially COMP, and of course have good FOs that can hit on 50% of picks. In a pure statistics sense, you would probably actually be better off trading your late 1st for a 2nd, 3rd, and one other pick every year. That sounds counterintuitive, but it isn't. NFL FOs around the league have these kinds of arguments now. What did Belicheat do during his dynasties--trade back into 2nd round repeatedly.

When you realize there is no such thing as a sure thing pick, then maximizing number is proper philosophy, and playing the odds. It is like card counting.

But I also see your point. I again go back to 5 high leverage positions: QB,LT,DE,CB,WR, in that order. We have never once under Snyder had 5 years of a single coach and single competent GM running things, where you can get to point where you aren't starting over every 2-4 years, which also factors in, and we have actually filled the big 5. You won't find me saying that staying put at #19 and taking a franchise LT is bad, but if I'm sitting at #19 and I don't see a franchise player, especially not at big 5, or a player ranked top-10 who is physical freak with perennial all-pro potential that dropped, I trade back, assuming can get good value. I don't buy into trade chart, I'm looking for more picks, especially 2-3 rd where you can routinely find solid long term starters, even if points don't add up on ye olde chart.

Let's say we take a T this year, next year we draft 22, no QB there. We have big 5 except QB, so I trade back in a second into 2nd round and add a 3rd or whatever because in most cases isn't huge gap between late 1st round and 2nd round player.

I just think your predisposition to not trade back most of the time is completely backwards in NFL today, but then, again, discussions like these in most organizations now, analytics vs. old school. Your view is essentially old school. Mine is analytics. Neither is always right, you have to blend them.

Right now we have no starting caliber LBs on roster. Not one. I would rather have 3 average starting caliber LBs, then one stud but not all-pro LB, one average, and a gaping hole. Though it is true teams full of average starters don't win SBs, you still need some studs, ideally at high leverage positions. It is a fallacy that studs are only found 1st round though, top-5 picks notwithstanding. Studs are found by maximizing # picks and having flexibility to almost always pick BPA. There is a McL in the 3rd round every year, but most teams pigeonhole need rather than BPA, and even then takes skill to find such guys.

Interesting stuff man.

Locker Room Main Forum