34th Overall Pick

[Irrefutable]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

im not a big fan of moving down too much or just moving down to move down.

id personally rather have a 2nd rounder vs 2 4th rounders.

i dont mind moving down a few spots but i want to walk away from the draft with at least one penciled-in starter vs a handful of potential contributors.

go get talent.

talent wins.

the Redskins have plenty of needs, and there is plenty of depth in this draft. It is erroneous to assume pick #40 is automatically worse than #34.

A trade down from #34 will get much more than 2 4th rounders. It could add a late 2nd and a 3rd.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Irrefutable

the Redskins have plenty of needs, and there is plenty of depth in this draft. It is erroneous to assume pick #40 is automatically worse than #34.

A trade down from #34 will get much more than 2 4th rounders. It could add a late 2nd and a 3rd.

According to ye olde trade chart we'd need to move down to the mid-second to pick up a late third. But that's just a guideline and it doesn't consider how keen the other team is to move up. If another team is after a QB, we could conceivably move down 8-10 spots and get a mid-third or more. That might be a good move depending on what our draft board looks like.

[Irrefutable]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

According to ye olde trade chart we'd need to move down to the mid-second to pick up a late third. But that's just a guideline and it doesn't consider how keen the other team is to move up. If another team is after a QB, we could conceivably move down 8-10 spots and get a mid-third or more. That might be a good move depending on what our draft board looks like.

did the draft chart say Buffalo would have to give up a 2015 1st and 3rd or 4th (?) to move up a few spots.... as you said it is just a guideline

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Irrefutable

did the draft chart say Buffalo would have to give up a 2015 1st and 3rd or 4th (?) to move up a few spots.... as you said it is just a guideline

I would say the 1st 10 picks or so are worth whatever a team wants to pay, because that's the elite of elite talent. Can't use that as a guide for a top of 2nd round pick.

• 1 The eagles, by chart should have gotten 80 points of value, but Cleveland - who needed the 1500 season tix sold LOL and has picks to burn - gave them 180 points for Johnny Football.
• 2 Seattle's trade was 590 points of value given up by Seattle, and 578 points of value given up by Minnesota, and that was to move in to the 1st round, get a 5th year option, and get a noted qb.
• 3 Saints moved from 27 to 20, or 170 point difference, and gave up their 3rd round pick worth 136 points, or 34 points less then the chart would have said, so Arizona basically lost out on getting an extra 5th rounder, good trade for the Saints

At this point in the game, a chart based trade is a good deal, (which for us would be a 5th rounder to go back 4 spaces).

for reference, if we drop back 12 spots, we should get 120 points back. 120 points is the 2nd to last pick of the 3rd round. I don't want us dropping 12 spots just to get a late 3rd round guy in this draft.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Irrefutable

did the draft chart say Buffalo would have to give up a 2015 1st and 3rd or 4th (?) to move up a few spots.... as you said it is just a guideline

The chart doesn't address future picks at all but I have noticed that teams need to give up higher picks to get a deal done if those picks are for future drafts . Also, the chart doesn't seem to matter much when you're talking about elite talent at the top of the draft (see RGIII).

Of course, if you want to move up the other team is going to try to get as much as they possibly can from you. The more they sense eagermess on your part, the more they're going to demand.

BTW, if another team should want to move up to #34 to get a QB, I say sock it to 'em and the chart be damned! If they were dealing with me, they'd need to throw in a at least a third rounder this year no matter how few spots we moved down.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Irrefutable

the Redskins have plenty of needs, and there is plenty of depth in this draft. It is erroneous to assume pick #40 is automatically worse than #34.

A trade down from #34 will get much more than 2 4th rounders. It could add a late 2nd and a 3rd.

I can't imagine a scenario where a team would give us a late 2nd and a 3rd, and we would walk away with either a starting RT or FS (which I is about the only way I give this draft more than just an average grade). For example, going from 34 to 38(Tampa) would only yield a 5th based on the chart, maybe you get a high fourth if Tampa is really hungry. But going past 38 lessens the chance, imo, of getting a starting RT, or FS. Not that there isn't rough talent deep into the 3rd, but from 40 - 80 is not guaranteed NFL starters, and while I like how are staff looks, we haven't yet proven ourselves to be a team that can properly identify and develop mid-level talent in any position group.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Irrefutable

the Redskins have plenty of needs, and there is plenty of depth in this draft. It is erroneous to assume pick #40 is automatically worse than #34.

A trade down from #34 will get much more than 2 4th rounders. It could add a late 2nd and a 3rd.

i dont mind moving from 34 to 40 .... its moving from 34 to 40 (plus a 4th) ... and then moving from 40 to 55 (plus a 5th)


(im just throwing numbers out there, i didnt take the time to verify accuracy with the draft chart)