Jump to content
Tomahawk

Browns Trade back into the 1st(Theories)

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Yeah the 5th year option is really only huge for QB’s.

It’s something like the average of the top 10 salaries at the position, so it’s not cheap.

Its the average of the top 10 salaries at the position for picks 1-10 I think.

For picks 11-32 its the average of the 3rd - 25th highest paid players at that position.

IF we trade into the end of the 1st round, its not a huge number....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CBrownsman said:

Its the average of the top 10 salaries at the position for picks 1-10 I think.

For picks 11-32 its the average of the 3rd - 25th highest paid players at that position.

IF we trade into the end of the 1st round, its not a huge number....

Good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think Dorsey and our research department are more likely to trade back into the 2nd than the 1st based on value maximization principles in this year's draft.

Based on pure value and how the board is likely to fall with this year's draft pool, it actually makes more sense to trade back into the 2nd round (mid-2nd) rather than the 1st as the player available at 49 or via trading up toward the top 8 of the 2nd, as well as players available in the mid 50s is likely going to yield a quality immediate starter player at a position of need/value (Safety, DT, OL, CB, WR) without having to forgo the draft capital that would be required to get back into the 1st.

The goal is to get two impact immediate starters with our first two picks. If we trade into the 1st, we're likely going to have to sacrifice too much draft capital to have the opportunity to select an impact player with our 2nd pick. Therefore, it would be better to have let's say picks 40 (via trade up from 49) and pick 55 (via 2nd trade up from round 3) than having pick 28 in the 1st and 119 or later in the 4th round pick for our next selection as the trade into the 1st would force us to at least give up our 3rd round selection.

In summary, the draft capital required to execute two trades by moving from 49 to around the 40th pick, as well as moving from 80 (3rd round) to 55-60 (2nd round) is going to be less costly than the draft capital we'd have to give up to move from 49 to get to picks 25-30 in the 1st via one trade. The first option of two trades also would give us the opportunity to acquire two starters based on how the draft board will fall.

Edited by Mind Character

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^

Good.

 

I prefer the idea of trading back into the 2nd or trading up into the 4th from the 5th.

Dorsey strikes me as the type of guy that falls in love with a prospect and it wouldnt surprise me if he did trade up into the 1st at a premium expense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

I think Dorsey and our research department are more likely to trade back into the 2nd than the 1st based on value maximization principles in this year's draft.

Based on pure value and how the board is likely to fall with this year's draft pool, it actually makes more sense to trade back into the 2nd round (mid-2nd) rather than the 1st as the player available at 49 or via trading up toward the top 8 of the 2nd, as well as players available in the mid 50s is likely going to yield a quality immediate starter player at a position of need/value (Safety, DT, OL, CB, WR) without having to forgo the draft capital that would be required to get back into the 1st.

The goal is to get two impact immediate starters with our first two picks. If we trade into the 1st, we're likely going to have to sacrifice too much draft capital to have the opportunity to select an impact player with our 2nd pick. Therefore, it would be better to have let's say picks 40 (via trade up from 49) and pick 55 (via 2nd trade up from round 3) than having pick 28 in the 1st and 4th round pick for our next selection as the trade into the 1st would force us to at least give up our 3rd.

Immediate starters?

idk if we’re looking at the same team 

ain’t no rookie starting on this team except for injury 

Edited by brownie man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, brownie man said:

Immediate starters?

idk if we’re looking at the same team 

ain’t no rookie starting on this team except for injury 

Immediate starter as in "immediate starter quality player" ... come on man.

Even reading it as "immediate starter" literally it would make sense actually as well. If we picked, SS Jonathan Abram, Taylor Rapp, or even Nasir Adderley with our first pick in my scenario it's not far fetched to think that player could come in and start over Morgan Burnett (please don't quote Burnett's contract b/c it doesn't matter if a rookie with talent is showing out). Then, given the scenario of picking at 55 with our 2nd pick, if we were to draft a OT or CB (Tytus Howard; Lonnie Johnson Jr.) it wouldn't be that shocking if both challenged the likes of Chris Hubbard and Terrance Mitchell for a starting spot.

Point is ... targeting two immediate starter/contributor types with our first pick is not only within the realm of realistic possibility, but probably Dorsey co.'s stated mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. 2 te is another starting option of fant or Smith dropped. 

Also lb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mind Character said:

Immediate starter as in "immediate starter quality player" ... come on man.

Even reading it as "immediate starter" literally it would make sense actually as well. If we picked, SS Jonathan Abram, Taylor Rapp, or even Nasir Adderley with our first pick in my scenario it's not far fetched to think that player could come in and start over Morgan Burnett (please don't quote Burnett's contract b/c it doesn't matter if a rookie with talent is showing out). Then, given the scenario of picking at 55 with our 2nd pick, if we were to draft a OT or CB (Tytus Howard; Lonnie Johnson Jr.) it wouldn't be that shocking if both challenged the likes of Chris Hubbard and Terrance Mitchell for a starting spot.

Point is ... targeting two immediate starter/contributor types with our first pick is not only within the realm of realistic possibility, but probably Dorsey co.'s stated mission.

Well immediate starter usually means once they are drafted they are the starter. Myles Garrett was an immediate starter. Joe Thomas was an immediate starter. Technically sometimes an UDFA becomes an immediate starter (starting week 1) but they weren't signed as an immediate starter. It's really just the terminology. Where we are drafting and with our current roster we aren't drafting an immediate starter. They may still start week 1 after they win a job but they weren't drafted and placed atop of the depth chart. We could draft a kicker in the 3rd and he'd probably be an immediate starter but realistically this isn't a draft where we are likely to draft an immediate starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Kiwibrown said:

No. 2 te is another starting option of fant or Smith dropped. 

Also lb. 

Even then we just signed D Harris who is probably going to be a bigger factor than we realize right. Now. 

SS is the only spot we could potentially get an immediate starter, but even then with Burnett it’s not going to be immediate because he’d have to battle for his spot. 

Denzel Ward at least as I look at it was an immediate starter we knew that day 1. I don’t see that happening to this team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

Well immediate starter usually means once they are drafted they are the starter. Myles Garrett was an immediate starter. Joe Thomas was an immediate starter. Technically sometimes an UDFA becomes an immediate starter (starting week 1) but they weren't signed as an immediate starter. It's really just the terminology. Where we are drafting and with our current roster we aren't drafting an immediate starter. They may still start week 1 after they win a job but they weren't drafted and placed atop of the depth chart. We could draft a kicker in the 3rd and he'd probably be an immediate starter but realistically this isn't a draft where we are likely to draft an immediate starter.

That's simply not true when it comes to scouting terminology and classifications.

When you evaluate a prospect, outside of scheme fit considerations, the prospects ability is graded and analyzed independent of the likely roster depth chart currently on any given team.

So, no actually an "immediate starter" prospect the way I was stating it refers to the evaluation profile of the prospect under consideration not whether or not the player will come in and start over a player on one's team. It wouldn't make sense to have scouts not grade a player as an immediate starter quality player b/c a veteran is entrenched on the roster just to have the veteran get injured or anything else that would change their status/availability to the team. The scouting profile/grade is the scouting profile/grade. That's why teams refer to phrases like "best player available" or "draft the best player independent of need" because that's the smartest way to stack the board; the board isn't stacked by "is this player a starter on our team or not." Need then is a selection consideration when grades between players are close.

In NFL college prospect scouting, they primarily classify quality impact players by Blue-chip, Red-chip, and Core Contributor with the distinction between players being if they are "blue-chip= immediate starter quality year 1 top 5 at their position," "red-chip= immediate contributor with immediate starter upside; top 10 player at their position by year 2 or 3," and core contributor being exactly what the name implies.

So, when I say "target two immediate starters with our first two picks via trading up blah blah blah," I'm referring to the quality of the player. It so happens that we have positions on our roster where such players could end up immediately starting over the likes of current players like Chris Hubbard at RT; Terrance Mitchell at CB2; TJ Carrie as our Starting NCB; Morgan Burnett as our SS; Antonio Callaway as our starting 3rd WR boundary or slot. Those players aren't so amazing that two 2nd round picks via trade up depending on how the board falls couldn't come in and start over them.

Edited by Mind Character

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, brownie man said:

Even then we just signed D Harris who is probably going to be a bigger factor than we realize right. Now. 

SS is the only spot we could potentially get an immediate starter, but even then with Burnett it’s not going to be immediate because he’d have to battle for his spot. 

Denzel Ward at least as I look at it was an immediate starter we knew that day 1. I don’t see that happening to this team. 

What about nickel or no. 2 corner? If a player came in and played well they could supplant either corner not named ward.

Outside of LG and C our oline isnt writen in stone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing the Dolphins, I would hate to think about how much that would cost.  I would not do it unless somehow a truly elite prospect like Oliver were to fall to that pick.  I could see Simmons late in the first if he falls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think Dorsey would want to trade back into the back end of the 1st for contract reasons as well as of the talent.

Ruiter was saying on the Bull and Fox show that the 32nd pick's 5th year option is slotted at around $1.5, give or take. So going after that pick locks up a potential starter for 5yrs at a very very cheap rate. something that will be welcomed because of the Baker, Garrett, and ward extensions that will be given out prior to that rookie deal being up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with trading up some to get a guy that they consider to be a "can't miss".

Unless it involves future R1 or R2 picks.

I have a nagging concern that Dorsey has a bite of the "win now" bug and might be tempted to mortgage the future for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mind Character said:

That's simply not true when it comes to scouting terminology and classifications.

When you evaluate a prospect, outside of scheme fit considerations, the prospects ability is graded and analyzed independent of the likely roster depth chart currently on any given team.

So, no actually an "immediate starter" prospect the way I was stating it refers to the evaluation profile of the prospect under consideration not whether or not the player will come in and start over a player on one's team. It wouldn't make sense to have scouts not grade a player as an immediate starter quality player b/c a veteran is entrenched on the roster just to have the veteran get injured or anything else that would change their status/availability to the team. The scouting profile/grade is the scouting profile/grade. That's why teams refer to phrases like "best player available" or "draft the best player independent of need" because that's the smartest way to stack the board; the board isn't stacked by "is this player a starter on our team or not." Need then is a selection consideration when grades between players are close.

In NFL college prospect scouting, they primarily classify quality impact players by Blue-chip, Red-chip, and Core Contributor with the distinction between players being if they are "blue-chip= immediate starter quality year 1 top 5 at their position," "red-chip= immediate contributor with immediate starter upside; top 10 player at their position by year 2 or 3," and core contributor being exactly what the name implies.

So, when I say "target two immediate starters with our first two picks via trading up blah blah blah," I'm referring to the quality of the player. It so happens that we have positions on our roster where such players could end up immediately starting over the likes of current players like Chris Hubbard at RT; Terrance Mitchell at CB2; TJ Carrie as our Starting NCB; Morgan Burnett as our SS; Antonio Callaway as our starting 3rd WR boundary or slot. Those players aren't so amazing that two 2nd round picks via trade up depending on how the board falls couldn't come in and start over them.

Well, immediate means immediate. If you draft a player who is an "immediate" starter and he doesn't start immediately he wasn't an immediate starter. Some people may use that term for potential starter or future starter or starter quality but they shouldn't. Immediate starter should be reserved for immediate starters. Stud pass rushers. Great offensive linemen. Not 3rd best strong safety being drafted at the end of the 2nd round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×