Jump to content
Superduperman

Picking #3

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Would you guys do this trade?  I know how much you need pass-rushing help, and I'm taking into consideration that your coach and GM are both on the hot-seat this year:

Redskins receive:

#3 overall pick

2nd round pick

3rd round pick

Lions receive:

#2 overall pick

Ryan Kerrigan

With an agreement in place that you will not take Chase Young at #2 overall and will only trade down from #2 if the team you trade with will be taking a QB.  You guys would easily be able to recoup that 2nd and 3rd round pick - and more - by trading down from 2 to 5.  If not, you still get Okudah, Simmons, or Brown, but now have Kerrigan as well to make an immediate impact.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to agree with TL and Cwoods on this. It makes really no sense for the Lions to make that trade. If Washington trades out, it's probably for Tua and Young is sitting there at #3 for us. If you guys take Young, we're in the prime position to trade down with at least 3 teams who are likely going to want to take Tua or Herbert (if he somehow shows out during the combine/workouts). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Karnage84 said:

Unfortunately, I am going to have to agree with TL and Cwoods on this. It makes really no sense for the Lions to make that trade. If Washington trades out, it's probably for Tua and Young is sitting there at #3 for us. If you guys take Young, we're in the prime position to trade down with at least 3 teams who are likely going to want to take Tua or Herbert (if he somehow shows out during the combine/workouts). 

True, but I was just trying to give you guys the best of both worlds with an immediate high impact player in Kerrigan, plus trading down to 5 (which is likely what you do from #3 anyway) - likely picking up a couple first round picks or more from Miami.  I wouldn't have suggested it if you were a rebuilding team, but you guys are in win now mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HTTRDynasty said:

True, but I was just trying to give you guys the best of both worlds with an immediate high impact player in Kerrigan, plus trading down to 5 (which is likely what you do from #3 anyway) - likely picking up a couple first round picks or more from Miami.  I wouldn't have suggested it if you were a rebuilding team, but you guys are in win now mode.

If Young is there because you guys have traded out, then we get that impact guy. If he isn't, we can still find an impact player in Okudah, Brown, etc. I'm not against Kerrigan but trading up to then trade down seems redundant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Not sure I understand. One would think the Lions, given their coach and GM are on hot seats and their pass rush is terrible, would want an immediate contributor on the DL. They could easily recoup their picks and more by trading down with Miami if that’s what you’re worried about. 

The swap from 2 to 3 is worth roughly the 50th pick and that doesn't include any premium that the Redskins might tack on, but since the Lions pick is 35, which is roughly an extra late-3rd ish of value.  So you're essentially turning a late 3rd and the Lions' early 3rd round pick into Ryan Kerrigan.  Do you think Ryan Kerrigan is worth a pair of 3rd round picks?  I wouldn't.  I think he's closer to being a cap casualty than netting that much in return without doing too much research.  But my bigger issue is with the "stipulations" in that proposed deal.  No GM is going to agree to it.  Not only do you want more assets, but you want to still get the guy you're going to take at 2.  That's not happening.  It's one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Why would the 49ers demand compensation moving down from #2 to #3 in 2017?  Why would the Redskins demand compensation moving down from #21 to #22 in the 2016 draft?  It happens all the time.  Teams are willing to take the risk they don't get the player they want, but only if they are compensated for it.

Because the 49ers didn't want a QB.  They wanted Solomon Thomas, and even if the Bears opted to take Solomon Thomas at 2 they would have had the board open for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HTTRDynasty said:

True, but I was just trying to give you guys the best of both worlds with an immediate high impact player in Kerrigan, plus trading down to 5 (which is likely what you do from #3 anyway) - likely picking up a couple first round picks or more from Miami.  I wouldn't have suggested it if you were a rebuilding team, but you guys are in win now mode.

Except that wasn't the motive.  The motive was to move down and collect more assets while also getting the guy the Redskins probably covet more than any other player in the draft.  Would you do that deal if you knew the Lions were taking Chase Young, yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan Kerrigan will be 32 when next season starts. No thank you.

Besides, the Lions don't need to trade up. There are 3 elite prospects available. The Lions will get one and could use any of them. Doesn't matter even if Washington wants to trade down with someone, which I don't believe they will.

The Lions shouldn't accept less than a tremendous deal to move down, either. At the very least, an additional first-round pick this year or next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Superduperman said:

Ryan Kerrigan will be 32 when next season starts. No thank you.

Besides, the Lions don't need to trade up. There are 3 elite prospects available. The Lions will get one and could use any of them. Doesn't matter even if Washington wants to trade down with someone, which I don't believe they will.

The Lions shouldn't accept less than a tremendous deal to move down, either. At the very least, an additional first-round pick this year or next.

Not sure who that 3rd player is you're including in that, since Tua has significant medical concerns regarding him.  That alone probably keeps him from being viewed as an elite prospect.  And the last time a team traded down that netted another first round pick that didn't involve a QB was when the Bills traded up for Sammy Watkins back in 2014.  Better hope someone is wanting that QB premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Not sure who that 3rd player is you're including in that, since Tua has significant medical concerns regarding him.  That alone probably keeps him from being viewed as an elite prospect.  And the last time a team traded down that netted another first round pick that didn't involve a QB was when the Bills traded up for Sammy Watkins back in 2014.  Better hope someone is wanting that QB premium.

If his medical checks out, some may absolutely view Tua as an elite prospect, a team could definitely trade up for him.

Edited by TL-TwoWinsAway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Karnage84 said:

If Young is there because you guys have traded out, then we get that impact guy. If he isn't, we can still find an impact player in Okudah, Brown, etc. I'm not against Kerrigan but trading up to then trade down seems redundant. 

The point is that you would have two impact players instead of one - Kerrigan and Okudah for example instead of just Okudah - for minimal cost, especially when you factor in the higher return you’d get from the Dolphins to move down from 2 to 5 instead of 3 to 5. 

Not to mention 2nd round picks have a greater than 50% chance of busting and 3rd round picks have a greater chance of busting. And even if they don’t bust, they’re usually not impact players year 1.  Not ideal for a staff on the hot seat. 
 

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

But my bigger issue is with the "stipulations" in that proposed deal.  No GM is going to agree to it.  Not only do you want more assets, but you want to still get the guy you're going to take at 2.  That's not happening.  It's one or the other.

The incentive for the GM is to get both Kerrigan and #2 overall, which is more valuable in a trade down than holding #3 overall would be. It’s an “everyone wins” situation, so why does it matter if the Redskins still get the guy they want if the Lions end up getting more than they’d otherwise have gotten without the deal.

 

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Because the 49ers didn't want a QB.  They wanted Solomon Thomas, and even if the Bears opted to take Solomon Thomas at 2 they would have had the board open for them.

I’m just not sure why this is relevant. They traded down 1 spot and got a 3rd and a 4th from that draft and a 3rd the next year due to the risk the Bears would take a far inferior prospect than Young (Thomas). The Redskins should get even more than that, especially if they’re including a high impact player in the trade as well. If the Lions say they’d take Young, there is no trade and that’s that.  But the point of this is that the Lions would rather have Kerrigan and Okudah or Kerrigan and #5 and extra compensation from the Dolphins over just Okudah or just #5 and extra compensation. 
 

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Except that wasn't the motive.  The motive was to move down and collect more assets while also getting the guy the Redskins probably covet more than any other player in the draft.  Would you do that deal if you knew the Lions were taking Chase Young, yes or no?

Why are you so focused on the motive from the Redskins perspective?  I guess a win-win isn’t possible in your eyes?

There would be no deal if the Lions said they were taking Young. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Why are you so focused on the motive from the Redskins perspective?  I guess a win-win isn’t possible in your eyes?

There would be no deal if the Lions said they were taking Young. 

And that alone proves my point.  The only reason you'd even consider moving down from 2 to 3 is if you knew for a fact that the Lions wouldn't take Chase Young, which is you trying to squeeze out a few more assets while still getting the guy you want.  If you want to move down from 2 to 3, all the power to you.  But the notion that a team would agree to the kind of stipulations isn't realistic.  Let's not dress a pig up in a suit and say it's not a pig.  It is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

I’m just not sure why this is relevant. They traded down 1 spot and got a 3rd and a 4th from that draft and a 3rd the next year due to the risk the Bears would take a far inferior prospect than Young (Thomas). The Redskins should get even more than that, especially if they’re including a high impact player in the trade as well. If the Lions say they’d take Young, there is no trade and that’s that.  But the point of this is that the Lions would rather have Kerrigan and Okudah or Kerrigan and #5 and extra compensation from the Dolphins over just Okudah or just #5 and extra compensation. 

Because the difference between Chase Young and the next best non-QB is vastly bigger than the gap between Solomon Thomas and the best non-QB.  Chase Young is by far the BPA in the draft, and the only player you might argue is more valuable is Joe Burrow but that's because of QB value.  Was Solomon Thomas the clear BPA in the draft?  No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

The point is that you would have two impact players instead of one - Kerrigan and Okudah for example instead of just Okudah - for minimal cost, especially when you factor in the higher return you’d get from the Dolphins to move down from 2 to 5 instead of 3 to 5. 

Not to mention 2nd round picks have a greater than 50% chance of busting and 3rd round picks have a greater chance of busting. And even if they don’t bust, they’re usually not impact players year 1.  Not ideal for a staff on the hot seat.

You're arguing the "higher return" received from moving down from 2 instead of 3 while ignoring the extra cost in moving up to 2 in the first place. That "higher return" is negated from the trade up to 2, which is an overpayment for a 31 year old rusher with a $11.5M cap hit. The choices really are:

1. Pick 5 (Okudah), keep our 2nd (550), keep our 3rd (255), Miami's compensation (500)

2. Pick 5 (Okudah), Miami's compensation (900), Kerrigan (405)

This gives Kerrigan mid-2nd round value, which is way too much. No thank you.

(In addition, I believe that there are a number of 1st round quality WRs in this draft, and that a few will fall to the early 2nd round. We need one, as Jones is nearing the end of his time in Detroit, and that early 2nd round pick is the time to grab one.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Mahommed Sanu is worth a 2nd and Percy Harvin was worth a 1st, 4th, plus more, and Emmanuel Sanders was worth a 3rd and 4th, and Leonard Williams was worth a 3rd and 4th, what do you think Kerrigan is worth?  
 

I digress.  The overrating of 2nd and 3rd round picks by fans strikes again I see. O well.
 

Hope you guys get lucky and find two legit starters with your 2nd and 3rd this year.  Carry on ;).

Edited by HTTRDynasty

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



×