2018 NFL Draft Discussion

[squire12]

22 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I don't know why more teams don't do this. I guess all teams need help every year and find it hard to give up a high pick that year, for next year. New England employed this tactic in rounds 1-3 for several years. The extra picks (in the following year) allowed them to move around in the draft to where they wanted to be and once positioned they traded away 'surplus' picks, to allow them to do the same the year after. For some reason they have moved away from that in recent years.

This is a tactic that looks good (to me) for the Packers in the year 2020 (traded for a pick in 2021) - why ? Because it should gives two first rounders in 2021 which is about the year the Packers should start looking for Rodgers eventual replacement. It would mean Rodgers is 37, which gives a new QB time to learn behind him (just as Rodgers learned until his third year).

Why not trade a 2018 4th for a 2019 3rd.

Then trade that 2019 3rd for a 2020 2nd.

Then trade that 2020 2nd for a 2021 1st.

Using a lower capital pick and allow it to gain "interest" over a few years and then cash it in.  You could have 2 or 3 of these picks acquiring value at different points and keep an every other year extra 1st or 2nd round pick.   Just need to target those teams that are going to be picking at the top of the round when you want it to reach maximum "maturity"

[Shanedorf]

Former GM Bobby Beathard went the other way. He felt that trading a 2019 pick for a 2018 pick meant he got a year of service from the player before the pick could even be made. Sometimes it worked, others not so much. He went to multiple Super Bowls with Washington and Miami, so he knew what he was doing. But if you whiff the pick, then you have a bust and no future draft pick. That's what happened to him in while in San Diego.

There isn't one best way to win in the reverse draft order game. The most important thing is to be really really good at scouting for your own teams needs- that makes every pick count

The Browns are a team loaded with 2018 picks and are actively seeking 2019 picks in exchange for a 2018 pick - that way they have more flexibility next year and aren't putting all of their eggs into the 2018 basket.

[squire12]

14 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Former GM Bobby Beathard went the other way. He felt that trading a 2019 pick for a 2018 pick meant he got a year of service from the player before the pick could even be made. Sometimes it worked, others not so much. He went to multiple Super Bowls with Washington and Miami, so he knew what he was doing. But if you whiff the pick, then you have a bust and no future draft pick. That's what happened to him in while in San Diego.

There isn't one best way to win in the reverse draft order game. The most important thing is to be really really good at scouting for your own teams needs- that makes every pick count

The Browns are a team loaded with 2018 picks and are actively seeking 2019 picks in exchange for a 2018 pick - that way they have more flexibility next year and aren't putting all of their eggs into the 2018 basket.

Certainly it all comes down to hitting on the draft picks.  It is the general basis of the ebb and flow of teams that rise up after a string of good-great drafts in a row.  Sustaining that higher hit % on draft picks is something that all GM's have to deal with and most do not sustain it very well.  

Just looking at GB this year, they have 12 picks and 3 or 4 in round 5 alone.  That might be an ideal spot to trade one of those 5th's for a 2019 4th and see if you can work that pick up to a more premium pick in a few years.  

[JBURGE]

I thought the Washington trading for Smith would be cool for us because it would mean they are looking for a QB. Then they gave him $71m guaranteed over the next 5 years....... oh. washington now a threat to draft someone we want, but hopefully they go WR

[squire12]

3 minutes ago, JBURGE25 said:

I thought the Washington trading for Smith would be cool for us because it would mean they are looking for a QB. Then they gave him $71m guaranteed over the next 5 years....... oh. washington now a threat to draft someone we want, but hopefully they go WR

Depends on what player they need to add to the package.  Fill a hole, create a hole

[pacman5252]

6 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

Former GM Bobby Beathard went the other way. He felt that trading a 2019 pick for a 2018 pick meant he got a year of service from the player before the pick could even be made. Sometimes it worked, others not so much. He went to multiple Super Bowls with Washington and Miami, so he knew what he was doing. But if you whiff the pick, then you have a bust and no future draft pick. That's what happened to him in while in San Diego.

There isn't one best way to win in the reverse draft order game. The most important thing is to be really really good at scouting for your own teams needs- that makes every pick count

The Browns are a team loaded with 2018 picks and are actively seeking 2019 picks in exchange for a 2018 pick - that way they have more flexibility next year and aren't putting all of their eggs into the 2018 basket.

It all comes down to who teams pick. I think people forget teams scout multiple years out. A top 40 player in year Y might be a top 25 in year Z.

 

Also in cases where you have a franchise QB and a limited window moving up isn’t bad

[OneTwoSixFive]

8 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

Former GM Bobby Beathard went the other way. He felt that trading a 2019 pick for a 2018 pick meant he got a year of service from the player before the pick could even be made. Sometimes it worked, others not so much. He went to multiple Super Bowls with Washington and Miami, so he knew what he was doing. But if you whiff the pick, then you have a bust and no future draft pick. That's what happened to him in while in San Diego.

There isn't one best way to win in the reverse draft order game. The most important thing is to be really really good at scouting for your own teams needs- that makes every pick count

The Browns are a team loaded with 2018 picks and are actively seeking 2019 picks in exchange for a 2018 pick - that way they have more flexibility next year and aren't putting all of their eggs into the 2018 basket.

Ah yes, the so-called 'draft guru'. In the days when I knew of him (the latter part of his career) he made worse decisions than almost anyone. His base idea for giving up a first rounder the following year for a 2nd rounder this year, was that (as he explained it) with a years experience, a 2nd round pick would be worth more than a first round rookie. I dont know much about his earlier career, but in his latter days he was so awful at what he did, he was just a joke. The fact that no-one else agreed with his idea enough to follow that policy, tells you no-one thought that much of it. His rep reminded me of the Pro-Bowl, where you see guys getting in based on what they had done years ago, rather than that year. He must have done things well early in his career to get the rep he had, but he was awful later on.

I agree that making good draft decisions is key (how could it be otherwise), but Beathard isn't an example I would hold up as a valid alternative way to do business. In my experience, going back a bit in time, most of the trades for a this years pick, while giving up a higher one the following year, were done by GMs on the hot seat, who were desperate to turn their franchise around before they got fired. More recently, future picks seem to be given more for vet trades and for re-positioning in the draft. 

 

[MacReady]

6 hours ago, JBURGE25 said:

I thought the Washington trading for Smith would be cool for us because it would mean they are looking for a QB. Then they gave him $71m guaranteed over the next 5 years....... oh. washington now a threat to draft someone we want, but hopefully they go WR

It's very bad for us.  It means a "franchise" quarterback is signing with a team that otherwise would have drafted a quarterback. 

Hopefully somebody trades up and four quarterbacks are still drafted ahead of us, but it would have been nicer if the Chiefs had kept Smith for another year. 

[Kenrik]

8 hours ago, JBURGE25 said:

I thought the Washington trading for Smith would be cool for us because it would mean they are looking for a QB. Then they gave him $71m guaranteed over the next 5 years....... oh. washington now a threat to draft someone we want, but hopefully they go WR

Lets trade up with NYJ then when all the top QBs are off the board and no one from 7-13 needs a QB. Draft Chubb

[JBURGE]

2 hours ago, Kenrik said:

Lets trade up with NYJ then when all the top QBs are off the board and no one from 7-13 needs a QB. Draft Chubb

But the Jets need a QB

[JBURGE]

3 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

It's very bad for us.  It means a "franchise" quarterback is signing with a team that otherwise would have drafted a quarterback. 

Hopefully somebody trades up and four quarterbacks are still drafted ahead of us, but it would have been nicer if the Chiefs had kept Smith for another year. 

Yeah I liked it until he signed the extension. 

[Packerraymond]

6 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

It's very bad for us.  It means a "franchise" quarterback is signing with a team that otherwise would have drafted a quarterback. 

Hopefully somebody trades up and four quarterbacks are still drafted ahead of us, but it would have been nicer if the Chiefs had kept Smith for another year. 

I highly doubt Washington was ever a team going to take a QB. It was either going to be Cousins or a vet. 

Don't think this will be bad news at all, can pretty much assume that 3 QBs will go in the top 10. Between CLE, NYG, NYJ, DEN, and then teams that might try and move up like BUF, ARI, MN, JAX, if there are QBs that rate highly (basically if Allen and Mayfield continue to excell in the process) they'll go top 15. If ARI can't trade up we may become a hot spot for a team that wants to jump ahead of them to secure that last QB.

[CWood21]

On 1/30/2018 at 10:20 AM, moretti19 said:

I would really like for Green Bay to take the Eagles approach on defense. I would like to sign a veteran edge rusher and draft one with our first pick. We would have a rotation that would allow for our rushers to stay fresh all game. We would be able to ask a lot less of our secondary if we could get a constant pass rush. Some guys I would want to target in order of what I would want are: Trent Murphy, Ezekial Ansah, Barkevious Mingo, Lamaar Houston

Veteran pass rushers simply just don't come available very often, and when they do they tend to get overpaid.  Remember Olivier Vernon?

[CWood21]

On 1/30/2018 at 12:15 PM, Chili said:

Under TT he would probably gone for player A every single time as in his eyes he would be a better "fit" with our locker room. Will we see that changing under Gute?

Do you have a single example that this happened under Ted?

[CWood21]

On 1/30/2018 at 5:47 PM, OneTwoSixFive said:

I don't know why more teams don't do this. I guess all teams need help every year and find it hard to give up a high pick that year, for next year. New England employed this tactic in rounds 1-3 for several years. The extra picks (in the following year) allowed them to move around in the draft to where they wanted to be and once positioned they traded away 'surplus' picks, to allow them to do the same the year after. For some reason they have moved away from that in recent years.

This is a tactic that looks good (to me) for the Packers in the year 2020 (traded for a pick in 2021) - why ? Because it should gives two first rounders in 2021 which is about the year the Packers should start looking for Rodgers eventual replacement. It would mean Rodgers is 37, which gives a new QB time to learn behind him (just as Rodgers learned until his third year).

Because a pick this year is infinitely more valuable than a pick next year, and thats not going to change.  Not to mention, the Patriots are probably the only franchise where the GM/coach have the job security that they do.  The Patriots could go 0-16 next year, and the Hoodie will be back next year.  Can you make that argument for any other franchise?  Probably not.  Teams don't do that for that reason, but there is also the variable of what happens if a team does really poorly?  Let's say the Titans trade their 1st round pick in 2019 to acquire a late 1st/early 2nd this year, what happens if their team flops and they end up giving up a top 5 pick?  There's just too much inherent risk, which is why most teams avoid it like the plague.