Jump to content

Mock Draft Question


OnWisconsin-JRS

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, OnWisconsin-JRS said:

So I was thinking about doing my last mock before the draft and then this Tom Brady stuff came out and left me with a question: 

Lets say New England calls and offers there 2 first round picks for #14 do you do it?! 

 

I think about it and say yes!!! Thoughts?!

 

 

depends on who's available at 14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since those two picks (#23 and #31) are equal in value to pick 9 in the draft, why would the Patriots give up so much to trade with the Packers to get to #14, they should find a willing partner higher up the order, if they are giving up that much.

If instead NE trades picks 31 and 43 (for pick 14), it is within 30 points.

Closer still is if the Packers give up pick 14 (rd 1), 76 (rd 3) = 1310 points.
The Patriots give up pick 23 (rd 1), 43 (rd 2) and 95 (rd 3)   = 1305 points.

To put that another way, The Packers swap picks with the Pats in rounds one and three, and also get the Pats second rounder. This year, I'd find that a tempting deal, due to the extra (and fairly high) second round pick.

While some deal with the Pats is not that unlikely somewhere in the draft, the best chance of a trade involves the Packers giving up 4th and 5th rounders to the Pats for...................whatever, due to the Pats not having any 4th or 5th round picks, while the Packers have five.

Imagine the Packers trading back up to round one for a second first round pick, with the Pats as partners. Is it worth moving up from #45 to #31, if you also have to part with the first picks in rounds 4, 5 and your first 6th rounder. Up 14 spots for four picks.............it's an even-points trade, but maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OnWisconsin-JRS said:

So I was thinking about doing my last mock before the draft and then this Tom Brady stuff came out and left me with a question: 

Lets say New England calls and offers there 2 first round picks for #14 do you do it?! 

 

I think about it and say yes!!! Thoughts?!

 

 

If the offered both #1's I probably do it unless James, Fitzpatrick or Ward are there. then I can guarentee GB gets Jackson or Oliver at CB and Carter  or Landry OLB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Since those two picks (#23 and #31) are equal in value to pick 9 in the draft, why would the Patriots give up so much to trade with the Packers to get to #14, they should find a willing partner higher up the order, if they are giving up that much.

If instead NE trades picks 31 and 43 (for pick 14), it is within 30 points.

Closer still is if the Packers give up pick 14 (rd 1), 76 (rd 3) = 1310 points.
The Patriots give up pick 23 (rd 1), 43 (rd 2) and 95 (rd 3)   = 1305 points.

To put that another way, The Packers swap picks with the Pats in rounds one and three, and also get the Pats second rounder. This year, I'd find that a tempting deal, due to the extra (and fairly high) second round pick.

While some deal with the Pats is not that unlikely somewhere in the draft, the best chance of a trade involves the Packers giving up 4th and 5th rounders to the Pats for...................whatever, due to the Pats not having any 4th or 5th round picks, while the Packers have five.

Imagine the Packers trading back up to round one for a second first round pick, with the Pats as partners. Is it worth moving up from #45 to #31, if you also have to part with the first picks in rounds 4, 5 and your first 6th rounder. Up 14 spots for four picks.............it's an even-points trade, but maybe not.

Your Value may be accurate, but I do not move down without getting both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Since those two picks (#23 and #31) are equal in value to pick 9 in the draft, why would the Patriots give up so much to trade with the Packers to get to #14, they should find a willing partner higher up the order, if they are giving up that much.

If instead NE trades picks 31 and 43 (for pick 14), it is within 30 points.

Closer still is if the Packers give up pick 14 (rd 1), 76 (rd 3) = 1310 points.
The Patriots give up pick 23 (rd 1), 43 (rd 2) and 95 (rd 3)   = 1305 points.

To put that another way, The Packers swap picks with the Pats in rounds one and three, and also get the Pats second rounder. This year, I'd find that a tempting deal, due to the extra (and fairly high) second round pick.

While some deal with the Pats is not that unlikely somewhere in the draft, the best chance of a trade involves the Packers giving up 4th and 5th rounders to the Pats for...................whatever, due to the Pats not having any 4th or 5th round picks, while the Packers have five.

Imagine the Packers trading back up to round one for a second first round pick, with the Pats as partners. Is it worth moving up from #45 to #31, if you also have to part with the first picks in rounds 4, 5 and your first 6th rounder. Up 14 spots for four picks.............it's an even-points trade, but maybe not.

I think the draft value chart is old news in the first round now. If you want to move up you pay a premium. That may be worth the 9th pick, but do I think if NE called San Fran and said, "hey do you want to pass on Minkah Fitzpatrick, Derwin James, Tremaine Edmunds or Denzel Ward for picks 23 and 31? I'd bet they pass.

Hell I'm not sure I say yes at 14 unless they're willing to wait until I'm on the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I think the draft value chart is old news in the first round now. If you want to move up you pay a premium. That may be worth the 9th pick, but do I think if NE called San Fran and said, "hey do you want to pass on Minkah Fitzpatrick, Derwin James, Tremaine Edmunds or Denzel Ward for picks 23 and 31? I'd bet they pass.

Hell I'm not sure I say yes at 14 unless they're willing to wait until I'm on the clock.

Agree with the premise.  Also would be interested to see how the rookie wage scale might have changed things for those top rookie picks.  Used to be that teams would be more inclined to trade them to avoid having to pay a huge contract to a rookie.  With the slotted rookie contracts, those top 5-10 picks are much less daunting from a salary cap perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

I think the draft value chart is old news in the first round now. If you want to move up you pay a premium. That may be worth the 9th pick, but do I think if NE called San Fran and said, "hey do you want to pass on Minkah Fitzpatrick, Derwin James, Tremaine Edmunds or Denzel Ward for picks 23 and 31? I'd bet they pass.

Hell I'm not sure I say yes at 14 unless they're willing to wait until I'm on the clock.

For the top half dozen or so picks, I agree that teams desperate for a specific (perceived at the time) difference-maker, will overpay. That is especially true for teams that need to move up for the QB of their choice.

By the time pick #14 has arrived though, I don't see big premiums over the chart value being offered, with one exception. This is what you could call 'The CMIII rider', where a team values a player (as yet unpicked)  significantly higher on their board than the current pick on the clock. They 'overpay' to move up for that draft spot because for them, the trade is still worth doing. What they give up is worth more than the chart value of the draft slot they trade up to, but less than the chart value of the area where they rated the player.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This scenario is really contingent upon who is there for us to take. If one of the top CB's or EDGE rushers are there you stand pat and take your guy. If you think you can get Harold Landry, or Sam Hubbard at 23 and have them ranked similarly to Davenport, you go ahead and make the trade assuming the OSU CB is gone as well as James, Edmunds, Chubb, etc. I'm not sold on Fitzpatrick as many here are, but that is OK we can agree to disagree. 

If I could get Landry or Hubbard at 23 and even #43 rather than #31, I'd make that swap assuming my guys are gone. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lean toward no, and I think we will stand pat as opposed to moving up or down in the first round. We have twelve picks in a relatively deep draft and our team could use depth almost everywhere.

I think I would entertain the idea of moving back five or six spots with a team that wants an LT or Vita Vea or something, but even that is dependent upon our board and where our tiers are.

I know when the Cowboys' board came asking for their mock they seemed a bit surprised that we went Landry/Davenport vs a CB, knowing what our primary weakness seemed to be last year, but--for 2018---a young edge rusher is likely to see more snaps than almost any CB we could pick at #14. I want an immediate contributor out of our first pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, OnWisconsin-JRS said:

So I was thinking about doing my last mock before the draft and then this Tom Brady stuff came out and left me with a question: 

Lets say New England calls and offers there 2 first round picks for #14 do you do it?! 

 

I think about it and say yes!!! Thoughts?!

 

 

latest?cb=20130306110059

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, OnWisconsin-JRS said:

So I was thinking about doing my last mock before the draft and then this Tom Brady stuff came out and left me with a question: 

Lets say New England calls and offers there 2 first round picks for #14 do you do it?!

I think about it and say yes!!! Thoughts?!

I dont see this hypothetical becoming reality. What QB would they be targeting at 14? Arent all the perceived top rung guys supposed to be gone by then?

Two #1's for Lamaar Jackson @ 14? (I'm pretty sure he'd still be there - but isnt that kinda hefty for him?)

I'd think they'd want to get into the top 10 somewhere - the lower the better. Guess it depends who they're after.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Leader said:

I dont see this hypothetical becoming reality. What QB would they be targeting at 14? Arent all the perceived top rung guys supposed to be gone by then?

Two #1's for Lamaar Jackson @ 14? (I'm pretty sure he'd still be there - but isnt that kinda hefty for him?)

I'd think they'd want to get into the top 10 somewhere - the lower the better. Guess it depends who they're after.

 

 

I'm unsure if the name of the QB matters...the point there is that if (huge if), if New England wants a quarterback that is left, they likely need to jump Arizona to get one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vegas492 said:

I'm unsure if the name of the QB matters...the point there is that if (huge if), if New England wants a quarterback that is left, they likely need to jump Arizona to get one.

Understood - but in a way the name of the guy does matter (although this is all hypothetical) as the top named guys will be gone by time we come around @ 14. Or so the word goes.....

AZ is in the hunt for a QB - this is true - and they might do what NE is proposed to do here and move up to get a shot at a top guy.

I wonder the interest and proposed career path of the "second-tiered" QB talents. The guys nobody's talking about. By time the feeding frenzy is over for the top guys - these "2nd tiered" guys will all be there for the taking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...