Mock Draft Question

[vegas492]

33 minutes ago, Leader said:

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.

See, I disagree with you, but just a little bit.

The key to the entire thing is Arizona.  If the top ones are gone and you are left looking at Jackson, well, you know that QB's get overdrafted.  You may very well need to jump up and grab the kid before the next quarterback hungry team is on the board.

I'd argue that if one of the top 4 somehow get to #14, then let the bidding war begin...I don't see as much of a "haul" coming for someone outside of the top 4.

But, in the OP's question...should NE offer those two #1's for pick #14, yah, in a heartbeat I'd take that trade.  I'd probably take it even if Ward is on the board.  Imagine those two picks as Ridley and Hernandez?     

[jleisher]

YES!!!!!!  I would in a heart beat, then package our 2nd, 3rd and future 2nd for another first round pick.  Saints might be a willing dance partner.

[CWood21]

20 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.

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case.  You've got essentially 3 types of trades when you're talking about trading up in the 1st round.  You've got the trades that involve QBs being selected, you've got trades that include future picks, and you've got everything else.  There's always going to be a premium in what a team wants when it's involved with QBs.  You have to pay a premium, and it usually touches into that second group.

But looking at the last group, we've got a few trades in recent years we can use:

2017 - Atlanta traded their 1st round pick (#31, 600), 3rd round pick (#95, 120), and 7th round pick (#249, 1) to Seattle for 1st round pick (#26, 700).  Based on value, the Falcons should have received a 5th round pick from Seattle, although their next pick would have been a 6th round pick.
2017 - Cleveland dealt their 2nd round pick (#33, 580) and 4th round pick (#108, 78) to Green Bay for their 1st round pick (#29, 640).  Based on value, Browns should have asked for a 6th round pick in return.
2017 - San Francisco traded their 2nd round pick (#34, 560) and 4th round pick (#111, 72) to Seattle for their 1st round pick (#31, 600).  That's pretty close to fair value.
2016 - Chicago traded it's 1st round pick (#11, 1250) and 4th round pick (#106, 82) to Tampa Bay for 1st round pick (#9, 1350).  Tampa Bay lost a little bit of value there.
2016 - Denver traded it's 1st round pick (#31, 600) and 3rd round pick (#94, 116) to Seattle for their 1st round pick (#26, 700).  That's a 6th round pick.
2016 - San Francisco traded it's 2nd round pick (#37, 530), 4th round pick (#105, 84) and 6th round pick (#178, 19.8) to Kansas City for it's 1st round pick (28th, 660) and 7th round pick (#249, 1).

Overall, the trades fell relatively pretty darn close when you're not looking at deals that involve landing your QBOTF or future picks, since there's no consensus way to evaluat ethose.

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case.  You've got essentially 3 types of trades when you're talking about trading up in the 1st round.  You've got the trades that involve QBs being selected, you've got trades that include future picks, and you've got everything else.  There's always going to be a premium in what a team wants when it's involved with QBs.  You have to pay a premium, and it usually touches into that second group.

But looking at the last group, we've got a few trades in recent years we can use:

2017 - Atlanta traded their 1st round pick (#31, 600), 3rd round pick (#95, 120), and 7th round pick (#249, 1) to Seattle for 1st round pick (#26, 700).  Based on value, the Falcons should have received a 5th round pick from Seattle, although their next pick would have been a 6th round pick.
2017 - Cleveland dealt their 2nd round pick (#33, 580) and 4th round pick (#108, 78) to Green Bay for their 1st round pick (#29, 640).  Based on value, Browns should have asked for a 6th round pick in return.
2017 - San Francisco traded their 2nd round pick (#34, 560) and 4th round pick (#111, 72) to Seattle for their 1st round pick (#31, 600).  That's pretty close to fair value.
2016 - Chicago traded it's 1st round pick (#11, 1250) and 4th round pick (#106, 82) to Tampa Bay for 1st round pick (#9, 1350).  Tampa Bay lost a little bit of value there.
2016 - Denver traded it's 1st round pick (#31, 600) and 3rd round pick (#94, 116) to Seattle for their 1st round pick (#26, 700).  That's a 6th round pick.
2016 - San Francisco traded it's 2nd round pick (#37, 530), 4th round pick (#105, 84) and 6th round pick (#178, 19.8) to Kansas City for it's 1st round pick (28th, 660) and 7th round pick (#249, 1).

Overall, the trades fell relatively pretty darn close when you're not looking at deals that involve landing your QBOTF or future picks, since there's no consensus way to evaluat ethose.

None of those are movement from outside the top 20 into the top 15. By the time you get to the late 20s (where most of those moves happened) the board is a cluster. At 14 there will be highly graded guys left.

[CWood21]

7 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

None of those are movement from outside the top 20 into the top 15. By the time you get to the late 20s (where most of those moves happened) the board is a cluster. At 14 there will be highly graded guys left.

Find me a trade within the last 5 years that fit your standard, but didn't involve a trade-up for a franchise QB or involving future picks.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, CWood21 said:

Find me a trade within the last 5 years that fit your standard, but didn't involve a trade-up for a franchise QB or involving future picks.

It would take a team having two first round picks if we're not dealing future picks. Which is rare. The fact that this kind of deal doesn't happen often proves my point. Teams aren't looking to move out of the top 15 into the mid to late 20s

[CWood21]

15 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

It would take a team having two first round picks if we're not dealing future picks. Which is rare. The fact that this kind of deal doesn't happen often proves my point. Teams aren't looking to move out of the top 15 into the mid to late 20s

That doesn't mean that trade value is dead, just means nobody can match the asking price.  Let's say the Panthers wanted to move up from their 1st round pick (24th overall).  They'd have to include 360 points, which is roughly 54th pick.  They own the 55th pick, which is worth 350 points.  Throw in their 6th round pick just to break even in terms of value.  So the Panthers have dealt their 2nd round pick to Green Bay, so after they pick at 14 they're next pick doesn't come until 85.  That's too far to go without a pick.  And what happens if the player they drafted at 14 busts?  That's why teams don't make big trades up.  The risk is rarely worth the reward.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, CWood21 said:

That doesn't mean that trade value is dead, just means nobody can match the asking price.  Let's say the Panthers wanted to move up from their 1st round pick (24th overall).  They'd have to include 360 points, which is roughly 54th pick.  They own the 55th pick, which is worth 350 points.  Throw in their 6th round pick just to break even in terms of value.  So the Panthers have dealt their 2nd round pick to Green Bay, so after they pick at 14 they're next pick doesn't come until 85.  That's too far to go without a pick.  And what happens if the player they drafted at 14 busts?  That's why teams don't make big trades up.  The risk is rarely worth the reward.

As a Packers fan, I'm not moving to 24 for a pick outside the top 50, hard pass.

It doesn't work because the teams moving up can't afford the value the team moving down would want. Thus the value chart is pretty much dead when dealing with the top 25 picks. You want to move up more than 1-7 spots, you're going to pay a premium so it better be for a franchise changing player.

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

As a Packers fan, I'm not moving to 24 for a pick outside the top 50, hard pass.

It doesn't work because the teams moving up can't afford the value the team moving down would want. Thus the value chart is pretty much dead when dealing with the top 25 picks. You want to move up more than 1-7 spots, you're going to pay a premium so it better be for a franchise changing player.

That's my point.  If we're using the TVC as a baseline for what it'd take to move, you're going to have to add some sort of incentive in order to get a team to give up on a player whose clearly going to be a tier or two higher than what they'd get.  But let's say the draft board goes horribly wrong.  All the guys we've been discussing (Harold Landry, Marcus Davenport, Derwin James, etc.) are all off the board.  How do you feel about that Panthers trade now?  You're probably more willing to make a trade-down in that scenario.  The gaps between tiers shrinks the later in the draft, so teams have to put a premium on moving up.  IF the Panthers wanted to move up, it's probably taking at the very least their 2nd and 4th round pick this year, and that probably doesn't get it done.

You have to go back to 2013 the last time a team traded from that mid-to-late 20s to the late teens, and the board should look significantly better for the Packers than it did for the Cowboys.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Packers moved back a few spots and picked up a late Day 2 pick.

[Packerraymond]

8 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

That's my point.  If we're using the TVC as a baseline for what it'd take to move, you're going to have to add some sort of incentive in order to get a team to give up on a player whose clearly going to be a tier or two higher than what they'd get.  But let's say the draft board goes horribly wrong.  All the guys we've been discussing (Harold Landry, Marcus Davenport, Derwin James, etc.) are all off the board.  How do you feel about that Panthers trade now?  You're probably more willing to make a trade-down in that scenario.  The gaps between tiers shrinks the later in the draft, so teams have to put a premium on moving up.  IF the Panthers wanted to move up, it's probably taking at the very least their 2nd and 4th round pick this year, and that probably doesn't get it done.

You have to go back to 2013 the last time a team traded from that mid-to-late 20s to the late teens, and the board should look significantly better for the Packers than it did for the Cowboys.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Packers moved back a few spots and picked up a late Day 2 pick.

Again a move with say the Chargers at 17 is night and day different than a move down to 24. Even with all those guys off the board, I'm not taking Carolina's deal, I'll stay put and grab Hughes, LVE or Alexander who would be prime targets to go in that 10 pick window if the top defensive players go early.

[squire12]

@CWood21 @Packerraymond  

I think you are both right in how the trade up/down plays out in different years.  There are multiple factors involved for each situation.

--what is the team moving up looking to get, QB?  other position?

--How far that trade up or down is?  3-5 picks is vastly different than 10+ picks

--What is the state of the team trading down?  Are they rebuilding and wanting added picks to re-stock with depth and fill more holes, or are they a team that is primed for a contending playoff run?

-- How does the board look?  Tiers?  Players at positions of need?  Value?

 

For GB in 2018, having not picked this high in nearly a decade, the chance to draft to top 15 player would make it harder to move down.  Add that GB already has 12 picks, adding more is not really a need.  Now moving down 3-5 slots could be done, but trading down to 10+ picks is going to take a pretty monster offer in terms of picks/value/players. 

[Packer_ESP]

I was going to reply that I'd do it but the more I think about it, the less I like it. In any case if I'm trading back I'd have to wait until draft day to do so.

Imagine the unthinkable happens and the first 8-10 picks are some combination of 4 QBs, Edmunds, Barkley, Fitz, Ward, James, Smith, Nelson and we're in a position to trade up for Chubb. I'd rather try to do that than trade down.

In order to trade back I'd have to be pretty sure that Landry or Davenport are going to be there at 23 and then use that 31 to get a CB (Oliver?).

[Leader]

2 hours ago, Packer_ESP said:

I was going to reply that I'd do it but the more I think about it, the less I like it. In any case if I'm trading back I'd have to wait until draft day to do so.

Imagine the unthinkable happens and the first 8-10 picks are some combination of 4 QBs, Edmunds, Barkley, Fitz, Ward, James, Smith, Nelson and we're in a position to trade up for Chubb. I'd rather try to do that than trade down.

In order to trade back I'd have to be pretty sure that Landry or Davenport are going to be there at 23 and then use that 31 to get a CB (Oliver?).

This is an intriguing theory, but I suggest you change this name (Edmunds) with this name (Chubb)

(Dont mind me, I'm just making things up at this point!)

To dream the impossible dream....

To draft the unreacheable star.......

This is my quest............

[pgwingman]

On 4/19/2018 at 10:34 PM, squire12 said:

@CWood21 @Packerraymond  

I think you are both right in how the trade up/down plays out in different years.  There are multiple factors involved for each situation.

--what is the team moving up looking to get, QB?  other position?

--How far that trade up or down is?  3-5 picks is vastly different than 10+ picks

--What is the state of the team trading down?  Are they rebuilding and wanting added picks to re-stock with depth and fill more holes, or are they a team that is primed for a contending playoff run?

-- How does the board look?  Tiers?  Players at positions of need?  Value?

 

For GB in 2018, having not picked this high in nearly a decade, the chance to draft to top 15 player would make it harder to move down.  Add that GB already has 12 picks, adding more is not really a need.  Now moving down 3-5 slots could be done, but trading down to 10+ picks is going to take a pretty monster offer in terms of picks/value/players. 

I think this makes the most sense, but I think I'd still take the Patriots deal.

I like the idea of going down 3-5 slots, since I think we'd still be in the same tier of players.

[CWood21]

On 4/19/2018 at 9:34 PM, squire12 said:

@CWood21 @Packerraymond  

I think you are both right in how the trade up/down plays out in different years.  There are multiple factors involved for each situation.

--what is the team moving up looking to get, QB?  other position?

--How far that trade up or down is?  3-5 picks is vastly different than 10+ picks

--What is the state of the team trading down?  Are they rebuilding and wanting added picks to re-stock with depth and fill more holes, or are they a team that is primed for a contending playoff run?

-- How does the board look?  Tiers?  Players at positions of need?  Value?

 

For GB in 2018, having not picked this high in nearly a decade, the chance to draft to top 15 player would make it harder to move down.  Add that GB already has 12 picks, adding more is not really a need.  Now moving down 3-5 slots could be done, but trading down to 10+ picks is going to take a pretty monster offer in terms of picks/value/players. 

As I mentioned, you pretty much have to throw out any draft pick trade that involves QBs.  Teams are often paying a premium on those players.  And I mentioned that looking at future picks is hard to gauge value since people value those picks differently.  Personally, I value them as the last pick of the next round, but others might not view it that way.

Like you mentioned, trading down 3-5 picks is different than 10+ picks.  But that's where you have to take things into context.  The TVC is meant as a general rule of thumb, not necessarily something that is supposed to be held to it without question.  It disregards where certain tiers begin and where a tier ends.