Would you mind two trade backs if

Discussion in 'Draft Zone' started by supercowboy8, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. dez_for_prez

    dez_for_prez Active Member

    1,049 Messages
    9 Likes Received
    Can we combine your 2 drafts and do,

    Kevin Zeitler - OG,

    2nd 39th - Jared Crick - DE, Nebraska

    2nd 45th - Josh Robinson

    3rd 66th - Bruce Irvin - OLB, West Virginia

    3rd 82nd - Ben Jones
  2. supercowboy8

    supercowboy8 Well-Known Member

    6,110 Messages
    484 Likes Received
    that is different, we traded out of the 2nd to get 3rd round pick. This is trading out of the first two times to get 2 2nds a 3rd and a 1st next year. By trading your 1st round pick two times you add 2 early 2nds and a 1st in 2013
  3. robert70x7

    robert70x7 Well-Known Member

    1,075 Messages
    34 Likes Received
    Yeah, Ben Jones was the tough one for me. I still think we need a 3rd WR regardless of what Jerry thinks we have.

    Options at 82 are:
    • Chris Givens
    • Jarius Wright
    • Nick Toon
    • Joe Adams
    • Devon Wylie
    • Brian Quick
    • Marvin McNutt
    After this it goes:
    • Marv Jones
    • Juron Criner
    • A.J. Jenkins
    • Tommy Streeter
    • Devier Posey
    • T.Y. Hilton
    • Dwight Jones
    I like the first list a LOT more.
  4. supercowboy8

    supercowboy8 Well-Known Member

    6,110 Messages
    484 Likes Received

    you guys have to stop bringing up the 2009 draft. we traded out of the 2nd round to get later 3rd round picks and not a 1s the next year. This is a question if you would trade the 14th pick for two picks in the 30s and a 1st next year. not trading your 2nd round picks for 3rds and 4ths. Big big big difference.

    This trading back is more of what Dallas did in 2007 or 2004. Or what NE does several sevearl times.
  5. DFWJC

    DFWJC Well-Known Member

    36,553 Messages
    19,488 Likes Received
    For starters, you can't trade the 14th and nothing else for Cleveland's 22nd and 37th picks...you would have to also give them our 3rd rounder.

    Next, you could not trade the 22nd pick and get the 39th and 66th AND next year's first. You could get the 39th and the 66th for that 22nd pick.

    So, we would be substituting the 14th, 45th, 82nd for the 37th, 39th, 45th, 66th. 3 for 4.

    Other than that, if you did hit on those 3 of those 4 picks that would make a pretty nice draft.
  6. supercowboy8

    supercowboy8 Well-Known Member

    6,110 Messages
    484 Likes Received
    how do you say we couldn't, please tell me your not going by that outdated never used trade chart. Look at the past trade and see what teams gave up. The redskins trde to move up to #2 is no where near what that chart would say is even. Atlanta traded last year to move up in the 1st wasn't a even trade by that chart. Aslo the same with the Saints to NE last year.
  7. RS12

    RS12 Well-Known Member

    21,886 Messages
    9,334 Likes Received
    Guarentee me no replay of 2009 and feel free to trade back if that is where the value and need is.
  8. InmanRoshi

    InmanRoshi Zone Scribe

    18,334 Messages
    80 Likes Received
    Maybe we should bring up the 1997 draft where we traded out of Tony Brackens in the 1st round to take Kavika Pittman in the 2nd.
  9. DFWJC

    DFWJC Well-Known Member

    36,553 Messages
    19,488 Likes Received
    If you want to dream up a trade that is hugely in our favor, go ahead.

    Who am I to say you can't...bad wording I guess.

    I was not looking at an old chart..
    Anyway, the Redskins moving up to the second overall pick for a franchise QB is totally different and I'm sure you know that.

    By my chart, Atlanta did NOT overpay last year..they paid 1420 and got 1600.

    My chart says New England was actually even or got the better end of the Saints trade last year by trading their 28th pick for the Saint's 56th pick and this years 1st rounder.

    I just would not assume we will have someone overpay for our 14th pick. If anything, Jerry may be the one overpaying...it's 50-50.

    Hey, I'm one that is not against trading back, though I am hesitant to trade way back.
  10. Teague31

    Teague31 Defender of the Star

    9,242 Messages
    5,506 Likes Received
    Trading back multiple times was one of the causes of the 2009 draft.
  11. xwalker

    xwalker Well-Known Member

    28,592 Messages
    21,310 Likes Received

    That would be double-awesome for this years draft. Other than DeCastro, the available players at #14 are just not that much better than the players available in the 2nd round this year.

    Some years the difference between the talent in the mid 1st compared to the 2nd round is drastic, but not this year, IMO.
  12. InmanRoshi

    InmanRoshi Zone Scribe

    18,334 Messages
    80 Likes Received
    Ive been following the draft a long time, and this is what people convince themselves of every year.
  13. Sam I Am

    Sam I Am Unfriendly and Aloof!

    37,867 Messages
    6,002 Likes Received
    LOL. Those who do not heed the past, are doomed to repeat it. ~ Winston Chruchill

    It doesn't matter what year you bring up, the truth of the fact doesn't change.
  14. cowboysooner

    cowboysooner Well-Known Member

    1,382 Messages
    30 Likes Received
    A team like the rams are not going to hit the multiple 1st lotto and get impatient about a falling corner or tackle.
  15. StarHead69

    StarHead69 Well-Known Member

    1,563 Messages
    245 Likes Received

    Must admit that I do it every year. Still nostalgic for the massive influx of talent that we got after the Walker trade I guess. I have to keep reminding myself ' a bird in the hand...'
  16. VACowboy

    VACowboy Well-Known Member

    5,658 Messages
    1,818 Likes Received
    I'd rather stay in the top 18-20.
  17. Doomsday

    Doomsday Rising Star

    12,404 Messages
    2,604 Likes Received
    Me too, everything I read says this is not a really deep draft. Why trade back if that is the case? Id rather see them stay inside the top 20 and get a better chance at landing a starter.
  18. Eskimo

    Eskimo Well-Known Member

    12,821 Messages
    496 Likes Received
    I'm not in favor of trading out of the first unless we are getting the future first rounder so I am okay with this scenario.

    The other reason I am okay with this scenario is that we can pick up players that we need at their proper valuations instead of reaching for an OLB, OG, DE, CB or Safety in the first. It looks like there are lots of good OLB, OG and CB prospects in the 2nd or 3rd round. We would be able to take a flyer on an injured player or two like Barron and Crick with this strategy as well.

    The other reason I like this strategy is it gives us ammunition to move up in next year's draft in case a true impact player is available who meets our needs. The possibilities would include a QB or an elite pass rusher who fits our schemes. There is no such player available for us this year at #14.

    The other advantage of two first rounders is you can try the strategy of deferring using one of your first rounders by doing the trade for a 2nd and next year's #1 until you get lucky and land yourself in the top 10 where you can get an impact player.
  19. Eskimo

    Eskimo Well-Known Member

    12,821 Messages
    496 Likes Received
    I think you have it wrong. This draft is very weak outside of the top 5 in impact players. It is deep in OLB, OG and CB. It is top end talent that is lacking in this draft.
  20. BigMac6

    BigMac6 Member

    84 Messages
    13 Likes Received
    Trading back out of the first.....there are two names the blow my mind yet: Carter and Dixon.

Share This Page