51 vs. 69, 110 since 2001

[jterrell]

08
51 Malcolm Kelly
69 Jacob Hester
110 Shawn Murphy

07
51 Steve Smith
69 Buster Davis
110 John Bowie

06
51 Ryan Cook
69 Paul McQuistan
110 Leon Williams

05
51 Nick Collins
69 Andrew Walter
110 Brandon Jacobs

04
51 Dwan Edwards
69 Gilbert Gardner
110 Nathan Vasher

03
51 Terry Pierce
69 Jason Witten
110 Seneca Wallace

02
51 Clinton Portis
69 Saleem Rasheed
110 Mike Echols

01
51 Paul Toviessi
69 Eric Kelly
110 Brandon Spoon

 

[jterrell]

the trade value chart clearly says we got the lesser end of the deal but the history of the draft does not.

of the 8 years listed above I'd rather have 51 only twice.

 

[Screw The Hall]

Nice post, and that doesn't even take into account that everyone has known for months that the meat of this draft is in the middle rounds.

 

[AdamJT13]

We got No. 75, not No. 69. We already had No. 69.

 

[Achozen]

Why is Steve Smith in bold? He hasn't really done anything...

 

[DEZBRYANT x88x]

Why is Steve Smith in bold? He hasn't really done anything...

True.
A couple years ago, you wouldnt have said this, but still Smith is a

dangerous weapon to have.

 

[DeepBleu]

Why is Steve Smith in bold? He hasn't really done anything...

must have mistaken it for the other steve smith.

 

[jterrell]

must have mistaken it for the other steve smith.

he made a few big catches for them in the playoffs.

that's more than the other guys.

plus i was trying to be fair

historically i'd rather have the lower picks.

 

[jterrell]

We got No. 75, not No. 69. We already had No. 69.

yup, you are right.

my bad there.

08
51 Malcolm Kelly
69 Jacob Hester
75 Reggie Smith
110 Shawn Murphy

07
51 Steve Smith
69 Buster Davis
5 Laurent Robinson
110 John Bowie

06
51 Ryan Cook
69 Paul McQuistan
75 Jason Spitz
110 Leon Williams

05
51 Nick Collins
69 Andrew Walter
75 Eric Green
110 Brandon Jacobs

04
51 Dwan Edwards
69 Gilbert Gardner
75 Max Starks
110 Nathan Vasher

03
51 Terry Pierce
69 Jason Witten
75 Seth Wand
110 Seneca Wallace

02
51 Clinton Portis
69 Saleem Rasheed
75 Derek Ross
110 Mike Echols

01
51 Paul Toviessi
69 Eric Kelly
75 Eric Downing
110 Brandon Spoon

 

[sonnyboy]

This kinda proves out a trade down theory I've had for a while.

If I were running a team I'd trade down in most drafts depending on the makeup of my current roster.

Going off the chart you can easily end up with 2 extra 3's and 3 extra 4's by trading both your 1st and 2nd round picks.

I'd much rather select 7 players in rounds 3 and 4, than select 4 players in rounds 1 through 4.

I believe you have just as good, perhaps better chance of landing one or two future pro bowl players.
More importantly you have no chance of drafting a bust who'll eat up cap space for a few years with little return. Players like Carpenter.

It's a safer approach. I believe the better you rate the talent, the better it'll pay off. Now this can be said of any approach. It's just that with this approach, it's even more critical.

 

[JackMagist]

This kinda proves out a trade down theory I've had for a while.

If I were running a team I'd trade down in most drafts depending on the makeup of my current roster.

Going off the chart you can easily end up with 2 extra 3's and 3 extra 4's by trading both your 1st and 2nd round picks.

I'd much rather select 7 players in rounds 3 and 4, than select 4 players in rounds 1 through 4.

I believe you have just as good, perhaps better chance of landing one or two future pro bowl players.
More importantly you have no chance of drafting a bust who'll eat up cap space for a few years with little return. Players like Carpenter.

It's a safer approach. I believe the better you rate the talent, the better it'll pay off. Now this can be said of any approach. It's just that with this approach, it's even more critical.

You may have hit the nail on the head with that remark. We don't have a lot of cap space and we don't have a lot of needs. So JJ is going for backups and maybe hit on a Barber in the mid rounds.

Still...I think we should have gone for trading into next year when we would have more cap room rather than trading down for more picks this year.

Oh what the hell...it's a crap shoot anyway.

 

[Screw The Hall]

This kinda proves out a trade down theory I've had for a while.

If I were running a team I'd trade down in most drafts depending on the makeup of my current roster.

Going off the chart you can easily end up with 2 extra 3's and 3 extra 4's by trading both your 1st and 2nd round picks.

I'd much rather select 7 players in rounds 3 and 4, than select 4 players in rounds 1 through 4.

I believe you have just as good, perhaps better chance of landing one or two future pro bowl players.
More importantly you have no chance of drafting a bust who'll eat up cap space for a few years with little return. Players like Carpenter.

It's a safer approach. I believe the better you rate the talent, the better it'll pay off. Now this can be said of any approach. It's just that with this approach, it's even more critical.

It all depends on the draft on any given year and where the value is within it.

That's why I can't stand the fanatical approach people have towards the points value chart people so blindly still abide by today. It puts absolutely no credence on where the strength of any given draft lies. Which has everything to do with how much value you can receive from trading up or down.

 

[DeepBleu]

51 is like area 51, you really don't know what's out there. while 69 is not quite sex, but a lot of people still enjoy it, and 110 is like a ménage à trois. all in all, 69 and 110 are better than 51.

 

[JackMagist]

51 is like area 51, you really don't know what's out there. while 69 is not quite sex, but a lot of people still enjoy it, and 110 is like a ménage à trois. all in all, 69 and 110 are better than 51.

I'll have what he's having LOL

 

[Paniolo22]

I'm still confused as to why we didn't get fair value for the pick. JJ isn't one to get fleeced very often.

 

[BAT]

I'm still confused as to why we didn't get fair value for the pick. JJ isn't one to get fleeced very often.

It looks like they panicked, thought for sure that Unger would be there, did not even have any contingency for another team jumping up to take him.


Stephen was trying to get a deal done, w/out to much time, so probably did was not able to parlay w/too many teams. I think there was no time left on the clock by the time the trade was announced. At least that is what it looked like to me. I DVRed it so did not watch it live.


But I would have thought the teams they should have targeted were the ones w/multiple 2nds. That way, no need to trade out of the 2nd completely.

 

[Screw The Hall]

I'm still confused as to why we didn't get fair value for the pick. JJ isn't one to get fleeced very often.

This is the way I see it.

They wanted Unger ... when he wasn't there they knew they wanted to trade down but the dancing partners weren't there for a fair deal according to the so-called chart ... so your left with two decisions at that point ...

1) make a pick you consider a reach anyway

2) or follow your board and trade down despite not receiving ideal compensation since you believe that a similarly graded player will be on the board when you pick next, plus you'll have an extra pick ... at worst if you see the group of similarly graded players getting thin you can trade back up to get back into that group with all the flexibility you've created for yourself

Now option 2 seems like the best route to go for my taste. If option 1 seems like the most credible way to go about things to some others, so be it.

What I don't understand is the perception that our guys somehow panicked. The trade seems like a well calculated decision on JJ and company's part to create more value.

 

[Tobal]

Value chart is a place to start and who knows if we even have the right trade chart

 

[yentl911]

I don't think we got fleeced. I think it was a rare scene of orgizational discipline. I really think they are following their draft board and will approach accordingly.

After last year's haul we have to give our scouting director some slack.

We picked up some picks that can help our depth and not be a huge hit on the money side of the hosue if they don't pan out - which was mentioned above and I think, spot-on.

I hope we stay the course today as well.

 

[Ren]

You may have hit the nail on the head with that remark. We don't have a lot of cap space and we don't have a lot of needs. So JJ is going for backups and maybe hit on a Barber in the mid rounds.

Still...I think we should have gone for trading into next year when we would have more cap room rather than trading down for more picks this year.

Oh what the hell...it's a crap shoot anyway.

I hate the idea of drafting player to be backups why not draft BPA and let them compete for s starting role rather then go looking for backups. we're not as good as we think we are and a little competition wouldn't hurt