Broaddus: Cowboys Laying Ground Work for Trade Down

[big dog cowboy]

Problem is Jerry sucks at trading down.

Emmitt Smith disagrees.

 

[wick]

Post Jimmy, when has trading down in the first worked? It seems like it always ends in disaster for us.

 

[Hoofbite]

I'd rather not trade down unless a 2nd rounder or very high 3rd is coming back in return.

I'd rather Dallas pony up and go the other way than trade back.

 

[JBS]

I'd rather not trade down unless a 2nd rounder or very high 3rd is coming back in return.

I'd rather Dallas pony up and go the other way than trade back.

More than likely, that is exactly what we'd be getting..parlaying that extra 2nd or 3rd with our 2nd to move back into the 1st is what is so enticing

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

More than likely, that is exactly what we'd be getting..parlaying that extra 2nd or 3rd with our 2nd to move back into the 1st is what is so enticing

I want Carimi/Castanzo and Pouncey.

Start 2 rookies, screw it. Move Kosier to RG.

 

[gimmesix]

All for a trade down, but our track record in the 3rd is horrid. Hopefully any prospective draftee in that round is the opposite of recent history.

I agree. I don't mind seeing Dallas trade down, but I'd rather see them use that to trade back up to get a player they've targeted.

A scenario where the Cowboys trade into the teens, then use the picks they've received to trade up from 40 into the 20s would be great. Then they could possibly get someone like Watt and Solder, etc.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Honestly I think I could live with Cam Jordan/JJ Watt & Castanzo/Carimi/Pouncey and a OG/OT in the 3rd.

That would work for me. I haven't seen much written around here about Jordan. He seems to be flying under the radar a little.

 

[28 Joker]

I left off Blaine Gabbert as a player that interests the Titans.

Again, everyone knows about New England's and San Diego's move up ammunition, but the Eagles (who were mentioned as possible trade parters for the Titans) have two fourths and two fifths, and Tyron Smith is most likely a guy rated very high for them. I don't know if Tennessee would want to move that far back unless they could draft Jake Locker where the Eagles currently sit.

If the Cowboys have a bunch of players rated close together, there is a good chance that the other teams do, too. It may not be as easy to move down as some people think.

The best thing that could happen to the Cowboys is this. The other teams make the decision to stay at 9 for them. That way, they can't screw it up bad. They should not fool around and draft Tyron Smith at 9, imo.

 

[Zaxor]

I am so torn on whether to move down or not...I think this draft class overall is weak and only a couple of players really stand a chance of being great and I think T. Smith is one of them...But I also see a bunch of servicable guys that should be pretty solid better never star material and we could get maybe 3 of them with a move down.

 

[brickman]

I like the idea of trading down. To me, at the #9 position there probably will need be the standout pick. We might as well trade down to the #14 -15 area and pick up a couple of extra picks, as we need help in more than 1 or 2 areas.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Emmitt Smith disagrees.

Cowboys traded up for Emmitt.

In general, I don't like the idea of trading down in a weak draft (Hello 2009 Draft Class)

 

[DFWJC]

Cowboys traded up for Emmitt.

In general, I don't like the idea of trading down in a weak draft (Hello 2009 Draft Class)

They traded into the middle of the 1st round and got max value.
That required trading up, this year it would require trading down.

Actually, I'm with you on this. please don't get too cute Jerry.
On the other hand, don't greatly overpay for what you can get later.
I guess how the raft flows will dictate this.

 

[YosemiteSam]

There is only one set of circumstances that trading down makes sense. That is, when you are trading down a certain number of spots and yet still expect to get more value after the trade down than you got without trading down.

For instance. You are sitting at say 5th pick in the draft. You trade down to the 11th pick knowing that you can still get the player you *NEED*. (ie, not best player available) In turn, you also get the other teams following year's 1st round pick.

You move back six slots and still get a guy you need and also have two first round picks next year. THAT is worth moving back. Trading back in the draft to get a two players (a 2nd and 3rd tier player) for the 1st tier player you could have had at your current draft position, is bad business and I frown upon that BIG TIME.

In other words, if you can land Tyron Smith and you trade back to get a 2nd tier tackle and a 3rd, 4th, or 5th tier player in the 3rd round. You screwed yourself.

One first tier player >>>>>> 2nd + 3rd tier player.

 

[DFWJC]

There is only one set of circumstances that trading down makes sense. That is, when you are trading down a certain number of spots and yet still expect to get more value after the trade down than you got without trading down.

For instance. You are sitting at say 5th pick in the draft. You trade down to the 11th pick knowing that you can still get the player you *NEED*. (ie, not best player available) In turn, you also get the other teams following year's 1st round pick.

You move back six slots and still get a guy you need and also have two first round picks next year. THAT is worth moving back. Trading back in the draft to get a two players (a 2nd and 3rd tier player) for the 1st tier player you could have had at your current draft position, is bad business and I frown upon that BIG TIME.

In other words, if you can land Tyron Smith and you trade back to get a 2nd tier tackle and a 3rd, 4th, or 5th tier player in the 3rd round. You screwed yourself.

One first tier player >>>>>> 2nd + 3rd tier player.

This.

Bottom line is want to maximize your value while STILL getting players that you want and need...and that will contribute to your team.

Two contrasting styles with similar results lately are new England (always trading down and have more picks) and the Jets (less picks but trade up ). Both have been mostly finding what they want where they want it--though the Jets had a horrible pick a few years ago wtih Gholston.

I probably differ some with the post above only it that I would always lean more toward BPA but with a bias toward need (vs maybe the other way around). Otherwise, I agree.

 

[YosemiteSam]

This.

Bottom line is want to maximize your value while STILL getting players that you want and need...and that will contribute to your team.

Two contrasting styles with similar results lately are new England (always trading down and have more picks) and the Jets (less picks but trade up ). Both have been mostly finding what they want where they want it--though the Jets had a horrible pick a few years ago wtih Gholston.

I probably differ some with the post above only it that I would always lean more toward BPA but with a bias toward need (vs maybe the other way around). Otherwise, I agree.

Nods, how many next year 1st picks have NE gotten lately? They have multiple first round picks quite a bit. The value of first round picks are enormous. Trading back in the first round is generally a bad deal unless you are getting extra 1st picks in the process.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Patriots didn't get a first when they traded back with us last year, and I doubt they regret the move.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Patriots didn't get a first when they traded back with us last year, and I doubt they regret the move.

That depends. If Dez gets things straightened out, I bet the Pats and Brady would love to have a WR like Dez.

 

[SMCowboy]

There is only one set of circumstances that trading down makes sense. That is, when you are trading down a certain number of spots and yet still expect to get more value after the trade down than you got without trading down.

For instance. You are sitting at say 5th pick in the draft. You trade down to the 11th pick knowing that you can still get the player you *NEED*. (ie, not best player available) In turn, you also get the other teams following year's 1st round pick.

You move back six slots and still get a guy you need and also have two first round picks next year. THAT is worth moving back. Trading back in the draft to get a two players (a 2nd and 3rd tier player) for the 1st tier player you could have had at your current draft position, is bad business and I frown upon that BIG TIME.

In other words, if you can land Tyron Smith and you trade back to get a 2nd tier tackle and a 3rd, 4th, or 5th tier player in the 3rd round. You screwed yourself.

One first tier player >>>>>> 2nd + 3rd tier player.

Another time when trading back is good, is if you have multiple players that fill a need that all have the same grade on your draft board that are still available. If you trade back and are still able to get one of those players it is smart to trade back....

 

[Nightshade]

How did Solder go from being a great prospect, pre-Senior bowl, combine--to downright sucking?

I'm not really for or against him so much, I just find it interesting that people constantly rag on him. He's played tackle for one year and played it well enough that he's a first rounder. Not to mention, he moves better than any tackle in the draft, is 6'8, and has tons of room to gain weight.

He's as good a prospect as Tyron Smith is, to me

6'8" at LT isn't a plus.

 

[Nightshade]

Cowboys traded up for Emmitt.

In general, I don't like the idea of trading down in a weak draft (Hello 2009 Draft Class)

Who do you have in mind? You want to trade up for Cam Jordan as your signature indicates?