Maybe overthecap's.What is the most current trade value chart that includes compensatory picks?
I don't think this is very accurate
Yeah, that doesn’t seem right.I don't think this is very accurate
Yeah, that doesn’t seem right.
It is showing the cost for Dallas to move up from 10 to 4 as just an extra mid-6th round pick... or that Dallas could nearly move from 10th to first overall for just their second.
I would have the first overall pick every year
What are we waiting for then? Let’s do it. Offer our 10 and and a 2nd for the 1. Let Lawrence and Dak compete and the better one gets to start, lol.Yeah, that doesn’t seem right.
It is showing the cost for Dallas to move up from 10 to 4 as just an extra mid-6th round pick... or that Dallas could nearly move from 10th to first overall for just their second.
That's my preferred trade scenario, trade up from our third round comp pick to the middle of round three. There could be several players in the range with starter grades.I was looking at the trade up scenarios after rounds one and two. If we trade up, I would think that moving up would make the most sense with one of the third or fourth round picks.
The pick at the bottom of the 4th round is probably going to see a pretty significant drop off in talent. I could see is packaging it to move up with one of the earlier 3rd or 4th round picks.
I would have the first overall pick every year
There are two different sets of charts. There’s the one that says what the trade value of each slot is—that’s the traditional chart and what teams still seem to follow—and there are charts that try to determine the actual relative value of each slot in terms of the quality of player who comes out of that slot. That’s the Harvard chart and others.
Why aren’t the two the same? Good question, but they’re not. The traditional chart overvalues 1st rounders and undervalues others, 2nd rounders in particular. But that’s what teams use. I assume it’s because everyone thinks they’re smarter than they are and can identify winners from busts better than they actually can. It’s why trading down tends to be a much better idea than trading up.
Part of it's the QBs up there. Many teams chasing few QBs drives them up the board and drives up the cost to trade into those picks.I think it because of the perceived value of those rd 1 pick slots themselves, not necessarily the players. Teams tend to think that the rd 1 picks are far more valuable than rd 2 or 3 picks. It's almost a stigma of rd 1 talent, especially top half, is so great that giving up one of those spots is gonna cost ya.