If the Cowboys Trade Out of the First...

[USMarineVet]

Well if our pre-existing first round pick is just a high second rounder to you, how is our pre-existing second round pick not a high third by that same logic?

I simply mean that in many cases, once you reach the bottom of a round, there isn't anyone left that you had a 1st round grade on. The argument I'm making is based solely on whether or not you would be willing to swap a 1st this year for an additional first next year while also adding a 3rd this year in a very deep draft. This draft has a lot of value in the middle rounds. It would put us in a position to have a whopper of a draft in 2016 and potentially finding a replacement for the most important position on the team. I'm talking about being pro-active for the future.

 

[tideh20heel]

They went into great detail about that after the Frederick pick. They value that year greatly. If they go to 33 they are going to receive a premium deal.

 

[USMarineVet]

If the trade is with TB, TEN, JAX, OAK,CLE,WAS I do it because there is a good chance that's a top 5 pick. With that I can target Connor Cook QB MICH ST. A second and two thirds this year still gets me 3 top 100 players in this years draft.

I understand what you're saying, but when you have 2 firsts, 1 second, 2 thirds, 2 fourths, 2 fifths, etc, etc., that 1st rounder you receive doesn't have to be a top 5 pick... It would be nice, but it doesn't have to be. You have the firepower to move up pretty much wherever you want if you find a willing trade partner. Preferably one that you anticipate won't be having a good season.

I'm still choking over the Bills coming alive (I forget the year) when we had their 1st round pick via a trade. I believe it was the draft when we got Ware for their pick. He fell in our lap and wasn't expected to be there.

 

[Biggems]

If you are planning for next year's draft, why not trade out of the first for a 2nd this year and a 1st next year, then trade that 2nd for a 3rd this year and a 2nd next year.....so we have 2 picks in every round next year.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Before you all go crazy, hear me out...

At 27 our 1st round pick is for all intents and purposes a high 2nd rounder.

Stopped there. No it isn't. There's a significant step change between picks 32 and 33: the fifth-year option goes away.

 

[USMarineVet]

Stopped there. No it isn't. There's a significant step change between picks 32 and 33: the fifth-year option goes away.

That's true.. You also create two 5th year options in the 2016 draft, one of which could potentially be your franchise QB who commands one of the highest salaries on the team. Remember, we wouldn't be losing the 1st round pick. We'd just be pushing it back a year for the flexibility to move up and grab who we want. Just sayin'.

 

[JPostSam]

Romo was a fluke. When was the last time an undrafted free agent QB ever did...?

kurt warner

 

[Cover 2]

I understand what you're saying, but when you have 2 firsts, 1 second, 2 thirds, 2 fourths, 2 fifths, etc, etc., that 1st rounder you receive doesn't have to be a top 5 pick... It would be nice, but it doesn't have to be. You have the firepower to move up pretty much wherever you want if you find a willing trade partner. Preferably one that you anticipate won't be having a good season.

I'm still choking over the Bills coming alive (I forget the year) when we had their 1st round pick via a trade. I believe it was the draft when we got Ware for their pick. He fell in our lap and wasn't expected to be there.

I think Ware was our pick and Spears was the one we got from them. Essentially we gave up Steven Jackson for Julius Jones and Marcus Spears.

 

[USMarineVet]

kurt warner

Ok.. I'll give you Warner.. He had some very good years.. Won them a SB. Still not as good as Romo IMO but he was definitely a good one.. Point being though, I think it's pretty fair to say they're a rare breed.

 

[USMarineVet]

I think Ware was our pick and Spears was the one we got from them. Essentially we gave up Steven Jackson for Julius Jones and Marcus Spears.

Yup.. Spears was the one.. Thank you.

 

[Fredd]

only if the pick this year was a 2nd and not too low...in other words, no, cuz no one would do that

 

[jday]

Before you all go crazy, hear me out...

At 27 our 1st round pick is for all intents and purposes a high 2nd rounder. Would you all be willing to trade it for a 2016 1st rounder and additional 3rd rounder this year? Now I know it's always a team's intention to win NOW, but consider this...

As most of you know, a high draft pick rarely is a major contributing factor the first year he plays in the NFL. And I understand and agree that both Romo and Witten are in the winters of their careers. I get that.. I want them to get a ring as badly as you do. But this team is bursting with youthful talent now and sooner rather than later someone other than Romo is going to have to lead this team. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not on board with that guy being either Weeden or Vaughn.

If things stand as they are the Cowboys 2016 Draft picks will look something like this: 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7. (This is considering that losing Murray merits a 3 and not a 4 and the slight possibility that the compensatory 4 becomes a 5) Adding another 1st rounder in the 2016 draft would put us in a position to draft Tony's replacement. We would have the flexibility to draft pretty much anywhere we choose by parlaying our non-compensatory picks with those 2 first rounders.

I know. I know... Crazy talk. But I've always felt that if you want a franchise QB you need to be in position to grab who you believe is the best one on the board. Romo was a fluke. When was the last time an undrafted free agent QB ever did what Romo has done? Never! And don't think for a second that I'm trying to close Tony's window faster than it needs to be closed. I strongly feel he has 4, maybe 5 very good seasons left in him, barring injury. I would just like to see us mentor our next starting QB in the same mold that Romo was mentored in our system. And be able to suck in 4 or 5 years of knowledge from Tony before he takes the reigns.

I just see a move like this setting us up for the next decade rather than making that hard push to win a SB this year. And as I said before, whomever we would use that 1st rounder on this year would be a contributor, but unlikely to be a major factor. I see this team being built in a way where we're going to be picking from the low end of the draft for quite some team. You really have to suck to be in a position to get that franchise QB without wheeling and dealing and I don't see us sucking. Not for a long while. Not with this team finally wising up and understanding how you build a long-term winning team...

So again, my question... as excited you all are about this team now... would you be willing to make that 1 year sacrifice now, in order to solidify ourselves with our next franchise QB of the future? It's going to have to happen sooner or later.

Would you give up this year's 1st for a 1st next year and an additional 3rd this year?

I think it's a fair question, hypothetical as it may be. But it's a very real possibility and gives room for thought.

It is a fair question, but it is tough to answer without knowing who is available at 27. If Gurley, Gordon, a top-tier corner, DT, or linebacker falls that far, than no - I would have to take the BPA of the aforementioned. However, if there is no one left on the Cowboys board worthy of the 27th pick, then absolutely.

 

[Shotgun Dave]

I said that because usually whoever's left at the bottom of the first round have a 2nd round grade by a lot of teams. Not always, but it happens often.

Ah. From a grade perspective. I see what you mean now. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[DFWJC]

Yes, I would. Because a 1st and 3rd always beats a 1st when you're sitting at 27. No matter what year. The fixation on now wouldn't prevent me from essentially acquiring a free 3rd round pick. And with this year's 1 being at 27, I stand a very good chance of upgrading that pick next year.

We'll never agree on this. I understand you feel this way and it's no use arguing.
However
Assuming the same position (27), The premis that as of today, next years 1st round pick is as valuable as this years 1st is way off.
In my opinion, of course.
My guess is that all 32 GMs...with no exception...agree with me.

 

[USMarineVet]

We'll never agree on this. I understand you feel this way and it's no use arguing.
However
Assuming the same position (27), The premis that as of today, next years 1st round pick is as valuable as this years 1st is way off.
In my opinion, of course.
My guess is that all 32 GMs...with no exception...agree with me.

Not sure I'm quite getting what you're saying here. The thing is.. Percentage wise.. (Hell, let's be accurate. I'll do the math) "If" the Cowboys were to trade pick 27 away for a 1st next year and a 3rd this, the odds of them upgrading the 27th pick next year would be 26/32 or 81.25%. So basically a 4 in 5 chance of upgrading your 1st rounder.

Not to steal RS's thunder because i know you quoted him on this post, but the whole concept of this thread was to get a personal feel for where Zoners stood on winning long term vs. winning now. Personally for me, after looking at the big picture and considering time frames, next year would be an ideal time for the Cowboys to draft Romo's successor. As I stated before (me, personally) feels that the QB's who are going to have the most success in this league are going to be drafted in the 1st round. Again, this is my opinion and by no means discounts the fact that there may be sleepers who turn out to be eventual HOFers.

Being as competitive as we are now, it stands to reason that we won't be seeing very many high draft picks in the next 5 year window. So, how do we get in that position? Sooner or later you have to make a sacrifice if you want that all-important cog in the wheel works to remain shiny and brand new. I'd much rather do this by taking a step back one year and trading back, than trading an important piece of the puzzle to attain same said draft pick.

With two 1sts combined with 10 other picks (as it stands now) we would be holding all the ammunition we need to take just about anyone we want IF we find a willing trade partner. I know. Big IF.

As the team stands now, they are very young and very talented. Wouldn't you agree that with so much invested over the past four years, that now would be the a very good time to make the moves necessary to secure the future of the most important position on the field?

Again, I know this is hypothetical, and the odds of this happening this year are slim to none. I just see this proactive approach as a means of addressing what needs to be addressed anyway sooner rather than later. If we stand pat, we have to hope someone falls to us. I'd rather not be in that position. If I'm gonna bet, I want Aces in the hole. And that's what those two 1sts would do for us. Now Romo gets to play out his career and mentor his successor. Not some guy who you hope will pan out. But someone with a proven track record who stood out against College football's best competition.

Not directing this at you at all DFWJC.. I'm just reiterating what I said in the OP because based on some of the comments I've read I'm wondering if what I was trying to get at was fully understood. I don't need people to agree with me. But it would be nice if they understood it.

As RS said, a first and a third is better than a first. And the odds of that first being better than 27 are pretty good. Especially if you get lucky and can pull it off with a bottom tier team. But either way, with a fist full of picks, 2 being in the 1st round... we can get that crucial piece we need to keep this machine running into the future with minimal repercussions.

 

[Risen Star]

We'll never agree on this. I understand you feel this way and it's no use arguing.
However
Assuming the same position (27), The premis that as of today, next years 1st round pick is as valuable as this years 1st is way off.
In my opinion, of course.
My guess is that all 32 GMs...with no exception...agree with me.

So does that mean this year's 1st is worth less than last year's? It's a very shortsighted thought process.

You think it's more valuable because it's now. Next April you won't feel that 1st round pick is worth less than the previous year.

The truth is the only true value of a first round pick lies with the strength of the draft class. They don't get less valuable through the years, as the immediate need fixation crowd want to lead you to believe.

Where the Cowboys are picking, I'd take a 1st and 3rd over that 27th pick every year. If it was a 2017 1st, I'd take it.

 

[Risen Star]

Not sure I'm quite getting what you're saying here. The thing is.. Percentage wise.. (Hell, let's be accurate. I'll do the math) "If" the Cowboys were to trade pick 27 away for a 1st next year and a 3rd this, the odds of them upgrading the 27th pick next year would be 26/32 or 81.25%. So basically a 4 in 5 chance of upgrading your 1st rounder.

Not to steal RS's thunder because i know you quoted him on this post, but the whole concept of this thread was to get a personal feel for where Zoners stood on winning long term vs. winning now. Personally for me, after looking at the big picture and considering time frames, next year would be an ideal time for the Cowboys to draft Romo's successor. As I stated before (me, personally) feels that the QB's who are going to have the most success in this league are going to be drafted in the 1st round. Again, this is my opinion and by no means discounts the fact that there may be sleepers who turn out to be eventual HOFers.

Being as competitive as we are now, it stands to reason that we won't be seeing very many high draft picks in the next 5 year window. So, how do we get in that position? Sooner or later you have to make a sacrifice if you want that all-important cog in the wheel works to remain shiny and brand new. I'd much rather do this by taking a step back one year and trading back, than trading an important piece of the puzzle to attain same said draft pick.

With two 1sts combined with 10 other picks (as it stands now) we would be holding all the ammunition we need to take just about anyone we want IF we find a willing trade partner. I know. Big IF.

As the team stands now, they are very young and very talented. Wouldn't you agree that with so much invested over the past four years, that now would be the a very good time to make the moves necessary to secure the future of the most important position on the field?

Again, I know this is hypothetical, and the odds of this happening this year are slim to none. I just see this proactive approach as a means of addressing what needs to be addressed anyway sooner rather than later. If we stand pat, we have to hope someone falls to us. I'd rather not be in that position. If I'm gonna bet, I want Aces in the hole. And that's what those two 1sts would do for us. Now Romo gets to play out his career and mentor his successor. Not some guy who you hope will pan out. But someone with a proven track record who stood out against College football's best competition.

Not directing this at you at all DFWJC.. I'm just reiterating what I said in the OP because based on some of the comments I've read I'm wondering if what I was trying to get at was fully understood. I don't need people to agree with me. But it would be nice if they understood it.

As RS said, a first and a third is better than a first. And the odds of that first being better than 27 are pretty good. Especially if you get lucky and can pull it off with a bottom tier team. But either way, with a fist full of picks, 2 being in the 1st round... we can get that crucial piece we need to keep this machine running into the future with minimal repercussions.

The draft is long term. You are making investments in your future. You have to learn to just ignore those crying for instant impact and immediate need. They really have no clue what the NFL Draft is all about. They want to *******ize it and treat it like it's an extension of FA and it most certainly is not.

 

[DFWJC]

So does that mean this year's 1st is worth less than last year's? It's a very shortsighted thought process.

You think it's more valuable because it's now. Next April you won't feel that 1st round pick is worth less than the previous year.

The truth is the only true value of a first round pick lies with the strength of the draft class. They don't get less valuable through the years, as the immediate need fixation crowd want to lead you to believe.

Where the Cowboys are picking, I'd take a 1st and 3rd over that 27th pick every year. If it was a 2017 1st, I'd take it.

Yes, it does ..in 2014...the the 2015 1st (again, in 2014) is worth less than a 2014 1st on draft day 2014.

Having Zack Martin one extra year was a good thing

 

[DFWJC]

Not sure I'm quite getting what you're saying here. The thing is.. Percentage wise.. (Hell, let's be accurate. I'll do the math) "If" the Cowboys were to trade pick 27 away for a 1st next year and a 3rd this, the odds of them upgrading the 27th pick next year would be 26/32 or 81.25%. So basically a 4 in 5 chance of upgrading your 1st rounder.

Not to steal RS's thunder because i know you quoted him on this post, but the whole concept of this thread was to get a personal feel for where Zoners stood on winning long term vs. winning now. Personally for me, after looking at the big picture and considering time frames, next year would be an ideal time for the Cowboys to draft Romo's successor. As I stated before (me, personally) feels that the QB's who are going to have the most success in this league are going to be drafted in the 1st round. Again, this is my opinion and by no means discounts the fact that there may be sleepers who turn out to be eventual HOFers.

Being as competitive as we are now, it stands to reason that we won't be seeing very many high draft picks in the next 5 year window. So, how do we get in that position? Sooner or later you have to make a sacrifice if you want that all-important cog in the wheel works to remain shiny and brand new. I'd much rather do this by taking a step back one year and trading back, than trading an important piece of the puzzle to attain same said draft pick.

With two 1sts combined with 10 other picks (as it stands now) we would be holding all the ammunition we need to take just about anyone we want IF we find a willing trade partner. I know. Big IF.

As the team stands now, they are very young and very talented. Wouldn't you agree that with so much invested over the past four years, that now would be the a very good time to make the moves necessary to secure the future of the most important position on the field?

Again, I know this is hypothetical, and the odds of this happening this year are slim to none. I just see this proactive approach as a means of addressing what needs to be addressed anyway sooner rather than later. If we stand pat, we have to hope someone falls to us. I'd rather not be in that position. If I'm gonna bet, I want Aces in the hole. And that's what those two 1sts would do for us. Now Romo gets to play out his career and mentor his successor. Not some guy who you hope will pan out. But someone with a proven track record who stood out against College football's best competition.

Not directing this at you at all DFWJC.. I'm just reiterating what I said in the OP because based on some of the comments I've read I'm wondering if what I was trying to get at was fully understood. I don't need people to agree with me. But it would be nice if they understood it.

As RS said, a first and a third is better than a first. And the odds of that first being better than 27 are pretty good. Especially if you get lucky and can pull it off with a bottom tier team. But either way, with a fist full of picks, 2 being in the 1st round... we can get that crucial piece we need to keep this machine running into the future with minimal repercussions.

That's why I was saying 27 now vs 27 later.
You seemed to understand that the Present value of the current 27th pick had more value than the same pick as next year, because you added a third to try to balance it out.

But yes, the odds are pretty good that a team we traded with would actually have a higher pick than 27. If you make that assumption (by saying the trade is Jacksonville,for example) it would change thing.

I know some of don't fully buy into the normal way GMs trade future picks.
But trade value usually assumes a 2016 1st would equal a 2015 2nd, a 2016 2nd would equal a 2015 3rd.....so one full round difference in value do tools Iosing that for a full year.
In that case, an extra 3rd would not cover the sacrifice....for some GMs.

 

[USMarineVet]

That's why I was saying 27 now vs 27 later.
You seemed to understand that the Present value of the current 27th pick had more value than the same pick as next year, because you added a third to try to balance it out.

But yes, the odds are pretty good that a team we traded with would actually have a higher pick than 27. If you make that assumption (by saying the trade is Jacksonville,for example) it would change thing.

I know some of don't fully buy into the normal way GMs trade future picks.
But trade value usually assumes a 2016 1st would equal a 2015 2nd, a 2016 2nd would equal a 2015 3rd.....so one full round difference in value do tools Iosing that for a full year.
In that case, an extra 3rd would not cover the sacrifice....for some GMs.

Mhm.. Well, I see what you're getting at in terms of how pick value transfers from year to year. Of course the team giving up the pick is going to want to be compensated for parting with their pick in the first place. Higher draft round picks demand much larger compensation than lower first round picks due to the value drop off . Those in the Top 10 are basically considered "can't miss" candidates whereas as you go down the board things get a little more iffy. So based on your cut and dry round compensation for trading away a pick in a given round simply isn't true. There's a Trade Value Chart for that. Some teams have created their own.

I could have easily said a 2nd next year, or a 4th. The whole point of the debate was whether or not it would be wise to sacrifice a little this year to ensure we're in position to get a major piece for years to come. Namely Romo's replacement. If the FO feels that player isn't in the draft class; rinse and repeat. Find a trade partner and swap one of those 1sts for a 2017 1st and pick up the extra pick again next year. (I'll let you fill in the blank as to in what round we acquire it)

All in all, I think the disagreement is a matter of semantics. You were thinking in terms of compensation for the pick whereas I was misreading you into thinking that you flat out felt that a 1st this year is more valuable than a 1st next year. In terms of all things being equal. As if 1st round picks diminished from year to year.

Regardless, this is all about strategy and positioning ourselves to grab a top level QB in '16. We'd lose out on the potential big name for a year, but we'd be adding greatly to our depth in the interim.