My Non-Trade Down Theory

[DLCassidy]

Trading is a rerequired tool for a good draft strategy. If you pick comes up and the BPA is a position witch is Very strong on your team, then you would be nuts not to trade down a spot to get full value for your pick (if you could). It's all about your draft board and what you project other teams will do. With rare exception at the top of round one, teams consider a trade on every pick...guaranteed. Trades aren't usually consumated but are always considered and frequently discussed.

 

[AdamJT13]

You're the one that says often that you can't judge a DE solely on his sacks. And, as I said, he has had injury problems. That includes the times he has played injured.

By any measure, he hasn't played like a No. 1 overall pick, even when he was healthy.

What the **** are you talking about? I pointed out players from the PAST that had injury problems. I don't need a crystal ball to REMEMBER something.

Read my original post. As I explained, on the whole, teams are better off trading down, out of the first round, since the difference in the cost of first-round picks and second-round picks exceeds the difference in their performance, on average. Even when you think you're better off staying in the first round because the guy you want is a "sure thing," you're still probably better off trading down. If that "sure thing" has injury problems, you're in big trouble. The fact that "sure things" such as Courtney Brown, Ki-Jana Carter and Steve Emtman busted BECAUSE of injuries is irrelevant, because it's an assumed risk in the equation, no matter where the player is drafted. Since nobody has a crystal ball that tells them which "sure things" are going to bust because of injuries, they'd be better off -- on average -- trading out of the first round.

 

[Rack]

By any measure, he hasn't played like a No. 1 overall pick, even when he was healthy.

That's true. But his injuries have had a major impact on his play. That's my point. He hasn't played like a #1 pick, but when he's been healthy he hasn't been bad.

Read my original post. As I explained, on the whole, teams are better off trading down, out of the first round, since the difference in the cost of first-round picks and second-round picks exceeds the difference in their performance, on average. Even when you think you're better off staying in the first round because the guy you want is a "sure thing," you're still probably better off trading down. If that "sure thing" has injury problems, you're in big trouble. The fact that "sure things" such as Courtney Brown, Ki-Jana Carter and Steve Emtman busted BECAUSE of injuries is irrelevant, because it's an assumed risk in the equation, no matter where the player is drafted. Since nobody has a crystal ball that tells them which "sure things" are going to bust because of injuries, they'd be better off -- on average -- trading out of the first round

I agree with you to an extent. It's not an exact science. Every year is a different draft. Of course it's always better if you can trade down and still get the player you want. No doubt about that.


I just don't think it's a bad thing if you take the player you want at your original slot (as long as he's not taken a complete round too early) if you aren't able to find a trading partner.

 

[Clove]

The only argument I can make is, you have to have a good scouting department to pick up guys in the meat of the draft.

It's not really where we draft as much as it is who we drafted.

So with that said, I have faith that Parcells can trade down and pick up great talent this year.

 

[ravidubey]

The value was not there with the 2004 first round choice. We knew it. And we traded out.

Exactly. Thing was in 2004 we HAD to have a RB in an average RB draft. The value at RB was in the second round.

In this draft the value at guard, for example, is in the second round. If Dallas found itself having to draft for need at guard they may have to trade down from 18 or trade up from 49.

Linebacker and OT are similar this year. At both positions you can get great value in the top ten and again from pick 26 onwards. If Dallas wants one they should trade up or down and not reach at 18. Manny Lawson might be an exception, since he kind of has a "3-4" tweener waiver and is thus more valuable to Dallas, Cleveland, Miami, San Diego, New England, and Pittsburgh than he is to other teams. He could fall all the way to 18 should Cleveland go DL and Miami take a DB. That would be sweet.

 

[Rack]

The value was not there with the 2004 first round choice. We knew it. And we traded out.

What? Stephen Jackson was WELL worth the #22 pick in 2004.