Potential trade down partner??? (Pitt)

[CaptainAmerica]

The classic example of trading out too soon is when Jimmy was with the Dolphins and he traded down in the first round, the morning of the '98 draft.

Before the draft started, he traded with Green Bay who moved up to #19 to pick Vonnie Holliday and Miami moved back to #29, where Jimmy picked the great John Avery!!

Jimmy sat there and had to watch Randy Moss slip right past his former spot in the first round before Moss was finally picked at #21 by the Vikes.

I bet he kicked himself for years for that move. :bang2: :bang2: :bang2:

 

[CrazyCowboy]

I would have to think about it pretty hard.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Yeah I would. But I doubt they would, unless there is a RB at 18 they want.

FWIW, this is IMO the best trade down scenario I have seen submitted so far.

I agree. This is the best draft-day trade scenario I've seen here at the Zone. I'm not so sure I would make the trade, though, considering someone of value is bound to drop.

I think moving down three or spots would be a little more realistic.

 

[DiscipleofTuna]

Trading down would likely enable us to snag Joseph,Howard,Simpson,and Jon Scott in the first two rounds would hit on many needs.

 

[ddh33]

I actually like the idea of trading down, assuming there is no player at 18 who knocks your socks off. I think there is going to be some good value in the 2-4 rounds, and I would like Dallas to have some more picks there.

 

[InmanRoshi]

I would do it. Davin Jospeh or Eric Winston would be good values at 32, and the Cowboys would still have 3 more picks in Day 1 to fill varioius holes and/or find value. As Goose has said earlier, there is a huge talent dropoff around 11 or 12, and then there are about 50-60 guys with 2nd round grades. The meat of this draft is in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

 

[Idgit]

No I wouldn't make the trade.

The first rounder (#32) is one pick away from being a second rounder. Pick number 64 is one pick away from being a third rounder and the 129th pick is one away from being a 5th rounder.

So you might as well say we'd have:

2nd (pitt)
2nd (our own)
3rd (pitt)
3rd (our own)
5th (pitt)

We'd be getting in effect:
2nd
3rd
5th

for the #18 pick. I don't like that. Our roster is talented enough that 3rd and 5th rounders should have a hard time sticking... we very well might end up cutting two of those picks we traded for.

Not to mention the fact that we'd be paying a 1st rounder that is one pick away from being a second... and we'd have to pay him first round money. We'd be paying a 2nd and 4th, 2nd and 4th round money when they are one pick away from being a 3rd and 5th. Just doesn't make sense.

I say stay with the 18 instead of taking a few extra picks later on in the draft. Just take our highest rated OLB and be done with it. Why the heck give the super bowl champs our better pick and take their worse picks?

The Steelers are thinking correctly about it. Its about the amount of talent you have on your team... not the number of warm bodies you have.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/55784.html

If you think your team has competence in the draft relative to other teams, then you stockpile picks and churn your roster faster. Every camp there are players from low rounds that overdeliver in a big way. Yes, there are Brady Jameses. But for every one of them, there's a Peterman or a Gurode, or a Burnett who takes time and attention on your roster.

I'm not saying we should give up on Burnett or players like him too soon just because they take up roster space, but we should feel comfortable navigating around our roster, turning stones faster, and replacing aging or marginal talent with draft picks who flash real ability. If Peterman gets outplayed in TC by a 5th round pick we pickup in a trade down from Pitt, cut him and don't look back. Each hit you get in a low round or street FA makes up for a whiff on a high draft pick.

The right model to follow for maintaining a strong team is New England, not Pittsburgh.

 

[AsthmaField]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/55784.html

If you think your team has competence in the draft relative to other teams, then you stockpile picks and churn your roster faster. Every camp there are players from low rounds that overdeliver in a big way. Yes, there are Brady Jameses. But for every one of them, there's a Peterman or a Gurode, or a Burnett who takes time and attention on your roster.

I'm not saying we should give up on Burnett or players like him too soon just because they take up roster space, but we should feel comfortable navigating around our roster, turning stones faster, and replacing aging or marginal talent with draft picks who flash real ability. If Peterman gets outplayed in TC by a 5th round pick we pickup in a trade down from Pitt, cut him and don't look back. Each hit you get in a low round or street FA makes up for a whiff on a high draft pick.

The right model to follow for maintaining a strong team is New England, not Pittsburgh.

I don't pretend to think that I'm always right... Lord knows I'm wrong plenty of times. And I know my feelings about trading down this year aren't shared by many... but I just can't help but feel like we need to get higher quality prospects at the expense of the number of prospects.

You show a link for Tatupu, and he is a good player, but the likelyhood of finding a prospect in the second round just isn't as good as the likelyhood of finding one in the first.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/56912.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/66970.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/59240.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/65943.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/59889.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/60295.html

If you have a good scouting department... you can find players in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. rounds... but that same scouting department still will find more success in the first round than they will in later rounds.

Our odds will be better at 18 than they will be at 32... and I don't feel that we should pass up on a prospect that we really like to get a couple of later round picks that may or may not make the roster. In 2001, yes, I think that was the thing to do. Now? Not so much.

If Dallas likes an OLB prospect as much as they like Carpenter, Wimbley, and Lawson, and they think he'll be available at 32, then that's different. That is like when we thought Julius Jones was as good a prospect as Kevin Jones and Steven Jackson. If that's the case, then fine. But I don't want to do it simply to pick up later round choices. I don't want to do it period.

But like I said, I may be wrong about it and I'll just have to trust the Cowboys braintrust... which is much easier to do now with Ireland, JJ, and Parcells than it used to be with Lacewell and JJ. If they trade back, then I'll assume they know what they're doing. If they trade up or stay put, then I'll assume the same thing.

 

[iceberg]

Yeah I would. But I doubt they would, unless there is a RB at 18 they want.

FWIW, this is IMO the best trade down scenario I have seen submitted so far.

agreed 100%. logical, reasonable, do-able and fair to all parties.

 

[bbgun]

Pitt is too far of a drop, unless they pull a Losman and throw in their first next year.

 

[Idgit]

I don't pretend to think that I'm always right... Lord knows I'm wrong plenty of times. And I know my feelings about trading down this year aren't shared by many... but I just can't help but feel like we need to get higher quality prospects at the expense of the number of prospects.

You show a link for Tatupu, and he is a good player, but the likelyhood of finding a prospect in the second round just isn't as good as the likelyhood of finding one in the first.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/56912.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/66970.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/59240.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/65943.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/59889.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/players/60295.html

If you have a good scouting department... you can find players in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. rounds... but that same scouting department still will find more success in the first round than they will in later rounds.

Our odds will be better at 18 than they will be at 32... and I don't feel that we should pass up on a prospect that we really like to get a couple of later round picks that may or may not make the roster. In 2001, yes, I think that was the thing to do. Now? Not so much.

If Dallas likes an OLB prospect as much as they like Carpenter, Wimbley, and Lawson, and they think he'll be available at 32, then that's different. That is like when we thought Julius Jones was as good a prospect as Kevin Jones and Steven Jackson. If that's the case, then fine. But I don't want to do it simply to pick up later round choices. I don't want to do it period.

But like I said, I may be wrong about it and I'll just have to trust the Cowboys braintrust... which is much easier to do now with Ireland, JJ, and Parcells than it used to be with Lacewell and JJ. If they trade back, then I'll assume they know what they're doing. If they trade up or stay put, then I'll assume the same thing.

Fair enough, since we basically agree, I won't spend time arguing. Except to clarify your comment that, while you'll find more success per *pick* drafting in the first, you can find more success per *draft* by accumulating lower-percentage picks and being right on them more often than your competition.

I think we've been so abused by bad drafting over a recent 10 year span, that we're gunshy about having draft picks actually pan out. Since I don't know how long we'll have our current draft team together, I want them to pick as much as possible while they're here.

 

[BlueStar II]

I think it's a given that if we move down to either Jax's or Pitt's spot, we'll definitely miss a chance to get Carpenter, Lawson, and Wimbley, they'll be long gone by then.

 

[felix360]

hell yeah, we could pick up Howard with that first pick, and we get an extra 2nd and we get back a 4th love it