Rob Peter to Pay Paul?

[Eanwen]

If you're all in on Dak maybe you'll look to trade into the first/early second with the 2020 pick. I don't follow college football like I used to so I don't know why you'd do that if the draft is as deep in TE and DL as people say. If you don't think there will be a difference maker in the 2nd when we pick, sure go for it.

 

[JoeKing]

No, I do not advocate dipping into our future a year from now for gratification right now. Be good with Amari Cooper being our 1st round acquisition.

 

[TwoDeep3]

No .... in general..... trading two players for one in the early draft is a mistake

Their actual values are a lot closer than some chart says

Two for ones are a bad idea..... Mo is just one example

I believe each trade has merits of its own that are not beholding to any other trades positive or negative.

I also do not believe charts are an adequate way to judge a draft. Surely a second for Jaylon Smith was laughable when Jones pulled the trigger on a guy with nerve damage.

How many think that now?

I thought Esch would be a bust. I was incorrect. Lots of people looked at his history and felt the same. Not just neophytes such as me, but people with reputations of having a shrewd eye for talent. Yet the proof was on the field for all to see.

More to the point, the top of the draft's first round normally, but not always has the best talent. Trading up to get Wentz by offering several quality picks - quality being subjective - could be a steal. I tend to think he will ultimately be better than most people think. His play last year was the recovery season after a major knee injury. He couldn't fully step into throws. He also is quite accurate and has a cannon for an arm. I believe most people are wrong about him and will find out this next season. The arguments in this site are more to bolster Dak's performances and sometimes questionable accuracy than a true assessment by fans here of what Wentz is capable of.

Note that I have been wrong before, and could be this time.

I do not subscribe to the theory that two good players equals one playmaker. If this draft had a DeMarcus Ware, or more to my liking, a Julius Peppers (go look up his stats over his career. Maybe one of the best DE ever) that player would be worth a first and second if he can offer you nearly a decade or more of quality service.

What makes this folly is that there are teams who mis-evaluate the player and offer too much. I think of Herschel Walker. Although, to be truthful, the head coach - Burns - didn't use Walker like a stud RB. But that is another discussion.

So to say two players never equal one is incorrect in its concept because the criteria used is always an anecdotal example. And while the truly successful trades that require two for one are not many, they disprove the theory at its concept.

Normally the team offering two picks is desperate and that kills this idea more than the actual value offered and gained.

 

[Whirlwin]

The question to me is how badly does the team need an immediate impact player like Martin or Vander Esch. If one feels the team is good enough with a player at 58 that may develop into something in 2 or 3 years then stand pat but if you feel that can immediately upgrade the D, either the front or back end, to true contender status, then that might be worth considering.

There are DT's in this draft that are better than the ones in the NFL now except for a small hand few. It would take more than just the 1st in 2020, most likely, to move up to get a blue chipper but improving the middle of the DL with Lawrence and Quinn on the wings so there are more options to bring the pressure.

The tricky part is that it needs to be a position that a rook can move into and be effective and DT is one of those, FS? Probably some growing pains. There are two blue chip TE's that will go in the 1st but even as good as they are, still need developmental time.

If the player cannot be a 2019 impact player than I wouldn't give up the 2020 1st. There's no way of telling but there wouldn't be in 2020 either. To me, it's all about moving the window forward. I think we're a top 6 NFC team but the right player could put us in top 2 or 3.

Great post first of all. We'll thought out. Obviously it depends on who you want proof. And will they really put us over the top. It's a very simple Theory actually

 

[Rockport]

If you think we had enough last year to contend for SB then you’d probably think we do this year as well.

And if think we didn’t last year then you’d probably think we don’t this year as well..

 

[Nightman]

So to say two players never equal one is incorrect in its concept

Why do people always have to do this??????? I never said never..... I said 'in general' and you quoted me as saying 'never'

That is just dishonest

 

[GenoT]

Rob Peter’s a pretty good DT. We should kick the tires and maybe sign him to a team-friendly contract for depth.

Pay Paul’s a druggie; signing him would be a perfect Jerry-move.

 

[AsthmaField]

It all depends on the player available. If it’s a guy that the team really loves and thinks will make a big difference, then yeah, I’d be okay with moving next year’s first in order to grab that player. Blue chip talents can make a big difference on a team’s success.

In general I feel similar to @Nightman about giving two picks for one player, although there are certainly times that I’d be willing to do so. I really wanted Dallas to throw in another pick to move up a few spots for Aaron Donald, and would have been happy to do so. However, as already mentioned in this thread, that doesn’t always turn out well.

In this draft, about the only guy that I see that I’d do that for is Oliver (he’s no Donald though)... but unlike the year Donald came out, Oliver will go too far in front of Dallas to make it a viable option.

I agree with the idea of trading next year’s first for an early second round pick if the right guy is there. You are trading a player for a player and not giving away two guys for one, like Nightman mentioned. That is merely delaying losing a player from the Cooper trade for one more season... but I would stress that it would have to be for a guy that the team views as a first rounder that slipped to the second.

Basically, I guess I’m saying I won’t know the answer to this question until the draft is underway, lol.

 

[Diehardblues]

And if think we didn’t last year then you’d probably think we don’t this year as well..

Who do you think is more likely to have a better instinct and evaluation?

 

[Rockport]

Who do you think is more likely to have a better instinct?

Me. Positivity always is the better approach.

 

[Diehardblues]

Me. Positivity always is the better approach.

It’s not about approach. It’s about accuracy.

 

[Rockport]

It’s not about approach. It’s about accuracy.

Wrong again. Pessimism leads to negativity leads to your posts.

 

[Nightman]

It all depends on the player available. If it’s a guy that the team really loves and thinks will make a big difference, then yeah, I’d be okay with moving next year’s first in order to grab that player. Blue chip talents can make a big difference on a team’s success.

In general I feel similar to @Nightman about giving two picks for one player, although there are certainly times that I’d be willing to do so. I really wanted Dallas to throw in another pick to move up a few spots for Aaron Donald, and would have been happy to do so. However, as already mentioned in this thread, that doesn’t always turn out well.

In this draft, about the only guy that I see that I’d do that for is Oliver (he’s no Donald though)... but unlike the year Donald came out, Oliver will go too far in front of Dallas to make it a viable option.

I agree with the idea of trading next year’s first for an early second round pick if the right guy is there. You are trading a player for a player and not giving away two guys for one, like Nightman mentioned. That is merely delaying losing a player from the Cooper trade for one more season... but I would stress that it would have to be for a guy that the team views as a first rounder that slipped to the second.

Basically, I guess I’m saying I won’t know the answer to this question until the draft is underway, lol.

I think there are the top5 in every Draft that stand out... guys in this group are expensive but worth it

Then you have the total guys with a 1st round grade..... usually around 20-25.... guys in this group are generally overvalued

Then you got players from 25-50 that are all pretty similar.... guys in this group are the sweet spot....undervalued but sure things to contribute.... if I can get one of these for next year's first I think that is a win

 

[Nightman]

It’s not about approach. It’s about accuracy.

That is true for FA, Trades and the Draft

 

[Diehardblues]

Wrong again. Pessimism leads to negativity leads to your posts.

Reality is a virtue .

 

[Diehardblues]

That is true for FA, Trades and the Draft

There’s room for all types of fans but normally we wouldn’t let cheerleaders in the booth for analysis or war room on draft day.

 

[Rockport]

Reality is a virtue .

 

[Manwiththeplan]

JMO, but I would NOT part with the 2020 first. Maybe the second, but not the first. But to be honest, it would have to be for a really good TE, DT or safety.

 

[AsthmaField]

I think there are the top5 in every Draft that stand out... guys in this group are expensive but worth it

Then you have the total guys with a 1st round grade..... usually around 20-25.... guys in this group are generally overvalued

Then you got players from 25-50 that are all pretty similar.... guys in this group are the sweet spot....undervalued but sure things to contribute.... if I can get one of these for next year's first I think that is a win

Agree completely.

The guys in that pick range (25-50 roughly) are good players and there’s typically not a huge difference in that group top to bottom. Assuming that the team will be a serious contender and will pick very late in the first round can be tricky business and is often folly... but I do feel like guessing a pick somewhere in the 20-32 range is safe enough.

If that’s the case, then if Dallas traded next year’s first for, say, the 36th pick in this year’s draft, there wouldn’t be a big difference in the net talents of this season’s rookie vs. next season’s rookie. I’d be all for that.

The tricky part is of course hoping that the right player slides out of the first round, and the really difficult part is finding a trade partner willing to trade an early second this year for what will likely be a late first next year. As someone already mentioned, Oakland might be a good partner because of the sheer volume of picks they own this season. They might like the idea of having three first round picks again next year. Also, a team wanting to load up next season for a QB might be a good target as well.

A really good player at the right position would need to slide though, for any trade partner to even matter.

IMO, it’d have to be a DT (3-tech) who really fits the system. I don’t think there is a safety who would be that different from the guys likely there at 58, and I just don’t see the team doing it for a TE (Hockenson won’t fall).

Of course, it is a long shot for this trade to happen at all, but if it does, I think DT would be it.

 

[HanD]

Use next year's 1st .....that is all

And no I don't think DLaw was the best deal.... we got 1 1/2 good seasons out 8 seasons worth of Draft rights... we could have had Devonte Freeman and Davante Adams and used the Zeke pick on Ramsey

Not sure that's who we would have actually taken. I remember at the time hearing it would have been kony early and Tra turner. That's who I preferred and boy was I wrong....