This is the draft that ......

[Verdict]

This draft might be the draft that trading back several times like we a few years back might actually pay off.

 

[DBOY3141]

quality over quantity is the best approach.

When Jerry tries to get cute....he normally messes up.

 

[Sasquatch]

quality over quantity is the best approach.

When Jerry tries to get cute....things usually get ugly.

There you go. Fixed it for you.

 

[Tabascocat]

This draft might be the draft that trading back several times like we a few years back might actually pay off.

I would never, ever trade back. No reason to get a mediocre player who may or may not make the roster over a guy who will probably play. Get the BPA for a weak position.

 

[Manster54]

There you go. Fixed it for you.

 

[cowboysooner]

This draft might be the draft that trading back several times like we a few years back might actually pay off.

I agree with you. If there is not the big boy guard or Richardson I'd try to sell my pick.

 

[DFWJC]

I would never, ever trade back. No reason to get a mediocre player who may or may not make the roster over a guy who will probably play. Get the BPA for a weak position.

There are many scenarios where trading back is very smart.
1) if you have 4-5 players rated about the same and all in positons of need, you can drop down 4-5 spots with no risk at all and get a free pick.
2) if there are 2-3 players on the board that others rank higher than you and they are willing to pay a premium for you to drop some (not far)...then you win there too
3) If the last player in your tier just wnet of the board and you have a big value gap until the next player, its very smart to move down some.

...and many more scenarios.

But i agree. No need drafting 10 players that won't contribute much vs 3-4 players that will. There's a balance though--just ask New England and Baltimore.

 

[Tabascocat]

There are many scenarios where trading back is very smart.
1) if you have 4-5 players rated about the same and all in positons of need, you can drop down 4-5 spots with no risk at all and get a free pick.
2) if there are 2-3 players on the board that others rank higher than you and they are willing to pay a premium for you to drop some (not far)...then you win there too
3) If the last player in your tier just wnet of the board and you have a big value gap until the next player, its very smart to move down some.

...and many more scenarios.

But i agree. No need drafting 10 players that won't contribute much vs 3-4 players that will. There's a balance though--just ask New England and Baltimore.

I should have clarified some, I don't mind trading down a few spots but I don't like trading out of the 1st round. I realize there are scenarios to trade down but the Cowboys are not in that position, too many needs.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

There you go. Fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by DBOY3141
quality over quantity is the best approach.

When Jerry tries to get cute....things always get awfully ugly.

Fixed it for you.

 

[DFWJC]

I should have clarified some, I don't mind trading down a few spots but I don't like trading out of the 1st round. I realize there are scenarios to trade down but the Cowboys are not in that position, too many needs.

This year could be dicey in the 1st round if we trade down with some guys we really want still there, because there are teams right behind us with really similar needs. Don't want to get too cute.

But what if Cooper, Warmack, Richardson, top 4 OTs, Vacarro and even Austin are all gone? Kind of like Kiper's latest Mock....except it had Sly Williams.

It seems like that is getting very close to a big value break and would pay off big to drop down 7-8 slots and pick up a 3rd or more.

 

[xwalker]

This draft might be the draft that trading back several times like we a few years back might actually pay off.

Maybe.

Which players do you think might be at #18 that teams would trade up to get and that the Cowboys would not want to draft?

 

[Tabascocat]

This year could be dicey in the 1st round if we trade down with some guys we really want still there, because there are teams right behind us with really similar needs. Don't want to get too cute.

But what if Cooper, Warmack, Richardson, top 4 OTs, Vacarro and even Austin are all gone? Kind of like Kiper's latest Mock....except it had Sly Williams.

It seems like that is getting very close to a big value break and would pay off big to drop down 7-8 slots and pick up a 3rd or more.

I'd bet one of them is still there at 18.

 

[Verdict]

Maybe.

Which players do you think might be at #18 that teams would trade up to get and that the Cowboys would not want to draft?

That would depend on the teams behind us obviously. But realistically, if you mark off 10 or 11 guys that we would be logically targeting there would seem to be quite a drop off in value for Dallas. I'm not saying we can find a trade back partner in the first round, but if the guys we are targeting are gone at #18, the guys we would pick after that might all be available 8-10 picks later.

 

[Verdict]

Maybe.

Which players do you think might be at #18 that teams would trade up to get and that the Cowboys would not want to draft?

I will say this .... I would not be in favor of trading back if Johnson or Cooper were still on the board, even for a 2nd round pick if it meant losing out on them. I would not take that risk.

 

[DFWJC]

Our 18th for Minny's 25th and 83rd is pretty fair.
But I would not trade back even that far if any of our primary targets are available at 18.
As we've said, trading down is fine if you aren't giving up on better players for your team.
Quality > Quantity

The Giants right after Dallas are a concern. Their needs really overlap with Dallas' this year.

 

[DFWJC]

I will say this .... I would not be in favor of trading back if Johnson or Cooper were still on the board, even for a 2nd round pick if it meant losing out on them. I would not take that risk.

You could only do it if you liked them equally and Chicago was trading up 2 spots to get Austin, for example. Then you get an extra pick (maybe even a 4th) and still get your player. A free 4th rounder with zero risk....a gift.
This was simlar to last year when Minnesota scooped Cleveland when they moved uyp for Richardson. Minny got the exact same player they wanted and still got an extra draft pick. No brainer trade down. I think Cleveland made that trade in fear that someone else would. Smart move by Minny. For trading down one spot they got a 4th, 5th and 7th...lol.

 

[Verdict]

You could only do it if you liked them equally and Chicago was trading up 2 spots to get Austin, for example. Then you get an extra pick (maybe even a 4th) and still get your player. A free 4th rounder with zero risk....a gift.
This was simlar to last year when Minnesota scooped Cleveland when they moved uyp for Richardson. Minny got the exact same player they wanted and still got an extra draft pick. No brainer trade down. I think Cleveland made that trade in fear that someone else would. Smart move by Minny. For trading down one spot they got a 4th, 5th and 7th...lol.

Agreed, but in the scenario you describe there isn't really any risk. I am saying I would not risk losing out on a premium targeted player at #18.

 

[DFWJC]

Agreed, but in the scenario you describe there isn't really any risk. I am saying I would not risk losing out on a premium targeted player at #18.

Totally agree

 

[Verdict]

Our 18th for Minny's 25th and 83rd is pretty fair.
But I would not trade back even that far if any of our primary targets are available at 18.
As we've said, trading down is fine if you aren't giving up on better players for your team.
Quality > Quantity

The Giants right after Dallas are a concern. Their needs really overlap with Dallas' this year.

It obviously depends on your draft board. If you don't have a player that you think is worth the 18th pick, and you don't think there is a player that you are worried about losing between 18 and 25 (either because the next tier of players are valued equally on your board and you know you can get one of them, or none of the next players you have targeted are worth taking between 18 and 25) then you do the deal. But I don't think this is the year to get cute and trade down just because you think you can do get by with it.

The year we drafted Roy Williams (the safety) we got cute and gambled that we could trade down and still get Roy. In that case it worked. But I don't advocate that method as a general rule because it is just "gambling".

 

[DFWJC]

It obviously depends on your draft board. If you don't have a player that you think is worth the 18th pick, and you don't think there is a player that you are worried about losing between 18 and 25 (either because the next tier of players are valued equally on your board and you know you can get one of them, or none of the next players you have targeted are worth taking between 18 and 25) then you do the deal. But I don't think this is the year to get cute and trade down just because you think you can do get by with it.

The year we drafted Roy Williams (the safety) we got cute and gambled that we could trade down and still get Roy. In that case it worked. But I don't advocate that method as a general rule because it is just "gambling".

No. No getting cute. it would have to fit the scenarios you described. Then it's not getting cute, it's getting smart.