Trading back twice

[nathanlt]

trading back twice is how you end up with the draft class of 2009.

Not always. Have faith that Garrett is going to trust his scouts. His Dad was a scout. There was a thread on this a while ago.

 

[Anjinsan]

I'm not a fan of trading back more than 1 or 2 slots. Cowboys haven't had this high a pick for some time and need an impact player.

 

[sonnyboy]

trading back twice is how you end up with the draft class of 2009.

No it's not. The 2009 class had no prospects in the 1st 2 rounds. That's the #1 and #2 reason it sucked. The #3 reason is we simply didn't do a good enough job with the picks we did have.

Now trading down twice this season could easily net us two additonal picks in the top 96.

We'll probably end up with a 1st in the 20's, two 2nds and two 3rds.

Three, maybe 4 picks at earlier spots than where our first 3rd round pick was made in 2009.

Apples to Oranges.

 

[RS12]

Not always. Have faith that Garrett is going to trust his scouts. His Dad was a scout. There was a thread on this a while ago.

They were all here two years ago.

 

[burmafrd]

Now I do not have a problem using our 3rd and fourth rd picks to trade up in the second rd. Maybe even get into the very end of the first rd. Then use all our other picks to either get projects or trade up as high as we can.

Or even use next years first. Now why do that? simple. If we are anywhere as good as we think we will be next year then we are looking at a first rd pick in the 20's. But we might still sucker someone and get a fair amount for it.

We stay at 9 unless someone offers a really good, I mean REALLY good deal.
Take Smith and our RT and swing position is taken care of and we get rid of that waste of space Barron. Use our other picks and take a Guard or DE - the best we can get. If we get a DE use all our other picks and move up to get a guard. If we can come out of this draft with highly regarded players at RT, G and DE then it is a real success.

 

[RS12]

Now I do not have a problem using our 3rd and fourth rd picks to trade up in the second rd. Maybe even get into the very end of the first rd. Then use all our other picks to either get projects or trade up as high as we can.

Or even use next years first. Now why do that? simple. If we are anywhere as good as we think we will be next year then we are looking at a first rd pick in the 20's. But we might still sucker someone and get a fair amount for it.

We stay at 9 unless someone offers a really good, I mean REALLY good deal.
Take Smith and our RT and swing position is taken care of and we get rid of that waste of space Barron. Use our other picks and take a Guard or DE - the best we can get. If we get a DE use all our other picks and move up to get a guard. If we can come out of this draft with highly regarded players at RT, G and DE then it is a real success.

Yes to Smith and no to trading away next years 1st. I agree with Vela, this team is two drafts away. At this point I think you can only trade this years picks anyway.

 

[tm1119]

I'm not a fan of trading back more than 1 or 2 slots. Cowboys haven't had this high a pick for some time and need an impact player.

Who is that impact player at #9 though? Tyron Smith is the only 1 you could argue. And the fact that there is an argument isn't good. In my opinion there's only about 3 or 4 blue chip can't miss type prospects. And I don't see any being there at #9. There is talent deep in this draft though, which is why stock piling picks may be the best option.

 

[jobberone]

I think Quinn will be there at nine. If so I take him and trade back into the bottom of the first for Sherrod. Use the 4th for a CB.

 

[Hoofbite]

I don't like the idea of trading back once.....I can't even fathom how disgusted I'll be if they trade back twice.

I don't like the idea of collecting pick after pick after pick if it comes at the expense of a player who could help out immediately and develop into a performer.

How many picks can Dallas actually afford to make? Huff is on the radar for most people.....gotta keep that in mind.

I would absolutely hate to see this team get too cute by trading back, miss out on a guy they wanted by a pick or two, trade back some more and end up with a bunch of leftovers like they did in 2009.

 

[tm1119]

I don't like the idea of trading back once.....I can't even fathom how disgusted I'll be if they trade back twice.

I don't like the idea of collecting pick after pick after pick if it comes at the expense of a player who could help out immediately and develop into a performer.

How many picks can Dallas actually afford to make? Huff is on the radar for most people.....gotta keep that in mind.

I would absolutely hate to see this team get too cute by trading back, miss out on a guy they wanted by a pick or two, trade back some more and end up with a bunch of leftovers like they did in 2009.

In 2009 we had 0 picks in the 1st 2 rounds. In this scenario we would have 3 picks in the 1st 2 rounds. Not even remotely similar to be even compared. As I said before, barring a trade up or a miracle of Dareus/Peterson/Miller falling to us this draft really lacks an elite level talent for us to select at #9. The difference between a guy like Sherrod and Smith to play right tackle isnt THAT big that it negates the fact that we could potentially aquire 2 additional picks in the top 60. We could really be talking about Smith alone or Sherrod+Ellis+Rackley. Add in a CB with our own 2nd at #40 like Harris or Rowling and we're talking about addressing OT, CB, OG, and NT all with top 60 picks. Not sure how anyone could argue that. How realistic this may be is a whole different question though.

 

[sonnyboy]

In 2009 we had 0 picks in the 1st 2 rounds. In this scenario we would have 3 picks in the 1st 2 rounds. Not even remotely similar to be even compared. As I said before, barring a trade up or a miracle of Dareus/Peterson/Miller falling to us this draft really lacks an elite level talent for us to select at #9. The difference between a guy like Sherrod and Smith to play right tackle isnt THAT big that it negates the fact that we could potentially aquire 2 additional picks in the top 60. We could really be talking about Smith alone or Sherrod+Ellis+Rackley. Add in a CB with our own 2nd at #40 like Harris or Rowling and we're talking about addressing OT, CB, OG, and NT all with top 60 picks. Not sure how anyone could argue that. How realistic this may be is a whole different question though.

It's very realistic and anyone with half a brain wouldn't try to argue it.

Save for one other possibility and that's a trade up for Peterson at the cost of our 3rd rd pk.

I'm not totally on board with this unless we plan to play him at FS. I know he's a special player and all. It's just that I hate to invest those type resources without addressing one of our top needs.

 

[Hoofbite]

In 2009 we had 0 picks in the 1st 2 rounds. In this scenario we would have 3 picks in the 1st 2 rounds. Not even remotely similar to be even compared. As I said before, barring a trade up or a miracle of Dareus/Peterson/Miller falling to us this draft really lacks an elite level talent for us to select at #9. The difference between a guy like Sherrod and Smith to play right tackle isnt THAT big that it negates the fact that we could potentially aquire 2 additional picks in the top 60. We could really be talking about Smith alone or Sherrod+Ellis+Rackley. Add in a CB with our own 2nd at #40 like Harris or Rowling and we're talking about addressing OT, CB, OG, and NT all with top 60 picks. Not sure how anyone could argue that. How realistic this may be is a whole different question though.

They traded out of their 2nd round pick.

 

[dannyboy]

They traded out of their 2nd round pick.

Exactly With all the draft picks we had that year, we needed to trade up to get who we wanted(Max Unger)