Trading up (early) has few success stories

[AsthmaField]

You should re-read the OP and then come back.

Again, I didn't say you couldn't trade up, I said trading up into the top 5 and top 10 weren't generally worth it.

Talking about trading up for Dez or Smith after I said, some trade ups are smart, reveals a lack of reading comprehension on your part.

I was agreeing with you and stating that Dez and Smith were smart.

The Dez part was me just saying that he would have gone top 5 had it not been for the character questions.

 

[Galian Beast]

I was agreeing with you and stating that Dez and Smith were smart.

The Dez part was me just saying that he would have gone top 5 had it not been for the character questions.

Okay, my mistake.

 

[Dday22t]

Elite corner is less useful against the 5 WR wide open offenses than say a great pass rushing DE.... That's what the Cowboys need.

 

[romothesavior]

I don't care who you are, you're going to miss on draft picks. It's like hitting a baseball. You need as many at bats as you can get. When you start packaging picks, particularly early picks, it's very high risk.

But the thing with the Claiborne trade that some still don't get is that it couldn't have succeeded. Even if he was one of the best cornerbacks in the league he wasn't worth that price. He wouldn't be an impact player.

It was destined to fail from the start. The Cowboys will either understand this or risk living it once again.

I agree 110%.

The Mo Claiborne pick wasn't bad because he was a bust; you're always going to see busts, even in the top rounds and even if you have great scouting guys. The Mo Claiborne pick was awful because they gave up way, way too much for him. Even if he wound up being a great corner, they gave up too much. A corner is never worth that.

 

[AdamJT13]

Doing a little bit of research (certainly not exhaustive), I've yet to see a team have a true success story where a franchise player that they traded up into the top 5 or 10 has catapulted them into the super bowl.

Those are very limited qualifications, if you're counting only players who were drafted in the top five or top 10 (and only after a team traded up for them) and who "catapulted" a team into the Super Bowl all by themselves. If Russell Maryland doesn't count, does Tony Dorsett? Does John Elway? Does Irving Fryar? Does Eli Manning? Does Bryant Young? Does Orlando Pace? Does Walter Jones? Those are just a few of the top-10 picks who were acquired via trade and played key roles on Super Bowl teams.

 

[supercowboy8]

This is stupid. Say we traded up and got Fletcher Cox. Then the trade would have been worth it. I've seen trade bags fail and staying put fail. Say we didn't trade up and took BRICE irvin. Man that woukd have been a bad pick. Irvin is a bust. Then in the 2nd we took Konz. Another terrible pick thay would have been.

Only way it wo I lo have been successful is Brockers and Jeffery or Brockers and Wagner.

Irvin, Kirkpatrick, and Konz have been bad.

 

[Bungarian]

Again, all you have to do is look at the top 10 drafted players over the last decade or so and see which teams traded up to make these picks.

If you think you have an example that suggests otherwise, go ahead, otherwise either

a) Read the drafts yourself, they're easily accessible

or

b) Take my word for it.

But I'm not going to post a lot of draft results just because you're too lazy to read them yourself.

You made the post about it but gave no info. Why should I do the work to prove your post?

 

[Idgit]

It's like anything else. The increased risk requires an increased return in order for the move to make tactical sense. If you're going to spend multiple picks on a guy, it's really expensive to miss on him. Hit on him, though, and it's worth it.

And it has very little to do with the position a player plays, as long as you're not over drafting for a position. Especially not in Claiborne's case where he plays one of the most coveted positions on the field measure by what NFL GMs are willing to pay for players at the CB position. If they're going to cost you salary cap dollars to sign, they obviously have a similar worth in terms of the draft picks it requires to obtain them.

 

[Galian Beast]

Those are very limited qualifications, if you're counting only players who were drafted in the top five or top 10 (and only after a team traded up for them) and who "catapulted" a team into the Super Bowl all by themselves. If Russell Maryland doesn't count, does Tony Dorsett? Does John Elway? Does Irving Fryar? Does Eli Manning? Does Bryant Young? Does Orlando Pace? Does Walter Jones? Those are just a few of the top-10 picks who were acquired via trade and played key roles on Super Bowl teams.

When you go for a player in the top 5 or top 10, I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that you're looking for a cornerstone franchise player.

Dorsett would be an example of when the move worked out. The Elway was not a trade up, it was a trade for Elway. Same with Eli Manning. Fryar was a really good player, but someone who never helped the Patriots win a super bowl, and soon later they fell into mediocrity.

My point isn't that you can't get good players in these situations. My point is that these situations are inherently risky, and even when you get a good player, often comes at the cost of building your team in other areas. And in the salary cap era, is even riskier given the amount you have to pay these players after their rookie contracts.

 

[Galian Beast]

It's like anything else. The increased risk requires an increased return in order for the move to make tactical sense. If you're going to spend multiple picks on a guy, it's really expensive to miss on him. Hit on him, though, and it's worth it.

And it has very little to do with the position a player plays, as long as you're not over drafting for a position. Especially not in Claiborne's case where he plays one of the most coveted positions on the field measure by what NFL GMs are willing to pay for players at the CB position. If they're going to cost you salary cap dollars to sign, they obviously have a similar worth in terms of the draft picks it requires to obtain them.

That's exactly right, but even if you hit on the player, you still have to pay them. And the amount you end up paying one player as a percentage of your overall team salary cap is usually detrimental to the team.

So now not only have you invested draft picks for this player, now you have to invest your salary cap in them too.

The best part about a 1st round draft pick is getting a really good player who you don't need to pay like a veteran.

 

[Galian Beast]

You made the post about it but gave no info. Why should I do the work to prove your post?

Because the information is easily found. I'm not going to copy and paste a bunch of drafts for you. If you don't believe me, you can ignore the post, but I'm not doing the leg work for you. If it was numbers or other data, yeah I'd tabulate it for you, but this is just too much on the nose.

 

[romothesavior]

This is stupid. Say we traded up and got Fletcher Cox. Then the trade would have been worth it. I've seen trade bags fail and staying put fail. Say we didn't trade up and took BRICE irvin. Man that woukd have been a bad pick. Irvin is a bust. Then in the 2nd we took Konz. Another terrible pick thay would have been.

Only way it wo I lo have been successful is Brockers and Jeffery or Brockers and Wagner.

Irvin, Kirkpatrick, and Konz have been bad.

You're missing the point. The question isn't, "Did the move yield a good player AFTER the move was made?" The question is, "At the time the move was made, was it a good value?" This question takes into account the value of multiple picks, the possibility of outplaying your draft status (e.g.,Tom Brady), risk (i.e, the possibility of a whiff), where you could have gotten a player, etc.

Trading multiple premium picks for anybody other than a franchise QB is virtually always a bad move, irrespective of how good the player traded for turns out to be.

 

[xwalker]

Because the information is easily found. I'm not going to copy and paste a bunch of drafts for you. If you don't believe me, you can ignore the post, but I'm not doing the leg work for you. If it was numbers or other data, yeah I'd tabulate it for you, but this is just too much on the nose.

You're not doing the work for somebody else. It was your thread. It's just hot air without some research.

 

[Galian Beast]

You're not doing the work for somebody else. It was your thread. It's just hot air without some research.

If you think it is hot air skip it. Or look at the drafts, either or it doesn't matter to me