We need to stop trading up for now

[jterrell]

Did you read the actual thread?

"It may make more sense to trade up to a player who has slipped like Dez, but trading up to get guys like Claiborne... just a disaster. "

Mo did slip.
Please ofor the love of all that is holy make at least one valid point in this thread.

 

[Galian Beast]

Mo did slip.
Please ofor the love of all that is holy make at least one valid point in this thread.

LOL... yeah, he slipped all the way to 6th...

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

How many players have traded up for recently like we did Claiborne? Because if I'm not mistaken, did we not trade up for Dez, Anthony Spencer, Sean Lee and a few others?

Claiborne deals haven't been done here. At the time I respected it. You had the worst secondary in the league and you went and got the best corner in the draft and the best corner in free agency. It hasn't been what you had hoped but I have no problems with the move and i'd do it again.

 

[Idgit]

But that's the point exaclty. It's a high risk high reward type move. When you're so poor at depth like this team is, you can't really afford the risk.

That's where I'd disagree. You can always afford risk, if the return is high enough. You just need to be certain about the return.

The issue with Claiborne wasn't with the risk level. It was with the evaluation. Or it's been with some of the injuries and distractions he's endured. Sometimes the challenges for players come after they've actually been picked, and I think some of that probably applies in Mo's case.

 

[Sinister]

How many players have traded up for recently like we did Claiborne? Because if I'm not mistaken, did we not trade up for Dez, Anthony Spencer, Sean Lee and a few others?

Claiborne deals haven't been done here. At the time I respected it. You had the worst secondary in the league and you went and got the best corner in the draft and the best corner in free agency. It hasn't been what you had hoped but I have no problems with the move and i'd do it again.

Remember, at the time we had just signed Carr to a huge free-agent deal, Mike Jenkins and Orlando Scandrick were on the team.

Seeing the 'results' of this particular draft I do not see how it would ever be a good idea to do that again.

 

[jterrell]

I don't think it was a sound decision to trade up for Mo.

Fisher made the deal because he did not believe in Mo, why else would you make that deal? I just don't agree that you take the deal? There should have been a red-flag when Fisher gave up on Claiborne before he even played a down.

The Rams needed a cornerback, which is why Janoris was taken. If Claiborne was such a hot prospect (best defensive player in the draft) why did Fisher not want him? Why didn't the Cowboys question that?

The other problem is that the Cowboys had so many needs on both the defensive and offensive lines. Why else were the Cowboys looking at Brockers? I remember everyone wanted an offensive lineman, but the Cowboys came out and said that if they had kept their second round pick they would have chosen Bobby Wagner.

I don't see how anyone can say that it was a good strategy to trade up for Mo, I'm sorry.

There is no debate that you don't put in a NO TRADE UP mandate.

All that said, we can certainly debate the Mo move.

As to your Rams specific logic and all that, that's too grassy knoll for me.
Every trade requires a willing partner and why did people pass on Dez or Emmitt or anyone else who slipped?
Fisher was a new coach/GM and wanting to rebuilt his team with his guys. He wanted lots of bodies.
They undoubtedly knew Dallas had Mo ranked well above 6.
He offered and got the trade.


Pick 6 is worth 1600 points.
Pick 14 and 45: 1550 points.

Dallas got the win versus the chart and the player they most coveted out of the draft.
Hard to dislike that logically.

The Rams took Brockers, as we would have at 14. They moved pick 45.
They fell and took Isaiah Pead at 50. He is a non-factor.

Dallas got the 2nd rated player on their board for picks 14,45. You simply always must do that.

The first phone call came around noon on Thursday, and the Cowboys were quite surprised to hear the St. Louis Rams were willing to move down in the first round.
There was only one player owner/general manager Jerry Jones wanted to move up to get, and that was LSU cornerback Morris Claiborne. He was the second-highest rated player on the draft board behind Andrew Luck, who was going to the Indianapolis Colt

 

[jterrell]

LOL... yeah, he slipped all the way to 6th...

the fact you think that is a valid point makes me weep for you.

 

[Idgit]

There is no debate that you don't put in a NO TRADE UP mandate.

All that said, we can certainly debate the Mo move.

As to your Rams specific logic and all that, that's too grassy knoll for me.
Every trade requires a willing partner and why did people pass on Dez or Emmitt or anyone else who slipped?
Fisher was a new coach/GM and wanting to rebuilt his team with his guys. He wanted lots of bodies.
They undoubtedly knew Dallas had Mo ranked well above 6.
He offered and got the trade.


Pick 6 is worth 1600 points.
Pick 14 and 45: 1550 points.

Dallas got the win versus the chart and the player they most coveted out of the draft.
Hard to dislike that logically.

The Rams took Brockers, as we would have at 14. They moved pick 45.
They fell and took Isaiah Pead at 50. He is a non-factor.

Dallas got the 2nd rated player on their board for picks 14,45. You simply always must do that.

The first phone call came around noon on Thursday, and the Cowboys were quite surprised to hear the St. Louis Rams were willing to move down in the first round.
There was only one player owner/general manager Jerry Jones wanted to move up to get, and that was LSU cornerback Morris Claiborne. He was the second-highest rated player on the draft board behind Andrew Luck, who was going to the Indianapolis Colt

Logically, you'd also evaluate that trade relative to where you had Mo ranked rather than relative to the draft spot since once you're in the clock you're talking about the value of Mo Claiborne rather than the value of the generic pick. So, in this case it was the number two player on your board for the 1550 points.

 

[jterrell]

If you substitute Patrick Peterson for Mo Claiborne no one is complaining about this trade.

That's how you know the logic isn't faulty.
While still early the scouting looks to be.

 

[jterrell]

Logically, you'd also evaluate that trade relative to where you had Mo ranked rather than relative to the draft spot since once you're in the clock you're talking about the value of Mo Claiborne rather than the value of the generic pick. So, in this case it was the number two player on your board for the 1550 points.

precisely.
you judge it as a win versus the slot you are trading for AND a win versus the trade chart.

if you've scouted correctly that is a huge win.

 

[Galian Beast]

That's where I'd disagree. You can always afford risk, if the return is high enough. You just need to be certain about the return.

The issue with Claiborne wasn't with the risk level. It was with the evaluation. Or it's been with some of the injuries and distractions he's endured. Sometimes the challenges for players come after they've actually been picked, and I think some of that probably applies in Mo's case.

Except the return is rarely high enough.

 

[Galian Beast]

the fact you think that is a valid point makes me weep for you.

Weep away... where did you think he was going to be drafted?

 

[Common Sense]

If you substitute Patrick Peterson for Mo Claiborne no one is complaining about this trade.

That's how you know the logic isn't faulty.

Sorry, but this logic in itself is faulty.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

It does not matter if we trade up or trade down...It matters hitting on the picks we do use.

 

[Idgit]

Except the return is rarely high enough.

Nobody's going to argue in favor of a risk higher than the possible return. You have to evaluate both properly. Look at what WAS risked for the second player on their board in the RGIII draft if you want to see a high risk tolerance. The risk we took on Claiborne was minimal in comparison.

There are plenty of cases where the return on a top ten player would justify what we gave up in this case many times over. Mo's case unfortunately just doesn't happen to be one of them.

 

[lostar2009]

Trading up has really not worked out for us, and if you look at it, it has really hurt us.

We have way too many holes (especially on defense) to take the risk of combining draft picks towards players who may or may not work out.

It may make more sense to trade up to a player who has slipped like Dez, but trading up to get guys like Claiborne... just a disaster.

If anything, trading down has proven much more successful for us.

There is nothing wrong in securing a pick. But trading up for Mo was not necessary. Also trading up for injured players should be ban, they should fall to us. I agree with your post +1

 

[Cowboy06]

Trading up has really not worked out for us, and if you look at it, it has really hurt us.

We have way too many holes (especially on defense) to take the risk of combining draft picks towards players who may or may not work out.

It may make more sense to trade up to a player who has slipped like Dez, but trading up to get guys like Claiborne... just a disaster.

If anything, trading down has proven much more successful for us.

I couldn't agree more, we need more talent at so many positions that any trade would be to acquire more picks.

 

[Angus12]

It does bother me every time I watch Seattle and one of the two players we gave up to get Claiborne is their stud linebacker Bobby Wagner.

I chuckle every time I see somebody travel down this road. Yeah, the team said they had interest in Wagner in the 2nd round. But that choice was a looooong way away from what transpired at the top of the first round. Once the trade up was completed and Claiborne selected, the entire draft shifted away from "what could have been". Nobody has any clue of how the draft would have developed after that. Would we have taken Brockers? And if so, what direction would the Rams have went? Causing the next team to go another direction, causing another team to go another direction, which would have caused another team to go in another direction, etc...

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. About as useless as teats on a boar pig.

 

[Idgit]

There is nothing wrong in securing a pick. But trading up for Mo was not necessary. Also trading up for injured players should be ban, they should fall to us. I agree with your post +1

I agree about the extra risk of trading on a guy in the top ten with an existing injury, btw.

 

[jterrell]

Sorry, but this logic in itself is faulty.

No, actually it isn't.

PP is the type of player Dallas had scouted Mo to be.

He was ranked 2nd on their board behind only Andrew Luck.
If he met the grade Dallas scouting had in house which is all they had to go by, it would have been a very successful trade and no one would be complaining.


The logic follows thusly:
If Patrick Peterson is worth picks 14 and 45.
And Dallas graded Mo Claiborne equal or higher than Patrick Peterson.
Mo Claiborne must be worth picks 14 and 45 at time of the evaluation.