DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2016 NFL Season 2016 NFL Draft #2 if Not QB then Probably:

All the great work Mangini did in the 1st round that year (Mack plus draft picks), was totally undone by the disastrous picks in the 2nd round. That was a shame...

I completely disagree.

Moving from 5 to 17, without getting an extra 1st round pick is ridiculous.

A bunch of backup players, even if they "know your system" are not worth that move back..

We got Brett Ratliff and Something Coleman, though.

Mangini turned our one 1st round pick (#5)into:
- Alex Mack
- Coye Francies, 6th rd (I thought a great value pick)
- James Davis, 6th rd (another pick I liked
- a 2nd rd pick (Veikune)
- plus 3 players - Coleman-Ratliff-Elam

Mangini's undoing were the 2nd rd picks...

You traded back from 5 to 17.

What you got at 17(or 21) is irrelevant to the trade itself.

Especially ignoring the unwritten "QB Premium" teams usually pay to trade up to grab a QB.. dropping out of the Top 5 down 12 spots, you HAVE to get an additional first rounder..

Why? Of course you will remember that the Jets selected Mangold at OC in 2006. Perhaps Mangini was positioning himself for a repeat of that draft...

Because when you make the trade, you dont know what your going to get at 17. Hindsight is great..

It'd be even greater if Mangini didnt give them a discount.

The Jets got Mark Sanchez out of the deal. The Browns got Alex Mack and more. And you are complaining?

You don't make that trade if you don't have a target or two in mind. As I mentioned earlier, Mangini needed picks and he may well have been targeting Mack all along, similar to when the Jets drafted Mangold. I believe he fully had a plan in mind...

It's like saying moving back and getting Gilbert was a bad trade.

No, the trade from 4 to 9 was great.

Its what we did with the picks afterwards that sucked.

They are separate.

If we don't sign Gipson this puts Ramsey as a serious candidate for #2. Even though he's a CB imo. He can play FS.

So we should be thanking Kokinos for Mack and not Mangini?

He played free safety at FSU. He's played LB, CB, and safety

You should just ignore the Mangini talk, tab.

A few of these guys always hated Mangini and they still try and ridicule him w/their genius takes. Meanwhile, they completely ignore the TRic/Weeden fiasco.

With all due respect, I disagree. Particularly in the early round(s), you don't make a trade unless you have a specific target or two in mind. You trade back only to the position where you firmly believe you can get your guy and pick up a pick or two. They are not separate, rather they are integral to each other...

No. The trade is one transaction. The pick is another. Even if the team is targeting a certain player, the trade is a different transaction.

I will accept that. Thanks for pointing that out, eo. It's something that gets overlooked...

I accept that they are two "actions", but the thought process of making a trade and getting your targeted player is not separate - they are one...

Then getting a 1st for Trent Richardson was a terrible trade.

I don't agree with this. Many times teams just trade down because they do not like the players available where they are currently picking or they value more picks over the players available to them.

I have to go out for a few hours now and will pick this up later this evening. Anyone else want to chime in?

It was my impression the primary, and maybe sole purpose of the 2014 #4 for #9 trade was the 2015 first rounder they netted in return. I agree that in most cases, a trade down is usually made with a specific or bunching of players in mind, I just think that on this occasion the future first was the reason.

I think its a given the major drive behind a trade down is to garner picks either this year or in future years.

If you feel you can get Player B say at 20 instead of player A at ten and you think the difference is workable that makes the trade down all the more palpable

This certainly can be true, but in which case it is not a specific player that is the target, but rather accumulating more picks being the target. Whether you trade down with a specific player in mind, or for the purpose of getting more picks, the thought process is one. I don't know how I can be clearer and trust you understand what I am getting at...

Right. But if the thought process is to gain more picks than that and the actual pick are totally separate.

Perhaps we are getting hung up on semantics. I agree the action of making a trade and the action of reaping the reward occur at different points in the draft, but the thought process is one. "I'm going to do this so I can get that"...

My original point was that just because we got Alex Mack, doesnt make trading back from 5 to 17, without getting market value, a good trade.

Obviously.

Correct my if I'm wrong, but I think your original point was that a trade down and the actual pick should be viewed together.

The trade down is one thing and should be judged on it's own merits. For example: The Raiders traded down with the Dolphins a few years back. One could argue that they did not get enough in the trade. The trade was bad.

They then drafted D.J. Hayden. The pick itself should be an entirely separate judgment. Whether the pick was bad has nothing to do with the trade down.

Well it most certainly does if the player you selected was the target that you traded down for. cfrs - I really appreciate your input and respect your posts, but perhaps we should move on now. We are getting to the point of "splitting hairs"...

We got a 1st rd pick and a 6th, plus 3 players (if I recall without referring back). Viewed at the time, I would say we got market value. Heck viewing it in the present, I'd say it was a good trade...

We moved from 4 to 9 and got an ADDITIONAL 1st round pick and a 4th..

Would you trade a 1st round and 4th round pick for a 6th and 3 players ranging from backup to average starter?

This is my last post on the subject (I end up having this exact same conversation every year around this time of the year):

Even if you traded down to pick a particular player (which is rare), the pick has nothing to do with the trade. The pick is about your ability to evaluate talent and the success of the player, not about what you received in the trade.

Fleecing the Bills has nothing to do with the Jets trade or am I mis-reading your intent?...

Agreed. Let's move on. Good discussion tho'...

I just dont see how a 6th round pick and 3 average players is worth moving back 12 spots.

You keep bashing Mangini.

What are your thoughts on H and H's following moves?

--trading a draft pick to move up and draft TRich in the first round?

--taking Weeden in the first round?

--trading down w/Atl who took J. Jones [a superstar] and picking up Phil Taylor [who did not play in the NFL last year?]

I have a serious question for you? Why do you constantly rag on Mangini and never once mention those moves, which are far, far worse?

Don't bother..............you, and others....are full of crap and your agenda sucks.