DawgTalkers.net Forums The Archives 2020 NFL Season 2020 NFL Draft Trading down

Take the pick at 10. Sheeshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Because why? 1. Why would we trade down? or 2. Why would I not want to trade down?

1. I think this FO would trade down for the right price, and if they like a LT further Down I guess I would be ok with it, but that means no Andrew Thomas ...

2. As for me not wanting to trade down, I want the best LT we can get, and I would be more willing to trade up than down to get Andrew Thomas ...

Sure, we should keep trading down. We can get our starting Left Tackle in the 2nd or 3rd round. Why take a 1st rounder at all? We can build an entire team with low round picks as long as we take 500 of them. lmao That philosophy has worked out SO well here...

If a tackle that fits our scheme is there at ten you RUN to the phone and TAKE him! You don't get fancy and try to out-think everyone. If your starting LT for the next ten seasons is available you don't play Russian roulette with the pick. You take him and consider yourself lucky. IF the tackle that is there at #10 is NOT a fit and no other player there fits what you want to do... THEN and ONLY THEN do you talk about trading down. I find it hard to believe that not one single player left at #10 would really help this team. If this front office gets cute and messes this up we will be right back looking for another staff this time next year. Take a quality player at #10 that can help us and then do so in the 2nd and 3rd. If they do that I will be happy. 3 really good players from this draft and I'll jump for joy.

Pats have BB and are usually in the 30s. Oh and a guy named Tom Brady.

That doesn’t answer the question at all.

Also, you didn’t answer the other question.

Teams don't know if players are good when they draft them.



Are you more likely to select three really good players with more picks or less picks?

how do i know we are getting a good to great player at 10? We don't for sure but the.. odds are a hell of a lot better.

Should we have traded down on Joe Thomas and picked up a LT in the 3rd round?

Our roster is pretty strong. We don't need a bunch of average players. Go get the really good ones, but we won't because Cleveland loves their Draft picks

And this one is more your speed.

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/1732412/son-of-goofy#Post1732412

Read an interesting article today looking back at the 2015 draft, and it just re-affirmed my belief that it is usually the smart move to trade back if possible.

Only seven 1st round players are still with the team that drafted them, and only one out of the top 10 (Scherff), and he got moved to Guard.

The top 10 picks:

J. Winston
M. Mariota
D. Fowler
A. Cooper
B. Scherff
L. Williams
K. White
V. Beasley
E. Flowers
T. Gurley

I see 6 bust, 3 hits (but most not with the team that drafted them), and 1 just ok (Beasley).

That's the problem...no one knows who is going to be good. It really is a crapshoot with most of the players, especially with injuries that can pop up.

It is definitely better to give yourself more chances, period.

I'm okay w/your opinion, but using that particular draft seems fishy. Why 2015 and not 2016? Or 2017? Or 2008? Or 1997? I have no idea how any of those other drafts worked out, but using one draft class sends off warning bells in my head.

I will also say that we have traded down before. We didn't get Wentz and ended up w/Corey Coleman. We passed on Watson and ended up drafting a box safety in Peppers. You can find a guy like that as a late round or even in an undrafted free agent signing.

I think there are times to trade down. I would rather do that than trade up. However, I think we should be able to get a very good player at 10 and we want to acquire impact players while our young nucleus are on their rookie deals.

Of course, those things are just my opinions.

Better than what? How much better?

(Hint: The difference between the 10th pick and the 15th pick and the 25th pick isn't that great.)



Depends on a deal we would have been offered. Also, the third overall pick is very different than the tenth overall pick. You are probably picking the second best non-QB in the draft if you are picking third.



Drafting really good players is hard. A team will have a better chance drafting really good players if you have more picks.

I agree. That doesn't mean you can't trade down.

Every situation is different.

Like I said, it was just an article I saw recently looking back at that draft, and the takeaways from it.

I think it's interesting to look back 5 years at a draft and see where all the players are at now, since all 1st rounders get a 4-year contract with a 5th-year option. The Browns aren't they only ones that can't hit on draft picks...actually, the 2 Browns picks that year (Shelton and Erving) ended up at least doing well, but after they left the Browns.

Here is the article

J/C

I'm not a fan of trading down right now, in general. I think, where the talent level of the team is right now, we need a couple better players than a platoon of good players. We have a couple very specific holes vs an overall team talent issue. I think this situation lends itself to less, higher draft picks vs more lower draft picks.

In this particular draft, I think our chances of landing a very good to elite level player at 10 (and at a position of need, at that!) is pretty good. I think if we trade down, then that will mean picks 1-9 worked out perfectly against us, and I will be very disappointed. I'm rooting for as many QBs to get picked before us as possible.

I absolutely agree. Only way i think we should consider trading down is for something like a 1st rounder

I sort agree with both posts - with this caveat: If Simmons or Brown is there, don't trade down. If they are not there and the "best" OT on the board is Becton/Jones/Austin and the other BPA are WR or CB then trade down.... There are a couple of very good LB's and Safeties that will have a major impact for the team - and they should be available in the 20's. I'd rather trade back and take one of them than WR,CB,Becton,Jones,Austin at #10. . . . in fact there are 2 safeties and 2 LB I'd be happy with in the 20's so odds are high that you can drop back and still take an impact player for the team.

I spent a significant amount of time yesterday doing my own little evaluation of Becton. Barring information that we just don't have, I'm comfortable with Becton at 10.

He's still number 4 in line for me. But closer to Wirfs than he was before. So my rankings haven't changed, just, Becton is a solid pick at 10 for me.

Guy's a beast. And Callahan would be a great coach for him.



I must say, while we haven't seen any games and i'm not familiar with Van Pelt and Woods, I have a lot of faith in Stefanski. He just seems organized. Berry does too.


I really hope we give them a real shot. They seem to have their stuff together.



I do think the Williams talk is a contingency plan. I think that's what Berry wants, contingency plans. He seems very organized. Preparation is key. Every decision thought out. Never wants to be caught off guard. That's good.

But, this might be just because he does a very good interview

I don't know about Becton. The size is a double edged sword and might help him to be a beast - it might hamper him if he gets nicked up etc... and the improvement he needs sort of reminded me of Ereck Flowers in the Link Orange posted. I don't think we need to risk anything for what might be "great" if we can get a safer "really good" .... But I have seen mocks with Becton as the 1st OT off the board so who knows?!

I agree with these last 2 points 100%. No idea how Stefanski is going to be as a HC - but he most certainly seems like his level of preparedness is very high, including having as many contingencies covered as possible.... and yes, until we play Sundays, it could simply be that he's a good interview

Main reason I consider trading down is I really like Winfield, but think he's gone before our second pick.

I think the top OTs also might be overhyped some. Would have loved to see Chase Young matched up against any of them. I don't think the top 4 are bad. I think they may be benefiting from teams finding what they are looking for, rather than just seeing what's there.

I could see the Browns trading back not once, but twice in the 1st round, if our top 3 are not available at #10.

Trade back with Denver to #15 and trade back again with PHI to #21. Pick up another 2nd and a 3rd, hopefully more. If all the Ezra Cleveland rumors are to be believed, it is quite possible the Browns would trade back to #21 and take him, much to a lot of posters chagrin, ostensibly. Be advised.

We should trade do to #22 and take a QB.

It's worked so well in the past.

:The sound of fingernails on a blackboard:

LOL.....that was funny!

I dinno bout this Purp character sometimes.. wonder if we can trade him to the squealers board?

The answer is less picks.
I bet many thought the answer was more picks.
I'm 100% right and if anybody thinks opposite I suggest they open their thinking to understand how my statement is right.

Sigh, (I don't think people are going to understand, let me start to try to explain.)

See, really good players don't happen until they stick around a while, and nobody sticks around a while if they keep getting another version of a prospect to take their place in the development process of becoming a "really good player",
So If you only get 1 player, and actually develop their abilities to play winning football in your team over a course of maybe 3-4 years, and do that three years running,
then in about 5 years you'll get 3 really good players,
But
If you draft 30 players in 3 years and all of them as prospects don't get developed into "really good players" then you just have,
well, what the Browns do, usually. ( Zero really good players)

I'm so glad we have the system that brought the Browns DeShone Kizer as a Starting QB for a whole year, with little to no other options. NOT!

Or am I clearly wrong, and these (aren't) the guys and system that did that?

ok ok, as long as all remember this only rings historic if they somehow pick somebody early, in a pick before #22, and then trade some how back UP to pick #22, being the teams 2nd pick in that respective draft. (Just for clarification)

I guess I see our situation differently than a lot of other posters on this board.

We have talent on this team, and a lot of it is locked up for the next 2-3 years for cheap. After that, things are going to be a lot harder as we begin to resign some players to their 2nd contracts.

I know our record was poor last year, but our window to win is now. The way I see it, all these OTs will have a learning curve, especially in their first year, save Thomas, and I think his ceiling is the lowest of the 4.

I would much rather have Trent Williams for the next 2-3 years, since that is our window. Now, whether he would sign a 2-3 year contract, that is another question.

If you trade for Williams, Baker then has no excuses. He has arguably the greatest supporting cast in the NFL. Makes our decision on offering him a 2nd contract very easy; either he puts up numbers, or he doesn't.

And then it gives us options at 10. Simmons or Brown fall to 10? You take them. Want to trade back, pick up some draft capital for next year, and get a LB? Yes please. Maybe we get creative: trade 10 to Washington, who now needs an OT, and take their 1st round pick next year (could be pretty high again), along with Trent and their 2nd round pick (just an idea, don't kill me). The options are endless...I just hate being pigeon-holed into needing an OT in the draft.

Get Trent on the cheap and finish the offense. Don't bet on a rookie that is a crapshoot when your window is open now. Use the draft to bolster the defense, which is desperately in need of an influx of talent. That would be my plan.

There are probably a few more than you might think that think like you on Williams ... including me.

Me too

I am coming around on trading for Williams, mostly because I am not sold on any of the LT candidates. They might end up being great, but I think all have question marks.

I was against trading for Williams last year because Washington reportedly was wanting a first round pick and more for him. Plus, his salary demands were going to be a negative.

I proposed trading our second round pick [I think it is 41st overall] to Washington for Williams and their 3rd round pick [which I believe is 66th overall.] They do not have a second round pick.

I've gotten some feedback on the proposed trade, but I'm still uncertain if it would work for both teams.

It’s looking more and more likely that Thomas and Wirfs will be off the board ... at that point, I’m not reaching for Becton or Wills or Cleveland.

It also means Okudah or Simmons is there ... OR a QB/WR is there that makes a trade likely

If we decide to do the latter, trading for Williams becomes more appealing

At what cost? Pluto had a good article he just posted up. I agree with him, I just go with Jason Peters on a 1-2 year deal, trade back, then select a 2nd tier tackle who could sit behind Peters for a year or so. We don't have to give up anything for Peters. Just some money.

I don't want to select the 3rd or 4th tackle on our board at #10. That would be a reach, and reaching at #10 is stupid. Trade back a time or two, gain some extra for this year and next, then select a tackle if that is the desire. Josh Jones is a good tackle, and we can get him in the teens. Heck, Becton might still be on the board.

My thinking is we don't need the next Joe Thomas. You can never replace a guy like that but we can get a solid, competent player. You don't need the best. You just need good. I think about guys like Dieken and Paul Farren.

I think Diek made a few pro-bowl games, I don't think Farren did, but he did a good job protecting Bernies blind side. He started for 7-8 years and he was just a average Joe type player. We had good teams most of those years.

I'm with you on this (and Pluto) as far as signing Peters. Seems to make much more sense than trading for Williams. At least to me.

I'm also in the mood to trade back from #10 for more pick(s). It's the best and most logical move.

I am not being confrontational, but why do you think this?


On another note.........I am not sure how anyone can say it makes sense and is logical to trade down before they know which players are available.

I think there will be some surprises - possibly even before the #10 pick.... I don't think the media as such has a really good idea of who likes who. jmo - but for example, we have no idea which OT the Browns like. I have seen as many sports writers/mocks say Miami takes Herbert as Tua ... I've seen more and more mocks saying NYG will take a tackle in the last 5-6 days ... I think we simply don't know.

IF Simmons or Brown were to fall to #10 - both would have to be in play even without a deal for Williams in place. Glad we are so close to finally knowing and seeing this play out.