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

I think we agree. We are just saying it differently. LOL

Yes, LOL ... I am definitely not suggesting that we should Draft down just for the sake of drafting down.

That would be well just plain dumb! *L*

I do agree you need to know who is on the board. Well, unless you make a pre-draft trade. My comments are more aimed at the good folks who say trading down is stupid, just like the old group, or take a tackle no matter which one is there.

Sorry, we do have a draft board. I simply don't want the 4th best tackle with the 10th pick in the draft. No value in that pick. We would be passing over much better players.

Like you, drafting for need isn't something I like. Especially in the top 10 picks because we have more than 1 need on this team. The defense has all kinds of needs.

If we really want to fix the LT position and one of our top 2 guys isn't there at 10, trade back and try to get him a little later with some value added. If we can't get one of the top 4, there are another 3-4 who should turn in to solid pro players. Get one of them at #19 or wherever we end up drafting.

I'd gladly take one of them with an additional 2nd rounder this year and maybe another good pick next year.

I agree. He is good. My #1. I like Georgia players. They are well coached and SEC battle tested. That is as close to having NFL experience as you can get with a college player.

No, that isn't putting any other conference down, just stating facts, at least as I see it.

You and I agree many times, but I don't agree with that blanket statement unless you are simply saying we end up with more picks.

I am a big fan with having more picks. Like anything, more chances gives you a better chance of getting a plus player.

In baseball, if the manager pulls you out in favor of another after going 0-3, you are hitting nothing. If you get that 4th at bat and get a hit, you are hitting .250. Not great, but at least semi decent. The nest night you go 2-4...now you are hitting .375 and looking like a HOF player.

Baseball is the curliest sport. Even the very best fail 70% of the time. It's a good life lesson game.

If you want your kid to learn how to deal with failure and learn how to deal with that and come back dusting off the britches, get them to play baseball.

When you are at bat, you are center stage. Everybody is watching you. Some hoping you get a hit, some not. Same with fielding. When the ball is hit towards you, people are watching you.

I always told my guys the most important position on the field is the position you are playing. Life lesson. The most important position on the factory floor or office floor is the position you hold. They all count and are important, or they wouldn't be there. When it's you're turn, time to produce.

I was a fan of trading down long before the analytics guys got here. I still think it can be smart.

I just don't like blanket statements. I don't think it is "logical" to trade down if there is an excellent player on the board.

I also want to add this. When you are rebuilding your team, trading down makes even more sense because you want more picks/assets. However, when you have a talented core that are still playing on their rookie contracts, acquiring impact players to assist them is probably the way to go.

I fail to see any way this can be disputed...

I think every draft is different, and your draft strategy should be tweaked to match. The overall landscape (all the players available) can make for "good" and "bad" drafts, heavy on one position, light on another, heavy on top-end talent, heavy on good/average talent, etc. Having a good grasp on how "good" a draft is compared to surrounding years can help to inform a trade down for picks the following year.
Similarly, understanding the landscape of talent within a specific draft is important. The more I think about it, the 10 spot might be a trap. You're still top of the draft (wanting to get that elite prospect), but there's a high risk of getting stuck with the leftovers. I think this happened in the Haden draft. All the big names were gone, and Haden was left. I was a fan of Haden, but I do remember at the time I really wanted Berry or someone else, but after Haden there was a really steep drop off in talent.

I hesitate to make a blanket statement about trading down vs not, as it depends on the talent available (which will change right until our pick). I think it's very smart to have contingency plans in place. I can definitely see picks 1-9 working against us, and instead of reaching for a player, trading down a little bit to get someone else on our list would be good.
One thing I will say, though... is that I think the hand-wringing about reaching for a player is somewhat overblown. Draft busts are certainly a thing, but that has more to do with completely botching the talent eval for that guy. I kinda roll my eyes when we're arguing over whether a guy should be drafted in a certain slot, or 10 picks later. In a couple years, nobody will care if a guy was drafted 10 picks sooner than he "should" have.

Picking impact players is hard and you are more likely to do it if you have more picks. This is especially true if you are picking outside the top eightish.

I’d also argue that having a team of a bunch of above average players is better off than a team with a few great players and a bunch of bodies. Depth is king in the NFL.

I also think, with the makeup of our team as it is right now, we are more in a position to take less, higher draft picks. Depending on the talent available, it generally makes more sense for us to value less, higher picks more than a bunch of lower picks.

This is why I think so...

Having a bunch of lower picks is good for a team that's really hurting for talent across the roster (something we're recently familiar with) as well as a for a team at the other end of the spectrum, that has their starters mostly set and is looking for depth and diamonds in the rough.

Higher draft picks sound good for a team that has pretty decent talent, but has several big holes in the roster (where I think we are right now).

I do feel the SEC is a good gauge of the talent they play against. Especially when you factor in the speed of the game. I add the Big 10 to that due to how many great LT's and OL players have been drafted from that conference as well.

To address those that say. "Always trading down is the right thing to do unless it's a QB" are concerned.

Any blanket statement like this is incorrect. The claim is your odds to get an impact player go up with more picks. Not so. Most of the top impact players come from the top of the draft. The lower in the draft you get, the fewer impact players there are. The harder they are to identify. Not that there aren't impact players that teams draft further down the draft board. They are there. But once the top rated talent comes off the board at the top of the draft, the lower your odds are at finding those players.

I do agree there are times it is wise to trade down. But let's use the LT position in this draft as an example. Picking the 5th or 6th rated LT greatly decreases your odds of success. Will you gain another pick? Yes. So are two average players better than a stud? Because the odds are more than likely that will be the scenario you are looking at.

In this years draft, there are certainly players on the board, that if they are there, there's no way I would trade down. Much like Peen if we are targeting a LT, I don't believe that we should settle with a #10 pick. So if out two top rated LT's are gone and players like Simmons and Brown aren't there to draft, a trade down makes sense to me.

But to say a team should pass on a player like Simmons of he's there in "hopes" of drafting players later in order to have greater chances to hit on other players doesn't add up.

As with everything there are variables and there is no one size fits all.

Well, all blanket statements are incorrect, period.


The entire issue is that someone makes a statement as a generality and people take it as being stated as an absolute and begin to debunk the generality as an absolute.

I see what you just did there.

K'LAVON CHAISSON
DE, COLLEGE PLAYER

CBS' Jonathan Jones reports the Browns at No. 10 "could be the move" for the Falcons to move up from No. 16

Jones believes the Falcons could have their eyes on Florida CB C.J. Henderson or LSU EDGE K'Lavon Chaisson. The Falcons have tried to beat back the narrative they are desperate to move up, but it has been one of this week's most persistent storylines. We don't have to wait much longer to find out.

RELATED: Atlanta Falcons, Cleveland Browns
SOURCE: CBS
Apr 23, 2020, 1:52 PM ET

Spoken like a rookie and not the Wiley vet u are ... *L* ...

I wouldnt necessiraly trade back though just because your LT isnt there. If ALL we needed was a LT, yea - thats fine. But we have holes like swiss cheese on Def.

If there a player thats a top 10 or even 15 talent at a position of need, you take him at 10. Lets say all the LT at drafted early, and the 4th best guy is on the board, but Simmons is there. You take Simmons.

Have heard that Philly wants to move up to get one of the top WRs, Lamb?, as the Jets at 11, the Raiders at 12 & 19, the Niners at 13, and Denver at 15 all could be in the market for a WR.

If Simmons is on the board at #10, I take him regardless of which OTs are there.

Simmons > top 2 tackles on OUR board > Brown take one in that order. Give third for Williams.
If those 4 players not there. Trade down. And probably trade for Williams. Only way I trade for Williams is if our top 2 tackles aren’t there at 10. Even if we drafted one after trading down I’d trade for him.

Same. He and Wirfs are the only two players take over a trade down.

Pssh. Jedrick Wills Jr. and Andrew Thomas are my top two players for us.

I'd say Chase Young is number 1 on my board, but that isn't happening

Only trash, disorganized organizations, and the Patriots trade down.

Stop being mediocre.

The Seahawks have traded down every year since 2012.

Yeah, they're a consistent winning organization who has won the super bowl recently.

We are not a winning organization.

So to become a consistent winning organization don’t do what the Seahawks and Patriots do. Got it.

If the Browns make a trade is should be up not down in order to get Isaiah Simmons. I would be mad if he goes one pick ahead of us.

Until the current brain trust shows me they know what the hell they're doing I don't think they're smart enough to trade down or do anything. I'll wait till I see the record at the end of the year to see if I trust the front office, not drinking the cool aid. I'm skeptical with this group but I hope they do well.

If Miami makes a trade with Washington and takes Tua, Browns should try and make a trade with the Lions for Chase Young.

Not a chance

I'd maybe make a play for the Jags pick ... but if you are sitting at 10 knowing you get Brown or Simmons, I'd sit tight and take whichever one was left. I'd be as happy with Brown as Simmons at 10.

Sure, but Young will be a Redskin by then.

Yea I don't think it's going to happen but would be great if it did.

Brown is good at stopping the run but not much of a pass rusher. Simmons is a play maker.

the odds are almost identical.

I think you don't know how probability works.

I think you need to re-read the wording. You only need 7 picks to pick "those 7 players."

I get what you're saying, though. More picks, more chances that some of them are good.

actually, I do.

The odds are 2.6718% for 7 picks vs 4.4944% for 12 picks

Basically, they are almost identical in the scheme of things.


but, that's not what I was saying.