What Would You Give Up and For Who?

[Dwinsgames]

I'll decide when it's good. LOL

OMG lmao

[Born2Steel]

ROFLMFAO + SMH + BTWMF + DLNBYJGS + COMD......and so on

[teegre]

I can see the benefit for trading up, as well as staying put, and also for trading down.

TRADING UP:
If you move up correctly, you get yourself a Troy Polamalu. If you trade up incorrectly, you end up with a bust AND fewer draft picks. Most recently, the Texans and Chiefs successfully did this, for Watson and Mahomes.

TRADING DOWN:
Moneyball. It works... but, you have to be patient. The Browns are currently doing this. If you are in "win now", this is not as prudent of a tactic.

STAYING PUT:
It is safe. You have less risk, but less reward. Likewise, it is a quicker turnaround than Moneyball, but not as quick as striking gold with a "HOFer".

[Mojouw]

I can see the benefit for trading up, as well as staying put, and also for trading down.

TRADING UP:
If you move up correctly, you get yourself a Troy Polamalu. If you trade up incorrectly, you end up with a bust AND fewer draft picks. Most recently, the Texans and Chiefs successfully did this, for Watson and Mahomes.

TRADING DOWN:
Moneyball. It works... but, you have to be patient. The Browns are currently doing this. If you are in "win now", this is not as prudent of a tactic.

STAYING PUT:
It is safe. You have less risk, but less reward. Likewise, it is a quicker turnaround than Moneyball, but not as quick as striking gold with a "HOFer".

Nailed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dwinsgames]

I can see the benefit for trading up, as well as staying put, and also for trading down.

TRADING UP:
If you move up correctly, you get yourself a Troy Polamalu. If you trade up incorrectly, you end up with a bust AND fewer draft picks. Most recently, the Texans and Chiefs successfully did this, for Watson and Mahomes.

TRADING DOWN:
Moneyball. It works... but, you have to be patient. The Browns are currently doing this. If you are in "win now", this is not as prudent of a tactic.

STAYING PUT:
It is safe. You have less risk, but less reward. Likewise, it is a quicker turnaround than Moneyball, but not as quick as striking gold with a "HOFer".

still depends how you look at it ... had we traded up in the past even to move a few spots likely could have cost us Antonio Brown , or to a lessor degree Bryant ... giving away picks in any round can be costly just look back through history at how many really good player we took middle rounds and beyond and in some of these scenarios we are giving up multiple early selections in back to back years ....all to roll the dice on 1 player who could as easily not pan out as pan out .... in another thread I posted the QBs drafted from 2000 to 2015 1st round QBs odds are against you getting a diamond and more than likely you end up with a lump of coal .... doubling / tripling down ( or more ) one 1 player is not a prudent method of acquiring a dynasty esp when you build through the draft and only dabble in the FA pool with middle of the road or less type players for the most part ...

you take a significant hit to your teams depth and as was stated earlier we are already pretty thin in a few key areas

[teegre]

still depends how you look at it ... had we traded up in the past even to move a few spots likely could have cost us Antonio Brown , or to a lessor degree Bryant ... giving away picks in any round can be costly just look back through history at how many really good player we took middle rounds and beyond and in some of these scenarios we are giving up multiple early selections in back to back years ....all to roll the dice on 1 player who could as easily not pan out as pan out .... in another thread I posted the QBs drafted from 2000 to 2015 1st round QBs odds are against you getting a diamond and more than likely you end up with a lump of coal .... doubling / tripling down ( or more ) one 1 player is not a prudent method of acquiring a dynasty esp when you build through the draft and only dabble in the FA pool with middle of the road or less type players for the most part ...

you take a significant hit to your teams depth and as was stated earlier we are already pretty thin in a few key areas

You’re right.

That said...

For every AB, there are a dozen Holbas, Freeneys, Zumwalts, and Humpals. Imagine if we had traded our R7 pick in 2015 (Gerod Hollinan) in order to move up one spot in R3. We’d have David Johnson (instead of Sammie Coates).

Of course, the flip side is that we simply could have drafted David Johnson in R2 instead of Senquez Golson.

Speaking of Golson and Coates... If we had traded the R3 pick (Coates) to move up a few spots in R1, we’d have Marcus Peters (instead of Bud Dupree). If we had traded the R2 pick (Golson), we’d have Todd Gurley.

My go to is that I would have traded the ENTIRE 2008 draft class to the Vikings for their R1 pick in 2007: Adrian Peterson. (Not only was our draft awful, that entire draft class was average at best.)

[Mojouw]

I'm not sure that you do it all wily nilly and make a habit out of trading up in drafts, but targeted trades for specific purposes can change the course of franchises.

What do those early to mid 2000's Steelers defenses look like without Troy Polamalu?

While these are nowhere near the same scale, the trade-ups for Kendrell Bell and Santonio Holmes had a solid positive impact on the team.

I think the reality is that it is all related to how confident a team is in its player evaluations. If a team trades up in the first round and gets a cornerstone player, no one will remember what they gave up or could have gotten.

[Dwinsgames]

You’re right.

That said...

For every AB, there are a dozen Holbas, Freeneys, Zumwalts, and Humpals. Imagine if we had traded our R7 pick in 2015 (Gerod Hollinan) in order to move up one spot in R3. We’d have David Johnson (instead of Sammie Coates).

Of course, the flip side is that we simply could have drafted David Johnson in R2 instead of Senquez Golson.

Speaking of Golson and Coates... If we had traded the R3 pick (Coates) to move up a few spots in R1, we’d have Marcus Peters (instead of Bud Dupree). If we had traded the R2 pick (Golson), we’d have Todd Gurley.

My go to is that I would have traded the ENTIRE 2008 draft class to the Vikings for their R1 pick in 2007: Adrian Peterson. (Not only was our draft awful, that entire draft class was average at best.)

I get your point but we wouldn't have those players David Johnson ( I was one of his very few fans here ) would have been great but with Bell they would not have selected him ...

Peters was a known problem child coming into the draft so doubt he would have been the pick ( and he quickly wore out his welcome in KC even with great play )

Gurley see David Johnson ....

[teegre]

I get your point but we wouldn't have those players David Johnson ( I was one of his very few fans here ) would have been great but with Bell they would not have selected him ...

Peters was a known problem child coming into the draft so doubt he would have been the pick ( and he quickly wore out his welcome in KC even with great play )

Gurley see David Johnson ....

True. With Bell under contract, we wouldn’t have selected those exact players. I was using them as more of an example of “we could have gotten this really good player”.