Random NFL Draft Hypothetical... (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

It seems like every single year fans of the teams with the top picks all sing in unison [trade down for a bunch of picks], yet that's far far easier said than done.

It's easier this year than the last couple since this year's potential #1 overall picks are actually worth trading up for for the teams that would do so.

I agree...but that works on both sides. One could argue they're also more coveted by the teams who have those picks already...making them less willing to trade down. It was no secret that Miami and Cleveland were ready, willing and able to trade down this year, but ultimately didn't. If Bush, Ferguson and Leinart are on the board, I would imagine it's going to take A LOT more to get up to those spots than it would've the last few years.I don't think it's any easier this year to move up to those spots because the relative value is recognized by both sides. Your thesis would only play out if those looking to trade up recognized the value of Bush, Leinart and Ferguson while those in the top spots already did not.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I agree...but that works on both sides. One could argue they're also more coveted by the teams who have those picks already...making them less willing to trade down. It was no secret that Miami and Cleveland were ready, willing and able to trade down this year, but ultimately didn't. If Bush, Ferguson and Leinart are on the board, I would imagine it's going to take A LOT more to get up to those spots than it would've the last few years.

I don't think it's any easier this year to move up to those spots because the relative value is recognized by both sides.

I see what you're saying but I think the "sure fire"-ness of Leinart/Bush/Ferguson makes a trade up much more likely this year as opposed to last regardless of whether it costs more to trade up this year.Trading up to get Smith, Brown, or Edwards is much riskier than getting Leinart/Bush/Ferguson as the first set appears to have higher bust potential.

Your thesis would only play out if those looking to trade up recognized the value of Bush, Leinart and Ferguson while those in the top spots already did not.

Not if the top three teams in the draft covet multiple picks more than they covet a particular player. With as deep as this draft appears to be, much moreso than last year, trading for picks makes more sense for bad teams this year than last.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

This is fun. A great timewaster on a boring workday.

If I'm the Dolphins GM, and Leinart is still there at the Jets' #2 pick, I offer my #9 and Ricky Williams for their #2 to pick Leinart.

This assumes Ricky continues to play well as he has of late.

Chambers, Booker, and McMichael finally have a real QB to throw to them. I still have Ronnie Brown. Things are looking up.

I don't like this deal if I'm the JETS. I would rather trade up for Bush and go with a veteran QB for 2006, including perhaps Jay Fiedler, who may be as competent in new surroundings as the much-trumpeted Jon Kitna.Ricky will be 29, has 3 strikes in the program, and has known to be "tempermental"

 

[Wadsworth]

It seems like every single year fans of the teams with the top picks all sing in unison [trade down for a bunch of picks], yet that's far far easier said than done.

It's easier this year than the last couple since this year's potential #1 overall picks are actually worth trading up for for the teams that would do so.

I agree...but that works on both sides. One could argue they're also more coveted by the teams who have those picks already...making them less willing to trade down. It was no secret that Miami and Cleveland were ready, willing and able to trade down this year, but ultimately didn't. If Bush, Ferguson and Leinart are on the board, I would imagine it's going to take A LOT more to get up to those spots than it would've the last few years.I don't think it's any easier this year to move up to those spots because the relative value is recognized by both sides. Your thesis would only play out if those looking to trade up recognized the value of Bush, Leinart and Ferguson while those in the top spots already did not.

I was thinking he meant it's easier for the teams that have the top picks to get big offers for their pick this year. Not that it's easier to trade up into those spots. If that's the case, I agree with both of you. I expect some very big offers to be made this off season. There are players at the top of this draft class that teams will covet greatly.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I was thinking he meant it's easier for the teams that have the top picks to get big offers for their pick this year. Not that it's easier to trade up into those spots. If that's the case, I agree with both of you. I expect some very big offers to be made this off season. There are players at the top of this draft class that teams will covet greatly.

I think that's what we both meant.

 

[Jason Wood]

I agree...but that works on both sides. One could argue they're also more coveted by the teams who have those picks already...making them less willing to trade down. It was no secret that Miami and Cleveland were ready, willing and able to trade down this year, but ultimately didn't. If Bush, Ferguson and Leinart are on the board, I would imagine it's going to take A LOT more to get up to those spots than it would've the last few years.

I don't think it's any easier this year to move up to those spots because the relative value is recognized by both sides.

I see what you're saying but I think the "sure fire"-ness of Leinart/Bush/Ferguson makes a trade up much more likely this year as opposed to last regardless of whether it costs more to trade up this year.Trading up to get Smith, Brown, or Edwards is much riskier than getting Leinart/Bush/Ferguson as the first set appears to have higher bust potential.

Your thesis would only play out if those looking to trade up recognized the value of Bush, Leinart and Ferguson while those in the top spots already did not.

Not if the top three teams in the draft covet multiple picks more than they covet a particular player. With as deep as this draft appears to be, much moreso than last year, trading for picks makes more sense for bad teams this year than last.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more on your bolded statement. The top picks are higher caliber this year, for sure, but last year was unbelievably deep which played a big role in why teams were unwilling to move around much. This year, unless we have a mass exodus of underclassmen, this is shaping up to be a very THIN draft at many key positions.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Not if the top three teams in the draft covet multiple picks more than they covet a particular player. With as deep as this draft appears to be, much moreso than last year, trading for picks makes more sense for bad teams this year than last.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more on your bolded statement. The top picks are higher caliber this year, for sure, but last year was unbelievably deep which played a big role in why teams were unwilling to move around much. This year, unless we have a mass exodus of underclassmen, this is shaping up to be a very THIN draft at many key positions.

Depends on the position, I suppose. It's thin at the skill/glamour positions of QB and WR and to a lesser extent RB, to be sure. But at spots like OL and LB are much deeper than last year.

 

[Bloom]

I agree...but that works on both sides. One could argue they're also more coveted by the teams who have those picks already...making them less willing to trade down. It was no secret that Miami and Cleveland were ready, willing and able to trade down this year, but ultimately didn't. If Bush, Ferguson and Leinart are on the board, I would imagine it's going to take A LOT more to get up to those spots than it would've the last few years.

I don't think it's any easier this year to move up to those spots because the relative value is recognized by both sides.

I see what you're saying but I think the "sure fire"-ness of Leinart/Bush/Ferguson makes a trade up much more likely this year as opposed to last regardless of whether it costs more to trade up this year.Trading up to get Smith, Brown, or Edwards is much riskier than getting Leinart/Bush/Ferguson as the first set appears to have higher bust potential.

Your thesis would only play out if those looking to trade up recognized the value of Bush, Leinart and Ferguson while those in the top spots already did not.

Not if the top three teams in the draft covet multiple picks more than they covet a particular player. With as deep as this draft appears to be, much moreso than last year, trading for picks makes more sense for bad teams this year than last.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more on your bolded statement. The top picks are higher caliber this year, for sure, but last year was unbelievably deep which played a big role in why teams were unwilling to move around much. This year, unless we have a mass exodus of underclassmen, this is shaping up to be a very THIN draft at many key positions.

depends on the position...QB: Deeper last year, but no real franchise QB.

RB: equal/better at the top this year, but not nearly as deep as 05

WR: much better at the top last year, both classes have some decent depth.

OT: WAY better this year.

OG/C: seems a little stronger last year, but im not up to speed on this year's class yet.

TE: much better this year.

DT: better this year in the top tier, good depth both years

DE: Much better this year in the top tier

LB: better this year at the top, although last year's class was weighted by converted DEs.

DB: I like this year's safeties better, but last year's CBs blow this year's away at the top.

Overall I dont see this year's class as clearly behind last year's.

 

[Marvelous]

I also think Schaub and Garrard should be included in the trade target QBs, and as mentioned a few posts up, Brooks would be a target if the Saints want to part ways with him, as would Ramsey. Otherwise your assessment of the offseason QB market is spot on.

I agree that Young could greatly improve his draft status if he stays - he definitely has room to improve his draft position.

Holy smokes, I can't believe I keep forgetting about Schaub. I would think the Jaguars would re-sign Garrard as he's more valuable to them as a backup than what I think he'd be worth in a trade involving picks, unless someone overpaid.With his play this year and Vick's injury history, I think it would cost another team dearly to acquire Schaub. Almost definitely a first rounder, maybe more. He looks like he may be worth it though.

Of the QBs that could potentially be playing for another team next year, I think he's is the best.

I've watched Young play twice this year, once against Ohio State and the other against A & M and was underwhelmed.

Given Vick's history with injuries, I doubt Atlanta would let Schaub go unless Schaub demands a trade.Ramsey will almost certainly demand a trade in the off season. If the Redskins think Cambell is ready to be the backup, they will readily trade Ramsey.

 

[pgreenfan]

Bump. What are thoughts about this now?

 

[pgreenfan]

Sorry, I started laughing at assumption #2 and never finished the post!

Still laughing? Vince didn't win the Heisman but I think it is most likely that he comes out now.

 

[pgreenfan]

bump.... I really wish the Texans had listened back in November 2005.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I've watched Young play twice this year, once against Ohio State and the other against A & M and was underwhelmed.

But then I saw him in the Rose Bowl game and realized that I didn't know squat about Vince Young.

 

[Buckna]

Lots of football years left to be played.

FWIW, I don't think that passing on Bush was really that bad a decision. The bad decision will likely end up being that they passed on Vince. Post from 9 months ago.