Practical trade scenarios for the #29

[MaineMan]

While I'm at it ..... at the suggestion of DS, here's what I posted in the Draft Talk thread:

With mock draft season beginning to accelerate, I figured it was time to calculate the initial mathematical trade scenarios based on which teams actually have what for picks. I did this last year, but, IIRC, I posted it as a separate thread that ended up getting bumped down and off the front page. Might remain more accessible in this thread.

Anyway.....

Possible trade-down partners for the #29:

All of these presuppose that the team trading UP is highly motivated to draft a specific prospect who's otherwise very likely to go to one of the intervening teams, primarily those teams currently slotted in the range from #30 to, say, #36 - SFO, DEN, SEA, HOU, WAS, CLE, OAK. While one never really knows what particular prospect is going to float a decision-maker's boat, it does help make projected trade scenarios a bit more realistic to have an idea of what position/type the trading team may be seeking in common with the other teams in-between.

That said, I'm not doing that here.

There are, however, other factors that tend to make some trade scenarios more reasonable than others - like, how many total picks does the trading team have at it's disposal and how many would it cost them to move up?

With that in mind, here are the possibilities/costs (excluding trades up from #30, #31 and #32):

ALL TRADES BASED ON "STANDARD VALUE CHART" VALUES, and are equivalent to within 5% or less (which is the historical average for +/- 90% of all pick trades beyond the top five of the 1st round).

HOU: #33, +5th (#129), +7th - with 7 total picks, I'm not sure BoB, after years of watching BB play the trade game, would spend half his remaining picks to jump a mere 3 spots - UNLESS he's already picked up some extras by trading down out of the #1 spot.

WAS: #34, +5th, +6th - no first rounder and only 6 picks total, but it seems like something Snyder might do anyway

CLE: #35, +4th (#102), +5th - after picking twice already in the 1st round, they still have 8 picks left (including two 3rd-rounders and another 4th). Trading up for a 3rd 1st-round selection is certainly reasonable if they haven't already dealt a bunch to HOU to move up to #1 overall.

OAK: #36, +4th (#103), +2015 4th (or 3rd?) - mathematically, there's no practical way to do this deal without the Pats accepting a future pick as part of the compensation. With the depth of this draft, I'd think BB would want a deal that pays everything in 2014 picks, but one never knows.

ATL: #37, +4th, +5th - factors nearly identical to those with HOU, but possible

TBY: #38, +4th, +5th (Pats must give one of the 6ths back in "change"). The Bucs would only have four picks remaining after the 1st round, but a 3-for-2 trade wouldn't leave them bankrupt.

JAX: #39, +4th (#101), +5th (#132) - nearly identical situation to that with CLE (10 picks to start with, etc.)

MIN: #40, +3rd (#96), +6th - Minny also has #72 in the 3rd round, so not too steep for them.

BUF: #41, +4th, +5th, +7th - aside from the obvious awkwardness of trading within the division, the Bills would be trading four of their remaining six picks to move up. An alternate mathematically possible scenario would be BUF trading the #41 and their 3rd (#73) to the Pats, but the Pats would have to give up their 4th and both current 6ths in change, leaving BB with nothing after the #93 until roughly #200.

TEN: #42, -?- with only 5 picks left and no 2014 3rd-rounder, the Titans couldn't mathematically cover the #29 without dipping into 2015, something, again, BB might prefer NOT to do in a deep 2014 draft.

NYG: #43, +3rd (#74) - Pats would give up their 4th (#126)* and 7th in change. Moving up 50 spots in the mid-rounds might be worth losing a late 7th-rounder over. It's one less "advance shot" at a priority UDFA but, unlike the BUF scenario, the Pats sill have 2-3 6th-rounders (one comp).

STL: #44, +3rd (#75), +7th - Pats would give up their 4th (#126)*, but GAIN a late-7th. Better deal wrt Priority FA opportunities.

DET: #45, +3rd (#76) - Pats would give up the 6th (#182) they received from Philly in the Sopoaga trade.

--------------
For all practical purposes, the cutoff point would probably be about here. Most deals below this point would require the Pats accepting compensation that relied on a 2015 pick or would be ridiculously disadvantageous to the other team in terms of the sheer number of picks they'd need to give up.
--------------

PIT: #46, --- pretty much identical to the TEN scenario

DAL: #47, +3rd (#78), +7th - Jerrah would still have four picks left after the deal. Possible

BAL: #48, --- the Ravens only have 4 picks TOTAL in this draft. Highly unlikely.

NYJ: #49, +3rd (#80), +5th, +7th - The Jest would still have a 3rd, 4th and 6th left, but it's kinda hard to believe that Woody Johnson would do business with BB under any circumstances.

MIA: #50, +3rd (#81), +4th (#112) - Pats would return their 6th (#190) in change. The Fins would still have four picks in the 5th-7th, but they'd need to be highly motivated by the prospect at #29.

CHI: #51, +3rd (#82), +4th (#113) - No "change" back from the Pats. With only three Day-3 picks after such a deal, the Bears would have to be VERY highly-motivated by the #29 pick.

ARZ: #52, +3rd, +4th, +5th - Pats would return their 7th, leaving the Cards with only a 6th and two 7ths. Seems unlikely.

GBY: #53
PHL: #54
CIN: #55 - all basically the same as ARZ, MIA - IOW, ridiculous for any team with more than one or two holes to fill, not to mention the fact that these teams (and the rest below them in the 2nd) would be trading back into the 1st just a couple of spots below where they just picked in the 1st.

* Since the Pats have no 5th-rounder (given up in the Sopoaga trade), any of the above scenarios that require the Pats to give up their 4th "in change" leave BB with a bit less mathematical maneuvering room if he wanted to trade back up into the bottom of the 2nd or top of the 3rd.

 

[MaineMan]

Standard value chart

STANDARD VALUE CHART:

It should be noted the values of tradeble picks in the 4th Round and later will shift downward by the number of Compensatory Picks that end up being tacked on to the end of Round Three an so forth. Even though the Comp pick themselves can't be traded, their insertion still changes the queue below. E.g., the first pick in the 4th is #97 overall (112 SVC), but if four 3rd-round Comps are awarded, the team holding that pick drops back four places in line and the pick becomes the 101st overall (96 SVC) - the 16 SVC lost is equivalent to the loss of a late 6th-rounder.

With, say, two-thirds of the total Comps awarded by the end of the 6th Round, the first pick in the 7th goes from #193 to #213 with commensurate loss of SVC value. At that point, the loss seems relatively insignificant, but it still means that there are 20 more guys off the board who you might have liked to have a shot at drafting.

 

[joepatsfan1]

good post always love to look at that stuff.

to me, if Calvin Pryor, Louis Nix, Xavier Su'Filo and Hageman are gone we should definitely trade down..
I would even trade down with Hageman on the board

 

[BostonTim]

STANDARD VALUE CHART:

It should be noted the values of tradeble picks in the 4th Round and later will shift downward by the number of Compensatory Picks that end up being tacked on to the end of Round Three an so forth. Even though the Comp pick themselves can't be traded, their insertion still changes the queue below. E.g., the first pick in the 4th is #97 overall (112 SVC), but if four 3rd-round Comps are awarded, the team holding that pick drops back four places in line and the pick becomes the 101st overall (96 SVC) - the 16 SVC lost is equivalent to the loss of a late 6th-rounder.

With, say, two-thirds of the total Comps awarded by the end of the 6th Round, the first pick in the 7th goes from #193 to #213 with commensurate loss of SVC value. At that point, the loss seems relatively insignificant, but it still means that there are 20 more guys off the board who you might have liked to have a shot at drafting.

Ah Yes. The good old days. When Peyton was worth 3000 points and TFB was worth almost twelve.

Cheers

 

[Dwight Schrute]

So helpful MM

 

[MaineMan]

POST-COMPENSATORY Trade-down UPDATE

The addition of compensatory picks, as well as a few pick-for-player trades, has altered the trade-partner landscape a little bit by increasing the total number of picks for a few teams. While comp picks themselves aren't tradeable, a team that's received a comp at the end of the 3rd-round may now be more willing to part with their tradeable 4th, and so on.

As before, all of the potential deals below pre-suppose that the team trading UP is highly motivated to draft a specific prospect who's otherwise very likely to go to one of the intervening teams. While one never really knows what particular prospect is going to float a decision-maker's boat, it does help make projected trade scenarios a bit more realistic to have an idea of what position/type the trading team may be seeking in common with the other teams in-between.

As before, I'm not getting into that level of analysis here, but it IS something to keep in mind when thinking about these trades - the "Why would they do this? Who would they realistically be trading up to get?". Trades don't happen in a vacuum and teams don't trade up on some general principle that they'll "get a better player".

So, this is merely a listing of the mathematically reasonable deals. "Do-able" deals are bolded. Unlikely deals are greyed-out.

----------
ALL TRADES BASED ON "STANDARD VALUE CHART" VALUES, and are equivalent to within 5% or less (the historical average). The PATS' #29 values at 640, so a trade for between 608 and 672 would be within bounds.
----------

>>> HOU NOW HAS 11 TOTAL PICKS. Currently, they also have both the first pick overall, AND the last pick overall. This deal leaves them with 7 picks after the 1st round.
--- #33 (580) + #141/5th (36) + #177/6th (22) = 638

WAS has no 1st-rounder and this deal would get them one, but leave them with only the #29 plus a 3rd and a 4th.
#34 (560) + #142/5th (35) + #178/6th (21) + #217/7th (6) = 622

>>> CLE HAS NINE PICKS, including two 1st-rounders. This deal would give them a 3rd 1st-rounder and still leave them with 4 picks after that, including two 3rds and a 4th.
--- #35 (550) + #106/4th (82) + #217/7th (5) = 637

OAK IS DOWN TO 6 PICKS (after trading for Schaub). A deal is mathematically possible - the Pats trade the #29 + #93 (late-3rd) + both 6th-rounders for the Raiders' #36 + #67 (top of 3rd), but I don't see that as advantageous for the Pats, since they have five picks in the top 140 with or without the deal. With this deal, the Pats lose two picks.

>>> ATL NOW HAS 10 TOTAL PICKS. This deal still leaves them with 6 more picks, including a 3rd, 4th and 5th.
--- #37 (530) + #103/4th (88) + #182/6th (20) = 638

>>> TBY IS UP TO 6 PICKS TOTAL (after trading Mike Williams for a 6th-rounder). With the deal below, they'd have the #29, but, already having no 3rd-rounder, they wouldn't draft again until #143 and have only one 7th-rounder after that. OTOH, while in Chicago, Lovie often sacrificed pick quantity to move up.
--- #38 (520) + #104/4th (86) + #185/6th (18) = 624.

>>> JAX NOW HAS 11 PICKS (after trading Gabbert to SFO). This deal would give them the #29, and they'd still have six picks left - at least one in every round but the 2nd.
--- #39 (510) + #105/4th (84) + #144/5th (34) = 628

>>> MIN HAS 8 PICKS. This deal would still leave them with a 3rd, a 4th, 2 6ths and a 7th. The Pats only gain one pick, but still move a virtual 7th-rounder for a mid-5th-rounder.
--- #40 (500) + #96/3rd (116) + #148/5th (32) = 648 <> 650 = #29 + #206/6th

??? BUF IS DOWN TO 6 TOTAL PICKS (after trading for Mike Williams). The deal would be similar to the Raiders' deal above, except that the Pats would be getting the #41 + #73 (3rd) + #109 (4th) for the #29 + #93 + both 6ths. The Pats lose one pick, but end up with six picks in the top 140. Maybe.

TEN - Their entire draft (5 picks total) after their 1st-rounder is worth 602 while the Pats #29 alone is worth 640. The Pats might take it and give the 38-point discount, but I don't see the Titans going for broke on one pick.

>>> NYG ADDED A 5TH-RND COMP. The Giants actually gain a pick on the deal and end up with 2 4ths, 2 5ths, 2 6ths and a 7th. The Pats lose a late pick, but move a late-4th for an early 3rd.
--- #43 (470) + #74/3rd (220) = 690 <> 682 = #29 (640) + # 130/4th (42) + #206/6th (10)

>>> STL - 10 PICKS TOTAL and still have 6 picks after this deal. The Pats again move a 4th for a 3rd and pick up an extra 7th-rounder.
--- #44 (460) + #75/3rd (215) + #226/7th (3) = 678 <> 682 = #29 (640) + #130/4th (42)

>>> DET - 8 PICKS TOTAL. This deal takes them down to 5 picks after the 1st-round, but four of those are 4th-rounders.
--- #45 (450) + #76/3rd (210) + #189/6th (17) = 687 <> 682 = #29 (640) + #130/4th (42)

PIT HAS 8 PICKS, after their 1st-rounder, but their tradeable picks total up to 546. Not happening.

>>> DAL NOW HAS 11 PICKS. Of the 'Boys ten picks after the 1st round, five are 7th-rounders (3 comps). After the deal, they still have a 4th, 5th, 6th and those three comp-7ths.
--- #47 (430) + #78/3rd (200) + #229/7th (3) + #231/7th (2) = 635

>>> BAL DOUBLED THEIR PICK COUNT WITH COMPS, from 4 to 8. After the deal, they still have a 3rd, two 4ths and a 5th.
--- #48 (420) + #79/3rd (195) + #194/6th (15) = 630

??? NYJ NOW HAS 12 PICKS, having hauled in 4 comps, including a 4th and 3 6ths. I still very much doubt that Woody Johnson would agree to a trade with BB, unless he thought he was making BB his bitch somehow. Anyway, the deal below leaves the Jets with a 3rd, a 4th, 4 6ths and a 7th.
--- #49 (410) + #80/3rd (190) + #154/5th (31) = 631

MIA still has only 6 picks after the 1st round. This deal would leave them with four, but no pick between #29 and #155/5th.
--- #50 (400) + #81/3rd (185) + #116/4th (62) = 647 <> 650 = #29 (640) + #206/6th (10)

CHI, like the 'Fins above, has only 6 picks after their 1st and would be trading their entire mid-draft to move up.
--- #51 (390) + #82/3rd (180) + #117/4th (60) = 630

ARZ has only five picks after their 1st-rounder that total 646. Not happening.

>>> GBY has 8 picks after their 1st-rounder (#21). The Pats would be giving a fairly substantial point discount in the deal below, but be gaining 3 picks in the mid-rounds. The Packers would be left with a 3rd (comp), a 5th (comp), a 6th and a 7th.
--- #53 (370) + #85/3rd (165) + #121/4th (52) + #161/5th (28) = 615

------ This is the likely cutoff point now. ------

PHL (#22 in the 1st), after trading for Sproles, has only 5 picks after their 1st-rounder, totaling 597. More likely looking to trade down themselves.

CIN (#24 in the 1st) has 8 picks after their 1st-rounder, but the 6 tradeable picks add up to only 591. Not happening.

After this, there's:
SDG - #25, 7 picks total
CLE - #26 (discussed above)
NOL - #27, 7 picks total
CAR - #28, 6 picks total

and then:
SFO - #30, 12 picks total (possible trade partner later in the draft)
DEN - #31, 7 picks total
SEA - #32, 7 picks total

Excluded:
KCY has no 2nd-rounder and only 6 picks total.
IND has no 1st-rounder and their 6 total picks add up to only 489.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Awesome work MM!

+11teen.

What's your favorite trade option?

 

[MaineMan]

Awesome work MM!

+11teen.

What's your favorite trade option?

Well, I'm not sure that I'd personally want to trade down below #40 (MIN).

Oddly enough, though, some of the later deals - including GBY (#53) - would then provide the ammo to move UP in the 2nd from the #63 in a trade with PIT, ARZ or one of the other pick-poor teams. I'm pretty sure that one of the considerations for BB, which I haven't gone into, is what kind of leverage a deal for the #29 gives him for moving around in the mid-rounds afterward.

BB currently has three picks in the top 100 and five in the top 140. If he can find a way to engineer that into 5 or 6 picks between, say, #45 and #110, he'll probably do it.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Well, I'm not sure that I'd personally want to trade down below #40 (MIN).

Oddly enough, though, some of the later deals - including GBY (#53) - would then provide the ammo to move UP in the 2nd from the #63 in a trade with PIT, ARZ or one of the other pick-poor teams. I'm pretty sure that one of the considerations for BB, which I haven't gone into, is what kind of leverage a deal for the #29 gives him for moving around in the mid-rounds afterward.

BB currently has three picks in the top 100 and five in the top 140. If he can find a way to engineer that into 5 or 6 picks between, say, #45 and #110, he'll probably do it.

I'd hope so.

That seems to be the wheelhouse of this draft.

 

[Pneumonic]

I don't care how BB arranges the draft picks ultimately. I just hope he drafts guys who have a realistic shot at making this team. I went over the roster the other day and count 43 for sure players. So, 10 open spots .... not including guys like Wendell, Bequette, T Wilson, Chung and ST's contributors Ebner and Beauharness. Nor does it include any new FA's (ie W Smith) that the Pats might still acquire.

 

[foobahl]

I think I would try to move on the Atlanta deal. BB may even get a chance to move the #37 for a different 2nd and possibly a 3rd or low fourth.

 

[MaineMan]

I think I would try to move on the Atlanta deal. BB may even get a chance to move the #37 for a different 2nd and possibly a 3rd or low fourth.

Trading down from #37 to

#39 (JAX) nets a 6th
#40 (MIN) nets a 5th
#41 (BUF) nets a 5th + a 7th
#42 (TEN) nets a 5th + a 6th
#43 (NYG) nets a 4th (minus a 6th in change)
#44 (STL) nets a 4th
#45 (DET) nets a 4th + a 7th
#46 (PIT) nets a 4th + a 5th
#47 (DAL) nets 4th + a 5th + a 6th
#48 (BAL) nets a 3rd (minus the #88/4th received from ATL)
#49 (NYJ) nets a 4th + a 5th + a 6th
#50 (MIA) nets a 3rd (minus #130/4th + #198/6th)
#51 (CHI) nets a 3rd (minus #130/4th)
#52 (ARZ) nets a 3rd (minus #198/6th + #244/7th)
#53 (GBY) nets a 3rd even up

So, you start getting 4th-rounders at #44, but you don't see a 3rd free-and-clear until #53, which is getting pretty late in the 2nd, it seems to me.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I'm still convinced the trade scenario revolves around Houston.

I see them taking Clowney.

And then, hopefully, the QB they are most enamored with, Bortles, is still there at 29. I can see them viewing their potential franchise QB sitting there and giving up their 2 and 4 for him.

And then I hope they don't get as good as they could be too soon.

 

[Hawg73]

I'm still convinced the trade scenario revolves around Houston.

I see them taking Clowney.

And then, hopefully, the QB they are most enamored with, Bortles, is still there at 29. I can see them viewing their potential franchise QB sitting there and giving up their 2 and 4 for him.

And then I hope they don't get as good as they could be too soon.

I don't think any of the top 4, Bridgewater, Manziel, Bortles and Carr last until 29. I just can't see any of these guys, who are likely viewed as franchise QBs by somebody, will get skipped as often as would be necessary. I expect the first two to go somewhere in the top dozen with Bortles and Carr slipping a bit.

I figure such a trade won't work unless Houston really wants Garropollo or one of the other tier-2 guys, otherwise they can't chance it.

I agree that Clowney will go at 1, whether it is Houston or somebody else. It's very possible, imo, that Bill O'B, being a very old-school hardass, is not looking forward to coaching a superstar with possible work ethic issues and will drop down a bit to take a safer guy, but somebody will get him at 1.

Somebody is going to watch him do the patented Clowney jump, swat and go to either side that nobody can handle and fall completely in love. It's an extraordinary ability that should be nearly as effective in the NFL as it was prior to last season. Clowney isn't just an edge rusher. He's a beast with brilliant quicks and speed.

 

[foobahl]

Trading down from #37 to

#39 (JAX) nets a 6th
#40 (MIN) nets a 5th
#41 (BUF) nets a 5th + a 7th
#42 (TEN) nets a 5th + a 6th
#43 (NYG) nets a 4th (minus a 6th in change)
#44 (STL) nets a 4th
#45 (DET) nets a 4th + a 7th
#46 (PIT) nets a 4th + a 5th
#47 (DAL) nets 4th + a 5th + a 6th
#48 (BAL) nets a 3rd (minus the #88/4th received from ATL)
#49 (NYJ) nets a 4th + a 5th + a 6th
#50 (MIA) nets a 3rd (minus #130/4th + #198/6th)
#51 (CHI) nets a 3rd (minus #130/4th)
#52 (ARZ) nets a 3rd (minus #198/6th + #244/7th)
#53 (GBY) nets a 3rd even up

So, you start getting 4th-rounders at #44, but you don't see a 3rd free-and-clear until #53, which is getting pretty late in the 2nd, it seems to me.

Wow, just wow. You spend way more time than I do on this, or you have some sort of algorithm (sp) already set up. Either way, touché. How about trading into 1st round next year? Is there some sort of VC for that?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I don't think any of the top 4, Bridgewater, Manziel, Bortles and Carr last until 29. I just can't see any of these guys, who are likely viewed as franchise QBs by somebody, will get skipped as often as would be necessary. I expect the first two to go somewhere in the top dozen with Bortles and Carr slipping a bit.

I figure such a trade won't work unless Houston really wants Garropollo or one of the other tier-2 guys, otherwise they can't chance it.

I agree that Clowney will go at 1, whether it is Houston or somebody else. It's very possible, imo, that Bill O'B, being a very old-school hardass, is not looking forward to coaching a superstar with possible work ethic issues and will drop down a bit to take a safer guy, but somebody will get him at 1.

Somebody is going to watch him do the patented Clowney jump, swat and go to either side that nobody can handle and fall completely in love. It's an extraordinary ability that should be nearly as effective in the NFL as it was prior to last season. Clowney isn't just an edge rusher. He's a beast with brilliant quicks and speed.

See I just think QB gets WAY over drafted. Regardless of need. Just because you REALLY need one doesn't make the draftee any better.

I'd have SERIOUS reservations of all the listed guys if I needed a QB and I held a top 15 pick. None of them have given me the impression of a true stand up franchise guy . That is only compounded with the availability of all these legit blue chippers available at the top.

The correct play IMO for all the QB needy teams is to take the blue chip talent at the top and sift thru the wreckage late 1st early 2nd for QB.

These guys all seem Gabbert/Ponder. That does you zero good. It's actually equivalent to the 3 pt swing in hockey, because not only did you not get a very good QB, you passed on a blue chip positional guy to fill one of the many holes you have. This why you're picking at the top to begin with.

 

[MaineMan]

Wow, just wow. You spend way more time than I do on this, or you have some sort of algorithm (sp) already set up. Either way, touché. How about trading into 1st round next year? Is there some sort of VC for that?

Actually, my ultra-sophisticated mathematical tool is just an Excel spreadsheet with each team's picks listed in rows with the chart value for each pick listed in the adjacent column, with the whole thing sorted by 2nd-round pick order. It's pretty easy, then, to just use a new column and start at the top (in this case, with JAX, lower down the list) and type in a formula to add cell I8 + cell AE8, and then copypasta that down the column. Of course, then I have to go back and make adjustments to the formula, but still, the whole process probably doesn't take much more time than it did to type this explanation.

Frankly, I think Excel is the most useful (possibly the ONLY useful) piece of software that MS has ever published.

WRT BB trading a pick into next year...

First, never say "never" wrt BB and the draft.
Second, with a lot of solid talent in his particular draft class that happens to coincide with positions where the Pats seem pretty thin, I'm guessing that BB trades for as many picks in this draft as he can get - at least at first. If things go very well and he gets the guys he wants in the 2nd and 3rd, he might trade a 4th into 2015.

The common practice among teams trading a current pick for a future pick has been to receive a one-round premium. IOW, a 2014 4th gets you a 2015 3rd. Beyond that, though, I've never seen any standardized numerical values for such trades - which would be kind of impossible since the numeric value of that future pick is determined by the order of finish in a season that has yet to be played. For my own use in temporary rough figuring, I use the numeric value for the middle pick in the round being received, so a future 2nd-rounder (for a 3rd) is "worth" 410 points. Still, it seems to me that the actual point value of that pick (determined at the end of the season) should be discounted by some factor to account for the year delay. I just haven't come up with a satisfactory (to me) formula for that.

In any case, BB usually gets great value for trades into the following draft. Since he's almost always drafting near the end of each round, the odds are very high that the future pick will be earlier than the Pats' own pick.

In the past, this has worked out extremely well at times. In 2010, BB traded his #89 (late 3rd round) to Carolina for their 2011 2nd-rounder. The Panthers face-planted in the 2010 season (worst record overall), so the 2011 2nd turned out to be the #33 (which BB then blew on drafting Ras-I Dowling).

BB has also frequently traded his 1st-rounder for a future pick. Of course, there is no "next round higher", but, again, since his 1st-rounders are so late in the round, the 1st rounder received has always been higher, and he's sometimes received a later pick in the current draft as part of the deal. In the 2007 draft, BB traded his #28 to the Niners for their 2008 1st plus a 2007 4th. He then traded the 2007 4th to the Raiders for Randy Moss, and the Niners' 2008 1st turned out to be the #8 overall, which eventually became Jerod Mayo (and, unfortunately, Shawn Crable). Having the Niners' 2008 1st was made even more consequential by the fact that Goodell confiscated the Pats own 2008 1st-rounder (would have been #31) as part of his penalty for "Spygate".

I seriously doubt that anything like this happens this draft. I agree with the general common feeling that this draft is about "right now" rather than future competitive advantages. However, if BB does trade this year's #29 for a 2015 1st-rounder, that would speak volumes about how confident he is in the current roster's competitiveness (and/or what he thinks of the quality of the 2014 draft class compared to next year's).

 

[imapig]

I want to trade up or keep the first pick. I hate trading out of the first round... It is a known fact the further down the board you go the chances of landing a starter or pro bowl talent gets harder. We need a sure fire studd on the defensive line. If you need to trade at least wait till the 2nd round for Godsakes...

 

[Hawg73]

See I just think QB gets WAY over drafted. Regardless of need. Just because you REALLY need one doesn't make the draftee any better.

I'd have SERIOUS reservations of all the listed guys if I needed a QB and I held a top 15 pick. None of them have given me the impression of a true stand up franchise guy . That is only compounded with the availability of all these legit blue chippers available at the top.

The correct play IMO for all the QB needy teams is to take the blue chip talent at the top and sift thru the wreckage late 1st early 2nd for QB.

These guys all seem Gabbert/Ponder. That does you zero good. It's actually equivalent to the 3 pt swing in hockey, because not only did you not get a very good QB, you passed on a blue chip positional guy to fill one of the many holes you have. This why you're picking at the top to begin with.

I'd agree with the Gabbert/Ponder comparison if you're talking about Bortles and Carr, but I think a lot of people are missing the fact that Teddy and Johnny simply played much better than the other guys. They elevated their team on multiple occasions and led, genuinely led them to beat teams that they probably shouldn't.

This is a big part of why I think they'll both be excellent in the NFL: Manziel waltzed in as a Freshman and beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa. He never blinked or seemed overwhelmed by any challenge he had to face. Very talented and extremely mentally tough. I don't believe he will ever get mentally whipped by any opponent in the NFL. What did Gabbert and Ponder ever do that compared to what he did or what Bridgewater did in whipping a vastly superior Florida Gators team in their 2013 bowl game?

In that one Teddy threw every kind of pass conceivable with great field vision, pocket smarts and accuracy and simply drove a much larger D loaded with pro prospects crazy. Louisville should have lost by 4 scores. Bridgewater carried them. He was a college version of Brady. Anybody that thinks he can't play because of a lousy pro day should watch that game and get back to me.

Louisville once had another QB who wasn't that tall, had a non-athletic body and wasn't supposed to have a cannon for an arm, but that guy, John Unitas, did allright for himself.

Those are just two specific examples similar to what a rookie QB in the NFL must face: overcoming a more talented opponent and getting it done despite a mismatch. Both have done it brilliantly, if imperfectly.

You want a prototype guy with a rocket arm who is tall and knows how to play the pre-draft process to his advantage to look good for scouts who are afraid of anybody that isn't cookie cutter perfect?

Plenty of them do. That's why the two guys you mentioned were way over-drafted. They fit a mold.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I'd agree with the Gabbert/Ponder comparison if you're talking about Bortles and Carr, but I think a lot of people are missing the fact that Teddy and Johnny simply played much better than the other guys. They elevated their team on multiple occasions and led, genuinely led them to beat teams that they probably shouldn't.

This is a big part of why I think they'll both be excellent in the NFL: Manziel waltzed in as a Freshman and beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa. He never blinked or seemed overwhelmed by any challenge he had to face. Very talented and extremely mentally tough. I don't believe he will ever get mentally whipped by any opponent in the NFL. What did Gabbert and Ponder ever do that compared to what he did or what Bridgewater did in whipping a vastly superior Florida Gators team in their 2013 bowl game?

In that one Teddy threw every kind of pass conceivable with great field vision, pocket smarts and accuracy and simply drove a much larger D loaded with pro prospects crazy. Louisville should have lost by 4 scores. Bridgewater carried them. He was a college version of Brady. Anybody that thinks he can't play because of a lousy pro day should watch that game and get back to me.

Louisville once had another QB who wasn't that tall, had a non-athletic body and wasn't supposed to have a cannon for an arm, but that guy, John Unitas, did allright for himself.

Those are just two specific examples similar to what a rookie QB in the NFL must face: overcoming a more talented opponent and getting it done despite a mismatch. Both have done it brilliantly, if imperfectly.

You want a prototype guy with a rocket arm who is tall and knows how to play the pre-draft process to his advantage to look good for scouts who are afraid of anybody that isn't cookie cutter perfect?

Plenty of them do. That's why the two guys you mentioned were way over-drafted. They fit a mold.

All of which plays to my scenario.

I agree Bridgewater is my fav in this draft. And for all his quirks and red flags Johnny Football seems to have the stones. But I could easily see Bortles, Carr, Garrapolo and more drop to the end of the 1st.

But neither would unseat Clowney at the top of my board if I were Houston. With him they have a shot at being truly phenomenal on D. Allowing them the chance to take more of a game manager with some potential upside at 33 or even better up at 29 with the trade.