Just take a look at some of the top draft trades in history and ask yourselves who got the better deal. The way picks are valued in a trade seems to favor trading down in almost every scenario. Add that the Giants are in an extremely sought after position to grab a QB, and the fact that we have many holes to fill. Lastly consider that the best teams are built from the draft.
The biggest question I have is, why not?
Top draft trades - (
New Window )
Corrected link - ( New Window )
2. There are non-QB's at positions of need also worth the #2 pick if we decide not to draft a QB
The only scenario I am okay with trading down is moving back a few spots and targeting Nelson
If it were such a bad strategy, history would back up that claim with examples. Who did Cleveland pass on for their trades? Personally, though it didn't translate into wins, I thought Cleveland had the best draft last year
If it were such a bad strategy, history would back up that claim with examples. Who did Cleveland pass on for their trades? Personally, though it didn't translate into wins, I thought Cleveland had the best draft last year
I agree with you but you’re gonna get a lot of pushback from the posters married to Barkley/Rosen/Darnold.
This is such a tired example. The Browns have failed with their picks both trading down and not trading down. The failure is in who they picked not the act of trading down.
Linky - ( New Window )
No, it isn't supporting evidence, it is an article that you think supports your preconceived idea. It's called confirmational bias.
Trading down is the right call in certain situations and not in others. It is not a scientific truth that it is either fright or wrong that can be determined universally. If you like trading down - great. That's an opinion which is just as valid as staying put.
Either way, DG has a tough decision.
If it were such a bad strategy, history would back up that claim with examples. Who did Cleveland pass on for their trades? Personally, though it didn't translate into wins, I thought Cleveland had the best draft last year
Falcons traded up for Julio Jones.
Browns got ATL 1st, 2nd, and 5th and 1st and 4th the next year to go from 27 to 5.
Cleveland traded down out of 27 again.
I'd type who the Browns wound up with but basically it was poor. Greg Little, Brandon Weeden, etc.
Also, another case where trading down didn't work.
Patriots, 2009, they traded out of spots where the picks were Michael Oher and Clay Matthews, to Patrick Chung, Ron Brace, Darius Butler, and Sebastian Vollmer.
there are many more cases where trading down backfired.
The trade down strategy is only as good as the draft picks made.
And for the record Pat Shurmer was the Browns head coach when they traded UP a spot and gave up three picks (not high value picks, but still) to take Trent Richardson.
The fact that you think there is "evidence" to support either side is the problem, Tim. None of those trades were the same as the Giant's current situation. But if it makes you feel better, we'll all agree you proved every team should trade down in all situations to get more picks. So weird that every GM doesn't fight to do this based on your "evidence."
Didn't last years SB team just trade up for wentz? How'd that work out?
And while there's good and poor talent evaluation, there's no such thing as perfect evaluation. This is demonstrated every draft season. Increasing the number of picks a team gets, increases the probability of adding the greatest number of productive players.
When exceptional players are added to a team do they change the ability of the team, or are they more of catalyst for talent already on the team? A cherry on top? Certainly there are also plenty of examples of extraordinary talents who get stuck on crappy teams with records that remain dismal despite having these talents.
Didn't last years SB team just trade up for wentz? How'd that work out?
Tim doesn't want to hear you changing the subject. Look at his evidence!!!
And while there's good and poor talent evaluation, there's no such thing as perfect evaluation. This is demonstrated every draft season. Increasing the number of picks a team gets, increases the probability of adding the greatest number of productive players.
When exceptional players are added to a team do they change the ability of the team, or are they more of catalyst for talent already on the team? A cherry on top? Certainly there are also plenty of examples of extraordinary talents who get stuck on crappy teams with records that remain dismal despite having these talents.
In addition the Pats are usually drafting near the bottom of the 1st round, yet somehow they draft good players.
They're just better coached/prepared, you don't see many players leave the Patriots and have success elsewhere, do you?
and they're not known for dishing out high $$$ second/third contracts.
I wouldn't use them as a measuring stick for anything, they're very unique.
Giving that opportunity away for lesser players does not compute, especially if you acknowledge this team probably isn't a contender in 2018.
If you feel there's no player worth picking at #2, you won't agree with the take. If you prescribe to drafting down to rebuild the OL "now", you won't agree with the take. But, there's approx six blue chippers in this draft and then the talent falls off, according to most draftniks who have some level of plugged in.
This.
Seattle won that trade by a wide margin.