|
|
Quote: |
Using past trades as a guide, here are five potential deals the Giants could make if they trade back from No. 11: 1. There aren’t any examples of a team trading back from No. 11 in the past 10 years, but there’s a very close parallel for a potential Patriots-Giants swap for a quarterback in the recent past. The Raiders traded the 10th pick in 2018 to the Cardinals in exchange for the 15th pick, a third-round pick (No. 79) and a fifth-round pick (No. 152). Arizona then selected Josh Rosen, who was the fourth quarterback off the board. The Raiders picked left tackle Kolton Miller at No. 15. Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15, a third-round pick (96) and a fourth-round pick (139); Patriots get No. 11 2. A similar trade occurred in 2011 when Washington sent the 10th pick to the Jaguars for the 16th pick and a second-round pick (No. 49). The Jaguars moved up for Blaine Gabbert, who was the third quarterback selected. Washington picked defensive end Ryan Kerrigan at No. 16. Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15 and a second-round pick (46); Patriots get No. 11 and a fourth-round pick (116) 3. Trades involving quarterbacks tend to raise the stakes, but here’s another data point from the 2012 draft for consideration: The Seahawks traded the 12th pick to the Eagles for No. 15, a fourth-round pick (114) and a sixth-round pick (172). The Eagles then picked defensive tackle Fletcher Cox. The Seahawks picked defensive end Bruce Irvin at No. 15. Proposed trade: Giants get No. 15, a fourth-round pick (120) and a fifth-round pick (177); Patriots get No. 11 4. Over the past decade, the only other trade involving a pick near No. 11 centered around a quarterback occurred in 2017. The Bills traded the 10th pick to the Chiefs for No. 27, a third-round pick (No. 91) and a 2018 first-round pick. The Chiefs, of course, selected future MVP Patrick Mahomes with the 10th pick. The Bills picked cornerback Tre’Davious White at No. 27. They then used the 2018 first-round pick as part of a package to move up to take quarterback Josh Allen at No. 7 in 2018. It would be surprising for Gettleman to drop so many picks in his first trade back. But perhaps he could be persuaded by an additional first-round pick if the Saints, who pick 28th, are determined to move up to find a long-term replacement for Drew Brees. Proposed trade: Giants get No. 28, a third-round pick (98) and a 2022 first-round pick; Saints get No. 11 5. There aren’t any recent examples of a team trading up from No. 20 to the 11th pick range for a quarterback. But in 2019, the Broncos traded the 10th pick to the Steelers for the 20th pick, a second-round pick (No. 52) and a 2020 third-round pick. The Steelers took linebacker Devin Bush with the 10th pick. The Broncos picked tight end Noah Fant at No. 20. Proposed trade: Giants get No. 20, a second-round pick (52) and a 2022 third-round pick; Bears get No. 11 |
In that case they *must* trade back. Even an extra third is better value than staying put and picking a non-WR (other than Sewell falling). But, hopefully they can get an extra second. But, if the above are the choices, I would rather not lose a pick to get the second, so I probably do trade #1. Depends on how desperate the Patriots are.
My 2 cents. All depends who is on the board when we are on the clock at 11.
This, to put it bluntly, sucks. Two day three picks to trade down. Could they throw in some used “K” balls as well.
And, of course, there has to be a player at 11 that other teams really want and are afraid will be drafted before they pick.
I really hope it falls that way, will drive up demand and there are a lot of QB hungry teams in the back of the draft. If we can trade down and still be in the teens, and land an extra 2nd that would huge. We can get an Edge at 1, then OL and WR in the 2nd where the value will be strong. Hope it plays out that way.
I know so many of us say the talent at 11 is better BUT, there a number of players- QB's, RB's, S's, DT's and probably even OT's that we aren't picking in the first round period. So it comes down to where we have our targets valued at and what we think we can get for a move down while still getting the player or players we want.
This, to put it bluntly, sucks. Two day three picks to trade down. Could they throw in some used “K” balls as well.
I would agree. I really don’t care what the value chart says - if the Pats (in this example) want 11 for their QB then make them pay for it. Some mid round picks don’t do anything for me.
Would you rather,
A) Get a 3rd (96) and a 4th (139), or
B) Get a 2nd (46), but lose your 4th (116)
For Option A - I could see Edge in Round 1, a LB in the 2nd and possibly banking on depth in the OL and WR class to get extra options there in the 3rd and 4th, or maybe package some picks together to move up.
For Option B - Basically trading in your 4th for a 2nd, take an Edge in the 1st, and two high quality players in the 2nd, depending on who falls.
The Pats don't have a 3rd round pick.
The Pats don't have a 3rd round pick.
Yes they do. Compensatory pick.
True. But you'd have to be willing to drop down to #20. Not sure if the Giants are keen on that.
Quote:
The Pats don't have a 3rd round pick.
Yes they do. Compensatory pick.
My mistake. They forfeited 77, forgot about the comp pick which would have been 97 but because of the forfeited pick is 96.
1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Waddle
3) Surtain/Horn/Paye/Parsons/Ojulari
Even at 15, you are practically into the next tier 4, so it better be worth while missing out on tier 3. Anything beyond 15 would be nuts not including another 1st (or 2). Even at 15, I would be shocked if the Pats 2nd got them there, especially with QBs in play.
It takes two to tango, but then it also only takes one to get desperate.
Well Marino was taken 27th (I know the drug rumors)
Quote:
Let him sit for a year under Sean Peyton's coaching. Mills has all the tools necessary to be a very good QB in the NFL.
Well Marino was taken 27th (I know the drug rumors)
Plus he sucked at a QB. Never won a SB.
1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Waddle
3) Surtain/Horn/Paye/Parsons/Ojulari
Even at 15, you are practically into the next tier 4, so it better be worth while missing out on tier 3. Anything beyond 15 would be nuts not including another 1st (or 2). Even at 15, I would be shocked if the Pats 2nd got them there, especially with QBs in play.
You have 10 players. 5 QBs would be top 15. Plus you're missing Slater who's likely top 10. Darrisaw might be top 15 as well.
Quote:
If you believe these tiers (excluding Farley/Philips due to medicals)
1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Waddle
3) Surtain/Horn/Paye/Parsons/Ojulari
Even at 15, you are practically into the next tier 4, so it better be worth while missing out on tier 3. Anything beyond 15 would be nuts not including another 1st (or 2). Even at 15, I would be shocked if the Pats 2nd got them there, especially with QBs in play.
You have 10 players. 5 QBs would be top 15. Plus you're missing Slater who's likely top 10. Darrisaw might be top 15 as well.
I hear you - but I don't see any of Det/Car/Den/Dal going Slater/Darrisaw over the available tier 2 and tier 3 guys. Everybody has Oline as a need, but no one is desperate.
Quote:
In comment 15218354 Rick in Dallas said:
Quote:
Let him sit for a year under Sean Peyton's coaching. Mills has all the tools necessary to be a very good QB in the NFL.
Well Marino was taken 27th (I know the drug rumors)
Plus he sucked at a QB. Never won a SB.
Exactly!
If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.
Agreed, makes no sense to drop for anything less IMO.
If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.
Well scenario #2 happened and it was for a 2. The 1st have a bit wider gap but the precedence is there. And you have to consider that no one is making us trade the pick - you are allowed to set a price and choose not to execute on a lesser offer which is what I would do if it were me. I would not take a 3rd and change to drop back to 15 and allow the best coach in football to get his QB - he should have to pay a premium for that and based on other shitty trades Belichick has made, it isn't far fetched.
Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.
I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.
Quote:
apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.
If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.
Well scenario #2 happened and it was for a 2. The 1st have a bit wider gap but the precedence is there. And you have to consider that no one is making us trade the pick - you are allowed to set a price and choose not to execute on a lesser offer which is what I would do if it were me. I would not take a 3rd and change to drop back to 15 and allow the best coach in football to get his QB - he should have to pay a premium for that and based on other shitty trades Belichick has made, it isn't far fetched.
And it is fine to say that at that offer I wouldn’t make the trade. My point is that there is no reason to expect that the Giants can somehow get more than what is in those trades.
Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.
I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.
How do you know we’ve asked too much? Maybe teams were not offering enough, that is low-balling us?
Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.
I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.
Yeh the tone here doesn't make any sense. Especially if the Giants are looking at a flat pool of players with an almost guaranteed probability of one of them being their at the pick. Sure take that tone with the other team early in the negotiation but walking away from a deal that will help your team just so that you can definitively win the trade is silly.
Quote:
excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."
Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.
I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.
How do you know we’ve asked too much? Maybe teams were not offering enough, that is low-balling us?
We haven't traded down since Accorsi did for Kiwi. Reese never traded down. DG never has either, although in all fairness, he was apparently going to do so if McKinney wasn't on the board. Has everybody been "low balling" us, and for well more than a decade?
Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.
I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.
Those are my words, not Reese or Gettelmans. There are many factors and having 5 guys you like still on the board is certainly a big one of them but I tend to think the actual Giants board has bigger gaps between players than people think. If Surtain is at 11 with an 85 grade and the next handful of guys they like are all around 80, to me that's a significant drop, and would equate to a lower likelihood of getting an all pro caliber player.
Add in that those mid round picks are such a crap shoot and it just isn't something I'd take over getting what I think will be the elite player.
I really don't see how you can say that not trading down is a mistake, and one we repeat over and over. Lots of teams doing it wrong I guess.
The only reason not to is you didn't set up your board fairly.
Quote:
excessive demands to trade down is the main reason why we haven't done so since Accorsi drafted Kiwi. We simply ask for too much. "I'm not trading down unless I get a second round pick," "day three picks do nothing for me," or "they're trading up for a QB so they need to pay a premium."
Depending on who is on the board, I'd trade down for a third or a fourth and a fifth. We only have six picks, and are still starved for talent at many positions. Good teams find valuable players on day three.
I'm picking up the phone no matter who is on the board. If Sewell is somehow available, then yes, it is extremely unlikely that I would trade down. I'd be a little more likely to do so if Smith is available because his thin frame is concerning. Same for Surtain. But I'd love to trade down if they are all gone, especially since in that situation we'd likely be faced with is over drafting an EDGE at #11.
Those are my words, not Reese or Gettelmans. There are many factors and having 5 guys you like still on the board is certainly a big one of them but I tend to think the actual Giants board has bigger gaps between players than people think. If Surtain is at 11 with an 85 grade and the next handful of guys they like are all around 80, to me that's a significant drop, and would equate to a lower likelihood of getting an all pro caliber player.
Add in that those mid round picks are such a crap shoot and it just isn't something I'd take over getting what I think will be the elite player.
I know those are your words.
My point is not that the Giants should necessarily trade down this year. As I said, let's see who's on the board when we're on the clock. My point is that we haven't traded down in any round since 2006. The Giants have completely eliminated a viable strategy to improve the team. Their denials to the contrary are as disingenuous as they are predictable.
And please don't make the assumptions that the 2 guys you want are magically going to be there 4 picks later. If it ever leaked that our GM did that and lost his guy there would be years of threads dedicated to the blunder.
This article is about trading up but the principles are the same.
https://overthecap.com/trading-up-to-draft-stars/ - ( New Window )
I read it correctly. I agree that it CAN be a useful strategy and I'm open to a trade down. My problem as its being painted as a glaring deficiency in not just the Giants draft strategy, but apparently any team that doesn't trade down.
Its one of many ways to do things, that's it.
The only reason not to is you didn't set up your board fairly.
So theoretical question here based on what I think you are saying (and apologies if I am oversimplifying it).
The Giants are on the clock at #11, and they have 4 guys left in their top tier with an 85 grade. A team at #15 reaches out and offers a 6th round pick to swap spots and won't budge off it. Since you will still get a guy rated an 85 with pick #15, you go ahead and make that deal?
Quote:
.
I read it correctly. I agree that it CAN be a useful strategy and I'm open to a trade down. My problem as its being painted as a glaring deficiency in not just the Giants draft strategy, but apparently any team that doesn't trade down.
Its one of many ways to do things, that's it.
Agree. Not a glaring deficiency of Giants albeit fair to question at some level when they have struggled rebuilding the roster in their other manners.
The only reason not to is you didn't set up your board fairly.
Can you please explain what this means? “The only reason not to is you didn’t set up your board fairly”. What does that mean? What’s a fairly set up board look like? And why is it that if they don’t trade down it automatically means they didn’t set their board up fairly? Are they supposed to focus on setting up their board in a way they don’t believe just to accommodate talking themselves into trading down, to make the board fair?
Quote:
If the pool of players with similar grade on your board is about equal to the drop in draft position, then make the deal and take the extra picks.
The only reason not to is you didn't set up your board fairly.
So theoretical question here based on what I think you are saying (and apologies if I am oversimplifying it).
The Giants are on the clock at #11, and they have 4 guys left in their top tier with an 85 grade. A team at #15 reaches out and offers a 6th round pick to swap spots and won't budge off it. Since you will still get a guy rated an 85 with pick #15, you go ahead and make that deal?
Ha, fair example Mike. I probably oversimplified with "extra picks". I would say I would probably rather have the optionality than the extra 6th which is unlikely to be a guy who won't impact my team. I am also sure somebody on my coaching staff would scream that one of the positional units of the 85-rated guys is in flux and needs a certain player badly!
The calculus obviously changes if the extra pick was a 3rd round or two 4th rounds and the hit rates improve.
This article is about trading up but the principles are the same. https://overthecap.com/trading-up-to-draft-stars/ - ( New Window )
+1.
Quote:
that it's Judge's show around here. I don't believe for a minute that DG would trade back on his own.
So if they don't trade back, does that mean Gettleman has total authority without regard for anyone else's opinion?
No, that's not as conclusive, IMO. It could be that Judge and Gettleman are in agreement on the player/value at 11 and stay. But, DG has never traded down. He seems (anecdotally) to feel like he knows what the best value is on the board at all times and will feel confident he can pick the right guy and values his ability to do that over the idea of gathering additional assets. But, if he trades down, to me it be an indication that Judge has a strong voice in that room.
Again, all this is just my armchair speculation with no actual knowledge lol.
Quote:
If the pool of players with similar grade on your board is about equal to the drop in draft position, then make the deal and take the extra picks.
The only reason not to is you didn't set up your board fairly.
Can you please explain what this means? “The only reason not to is you didn’t set up your board fairly”. What does that mean? What’s a fairly set up board look like? And why is it that if they don’t trade down it automatically means they didn’t set their board up fairly? Are they supposed to focus on setting up their board in a way they don’t believe just to accommodate talking themselves into trading down, to make the board fair?
Don't overthink it. Just meant the players in the tiers on your board include too many biases creating a somewhat forced rating versus a clean one.
Quote:
In comment 15218381 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
that it's Judge's show around here. I don't believe for a minute that DG would trade back on his own.
So if they don't trade back, does that mean Gettleman has total authority without regard for anyone else's opinion?
No, that's not as conclusive, IMO. It could be that Judge and Gettleman are in agreement on the player/value at 11 and stay. But, DG has never traded down. He seems (anecdotally) to feel like he knows what the best value is on the board at all times and will feel confident he can pick the right guy and values his ability to do that over the idea of gathering additional assets. But, if he trades down, to me it be an indication that Judge has a strong voice in that room.
Again, all this is just my armchair speculation with no actual knowledge lol.
Also agree.
[quote] In comment 15218367 HMunster said:
Quote:
In comment 15218358 stoneman said:
Quote:
If you believe these tiers (excluding Farley/Philips due to medicals)
1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Waddle
3) Surtain/Horn/Paye/Parsons/Ojulari
Even at 15, you are practically into the next tier 4, so it better be worth while missing out on tier 3. Anything beyond 15 would be nuts not including another 1st (or 2). Even at 15, I would be shocked if the Pats 2nd got them there, especially with QBs in play.
You have 10 players. 5 QBs would be top 15. Plus you're missing Slater who's likely top 10. Darrisaw might be top 15 as well.
My tiers would be
1) Sewell/Chase/Pitts
2) Smith Slater Surtain Parsons*
3) Darrisaw Waddle* Horn Farley*
4) Paye Ojulari
Asterisk indicates character or injury concern
It would be good to get someone from Tier 2 at 11.
Trade up if it will get you Tier 1.
Trading up means getting the prospect you covet. Trading down means settling for leftovers. Sometimes you have no other choice, but it's never a good sign.
Milton: That's a weirdly dismissive generalization about trading down. Scouting isn't a precise science, especially this year. Sometimes, one or two options stand out on a team's board when they go on the clock. Other times, not so much. At those other times, it makes sense to at least listen to offers.
Quote:
But, DG has never traded down. He seems (anecdotally) to feel like he knows what the best value is on the board at all times and will feel confident he can pick the right guy and values his ability to do that over the idea of gathering additional assets.
The sample set is too small to conclude that Gettleman would never trade down. Trading down requires a unique set of circumstances that may be in play this draft but had never been before. Like Accorsi before him, Gettleman prefers trading up for a targeted player than trading down because all of his targets are gone, but even Accorsi traded down in 2006 for Kiwanuka.
Quote:
But, if he trades down, to me it be an indication that Judge has a strong voice in that room.
When has Judge ever traded down? Judge may be a bigger proponent of trading up than Gettleman or Accorsi.
Trading up means getting the prospect you covet. Trading down means settling for leftovers. Sometimes you have no other choice, but it's never a good sign.
Clearly Gettleman prefers trading up as in 8 drafts he's never traded down. I think we are basically agreeing on that point. Regarding Judge, you are right that we don't know what his philosophy is regarding draft capital. He may agree with DG that getting targeted guys is the best strategy. But when DG was GM for the panthers he made a league low number of selections. Judge spent a considerable time in NE where they definitely view draft capital differently than DG. They constantly have traded down, traded up, traded into additional picks next year. Rather than targeting certain players they've clearly been interested in maximizing the value of the picks they have, even if it means trading down or deferring that value to a future draft year. There's no indication that Gettleman has any interest in moving back or into a future draft. That's why I still think that if it happens and they move back it would indicate that Judge is bringing a different draft valuation than Gettleman's natural inclinations.
Regarding "drafting leftovers", I think that's the wrong way to look at it. If the Giants really are set on improving their Edge in the first round then spending 11 on Paye, Phillips or the kid from Georgia whose name I can't spell is a bad use of the 11th pick. There will almost certainly be teams wanting to move up to 11 to get Horn or Surtain or a WR or the next tier OL after slater/sewell. If they traded back, got assets and then picked a position of greater need, that would indicate to me that the philosophy of maximizing draft value has replaced the "don't get cute" philosophy that made DG pull the trigger on Jones at 6.
From there the trade down stuff just has too many unknowns to outsiders looking in - unless you gave me a copy of their draft board and showed me who's still left I really can't subscribe to this notion that they are doing it wrong this whole time by never trading down. You can prefer it, but it doesn't make you correct.
Whether it's sports, chess, poker, war, or the NFL draft, taking an aggressive approach is always the right general strategy/philosophy, it's only under specific circumstances that it pays to play it more conservatively. Gettleman may find himself in one of those specific circumstances on draft day, but it's hard to get excited about a prospect you traded down for.
Interestingly enough, Accorsi found himself in this situation in 2004. He liked all three QBs, but he was only in love with one of them. Ironically, he drafted the one he liked least, but of course that was so he could trade up for the one he loved. He considered accepting a trade down offer from Cleveland that would've netted the Giants the 7th overall pick and an extra 2nd round pick and he would've selected Roethlisberger in that scenario.
In hindsight an argument can certainly be made that trading down would've been the far better result (Eli minus your 2004 3rd round pick and 2005 1st round and 5th round picks vs Roethlisberger plus Cleveland's 2004 2nd round pick), but I have no regrets because Eli was the whole package and Roethlisberger is a creep.
If the Giants wind up drafting one of the edge rushers, I would rather he was taken with the 11th pick than the 15th pick because it would mean he was too good to risk losing out on. Of course, if they took Kadarius Toney with the 15th pick I might feel differently.
Quote:
“Giants get No. 15, a fourth-round pick (120) and a fifth-round pick (177); Patriots get No. 11”
This, to put it bluntly, sucks. Two day three picks to trade down. Could they throw in some used “K” balls as well.
I would agree. I really don’t care what the value chart says - if the Pats (in this example) want 11 for their QB then make them pay for it. Some mid round picks don’t do anything for me.
If the Giants are targeting a few players that are all graded equally that could all be there at #15, and that at least one of whom will definitely be there based on the number of players vs. the number of picks in between, why would you get hung up on extracting so much from the other team that the negotiations fall apart?
For argument's sake, let's just say the Giants have set their sights on Ojulari, but also have three other players graded in the exact same tier, all of whom play various positions that aren't crazy for the Giants to draft. If you could have Ojulari + a 4th and 5th round pick, or just have Ojulari and not get those mid-round picks, does holding your ground help you at all? Could it mean that you end up with Paye or Surtain or Horn instead of Ojulari? Sure, but if you're not ok with that, they shouldn't be on the same tier on your board in the first place.
Sure, I want NYG to get as much as possible if they're going to trade down. But if they find themselves with a lot of equally graded prospects on their board when they're on the clock, it would be silly to talk themselves into one of them at #11 simply for the sake of it, as long as there's a reasonable trade offer available to them.
Quote:
apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.
If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.
Well scenario #2 happened and it was for a 2. The 1st have a bit wider gap but the precedence is there. And you have to consider that no one is making us trade the pick - you are allowed to set a price and choose not to execute on a lesser offer which is what I would do if it were me. I would not take a 3rd and change to drop back to 15 and allow the best coach in football to get his QB - he should have to pay a premium for that and based on other shitty trades Belichick has made, it isn't far fetched.
If you're taking the same player at #11 that you would likely get at #15, then it's a question of risk vs. reward and should not really involve who the other team is targeting except for confirming that they're not moving up to take the guy you'd have taken if you stayed put.
The way you're describing the dynamics of the trade-down scenario almost sounds like you are treating the draft like it's preordained and the #11 pick is already determined; that this is just an exercise in whether the Giants are getting enough in return to get the 15th best player instead of the 11th.
The optimal trade-down scenarios are those where you are essentially getting the same player a few picks later (or at least a player with the same grade). If you view it through that lens, the haul you receive in return is genuinely additive, and your 1st round guy - if it ends up being the same prospect - is cheaper, too.
If the scenario involves the potential to drop into the next tier on your board, I absolutely agree that you should hold firm and play hardball to extract maximum value. But if you're going to remain in the same tier anyway with a small trade down, that doesn't make the prospect a better player just because you took him four picks earlier.
Milton: That's a weirdly dismissive generalization about trading down. Scouting isn't a precise science, especially this year. Sometimes, one or two options stand out on a team's board when they go on the clock. Other times, not so much. At those other times, it makes sense to at least listen to offers.
So he would not be there at 15? The best OL at 15 would likely be Vera-Tucker, but he would probably not be the best player. Do you think the Giants would consider Darrisaw at 11?
Quote:
In comment 15218561 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.
If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.
Well scenario #2 happened and it was for a 2. The 1st have a bit wider gap but the precedence is there. And you have to consider that no one is making us trade the pick - you are allowed to set a price and choose not to execute on a lesser offer which is what I would do if it were me. I would not take a 3rd and change to drop back to 15 and allow the best coach in football to get his QB - he should have to pay a premium for that and based on other shitty trades Belichick has made, it isn't far fetched.
If you're taking the same player at #11 that you would likely get at #15, then it's a question of risk vs. reward and should not really involve who the other team is targeting except for confirming that they're not moving up to take the guy you'd have taken if you stayed put.
The way you're describing the dynamics of the trade-down scenario almost sounds like you are treating the draft like it's preordained and the #11 pick is already determined; that this is just an exercise in whether the Giants are getting enough in return to get the 15th best player instead of the 11th.
The optimal trade-down scenarios are those where you are essentially getting the same player a few picks later (or at least a player with the same grade). If you view it through that lens, the haul you receive in return is genuinely additive, and your 1st round guy - if it ends up being the same prospect - is cheaper, too.
If the scenario involves the potential to drop into the next tier on your board, I absolutely agree that you should hold firm and play hardball to extract maximum value. But if you're going to remain in the same tier anyway with a small trade down, that doesn't make the prospect a better player just because you took him four picks earlier.
Excellent analysis, especially your discussion about how draft tiers affect the compensation teams should seek to trade down.
Quote:
In comment 15218561 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
apply because it is to get a QB? Do you not see that in the first two scenarios, the team trading up took a QB? Arizona took Rosen and Jacksonville took Gabbert.
If you think the Giants are getting some magical haul of picks for essentially doing those same trades, you are viewing it through what you would like to get, not what is the actual market price.
Well scenario #2 happened and it was for a 2. The 1st have a bit wider gap but the precedence is there. And you have to consider that no one is making us trade the pick - you are allowed to set a price and choose not to execute on a lesser offer which is what I would do if it were me. I would not take a 3rd and change to drop back to 15 and allow the best coach in football to get his QB - he should have to pay a premium for that and based on other shitty trades Belichick has made, it isn't far fetched.
If you're taking the same player at #11 that you would likely get at #15, then it's a question of risk vs. reward and should not really involve who the other team is targeting except for confirming that they're not moving up to take the guy you'd have taken if you stayed put.
The way you're describing the dynamics of the trade-down scenario almost sounds like you are treating the draft like it's preordained and the #11 pick is already determined; that this is just an exercise in whether the Giants are getting enough in return to get the 15th best player instead of the 11th.
The optimal trade-down scenarios are those where you are essentially getting the same player a few picks later (or at least a player with the same grade). If you view it through that lens, the haul you receive in return is genuinely additive, and your 1st round guy - if it ends up being the same prospect - is cheaper, too.
If the scenario involves the potential to drop into the next tier on your board, I absolutely agree that you should hold firm and play hardball to extract maximum value. But if you're going to remain in the same tier anyway with a small trade down, that doesn't make the prospect a better player just because you took him four picks earlier.
Good stuff. Maybe because I think that after the WRs go, there’s not a white flag difference between any number of players at those “need positions” so I would definitely think it’s criminal not to move down, take what you can get, and pick one of these same guys.
Maybe you are comfortable leaving value on the table just to get something back, but I’m not.
And I fully understand the risk/reward aspect and how it would work if they had 5 guys ranked the same. My argument is they likely won’t.
Quote:
If the Giants are targeting a few players that are all graded equally that could all be there at #15
I'd be pretty disappointed if the Giants were targeting players that could all be there at #15. I would hope that they are targeting players who have slim and none chances of being available with the 15th pick. Ideally they are targeting players such that there is hope that one of them will be available with the 11th pick.
Sure, in a perfect world, they'll have a prospect land in their laps that has no business being there. But in reality, that may prove to be an unlikely scenario. They can't make guys grade higher than they do. And this particular draft class has a lot of depth, and a strong top tier, but that top tier may be gone at #11, depending on how the run on QBs goes in the top 10.
There is a very good chance that the Giants will find themselves, by circumstance, with remaining options at #11 that are equally graded to those who - by simple arithmetic alone - will be available at #15, even if there will be fewer of them available at that point.
In this instance that I'm describing, a trade-down outcome only removes some of your options that are equally graded, it doesn't remove the possibility of getting one of those options.
And I stick with my earlier point - if you're not ok with getting any of the players who are in the same tier on your board, then re-tier your board. If they're on the same tier, they carry the same value. That's what "being true to the board" is about.
Maybe you are comfortable leaving value on the table just to get something back, but I’m not.
And I fully understand the risk/reward aspect and how it would work if they had 5 guys ranked the same. My argument is they likely won’t.
Leaving value on the table is what happens when you play hardball and end up with nothing, and take the same guy at #11 that you'd have gotten at #15, with no added value to improve your lot.
The Giants don't have to win draft-day trades, they have to improve their roster. How is getting the same guy at #15 (or an equally graded prospect) that they'd have gotten at #11 PLUS a couple of mid-round picks leaving value on the table? Because the other team didn't give up enough? WTF cares about the other team if the Giants get the same guy they were going to draft anyway AND get a couple more picks on top of it?