According to the draft value chart, picks 5 and 7 are worth 3200 pts, the equivalent of picks 20,21,22,23.
If this 4 for 2 trade were possible, would you make it?
For a team with multiple holes and the cap constraint to not be able to improve through free agency, I would.
The Giants would then have 7 picks in the top 81. A real chance to change the roster this year. They would also still have 6 more picks rounds 4-7. Potential for 13 new players.
Fans don't like it, but that's just how it is.
as for the trade down, would you rather have 2 horses or 4 ponies? Granted moving down 15 spots is probably not that pronounced of a difference, statistics do in fact show the higher the pick in the first round, the better chances the player has of becoming key contributor (some positions more than others).
I know last year is not truly final from measurement standpoint because the Giants still have picks to make, but today would you rather have Micah Parsons or Rashwan Slater (both made the pro-bowl as rookies) or Kadarius Toney and a TBD pick (now known to be #7). Because that's the cost of trading down (more so in your example because it's not pick 7, it's in the 20's).
At 7, with panthers going before and Atlanta going after hopefully** a little QB run could be possible. I would look to trade out of 7 for later and future picks. Possible QB needy teams behind us : Atlanta, Denver, Washington, Cleveland, philly, Saints, Steelers. Of course, It takes two to tango but i think moving out of 7 into the teens could do two things for the giants, still secure a solid pick in round 1 and stock pile picks later and the all important future 1st rounder in a more QB rich draft next year
Exactaly. Once you have the extra picks 1 year you can continue to have extra if you use the board right.
Fully expect us to move down with one of our 1sts. Hopefully have 2 1sts again but more importantly we need to make sure we add 3's and 4's
Always liked the idea of extra Round 2 picks, especially in deeper drafts...
This is the play
the first part is right, but the second part is not.
why add 4's? some of you are like crack addicts with draft picks.
quality always wins out over quantity.
it all comes down to actually making the picks. Any scenario *could* work, but the stats show higher picks = better players, trading down lowers the odds of getting a better player.
that is a fact.
The draft is not a "crap shoot" so the point should not be to just get more lotter tickets. The point is to scout well and draft guys who help you win games.
The point above about Parsons and Toney is a good one. I'd give that first round pick and Toney to Dallas today for Parsons, but they would never take it.
Depending on what available and the Jets are interested i'd ideally trade from 7 to 10 with the Jets and swap our 3rd(#81 for their 2nd(#38)
I know last year is not truly final from measurement standpoint because the Giants still have picks to make, but today would you rather have Micah Parsons or Rashwan Slater (both made the pro-bowl as rookies) or Kadarius Toney and a TBD pick (now known to be #7). Because that's the cost of trading down (more so in your example because it's not pick 7, it's in the 20's).
I get your point, but I'm not sure it works to mention those 2 players. The Giants were not going to take Parsons due to the Penn State advisor, and, from what they were saying, they were happy with their OL at that time and may have passed on Slater, who, if irc, wasn't unanimously regarded as a great OT pick vs OG.
Quote:
Arguably quantity would have served a rebuild better in 2018 and that maybe the case again here in 2022...
it all comes down to actually making the picks. Any scenario *could* work, but the stats show higher picks = better players, trading down lowers the odds of getting a better player.
that is a fact.
It most certainly comes down to making the picks. And having additional picks to do it helps improve those same odds too.
Also not all drafts are created equal. Some have very few elite players but are deeper in overall talent in Top 100 than others...some have positional units that go very deep in certain years spreading out quality longer...and some years have multiple teams desperate for QBs which offers up unique opportunities for those willing to seek out quantity.
those are facts too...
which is why having solid scouting, solid front office, and strong alignment between both and the coaching staff is critical.
One example I like to look at is New England, notorious draft pick hoarders, in the 2009 draft. They traded down twice in the 1st round - passing Michael Oher and Clay Matthews and then drafted 4 players in the 2nd round (Patrick Chung, Ron Brace, Darius Butler and Sebastian Vollmer) that's your example of a horse or 4 ponies.
They probably would have been better off taking Oher or Matthews.
Of course there are examples where trading down works. but it comes down (as we agree) to making the picks, but I don't agree necessarily that more picks equals better odds because the odds of a later pick being "a hit" are worse even if it's a small difference there is a difference.
The draft is not a "crap shoot" so the point should not be to just get more lotter tickets. The point is to scout well and draft guys who help you win games.
The point above about Parsons and Toney is a good one. I'd give that first round pick and Toney to Dallas today for Parsons, but they would never take it.
The draft is a crapshoot and evwry pick is just a probability of success.
The draft is not a "crap shoot" so the point should not be to just get more lotter tickets. The point is to scout well and draft guys who help you win games.
The point above about Parsons and Toney is a good one. I'd give that first round pick and Toney to Dallas today for Parsons, but they would never take it.
Alot of Orgs understand it is a bit of a crapshoot actually. We've been interviewing candidates from those orgs thankfully. No one utilizes the draft better (in terms of "swings") than the Ravens, Pats, Niners. Those orgs also see the value in comp picks and really any picks.
Kenyon Green OL A&M
Darian Kinnard OL Kentucky
Devin Lloyd LB Utah
Could be the selections with the 4 hypothetical picks there.
Way to rebuild your OL and front 7 before the 2nd rd even begins.
1 19 Eric Dorsey DE Notre Dame
2 44 Mark Collins DB Cal State-Fullerton
2 46 Erik Howard DT Washington State
2 51 Pepper Johnson LB Ohio State
2 53 Greg Lasker DB Arkansas
3 73 John Washington Oklahoma State
But you need good talent evaluators
which is why having solid scouting, solid front office, and strong alignment between both and the coaching staff is critical.
One example I like to look at is New England, notorious draft pick hoarders, in the 2009 draft. They traded down twice in the 1st round - passing Michael Oher and Clay Matthews and then drafted 4 players in the 2nd round (Patrick Chung, Ron Brace, Darius Butler and Sebastian Vollmer) that's your example of a horse or 4 ponies.
They probably would have been better off taking Oher or Matthews.
Of course there are examples where trading down works. but it comes down (as we agree) to making the picks, but I don't agree necessarily that more picks equals better odds because the odds of a later pick being "a hit" are worse even if it's a small difference there is a difference.
I know you don't agree, but it's my position. New England to often tried to outsmart everybody else in the Draft over the past years, and they took on some unneeded risks. Hoarding isn't a good strategy but trading down when things align is.
With a roster in ruins, a necessary rebuild needed on the whole and in so many positional units, two first round picks, and the makeup of this particular draft, it swings my preference to quantity as things may indeed be aligning. Albeit still done smartly.
Also not everything is about being a hit right away. Some guys develop over different times if even they do hit and lots of guys get injured even if they are superstars. Quantity helps here too to keep a more "healthy" full roster.
Always good to hear your perspective. Thx
Quote:
but it's also probably true that pre-draft thoughts on quality and reality don't always align - meaning going in experts say for example "this is a deep WR draft" in reality the half the WR's taken in the first two days could be busts.
which is why having solid scouting, solid front office, and strong alignment between both and the coaching staff is critical.
One example I like to look at is New England, notorious draft pick hoarders, in the 2009 draft. They traded down twice in the 1st round - passing Michael Oher and Clay Matthews and then drafted 4 players in the 2nd round (Patrick Chung, Ron Brace, Darius Butler and Sebastian Vollmer) that's your example of a horse or 4 ponies.
They probably would have been better off taking Oher or Matthews.
Of course there are examples where trading down works. but it comes down (as we agree) to making the picks, but I don't agree necessarily that more picks equals better odds because the odds of a later pick being "a hit" are worse even if it's a small difference there is a difference.
I know you don't agree, but it's my position. New England to often tried to outsmart everybody else in the Draft over the past years, and they took on some unneeded risks. Hoarding isn't a good strategy but trading down when things align is.
With a roster in ruins, a necessary rebuild needed on the whole and in so many positional units, two first round picks, and the makeup of this particular draft, it swings my preference to quantity as things may indeed be aligning. Albeit still done smartly.
Also not everything is about being a hit right away. Some guys develop over different times if even they do hit and lots of guys get injured even if they are superstars. Quantity helps here too to keep a more "healthy" full roster.
Always good to hear your perspective. Thx
Same to you, good discussion and I do believe there is no wrong answer - the winning strategy of course is hitting on your picks - regardless of the approach.
In comment 15557845 pjcas18 said:
Fans don't like it, but that's just how it is.
as for the trade down, would you rather have 2 horses or 4 ponies? Granted moving down 15 spots is probably not that pronounced of a difference, statistics do in fact show the higher the pick in the first round, the better chances the player has of becoming key contributor (some positions more than others).
I know last year is not truly final from measurement standpoint because the Giants still have picks to make, but today would you rather have Micah Parsons or Rashwan Slater (both made the pro-bowl as rookies) or Kadarius Toney and a TBD pick (now known to be #7). Because that's the cost of trading down (more so in your example because it's not pick 7, it's in the 20's).
the first part is right, but the second part is not.
why add 4's? some of you are like crack addicts with draft picks.
quality always wins out over quantity.
The teams that are good over and over again costently have extra picks in the middle rounds. Thats where their rosters are bulit.
Quality can be found everywhere.
Quote:
"Hopefully have 2 1sts again but more importantly we need to make sure we add 3's and 4's"
the first part is right, but the second part is not.
why add 4's? some of you are like crack addicts with draft picks.
quality always wins out over quantity.
The teams that are good over and over again costently have extra picks in the middle rounds. Thats where their rosters are bulit.
Quality can be found everywhere.
Which team specifically that is good over and over again was built with middle round picks?
Pitt, NE, LV, Az. have to marry up to turn their 4 picks into 2 that we sell off at the #5 and #7.
Pitt, NE, LV, Az. have to marry up to turn their 4 picks into 2 that we sell off at the #5 and #7.
That was my thinking. But it is an example or what you can get. More than Likely #5 gets someone else's #1, a #3 and next years #1 and more.
#7 gets very slightly less.
One can also argue that trading down will help the CAP situation greatly.
I doubt the Jets are enamored with the current top 5 either because of need, cap devoted to position, or durability concerns.
I believe this GM would trade his 2 #1s for 4 #2s in an instant.
Ideally I want though not in order. The DT though is last of these 7 though. Though ofc value impt with this group of 7. SO ofc DT can move up.
3- OL
1- Edge
1- ILB
1- WR
1 TE
1- DT