You might be able to get all those guys without moving up though.
And you might not
Ha, toucheā.
I just think without knowing who weāre trading up for (or whoās no longer on our board that weāre comfortable trading down), itās just shuffling numbers around on a board. Iāll raise your 22, 54, 89, 4), 5), 7) with my 33, 61, 73, 88, 94, 5), 6), 7), 7).
Nah nah boo boo, cannot hear you! Not going to torture myself with that! (IāM SO going to torture myself with that, thanks alot!)
Iāve been getting him pretty regularly at 29 on the sims.
This is very true. But take 2 of your most elite prospects in this draft. The Brian Branch, Lavonte David, etc round 2 dudes
And your #1 dude round 1ā¦i know you like Wiggins CB Clemson.
I want to guarantee we get 2 surefire studs again. That is all. And then let Brad do his thing end of round 3, round 4ā¦ and then have a couple darts left on Day 3
- Sewell 2) Hutch 12) Gibby 12) Jamo 18) Campbell
34- Laporta 43) Levi 45) Branch 46) Paschal
68 ) Hooker 72) McNeil, 101) Iffy 97) Kerby 96) BroMart
- St Brown, Barnes
5- Mitchell, Sorsdal
6- Rodrigo, Houston
7- Jefferson, Green, Lucas
Thatās the thing though, you canāt. Sure you increase your chances the higher you pick, but enough to sacrifice picks altogether?
If you look at it from a purely mathematical perspective, more picks = more chances to draft studs. The draft is inherently volatile and hitting on picks is normally barely more than a guessing game (despite how good our GM has been at it of late) so the theory is you would be better off having more picks. This is the theory the Pats and Vines (under Spielman) have used over the years.
You may argue thereās an art to it and some are better than others, and I wouldnāt necessarily disagree. But if thatās the case, wouldnāt you want that outlier to have more cracks at it?
Now, I know Brad believes in his skills as an evaluator and wants to get his guys, and Iām fine with that. We have a fairly narrow prospect profile, so it makes sense. BUT he could do that by trading up, trading down, or staying put. We have no idea. Maybe he loves 15 guys and is able to get them all by trading down and adding picks?
pick #61 and Hock pick #73 if packaged together get us up to pick #39
If you wanna trade back from #29 to #35 and get a 4th.
Then trade up in round 2
Iām good with running it back with a Laporta & Branch round 2 again this year
And then having our 3,4,5,6,7 left.
Totally good with that.
ONLY if a guy like Wiggins, Newton (elite talent at position of need) are not available for us to go get early 20s
Think about this: we had pick 6 last year, then we traded down for 12 and 34 (among others)
Paris Johnson went 6th.
So would you rather have Paris Johnson, or Gibbs and LaPorta?
Last year pick 39 was Jonathan Ringo. At 61 and 73 we could have taken, say, Tank Dell (69th) and Byron Young (77th - the edge who went to the Rams, not the DT). Which would you rather have?
Thatās sideways and you know it.
I just said I wanna run it back with how we did it last year
Canāt cherry pick the good picks.
What if we traded down 75 times and drafted Tom Brady?
Ha, yeah fairā¦ though if we believe in Brad, donāt we expect him to take the good players and not the bad ones? (the actual picks would have been 39: Jonathan Mingo vs. 61: Brenton Strange and 73: Jalin Hyatt, I think Iād still take the latter).
Though in that first trade those were the actual players taken. I only cherry-picked for the 2nd. So which would you rather have? Paris Johnson, or Gibbs + LaPorta. Thatās mostly rhetorical, I know which one youād take.
But it speaks to my point. Brad is very capable of getting two better players with the lower picks. The draft is volatile that way.
1 Like
That is really what I meant, its suggested by the early scoring. Dilution of talent was not the best phrase.
1 Like
Heās almost 50 but Iād support it 
Giselle high, buy low!
I wouldnāt shop our first-round pick.
No one is giving up 2, 3, 4th for the 29th and 5th round pick.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.