quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

The trade down-trade up scenario. We know how it works. People here have advocated it every draft for years, including this year.

Some are laser focused on Aloe Vera or a tackle at #14 so for them it's not an option. In 2019 we could have done a simple trade down and picked future Pro-Bowler Jenkins but we took semi-bust Bradbury at 17... another example of panic for need which means you lost draft assets and are also stuck with the player's ever increasing rookie salary. And of course the #17 pick is granted 3-4 years worth of chances so that the GM can save face.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

I was going to the draft trade chart and calculating what the difference was between the value of the pick we lost for Yannick Ngakoue and the value we got for trading him. The net was an end of the second round pick. Our pick was an upper half of the second round and the pick we got was an end of the third round selection. The value of the second rounder was almost three times as much as what we got back. That probably puts it into better perspective and also gives perspective on how expensive it will be to get back into the second round. If we do, it will certainly have to be later in the second round. Even that will cost our third (a higher third) and the Ravens third. The more I think about it, the more painful is the reality.

The Vikings probably understand the math better than we do and must be very much inclined to drop down from their first round pick. That would be the much less painful way to retrieve a second rounder. Well, I don't know about that. Checking the trade chart, we would have to trade back to pick 21 just to get a later second rounder in return. Ouch. That is the reality. These draft picks are very much coveted.

We throw in a 3rd/4th for an early pick...best case scenario a qb falls....

A third round pick is worth slightly less than half of the comparable second round pick. It's kind of like a logarithmic value scale, if that makes any sense. It's not linear.

Perhaps a more reasonable way (and less painful) would be to work on both ends. What I mean is to trade back a little bit from #14 and to trade up from pick (is it #79?)

So here's an example of that. Let's say they start out the draft and trade back three spots in the first. That would yield a fifth rounder, but lets say the team trading up overpays a bit because the options will be worth it. So lets say they offer a back of the fourth rounder. Shoot. That's the reality. So next we trade both of our third round picks plus the back end of the fourth rounder and we can get somewhere about two thirds of the way into the second round. Say pick #52.

The result would be pick 17, 52 and then that would be it until day three when we would have a number of selections in rounds four and five. Maybe one in six, but that's it as it stands now.

Sometimes around pick #52 you can get a player who was hopeful of getting selected in the back end of round one, but slipped all the way to 52. That does happen. If you're lucky you can get a player like O'Brien or Ezra Cleveland. Cleveland is really a good example. I'm thinking there were teams considering to take him in the first round, but he somehow dropped to us in the second. Neither Cleveland or O'Neil started for game one of their rookie seasons, but started later and played relatively well.

Sorry for my rambling. I'm sort of thinking out loud here. I don't know what you all think of this thinking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

The trade down-trade up scenario. We know how it works. People here have advocated it every draft for years, including this year.

Some are laser focused on Aloe Vera or a tackle at #14 so for them it's not an option. In 2019 we could have done a simple trade down and picked future Pro-Bowler Jenkins but we took semi-bust Bradbury at 17... another example of panic for need which means you lost draft assets and are also stuck with the player's ever increasing rookie salary. And of course the #17 pick is granted 3-4 years worth of chances so that the GM can save face.

Hindsight is pretty easy.

Denver and Oakland probably wish they would have traded down and taken Jefferson instead of Jeudy and Ruggs.

I'm for a trade down. Paul Charchian bragging up Teven Jenkins(RT/RG). Move down a few spots, get an extra pick and then figure out how to get a solid LG after that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

I was going to the draft trade chart and calculating what the difference was between the value of the pick we lost for Yannick Ngakoue and the value we got for trading him. The net was an end of the second round pick. Our pick was an upper half of the second round and the pick we got was an end of the third round selection. The value of the second rounder was almost three times as much as what we got back. That probably puts it into better perspective and also gives perspective on how expensive it will be to get back into the second round. If we do, it will certainly have to be later in the second round. Even that will cost our third (a higher third) and the Ravens third. The more I think about it, the more painful is the reality.

The Vikings probably understand the math better than we do and must be very much inclined to drop down from their first round pick. That would be the much less painful way to retrieve a second rounder. Well, I don't know about that. Checking the trade chart, we would have to trade back to pick 21 just to get a later second rounder in return. Ouch. That is the reality. These draft picks are very much coveted.

We throw in a 3rd/4th for an early pick...best case scenario a qb falls....

A third round pick is worth slightly less than half of the comparable second round pick. It's kind of like a logarithmic value scale, if that makes any sense. It's not linear.

Perhaps a more reasonable way (and less painful) would be to work on both ends. What I mean is to trade back a little bit from #14 and to trade up from pick (is it #79?)

So here's an example of that. Let's say they start out the draft and trade back three spots in the first. That would yield a fifth rounder, but lets say the team trading up overpays a bit because the options will be worth it. So lets say they offer a back of the fourth rounder. Shoot. That's the reality. So next we trade both of our third round picks plus the back end of the fourth rounder and we can get somewhere about two thirds of the way into the second round. Say pick #52.

The result would be pick 17, 52 and then that would be it until day three when we would have a number of selections in rounds four and five. Maybe one in six, but that's it as it stands now.

Sometimes around pick #52 you can get a player who was hopeful of getting selected in the back end of round one, but slipped all the way to 52. That does happen. If you're lucky you can get a player like O'Brien or Ezra Cleveland. Cleveland is really a good example. I'm thinking there were teams considering to take him in the first round, but he somehow dropped to us in the second. Neither Cleveland or O'Neil started for game one of their rookie seasons, but started later and played relatively well.

Sorry for my rambling. I'm sort of thinking out loud here. I don't know what you all think of this thinking.

nfl draft chart points....

vikings give:

14 - 1,100
78 - 200
125 - 47


#17 team gives:

17 - 950
49 - 410

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

The trade down-trade up scenario. We know how it works. People here have advocated it every draft for years, including this year.

Some are laser focused on Aloe Vera or a tackle at #14 so for them it's not an option. In 2019 we could have done a simple trade down and picked future Pro-Bowler Jenkins but we took semi-bust Bradbury at 17... another example of panic for need which means you lost draft assets and are also stuck with the player's ever increasing rookie salary. And of course the #17 pick is granted 3-4 years worth of chances so that the GM can save face.

Your post a page back really opened my eyes at how bad Spielman does with top 15 picks.

ie..Jenkins is looking like he is going to be a perrinial all-pro while Bradbury will be a below avg C

Trading back from 14 to 17 isn't going to gain us the capital to get back into the 2nd rd. I'm thinking 7-8 spots is what it will take w/o having to use one or both 3rd rd picks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

The trade down-trade up scenario. We know how it works. People here have advocated it every draft for years, including this year.

Some are laser focused on Aloe Vera or a tackle at #14 so for them it's not an option. In 2019 we could have done a simple trade down and picked future Pro-Bowler Jenkins but we took semi-bust Bradbury at 17... another example of panic for need which means you lost draft assets and are also stuck with the player's ever increasing rookie salary. And of course the #17 pick is granted 3-4 years worth of chances so that the GM can save face.

Your post a page back really opened my eyes at how bad Spielman does with top 15 picks.

ie..Jenkins is looking like he is going to be a perrinial all-pro while Bradbury will be a below avg C

Trading back from 14 to 17 isn't going to gain us the capital to get back into the 2nd rd. I'm thinking 7-8 spots is what it will take w/o having to use one or both 3rd rd picks.

And the common denominator with all those high crappy picks is the team reached for need!

Plus look at the times there was a run on a position he wanted. Spielman would say "Wow, we didn't expect THAT." Yeah, that's because you are an idiot.

AND when there is a run he compounds the problem by taking the lesser player at that position, whether it's the 4th best or 6th best in the first round, makes no difference to Panicky Rick.

Guard will be no different. At this point he has backed himself into a huge hole, so immense that it's known nationally and not just by Vikings fans. He will freak and lock in the #14 pick on a marginal T-Rex player instead of maximizing draft assets

quote:

ORIGINAL: David F.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Jandro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

The trade down-trade up scenario. We know how it works. People here have advocated it every draft for years, including this year.

Some are laser focused on Aloe Vera or a tackle at #14 so for them it's not an option. In 2019 we could have done a simple trade down and picked future Pro-Bowler Jenkins but we took semi-bust Bradbury at 17... another example of panic for need which means you lost draft assets and are also stuck with the player's ever increasing rookie salary. And of course the #17 pick is granted 3-4 years worth of chances so that the GM can save face.

Your post a page back really opened my eyes at how bad Spielman does with top 15 picks.

ie..Jenkins is looking like he is going to be a perrinial all-pro while Bradbury will be a below avg C

Trading back from 14 to 17 isn't going to gain us the capital to get back into the 2nd rd. I'm thinking 7-8 spots is what it will take w/o having to use one or both 3rd rd picks.

And the common denominator with all those high crappy picks is the team reached for need!

Plus look at the times there was a run on a position he wanted. Spielman would say "Wow, we didn't expect THAT." Yeah, that's because you are an idiot.

AND when there is a run he compounds the problem by taking the lesser player at that position, whether it's the 4th best or 6th best in the first round, makes no difference to Panicky Rick.

Guard will be no different. At this point he has backed himself into a huge hole, so immense that it's known nationally and not just by Vikings fans. He will freak and lock in the #14 pick on a marginal T-Rex player instead of maximizing draft assets

What stinks about needing guards as severely as we do is that every other team knows it as well. Any other team looking for a guard knows they have to pick the guard before us. That gives them an advantage in knowing when to trade up above us or just sit tight if they already pick above us. Our drafting is as predictable as guessing we're running the ball on 2nd-and-9.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

The trade down-trade up scenario. We know how it works. People here have advocated it every draft for years, including this year.

Some are laser focused on Aloe Vera or a tackle at #14 so for them it's not an option. In 2019 we could have done a simple trade down and picked future Pro-Bowler Jenkins but we took semi-bust Bradbury at 17... another example of panic for need which means you lost draft assets and are also stuck with the player's ever increasing rookie salary. And of course the #17 pick is granted 3-4 years worth of chances so that the GM can save face.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Daniel Lee Young

You do remember that Elflein was our 2018 starting center, right...
Got injured...

And was... less than a future hall of famer..

And waived to go play guard for Carolina...

After drafting Bradbury as the shiny new center from North Carolina state @#18

In 2019...

Right...

Was that a reach for need, or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

The trade im looking for is with Miami.


We slide down to 18...they give us 50 and we kick back 78. Math lines up perfectly.

quote:

That makes a lot of sense. Miami has so many draft picks and and there will certainly be some attractive options at #14

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

quote:

That makes a lot of sense. Miami has so many draft picks and and there will certainly be some attractive options at #14

Hopefully snaking NE is all the enticement they need.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

.
.
trading down for a 2nd rounder....


we swap 1st rounders - they give us their 2nd rounder and then we give them -

#15 patriots...both 3rds & late 4th
#16 cardinals...early 3rd & early 4th & late 4th
#17 raiders...early 3rd & early 4th
#18 dolphins...early 3rd
#19 football team...late 3rd & late 6th
#20 bears...4th&5th&6th or late 3rd
#21 colts...4th
#22 titans...5th
#23 jets...7th
#24 steelers...nothing

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen

The trade down-trade up scenario. We know how it works. People here have advocated it every draft for years, including this year.

Some are laser focused on Aloe Vera or a tackle at #14 so for them it's not an option. In 2019 we could have done a simple trade down and picked future Pro-Bowler Jenkins but we took semi-bust Bradbury at 17... another example of panic for need which means you lost draft assets and are also stuck with the player's ever increasing rookie salary. And of course the #17 pick is granted 3-4 years worth of chances so that the GM can save face.

Not sure how not doing "a simple trade down and picking future Pro-Bowler Jenkins but taking semi-bust Bradbury at 17" constitutes a panic for need.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

quote:

ORIGINAL: ratoppenheimer

.
.
trading down for a 2nd rounder....


we swap 1st rounders - they give us their 2nd rounder and then we give them -

#15 patriots...both 3rds & late 4th
#16 cardinals...early 3rd & early 4th & late 4th
#17 raiders...early 3rd & early 4th
#18 dolphins...early 3rd
#19 football team...late 3rd & late 6th
#20 bears...4th&5th&6th or late 3rd
#21 colts...4th
#22 titans...5th
#23 jets...7th
#24 steelers...nothing

Nice work rap!

I'd like dolphins or football team. I'd also trade a 4th for a 3rd next year.

Also open to a trade someone posted earler, trading some quantity for a 2nd (I think of LA Rams or SEA) since they only have 4-5 picks this year.