The anticipation is building for the NFL Draft, which is less than a week away now. I continue dreading the thought of dealing Brady Quinn and Braylon Edwards, so Peter King's edition of Monday Morning Quarterback finally brought up the situation I do want to occur on draft day if LB Aaron Curry is not on the board: trade down.
[QB Mark] Sanchez feels like the pivot point. After Stafford goes one to Detroit and a tackle (Jason Smith or Eugene Monroe) two to the Rams, it's anyone's guess, starting with Kansas City. Seattle likes Sanchez and Michael Crabtree (and a tackle, maybe) at four.
I've heard Cleveland (picking fifth) and Washington have already discussed a deal if Sanchez is still on the board at five. I don't expect Sanchez to be there at five.
The Redskins have the 13th overall pick in the draft. Without looking at the exact trade chart values, I wouldn't mind taking the Redskins' third round pick at No. 80 and a second- or third-round pick next year in a three-picks-for-one trade (we could toss in a fifth-rounder or something too).
While the odds of Sanchez still being available at No. 5 aren't great, there are a lot of scenarios I could see unfolding that have him on the board still. At No. 13, it's a toss up on whether we'd get the type of impact player we want too without feeling like we're "reaching" either.
I don't see the trade happening at this point, but it's something to keep an eye on.
0 recs | 47 comments
The fact that Peter King doesn’t expect Sanchez to be there at five actually, in my mind, increases the odds that he will.
Bernie19Kosar - April 20, 2009
Probably our choice between at least 3 of: Maybin, Jenkins, Maualuga, Everette Brown, Cushing, or Maclin
a 3rd
and a 2nd or 3rd next year?
No question I would do that. Especially with Curry and Crabtree gone. Sanchez’ soaring draft stock does nothing but make our pick look better.
rufio - April 20, 2009
I would take within the same second they offered it. Then we have a shot at Maybin, Maulauga, E. Brown, Beanie, Knowshauwn, Cush, Oher, Maclin.
And with the 3rd rounder we could take Shonn Greene, Rashad Jennings, or Andre Brown
BradyQuinnisBeast - April 20, 2009
Bingo. Exactly why Mangini drummed up interest on the Browns behalf for Sanchez. All of a sudden, the entire league knows Sanchez is gone by pick 4, leaving a player the Browns want at 5, or a good trade down opportunity.
Relax people, Quinn is going nowhere
Roger Dorn - April 20, 2009
Of course trading down here would be a smart move. If the Redskins offer to make a trade, the Browns should jump at it.
Cols714 - April 20, 2009
Trading down to thirteen gives us more options than at five.
gahnki - April 20, 2009
Also Peter King reports that Everette Brown is dropping. He said that he isn’t in his mock but he will go in the first round. O think it is Don Banks that says he is not a first rounder.
We could have a shot at Everette Brown in the second.
Bernie19Kosar - April 20, 2009
I doubt he’ll drop that far.
BradyQuinnisBeast - April 20, 2009
Every year there are a couple of guys that drop way too far. Brady Quinn is an example. It wouldn’t suprise me to see Brown drop.
Bernie19Kosar - April 20, 2009
Lets say Sanchez is on the board at 5 and the Skin’s trade up like Peter King says. I think that there is a chance that Maclin could still be on the board when the Browns pick. The Jags signed Tory Holt today and may not need a WR. Who else between Oakland and the 13th pick really needs a WR?
A trade out of 5 and Jeremy Maclin would be a huge win for the Browns.
Bernie19Kosar - April 20, 2009
SF, but they are also in need of a pass rusher.
rufio - April 21, 2009
Exactly where the added pick would come in handy.
danvail - April 23, 2009
Ugh! Peter King lists the number of draft day trades each team has made: Cleveland and Detroit have the most (9) trades where they moved up (and each traded down just 3 times). Is there any relation between draft day trades and on-field performance?
Peter King is really talking in circles with this article. Throw the draft chart out and pay heed to the difficult contract demands of the top picks, but disregard the likelihood of success/failure of these players? Stafford has a great arm, but so did Jeff George and many other no. 1 QB picks. The Lions have 3 picks in the top-33; their goal is to get 3 players who will start for the long-term. I have to believe that the Lions will pass on Stafford and select a player with greater likelihood of success. The player might not have as high an upside, but the contract gamble is not as great.
(In fact, the Lions might be happy to trade for Derek Anderson for later-round picks).
Once the Lions pass on Stafford, then we will see the trade dominoes fall… Peter King clearly misses this point.
Spidey - April 21, 2009
Excellent point. Maybe there is some connection between draft-day trades and team performance, but I wonder if it’s not actually stronger for trading up in the draft and poor on-field performance. I’m thinking that trading up often leads to a team reaching for an individual player, and a fair amount of the time it turns out to be a mistake.
drjeo - April 21, 2009
I really didn’t see any correlation in draft day trades and performance. NE makes a lot of trades, they are good. Pittsburgh makes hardly any trades and they are also good.
I’m not sure there is a correlation. What you want is to make smart draft choices, whether or not it involves a trade.
Cols714 - April 21, 2009
I see a much stronger correlation between talent on a team’s roster and their on field performance.
Get talented players, win football games. Do what you need to do to get the largest amount of the most talented players you can get.
rufio - April 21, 2009
Exactly. There are several holes we need to fill and alot of those positions can be covered in this draft by very talented players.
tjk_doc - April 21, 2009
Yeah, I don’t see any connection either. Draft-day trades can be both good and bad, depending on the outcome, so I don’t think trading more means you’re more or less successful. I think Peter King was just listing those teams so you know which teams usually trade more often when thinking about possible draft-day trades.
Buckeye Brad - April 21, 2009
But I wish more pundits would make this clear. Instead you hear how NE is a master of the draft because they move up and down the board by trading. Nevermind that they haven’t drafted all that well lately.
Cols714 - April 21, 2009
Jerod Mayo
BradyQuinnisBeast - April 21, 2009
I would say their first round picks have been very strong
Mayo – beast
Meriweather – improving, has a chance to get better
Maroney – fairly bust, but had a good first year
Mankins – awesome beast
Benjamin Watson – very good blocking tight end and has some receiving skills
Wilfork – beast
Ty Warren – beast
Daniel Graham – was a good blocking tight end, is now gone, didn’t fully pan out
Richard Seymour – awesome beast
So I will call Maroney and Graham busts even though they aren’t even that bad. The rest have been great, except Meriweather who can get there
Roger Dorn - April 21, 2009
Meriweather is OK
Maroney is not very good
Mankis is great
Watson is OK
Wilfor and Warren are great
Graham is OK
Seymour is a potential hall of famer
I’d say that they’ve done pretty well, I just don’t see them as being infallible like every pundit thinks they are.
Cols714 - April 21, 2009
Maroney would start for us.
Watson is great, but is a horrible fit for that offense. He wasn’t worth a 1st round pick to them, but if he played for us instead of K2 (when our offense was taylored to a pass catching TE) he would have looked very good.
Wilfork and Warren are really good 3-4 linemen. Really, really good.
They aren’t infallible.
rufio - April 21, 2009
Maroney would start for us until he got hurt in week 3.
Bernie19Kosar - April 23, 2009
Fair.
rufio - April 23, 2009
I think he would pull a Tom Brady and only play a couple quarters
BradyQuinnisBeast - April 24, 2009
I agree not infallible. I have to give them credit though, and it pains me. They draft well
Roger Dorn - April 21, 2009
Let’s not forget coaching. Pittsburgh and New England aren’t just winning because they’ve got the most talented rosters. The coaches are making the most out of the talent they have. My opinion is that the Browns made some pretty lousy coaching decisions over the past couple seasons that created more losses.
NM Dawg - April 21, 2009
Taking it a step further, and probably a bit too far, James Harrison went undrafted and ended up being a defensive player of the year. We drafted Alex Hall in the 7th. Would we have more faith in the Steelers to turn him into an All Pro than we do in Mangini?
NM Dawg - April 21, 2009
True, but remember the Steelers cut Harrison 3 different times. The Ravens also cut him. If it wasn’t for an injury to an LB during training camp, he would never have gotten the chance to play for the Steelers. Good coaching, yes, but also a good deal of luck.
Cols714 - April 21, 2009
Oh absolutely. But even if you have relatively fearless and creative coaches, you can only get so far. Miami last year was maybe an example of this? Dallas is definitely an example of a talented team who doesn’t play as well as they should.
Another factor is your veterans. If you have old guys who not only are good, but are good teachers, they make your coaching staff look even better.
rufio - April 21, 2009
It’s hard to do any statistical analysis on draft performance. I was selectively picking out a couple numbers. The only statistical analysis of the draft I have seen shows that draft pick #43 has the greatest return for the investment.
Link
Trading up typically turns out to be a fool’s choice. It is better to get more good players at a lower cost, than to gamble on getting a great player at high cost. Unfortunately, when a new regime starts and needs to show impactful changes, they often take big gambles…
Spidey - April 22, 2009
I can’t think of any situation that makes ManKok trade up in the 1st round of this draft. None.
Savage trading up for BQ, and then trading back in to the 2nd to get Wright, and then nabbing McDonald in the 5th looks like it turned out pretty well from where I am sitting. That’s 2-3 above average starters (2 of whom play the premier positions in the NFL and show elite potential) and one average RCB or above average 3rd CB, while using about 8 picks.
So typically, it’s a bad idea, but it all depends. Everything depends. There are major positions worth sacrificing a lot for: NT, QB, LT, Pass rusher, arguably WR, and arguably shut down corner. None of those seem to be both A) positions we need and B) positions with players sure to be selected in the top-4.
rufio - April 22, 2009
I agree. I like that savage was aggressive after guys he liked, but it may have also hurt our depth situation. The trade-ups to get Rucker and Hubbard are looking horrendous right now
Roger Dorn - April 22, 2009
I think he saw the writing on the wall with Winslow and would have done the same thing Kokinis has, netting a two and a five. If you believe that, and trust the scouts that rated Tucker as a suitable replacement, then that trade is a net gain as far as depth. I forget what we gave up for Hubbard (or Bell?), but I also think that during the off season of 08 he never would have dreamed a year later the best he could get is a maybe a 3rd for DA or possibly a first for BQ. But that was betting on the success of the team, which I thought he was right in doing.
I’ve always contended that 08 was a momentum-keeper season, and that 09 was what Savage was gunning for, or else he would have mortgaged the 09 draft for a Corner and/or LB (when Peek and Holly went down).
kwoog - April 22, 2009
I almost completely forgot about those injuries. Funny how when we had no injuries (almost to the point where it was creepy) in 07 we did really well, and when we were ravaged by injury in 08 we looked terrible.
Which team is the “real” team?
rufio - April 22, 2009
neither any more
BradyQuinnisBeast - April 22, 2009
this is where having a “program” in place for 6-7 years in invaluable. you just can’t have the appropriate depth after 3-4 years of an entire rebuild. it’s also why good teams are stable at the top even if they go through multiple tough seasons (Cowher can’t win the big game, Fisher can’t challenge the Colts, etc).
kwoog - April 23, 2009
Yeah, those trade ups were a little dumb. Maybe he was betting big on being able to get a lot for a QB? Who knows.
rufio - April 22, 2009
Agreed that ManKok will not trade up. I’m just making the connection between my earlier statement that trading up 9 times and trading down 3 times in the recent past can relate directly to poor performance on the field.
So while it all depends on who we draft when trading up – the dependency is really all about “chance”. It’s just too hard to project performance from college to the NFL… And, that isn’t even accounting for potential injuries. It is better to draft more players in the first 3 rounds than less.
Spidey - April 23, 2009
that draft-day trade chart infuriated me…what king amazingly fails to note is (for example) that phil savage managed our drafts and draft-day trades for the last 4 years, and now we have someone COMPLETELY DIFFERENT managing the process. essentially, that means that his data for cleveland is utterly irrelevant. with all of the new coaches in place this year (something like 11?), the data that he cites is worthless.
it would have been a real shame for him to do some actual research and say something like “cleveland’s done X, but mangini and kokinis combined to do Y at their previous posts, which is probably more important”.
DontCallMeJoey - April 21, 2009
Yep. Exactly. Though King is quick to say that Josh McDaniels and Scot Pioli will be trading down since they come from the Belichick school…
Spidey - April 21, 2009
Peter King is a tool. I don’t know how a guy who has as many “ins” as he does, continues to be as wrong as often as he is.
Like in his Monday article he drops this nugget;
He signed with the Jags less than two hours later. But hey, keep telling me what coffee your drinking.
Bernie19Kosar - April 23, 2009
That Torry Holt reference was quite humorous.
The frustrating thing is that I keep reading his stuff because he, at least, writes something different each week – not the same old rumors we hear elsewhere. The coffee-talk, Boston restaurant-talk, newspaper-talk, and everything else not related to football drive me nuts.
Spidey - April 23, 2009
I love hearing what he thinks about the latest episode of The Office. ;)
Chris Pokorny - April 23, 2009
I love reading Peter King. It’s very easy to skip over the stuff you don’t want to read (coffee and Red Sox talk). I look forward to his article every Monday morning. He has a very good perspective on what’s going on in the NFL.
Buckeye Brad - April 23, 2009
Word.
rufio - April 21, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.