In case anyone wants to bang their head against the wall a few times. The trade down here is one of the worst I have ever seen to move down 10 spots from the top of the draft -- it makes Mangini's trade down from 5 to 17 look like a fleecing of the Jets. At these prices, we can trade our 22 pick to the Colts for their 1st overall!
Terrible draft. We move down to 14 for their 1st, 2nd, and a ’13 3rd rounder? If someone moves up for RG3 before #4, then so be it. Stay put and go BPA.
Kimble_79 - February 7, 2012
Apparently you know nothing about the draft value chart that is the standard for predicting trades and value of draft positions. You also probably want to trade away your next 3 or 4 1st rounders for Luck. Thanks for playing, please try again…
theW0LF - February 7, 2012
Easy straw
Roger Dorn - February 7, 2012
Don’t take it personal. Look we are 1800pts in 4th. Dallas is at 1100pts in 14th. I assume their 2nd rd pick is 46 (440pts) and their 3rd pick is 78 (200pts). Total those up and we have 1740pts unless I’m wrong with the numbers on one of those later round picks. Either way, the trade value chart is meant as a guide for teams that we all are aware of. However, correct me if I’m wrong, but to entice a team into a trade that would put us in a position to grab lower picks, aren’t most trades over the perceived value. Also, I’m sorry but I hate the fact that we would be picking Richardson at 14. I think their are players that are worthy of a #4 pick w/out trading down. Its your article, so its your opinion. Just giving you mine on the subject.
Kimble_79 - February 7, 2012
But it’s 3rd round pick in 2013 so you can’t value it as today’s 3rd round pick would be — there is obviously a time value to the picks. Next year’s first is not worth the same as this years, etc. So, you have to further discount it. Moving down ten picks from top 4 is a huge move — if you only get one second round pick and then a 3rd round pick a year later, you have just made a horrific trade.
TheDriveStillHurts - February 7, 2012
Yeah if we’re going to trade down we better be fleecing people for first rounders.
HenryDawg - February 7, 2012
THIS
OldTimeDawg - February 9, 2012
but it’s not the standard among general managers that it is among “mockers”. It’s an easy formula for people predicting trades, but teams rarely seem to follow the chart. When was the last time a trade actually lined up?
And I don’t think TDSH’s “banging against the wall” feeling was just because of the picks, but because the Browns could have a chance at a 1st round WR and traded down for a RB.
I don’t get the love for Richardson, plus drafting a RB high is not the m.o. of a WCO regime. Shaun Alexander is the only 1st round RB drafted by any of these guys. They have drafted WRs in the top 40 close to a half dozen times.
Look at the RBs outside of Alexander: Edgar Bennett, Levens, mccoy, Westbrook, all later round guys.
I don’t think it makes sense to predict the FO taking a RB. Looking back on previous drafts they have been involved in, there are 4 focuses early:
1. Get a QB
2. Protect your QB
3. Give your QB some guys to throw to
4. Get after the opponent’s QB.
This is what the Giants do best. They just won their 2nd SB in 4 years.
bross09 - February 7, 2012
sorry for the long post…
And yes, you did have them getting Wright, but I think it’s much more likely considering this FO to trade up 2 spots to get a QB than to trade down to get a RB in the 1st.
bross09 - February 7, 2012
Stop making sense it offends people. I agree QB, protect QB, Have threats for the QB to throw to, and Stop the opponents QB. Couldn’t agree more. Now we have half an offensive line, start from there.
champion64 - February 7, 2012
I forgot another area these guys have often put emphasis on: stopping the QBs threats (DBs). It’s farther down on the list, but Holmgen did draft Trufant…but not before he got Hutchinson, Koren Robinson, Jerramy Stevens, Chris mcintosh, and got Hasselbeck (from GB).
This is the way they build and I am glad because it’s the way I believe teams should be built.
bross09 - February 7, 2012
If we got a QB in FA like Flynn, or think Colt could be good, I guess I would hate this less.
HenryDawg - February 7, 2012
I am not enamored with Flynn, but I wouldn’t be completely upset about this if either of those guys turn out to be the QBOTF (or at least the near future). I don’t think they are.
bross09 - February 7, 2012
I would be skeptical if Holmgren hadn’t already been to SBs with free agents with little starting film.
HenryDawg - February 7, 2012
Flynn=/=Young or Favre. Nowhere near the overall skills.
bross09 - February 8, 2012
Honestly I don’t know and neither do you.
HenryDawg - February 8, 2012
Well he doesn’t have Young’s mobility or Favre’s arm, for a start. He might be very good, but his physical tools aren’t on that level.
notthatnoise - February 8, 2012
exactly
bross09 - February 8, 2012
Probably not but he said nowhere near the overall skills. Favre had a great arm but a mush brain at times. If Flynn has 80% of the arm but doesn’t throw INTs at the wrong time then overall he can be just as good if not better than Favre. Same Young’s mobility, I’m sure he’s less athletic, but if he can move in the pocket enough to find guys down field than his overall skills are fine and maybe even better in some cases.
HenryDawg - February 8, 2012
I was thinking in terms of physical skills. Nowhere near the upside of either imo. he could have developed skills in accuracy, but that’s a complete unknown and Favre was very good himself (and definitely had better than “mush brain” when it came to football)
bross09 - February 8, 2012
My impression of Favre was that if you got to him early in the game he got mad and played like shit. Otherwise he was pretty dangerous.
JustBob - February 8, 2012
I now like RG3 (1.) if available at #4, if Blackmon (3.) isn’t there. (still not convinced that we ’don’t have a QB’.)
My top 10 wishlist (that got ripped to shreds) had us trading back to #14, if my top target(s) for #4 are gone. There I was looking for Decastro or Glenn (2). Decastro is a ‘natural’ gaurd and Glenn is an 360# athlete. (RG or RT, doesn’t matter to me. I’ll be happy with Pinkston in the other.) Even gave consideration to adding an RDE (4.) in the 4th round, to compete with M.Benard (not J.Mitchell). Seems, now we’re not so different in our line of thinking, after all.
DawgsNHawgs - February 8, 2012
The draft value chart is a very, very loose guideline and really should have very little merit in reality.
HenryDawg - February 7, 2012
I used to feel bad for hiding your self-promoting links before. Not any more. You are a guest here, do you piss on the carpet when you go to a friend’s house?
notthatnoise - February 7, 2012
Your Mock is friggin stupid. Thanks for playing. Please try again.
Brownie's Year - February 7, 2012
rec
The New Kardiac Kids - February 8, 2012
Dude, really? Really.
rufio - February 7, 2012
If we actually did this I’d stop watching the Browns until everyone in our front office is fired. Again.
Adrock2099 - February 7, 2012
I have yet to see one good reason to take a RB in the first round.
Bernie19Kosar - February 7, 2012
especially Trent Richardson.
champion64 - February 7, 2012
I think he’s a legit 1st rounder but more like 20+ I wouldn’t mind him with the 22nd as long as we were addressing QB/WR somewhere else in a quality way.
HenryDawg - February 7, 2012
He’s a very good prospect at RB. The best since Peterson.
rufio - February 7, 2012
…but nowhere near the level of Peterson however.
bross09 - February 8, 2012
That’s a strech in comparing to AP. Will he be goot? Yes, though he’s a late 1st to early 2nd and we could get him in the secong round. It makes more sense to me to have the Redskins attemp there trade up with Cleveland and not St Louis.
The price will be really high to move the 4 spots compared to the 2 it would take to convince the Browns to trade. I truely believe that as unpopular as it seems to many fans, that our front office doesnt have interest in RGIII truely. It’s just my opinion thats all. I believe the QB that the front office wants is in next years draft – IMO….
Trade #4 to washington (RGIII), and then trade #6 to jacksonville (Blackmon). We are still in the position to get who we want along with picking up extra draft picks in the next few rounds this year and next.
J. W. - February 9, 2012
goot, good is what I meant.J. W. - February 9, 2012
Ha, once again proves why no one reads BR or wants to SEE Wolf’s garbage here.
Bring back Grossi! =P
SpecialBrownie - February 7, 2012
Wolf, no way we trade down that far. Utterly ridiculous. I would rather bleed to death from my eye sockets than see that.
Also your assessment of the points chart is outdated at best. It was based on the old rookie bonus/pay scale before the current CBA. Now it costs far less to trade up and it’s less financially advantageous to trade down than a few years ago.
Aussie Brown - February 8, 2012
This is such a good point. Teams could be royally screwed before if their top 5 talent busted (see: Browns). Now there’s a lot less guaranteed money and there are caps. Much less financial risk involved in trading up. In fact some of these older teams with cap problems would probably be better to cut ties and bring in new ones.
HenryDawg - February 8, 2012
This is true. The advantage of saving money by moving down really isn’t a question any longer. This had not crossed my mind.
Kimble_79 - February 8, 2012
I think this changes a lot of things. For instance, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea to draft a right tackle in the top ten.
notthatnoise - February 8, 2012
If anything, it brings the value chart closer to the real value of the picks. The value chart was hugely overrating the top picks previously. There was a great fanshot about this recently.
rufio - February 10, 2012
Someone suggested the idea of the Browns trading to the Cowboys a couple of weeks ago. Oh, wait… that was me. Certainly, not to pick up Richardson though. I’ve since changed my mind on not taking RG3 at #4, if Blackmon is no longer available. But, if they’re both gone, then I like the trade back (for a little more than a 1st, 2nd and future 3rd).
DawgsNHawgs - February 8, 2012
I don’t see Blackmon falling behind Claiborne and Kirkpatrick. He’s just as worthy of a trade up as Claiborne. It’s also more likely the Bengals take an O-lineman with one of their first round picks. I’d look for them to target Decastro and/or Glenn.
DawgsNHawgs - February 8, 2012
Ha! Nice fail Wolf.
.
“Bradying” The fail version of Tebowing.
.
.
.
Groza - February 8, 2012
I have a suspicion that we may not see alot of trades starting this year. You know what??? maybe this would keep teams like the patriots from getting all these draft picks every year that they get. Maybe it will even the playing field, lol.
OldTimeDawg - February 9, 2012
Uh if you didn’t notice the Pats are on the decline. If Brady gets hurt they’re the 2011 Colts.
HenryDawg - February 10, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.