We could easily trade down...

[VEfreak]

*shaking head*

The point was simply that IF WE ACCEPT LESS IN RETURN THAN WHAT IS NORMALLY THE CASE, WE COULD EASILY TRADE BACK. I don't have to come up with some hypothetical complex scenario. That was not, you know, the point I was trying to make.

And I haven't played Madden in years. It doesn't take a genius to realize that it becomes easier to trade one's draft picks if one is willing to take less compensation in return.

Regardless of whatever the trade value charts say, there has to be a team willing to give something up because they want a player that will not fall to them. For that to happen there needs to be some kind of rare talent or "must have" player, like RGIII last year or Trent Richardson. At this point the consensus is that there is no player like that, so we won't be able to trade back unless we're willing to accept next to nothing. The trade value chart is irrelevant without a trade partner. That was my point.

[VEfreak]

And of course we're more likely to trade back if we are willing to accept less. That's common sense. But other teams want to have as many draft picks as possible, not just us. Why would teams picking in the top ten, who have a lot of hole like we do, want to trade up and lose picks to get a player that isn't much better than the rest of draftees. So without a specific scenario in mind your entire thread seems pointless.

[regret]

I'd prefer we select the player we have evaluated as top five talent in this draft rather than get bent over a barrel, receive next to nothing in return, and settle for a lesser first round selection to boot. We have no leverage so there is no team who is going to give us reasonable compensation for our pick unless it's on draft day and Geno drops to us and some GM somewhere has convinced himself HE HAS TO HAVE GENO SMITH. I don't see it happening because I like to live in reality, and honestly I'd just take a chance on the kid myself if I were Reggie.

In summary: **** happens and we got a top pick in a less than ideal draft. Reggie will man up and get us some good talent regardless because no matter what all the prognosticators say, there is always a surprise that -- two years down the line -- people are scratching their heads wondering why no one saw the ability in the kid.

[rdr17]

And of course we're more likely to trade back if we are willing to accept less. That's common sense. But other teams want to have as many draft picks as possible, not just us. Why would teams picking in the top ten, who have a lot of hole like we do, want to trade up and lose picks to get a player that isn't much better than the rest of draftees. So without a specific scenario in mind your entire thread seems pointless.

I'm glad you agree that my point is common sense. There are numerous other threads that discuss hypothetical scenarios.

Kind of funny that you cede the point, and them claim that there is no point, all in the same post.

[r8der51o]

If a team wants their guy, and thinks their guy will take them to the next level I could see them offering something decent. Maybe the lions get desperate and offer a 1st and 2nd for Milliner. A CB they want.

[PatchEye]

OK, how about this for a scenario...

Lions desperately need Millner. Let's start "leaking" info that we are high on Millner, and not just high on him but that if he is there we are taking him. Then the Lions would either have to trade up to #2 (which would easily cost them their 2nd round pick) or talk us about acquiring Millner. A reasonable, and relatively cheap, offer from the Lions would be their 1st (#5), 3rd (#69), and 2014 3rd. Another way cheap offer would be their 1st, 3rd, and 5th (#133)

It doesn't get us back into the 2nd, but I would take that small jump back, still get someone like Warmack, Jordan, Floyd, Fisher, and pick up an extra front end 3rd rounder.

If the Lions try to call our bluff on drafting Millner... we could just draft him then hold his draft rights for ransom. I want trench help as much as anybody but would have no problem keeping Millner if the Lions went another route.

Now here's a man that's good at business .. ^

[XXX-RAIDER]

I can see a scenario where Arizona wants Joeckel and he is still available at #3. Most mocks have the Eagles taking him at #4 if he gets past the Chefs so maybe Arizona wants to move up ahead of Phily and take him at #3. Not saying it's gonna happen but it's definitely possible.

[Meninblack]

I can see a scenario where Arizona wants Joeckel and he is still available at #3. Most mocks have the Eagles taking him at #4 if he gets past the Chefs so maybe Arizona wants to move up ahead of Phily and take him at #3. Not saying it's gonna happen but it's definitely possible.

All the joeckel hype is fading. fisher has closed the gap, lane johnson has as much upside as both and is now being considerd for a top 10 pick.

On top of that the cardinals could probally stay at 7 and pick geno.

[jgrilldss]

I'm glad you agree that my point is common sense. There are numerous other threads that discuss hypothetical scenarios.

Kind of funny that you cede the point, and them claim that there is no point, all in the same post.

No dude.....

He's not agreeing with you at all. He's stating that you stating teams would be more willing to deal if we are willing to accept less is common sense and there's no point to even mention it. I don't think you're blowing anyone away with that rationale. Granted, you don't need to provide a possible scenerio that reflects your hopes; but simply stating "teams will be willing to deal if we accept less" and only that is a bit of a waste IMO, and judging by the responses, quite a few on this board agree as well. So in summary, he isn't agreeing with you at all, so I'm not understanding your last sentence which seems a bit smug.

Of course, you did mention the trade value chart, which is truly only reflective based on the class' talent, and in this case, as previously mentioned, the draft chart as a reference for true value this year compared to most drafts is totally..... invalid. For example, in most year's drafts there are several players (2-5 on average I would assume) that are considered A+ potential pros, but if you take this year I don't know if a single GM would rate anyone at that level, the RGIII, Megatron, Andrew Luck, A.P., John Elway level. As far as overall talent, this one reminds me a lot of 1996 - plenty of talent and like 96 I'm sure there will be plenty of very good pros and maybe even a HOF or two but no sure-fire top picks. Who knows, maybe someone will jump out soon and present a higher value, but it's not looking very likely.

In other words, teams that want to have as many picks as possible probably aren't going to sacrifice losing some to grab a player at #3 when the players expected to go 10-25 are all graded the same, unless something dramatically changes in the next few weeks or FA causes some unexpected surprises.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but making blanket statements without any credence is simply hyperbole and will definitely get some flak - which is probably deserved. It's no different than me starting a post saying, "there's no reason we shouldn't be 11-5 next year" and then fill in the post with 5-6 sentences of hollow statements, I.E. not explaining why IMO we should be better - that's essentially what you did.

[rdr17]

No dude.....

He's not agreeing with you at all. He's stating that you stating teams would be more willing to deal if we are willing to accept less is common sense and there's no point to even mention it. I don't think you're blowing anyone away with that rationale. Granted, you don't need to provide a possible scenerio that reflects your hopes; but simply stating "teams will be willing to deal if we accept less" and only that is a bit of a waste IMO, and judging by the responses, quite a few on this board agree as well. So in summary, he isn't agreeing with you at all, so I'm not understanding your last sentence which seems a bit smug.

Of course, you did mention the trade value chart, which is truly only reflective based on the class' talent, and in this case, as previously mentioned, the draft chart as a reference for true value this year compared to most drafts is totally..... invalid. For example, in most year's drafts there are several players (2-5 on average I would assume) that are considered A+ potential pros, but if you take this year I don't know if a single GM would rate anyone at that level, the RGIII, Megatron, Andrew Luck, A.P., John Elway level. As far as overall talent, this one reminds me a lot of 1996 - plenty of talent and like 96 I'm sure there will be plenty of very good pros and maybe even a HOF or two but no sure-fire top picks. Who knows, maybe someone will jump out soon and present a higher value, but it's not looking very likely.

In other words, teams that want to have as many picks as possible probably aren't going to sacrifice losing some to grab a player at #3 when the players expected to go 10-25 are all graded the same, unless something dramatically changes in the next few weeks or FA causes some unexpected surprises.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but making blanket statements without any credence is simply hyperbole and will definitely get some flak - which is probably deserved. It's no different than me starting a post saying, "there's no reason we shouldn't be 11-5 next year" and then fill in the post with 5-6 sentences of hollow statements along failing to provide any substance to the post - that's essentially what you did.

I was being smug. I understand that he was not agreeing with me per se.

This is a message board. I had a thought. Albeit a pretty simple one. I posted that thought. I'm not seeing the issue. The only thing more pointless than a "pointless" thread is taking the time to point out that it is a pointless thread. Yes, what I posted was common sense. I didn't see another thread talking about taking less to trade back. The whole reason why we would have to take less is BECAUSE this draft does not have any marquee players like last year's draft.

I should have stated in the original post that I was interested in having a discussion about what others thought would be enough to trade out of the 3 spot. My bad. Some posters understood that and commented accordingly. Other's didn't. Such is life. My point was never about complex hypotheticals. As stated above, there are already plenty of those, which I enjoy.

I just don't get why people need to flame away when they could just move along.

[r8erray]

If a team wants their guy, and thinks their guy will take them to the next level I could see them offering something decent. Maybe the lions get desperate and offer a 1st and 2nd for Milliner. A CB they want.

I was thinking the same thing now that Milliner just had a good combine. To move back two spots ill just take a 2nd, hopefully we can pull some thing off I doubt it though.

[EmeraldCityR8r]

*shaking head*

The point was simply that IF WE ACCEPT LESS IN RETURN THAN WHAT IS NORMALLY THE CASE, WE COULD EASILY TRADE BACK. I don't have to come up with some hypothetical complex scenario. That was not, you know, the point I was trying to make.

And I haven't played Madden in years. It doesn't take a genius to realize that it becomes easier to trade one's draft picks if one is willing to take less compensation in return.

Has a GM ever took less in return in terms of trading picks? I feel like if a team wants to trade up then give us the right ammount of compensation back or pray that he falls to you. Can always give us picks in next year's draft as well

[BleedSnB]

Has a GM ever took less in return in terms of trading picks? I feel like if a team wants to trade up then give us the right ammount of compensation back or pray that he falls to you. Can always give us picks in next year's draft as well

Last season the Vikes took way less from the Browns than what is suggested by the trade value chart to go from #3 to #4. According to the trade value chart the difference between 3 and 4 is 400pts. I think the Browns gave up a 4th worth 100pts.

I know this isn't exactly what you were talking about as they only dropped one spot and were not in danger of missing they guy they were targeting because they knew the Browns were after Richardson. But to answer the question... yes, there are times when a GM is (and should be) willing to take far less than what the trade value chart states.

I think we are in the same situation this year. I see 5 guys that way ahead of the others in their position groups and would immediately upgrade the team dramatically. Joekel, Fisher, Millner, Warmack, Floyd. We can drop a spot or two and still be guaranteed the choice of at least one of those guys. In that kind of situation, if I were the GM, I would be more willing sell my #3 pick to the Eagles or Lions for less than market value. Of course there are other circumstances that can make that price go back up. If, for instance, the number one guy one my big board is till available at #3... then that price would probably go up to fair market value.

Lots of moving parts in the draft... absolutely nothing is set in stone and anything is possible.

[BleedSnB]

All the joeckel hype is fading. fisher has closed the gap, lane johnson has as much upside as both and is now being considerd for a top 10 pick.

On top of that the cardinals could probally stay at 7 and pick geno.

Fisher is very quickly closing the gap on Joekel. In fact so much so that it is possible that he goes #2 to the Jags.

How much of a bargaining chip does Lane become if Joekel and Fisher go 1 and 2?

[XXX-RAIDER]

All the joeckel hype is fading. fisher has closed the gap, lane johnson has as much upside as both and is now being considerd for a top 10 pick.

On top of that the cardinals could probally stay at 7 and pick geno.

My scenario isn't strictly about Joeckel. If Joeckel goes 1st overall to the Chefs then there is a good chance Philly takes Fisher at #4. Point is, if any team covets one of these 2 guys they probably have to move up to #3 to get him imo.