PDA

View Full Version : In This Thread, You Make A Compelling Argument For Trading Down


RhymesayersDU
12-15-2009, 05:21 PM
I keep hearing people say trade down, get more picks, etc.

I want a legitimate argument why we should do this. I want a player or two we can conceivably get (i.e., no saying "let's hope Suh dropes to #20") at a lower place, and what you envision out of this year's draft.

Also, simply saying "the draft is a complete crapshoot" is not a viable response. That's simply not true. Is there luck? Sure. But to say it's totally random is just plain silly.

Here's the thing: I'm not against trading down per se, but I feel like some people are obsessed with trading down, obsessed with not picking high, etc. I feel like some people, no matter what the circumstances, want to ALWAYS trade down. I'm simply of the opinion that at some point, if we have a high draft pick, we need to use it. I'm of the opinion that we can't always rely on finding late gems. To paraphrase Rick Pitino, "6th-round draft pick Terrell Davis ain't walking through that door."

So.... go.

broncolife
12-15-2009, 05:24 PM
cough..So cough..Cal..cough

RhymesayersDU
12-15-2009, 05:28 PM
cough..So cough..Cal..cough

NOTE: Unlike my BMarsh thread to cause trouble, this thread truly isn't towards any one person. Since the Bears were eliminated from playoff contention, I know I have read like 5-10 people say we need to trade down.

I understand the financial aspect, but IMO at some point to get a big stud on our team we need to take a big gamble. We can't always trade down. We just can't.

broncolife
12-15-2009, 05:44 PM
NOTE: Unlike my BMarsh thread to cause trouble, this thread truly isn't towards any one person. Since the Bears were eliminated from playoff contention, I know I have read like 5-10 people say we need to trade down.

I understand the financial aspect, but IMO at some point to get a big stud on our team we need to take a big gamble. We can't always trade down. We just can't.

Just playing, hes always the one that comes to my mind when trading picks is talked about.

Popps
12-15-2009, 05:51 PM
Well, if you trade down from 10 to 20, you're not likely looking at a massive talent drop-off. So, if you have a guy you like at 20, sure. Do it. Trade down and get an extra OL with a 3rd round pick or whatever.

I like so many players between 10-20 this year, I really don't care... as long as we don't trade completely out of the first.

tsiguy96
12-15-2009, 06:03 PM
depends who falls to our position at 7-12, if its someone good that can definitely help this team, you take them. if it takes trading up a few spots to get someone you really want, you trade up. forget about value for a second or tying to be too smart by trading down and hoping they fall, you take guys you feel can REALLY help your football team. if there is none in that spot, you consider trading down.

Finger Roll
12-15-2009, 06:03 PM
i'm not a fan of collecting 3-7 rounds picks myself. 80% of the playes picked in those rounds end up sucking anyways, so what's the point?

Ziggy
12-15-2009, 06:11 PM
Trade down into the 20's, pick up some extra picks, and draft G Mike Iupati out of Idaho. At 6'6 330 pounds, he has the size and athletic ability to play in any scheme. The left side of our line is solidified for the next decade with 2 players that can both pass block, and plow through defenders. The Broncos have a shot to have the best left side of an O-line since the days of Shell and Upshaw. Denver receives extra picks, and while Iupati is not a sexy pick, the Broncos begin the transition to becoming a team that can controll the line of scrimage on the offensive side of the ball.

mhgaffney
12-15-2009, 06:12 PM
I seem to recall that Doom-ervile and Marshall were both 4th round picks.

And wasn't Tom Brady taken in the 6th?

tsiguy96
12-15-2009, 06:15 PM
I seem to recall that Doom-ervile and Marshall were both 4th round picks.

And wasn't Tom Brady taken in the 6th?

name any of the other 30 guys drafted in the 4th taht year, or 31 guys drafted in the 6th that year?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_NFL_Draft

only 4 others have really made an impact in the nfl (hixon, avant, colon, daniels), and only 1 of those has been GOOD. talking about the extraordinary like it happens all the time is dumb. you are more likely to find a starter in the 1st and 2nd and 3rd than later.

Florida_Bronco
12-15-2009, 06:18 PM
Well, if you trade down from 10 to 20, you're not likely looking at a massive talent drop-off. So, if you have a guy you like at 20, sure. Do it. Trade down and get an extra OL with a 3rd round pick or whatever.

I like so many players between 10-20 this year, I really don't care... as long as we don't trade completely out of the first.

Agreed. 10-20 is a good range to pick in. Anyone picked earlier than that will come with an inflated price tag that we don't want to get stuck with.

RhymesayersDU
12-15-2009, 06:26 PM
I seem to recall that Doom-ervile and Marshall were both 4th round picks.

And wasn't Tom Brady taken in the 6th?

I knew somebody would make this argument; I don't know any stats off the top of my head, but I can reasonably guess that a guy like Brady or TD probably represent less than 1% of all sixth round picks.

Hell, by that logic, Rod Smith was undrafted. Let's not draft at all!

WABronco
12-15-2009, 06:27 PM
Frankly, I see trading down in the 2014 draft, which figures to be much deeper, to be a far more lucrative endeavor.

OBF1
12-15-2009, 06:40 PM
Depending on how high we draft with the bears pick, We could possibly trade from say #8 or #9 and get 2 late 1st round picks or a mid 1st and early 2nd??. That said I am all for getting Mt Cody from Bama and if he is there Colt McCoy from Texas. Would fill 2 real needs on this team.

On the other hand I am very okay staying at 8-10 and get Rolando McClain from bama

SpringStein
12-15-2009, 06:46 PM
i'm not a fan of collecting 3-7 rounds picks myself. 80% of the playes picked in those rounds end up sucking anyways, so what's the point?

From a draft chart, moving down from #9 to #20 would reap the equevelent of the 9th pick in the second round.

Broncoman13
12-15-2009, 06:48 PM
I keep hearing people say trade down, get more picks, etc.

I want a legitimate argument why we should do this. I want a player or two we can conceivably get (i.e., no saying "let's hope Suh dropes to #20") at a lower place, and what you envision out of this year's draft.

Also, simply saying "the draft is a complete crapshoot" is not a viable response. That's simply not true. Is there luck? Sure. But to say it's totally random is just plain silly.

Here's the thing: I'm not against trading down per se, but I feel like some people are obsessed with trading down, obsessed with not picking high, etc. I feel like some people, no matter what the circumstances, want to ALWAYS trade down. I'm simply of the opinion that at some point, if we have a high draft pick, we need to use it. I'm of the opinion that we can't always rely on finding late gems. To paraphrase Rick Pitino, "6th-round draft pick Terrell Davis ain't walking through that door."

So.... go.


Okay, assuming you are looking for actual names, here goes.

If you were to trade down from #8 (where we are projected right now) to say #20 I think you would get the following in return. The #20 and (est.) #53. With the #20 you select CJ Spiller. Superior playmaker with homerun speed and ellusiveness. Can play the slot, RB, KR and PR. Between those positions he could easily get 10-12 touches per game without taking too much away from Moreno or Buckhalter. At #53 you really have a lot of options. I suspect we'll address the OL and DL. I've not reviewed the draft in depth at this point but a few names that are standouts are OG Mike Iupati, C JD Walton, and DT Dan Williams. You also have to consider that we will have our own 2nd round pick which would allow us some wiggle room. If we moved up into the top of the 2nd round you'd be in the mix for a guy like Brandon Spikes, Terrence Cody, or one of the top tier QBs that slips (take your pick of Pike, McCoy, Tebow, Bradford, Clausen, Snead, and Clark).

The main issues with this projection... Spiller lasting until #20 is doubtful when you consider the success guys that are very similar (MeSean Jackson, Chris Johnson, and Percy Harvin) have enjoyed in the NFL. One could argue that those are the three most dynamic playmakers in the league and one of them is probably the next 2000 yard rusher.

gyldenlove
12-15-2009, 06:48 PM
I don't want to trade down unless we get an EXTREMELY attractive offer, the fewer people who pick in front of us the better choice we have.

DBroncos4life
12-15-2009, 06:58 PM
How often does this really happen and what's wrong with landing a top ten super star in the draft? When was the last time we even had a top ten pick? Mike Croel? I think we are do to get a highly ranked player for once.

strafen
12-15-2009, 06:59 PM
I believe in getting the best player available for our most pressing need, not the BPA just because he is the BPA
With that being said, if we've learned anything from McDaniels is to expect the unexpected.
Unfortunaltely for us, the teams picking ahead of us, are teams that probably need help in the areas we also need help in.
Detroit won't be drafting a QB, CHI, and TB. So I think the focus will be on defensive players, and offensive line players.
That leads me to believe that you want to hold your position if that's where your focus is at

broncosteven
12-15-2009, 07:03 PM
Why is there draft talk before the playoffs? That is what the offseason is for.

DBroncos4life
12-15-2009, 07:17 PM
The only real partner I see is the Jags because of their hard on for Tebow. Skins and the Rams want QBs and they pick before us. If the Rams ended up with the first pick and drafted Suh, they might give us a future first and whatever else to make the trade equal out.

houghtam
12-15-2009, 07:26 PM
I always like the people who say we should trade down like it's Madden and we can just push a button. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it takes two to tango, and if you read some of the behind-the-scenes stuff, for every first round pick traded down, there are dozens of attempts with no bites. Usually either the asking price is too high for the team wanting to trade down, and more often than not, it just doesn't happen.

I think the question should be less "why" should we trade down and more "how" should we trade down.

strafen
12-15-2009, 07:27 PM
The only real partner I see is the Jags because of their hard on for Tebow. Skins and the Rams want QBs and they pick before us. If the Rams ended up with the first pick and drafted Suh, they might give us a future first and whatever else to make the trade equal out.

That's true, and that's why I left the skins and the rams out in my reply as I don't think we would be drafting a QB.
I think we could use one, and definitely don't want Orton to be here as our QB of the future.
It's tough to read right now what direction McDaniels is going with out QB situation.

azbroncfan
12-15-2009, 07:53 PM
i'm not a fan of collecting 3-7 rounds picks myself. 80% of the playes picked in those rounds end up sucking anyways, so what's the point?

Most first rounders never live up to potential either and suck. I would rather draft two busts than one so lets trade down.

GoHAM
12-15-2009, 09:01 PM
Why is there draft talk before the playoffs? That is what the offseason is for.

This.

lex
12-15-2009, 09:05 PM
cough..So cough..Cal..cough

I could be wrong but I dont think he feels as invested as he used to.

tsiguy96
12-15-2009, 09:08 PM
its so stupid to just say "trade down" without even knowing whos on the board when you want to just start trading down nonstop.

lex
12-15-2009, 09:09 PM
I always like the people who say we should trade down like it's Madden and we can just push a button. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it takes two to tango, and if you read some of the behind-the-scenes stuff, for every first round pick traded down, there are dozens of attempts with no bites. Usually either the asking price is too high for the team wanting to trade down, and more often than not, it just doesn't happen.

I think the question should be less "why" should we trade down and more "how" should we trade down.

Agreed. I like to refer to these people as trying to conjure up (or evoke) the Trade Down Fairy. Just click your heels...it'll happen.

TerrElway
12-15-2009, 09:20 PM
Trade down into the 20's, pick up some extra picks, and draft G Mike Iupati out of Idaho. At 6'6 330 pounds, he has the size and athletic ability to play in any scheme. The left side of our line is solidified for the next decade with 2 players that can both pass block, and plow through defenders. The Broncos have a shot to have the best left side of an O-line since the days of Shell and Upshaw. Denver receives extra picks, and while Iupati is not a sexy pick, the Broncos begin the transition to becoming a team that can controll the line of scrimage on the offensive side of the ball.

Iupati is nails and not many folks know about him (well, common football fans. Scouts sure as hell do). Dude is a beast. BUT in my opinion, the only movement they should entertain is up,to get Suh or none at all if there's no way to get him.

I think Iupati is there in the second, but you would have to trade up to get him then perhaps.

broncocalijohn
12-15-2009, 09:25 PM
i'm not a fan of collecting 3-7 rounds picks myself. 80% of the playes picked in those rounds end up sucking anyways, so what's the point?

who says we would drop that far or get only a 3rd and 4th rounder? If we drop down from #10, we can pick up a 2nd just by droping 5 spots. We dont lose much, but we gain a 2nd rounder. Plus, any time you can get a 3rd rounder once you drop (let us say we drop 2 spots so a team can jump over team #11), a 3rd rounder might be included in it. If droping those two spots isnt going to hurt your draft board, a 3rd rounder is a nice pick up. I would not say 80% are failures.

NFLBRONCO
12-15-2009, 09:32 PM
Well I could see Bowlen wanting to trade down for $$$ reasons.

As a trade down fanboy because we have tons of needs and its a deeper draft it makes sense to go this route.

Drumroll please I actually want to STAY PUT (Unless we get insane offer) and draft BPA.

broncocalijohn
12-15-2009, 09:51 PM
Here is what Denver got since 1993 for their 3rd round picks. Seems we trade this pick pretty frequently.
1993 Jason Elam Kicker 1994 None 1995 None 1996 Detrone SmithFB
1997 None 1998 Brian Griese QB 1999 Chris Watson CB
2000 Chris Cole WR 2001 Reggie Hayward DE 2002 Dorsett Davis DT
2003 None 2004 Jeremy LaSueur CB 2005 Karl Paymah CB
2006 None 2007 Ryan Harris OT 2008 None 2009 None
Jeremy LaSueur, forgot about that guy. He went to Browns and is currently on the Phili Soul of the Arena League but their league is on hiatus currently.

Bob's your Information Minister
12-15-2009, 09:57 PM
You guys need a young quarterback, ASAP. You need to stop spinning your wheels with Orton. It was nice that he played mistake-free football this year in order to stabilize the program, but sooner or later you have to go out and find a real franchise quarterback who's going to be the driving force.

You should be looking to trade UP ala what Shanahan did in 2006 with Cutler. You've got a sold core of talent on both sides of the ball, so spending a few extra picks, or future picks, to move up and get a REAL quarterback should be priority #1.

Any sign that the Denver Broncos are willing to enter next season with Orton as the unquestioned starter is a bad sign. Signing him to a long-term contract would be equally dumb.

Denver is a perfect situation for any young quarterback with franchise potential. There won't be a better time to pull the trigger on one. Strike now before you get stuck with Orton and begin praying you'll somehow avoid Philip Rivers, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger in the playoffs.

Taco John
12-15-2009, 10:19 PM
Why is there draft talk before the playoffs? That is what the offseason is for.

I've never understood that either. It's way too early to talk about draft when it will consume three full months coming up.

Taco John
12-15-2009, 10:21 PM
I could be wrong but I dont think he feels as invested as he used to.

Football runs through the guy's veins.

Popps
12-15-2009, 11:01 PM
Well I could see Bowlen wanting to trade down for $$$ reasons.

As a trade down fanboy because we have tons of needs and its a deeper draft it makes sense to go this route.

Drumroll please I actually want to STAY PUT (Unless we get insane offer) and draft BPA.

Yea, if it's a deep draft... there's no harm in trying to load up on talent at good prices.

To me, this off-season is one where we can go from a good team, to a top 5 team in a hurry with the right moves. We can certainly set ourselves up with depth, if nothing else.

This looks like a great draft/FA crop. Exciting stuff.

SoCalBronco
12-15-2009, 11:15 PM
I keep hearing people say trade down, get more picks, etc.

I want a legitimate argument why we should do this. I want a player or two we can conceivably get (i.e., no saying "let's hope Suh dropes to #20") at a lower place, and what you envision out of this year's draft.

Also, simply saying "the draft is a complete crapshoot" is not a viable response. That's simply not true. Is there luck? Sure. But to say it's totally random is just plain silly.

Here's the thing: I'm not against trading down per se, but I feel like some people are obsessed with trading down, obsessed with not picking high, etc. I feel like some people, no matter what the circumstances, want to ALWAYS trade down. I'm simply of the opinion that at some point, if we have a high draft pick, we need to use it. I'm of the opinion that we can't always rely on finding late gems. To paraphrase Rick Pitino, "6th-round draft pick Terrell Davis ain't walking through that door."

So.... go.

1. I'm not sure why one would have to necessarily show that we could get "Player X" in order to be persuasive on this issue. Not that it would be possible to prove, anyway. No one knows who will end up where. Even among say the Top 60 prospects or so, there are alot of changes that occur from December to April in terms of the average "mainstream" Big Board. I can't tell you now why moving from 6 or 7 to say 20 is good because we could still get "X". It's an exercise in speculation and I dont see why it is required to show that amassing picks is a good idea.

2. The general argument is that quantity is a good thing in the draft because you are not necessarily sacrificing quality. We are guided by the general principle that most drafts do not thin out for at least a few rounds. In addition, I think its been proven that the hit rates from the first round as compared to the second round for example are not substantially different. In fact, if you look at Denver's history in particular, you will find that we do quite well in Round 2. Given these two principles, I would rather have multiple picks in the first few rounds rather than just one apiece.

3. Addressing Multiple Needs with quality picks- It's not all about increasing your hit rate. It's also about devoting a quality pick to different needs. Like most teams, Denver has more than one area of major need. Denver has key needs at LG, OC, QB (in my view), perhaps some more depth in the front three, another ILB and CB depth (only one young prospect and multiple 30+ starters). The problem of addressing multiple needs, then, also favors a strategy of trading down to get more picks. Again, we aren't talking about trading a first to get 15 7th rounders...we're talking about quality selections, here. I would rather be in a position where we can hit 4 or 5 areas of major need in the first three rounds before the draft starts to thin out, rather than going with the standard one per round and boxing Josh into a position where he won't really be able to credibly address at least one or two of the key needs in the draft (i.e. there will be some key needs that he can simply do no more than throw a 6th rounder at it, just because he's ran out of quality selections).

4. Cost to Value Ratio and Incentive. Among the three major methods of talent acquisition, the draft is generally the cheapest. Only picks in the Top 10-12 can reasonably be described as "costly" from a guaranteed money perspective. That leaves another 300 odd picks that are not costly. For the 18 million you would guarantee a Top 6-7 pick, you could pay for the guaranteed portions of say 4 second round players contracts (and second rounders are generally still quality prospects). That's simply a better cost to value ratio that investing it in one person. There's simply more aggregate talent you can get even if that one person is clearly superior to any of the other four individually. There is also the matter of incentives. When you sign a guy to a FA deal, or trade for someone and give them a new deal, there is sometimes the problem that they wont have the proper incentives to play as well as they can because they've already gotten "fat". We've seen this effect several times with high priced UFA's we've gotten. When you're moving down, getting more picks (and cheaper picks), those players will be properly incentivized to get their second contract.

Kaylore
12-15-2009, 11:28 PM
its so stupid to just say "trade down" without even knowing whos on the board when you want to just start trading down nonstop.

Not really. The more picks you have the more opportunities to address an area of need. Sure, you're odds of hitting are theoretically better toward the top of the draft. However Brandon Marshall, Chris Kuper and Elvis Dumervil were all drafted in the fourth round or later. There is starting and even pro-bowl talent to be had in later rounds and you can get more players with more picks provided you do your homework.

We actually have a system we can draft players for now. That means finding players that work out is easier because you just need them to do a few things consistently. This also makes them easier to coach and easier to integrate into your football team.

I believe trading down is always good regardless of the talent level of the draft unless someone falls to you that you're sure will light it up in the league for years.

Archer81
12-16-2009, 12:05 AM
Just cuz.


:Broncos:

fontaine
12-16-2009, 04:40 AM
I'm all for trading down as long as you get extra picks in the first three rounds because basically the draft is a crap shoot and the more picks you have the better the chances to pick up a solid starter in the first three rounds.

I don't believe in such a thing as a can't miss player.

Popps
12-16-2009, 05:21 AM
I've never understood that either. It's way too early to talk about draft when it will consume three full months coming up.

I'm generally in agreement with this, and there is certainly a lot of good playoff talk going on. I think this year is just different because the draft/FA is so compelling, it' hard not to touch on it. I'm far from a draft-nick, but it really is intriguing going into a draft like this with a high-mid pick.

That said, there is a lot of important football left, regular season and hopefully otherwise.

Rock Chalk
12-16-2009, 05:24 AM
NOTE: Unlike my BMarsh thread to cause trouble, this thread truly isn't towards any one person. Since the Bears were eliminated from playoff contention, I know I have read like 5-10 people say we need to trade down.

I understand the financial aspect, but IMO at some point to get a big stud on our team we need to take a big gamble. We can't always trade down. We just can't.

Draft is loaded, trading down isnt about finances, its about getting a lot of bang out of a loaded draft.

Personally, I want to trade up. Whatever it takes to get Ndamukong Suh. Game breaking beast

barryr
12-16-2009, 05:31 AM
Trading down makes sense if the player you really want is taken before your pick. If other players on your board figure to be there later, then why not trade down and get an extra pick or two and still get someone you want?

There are those that want a QB so badly, yet ignore how many 1st round busts at QB there have been in just the last decade. Not to mention none would figure to start anytime soon for this team.

RhymesayersDU
12-16-2009, 06:20 AM
I've never understood that either. It's way too early to talk about draft when it will consume three full months coming up.

Besides this being a deep draft (so I'm told; I don't follow college ball too closely) this year is unique in that our play on the field has zero to do with our first round draft status. It's not one of those "let's lose out" deals or anything like that. We can continue to win, march towards the playoffs, and still have a Top-10 pick via the Bears losing. That's a pretty exciting prospect.

I mean look at the threads going currently; how many are specifically geared towards this week's game? Not many. It's about the Bears or about the possibility of the Ravens/Jags/Dolphins losing for playoff seeding. We're all looking ahead.

Broncos_OTM
12-16-2009, 06:26 AM
Trade down into the 20's, pick up some extra picks, and draft G Mike Iupati out of Idaho. At 6'6 330 pounds, he has the size and athletic ability to play in any scheme. The left side of our line is solidified for the next decade with 2 players that can both pass block, and plow through defenders. The Broncos have a shot to have the best left side of an O-line since the days of Shell and Upshaw. Denver receives extra picks, and while Iupati is not a sexy pick, the Broncos begin the transition to becoming a team that can controll the line of scrimage on the offensive side of the ball.
There is no way in hell can Lupati play in a ZBS. He might even have a rough time here. With as much as we pull our gaurds. He does not have great feet or mobility. Doesnt reach the second leval well. He is a stud in pass protection though. and as a straight line blocker he will be good. His scheme is Power Blocking Pitts Phili and Dallas are teams that should be looking at him.

Broncos_OTM
12-16-2009, 06:48 AM
You guys need a young quarterback, ASAP. You need to stop spinning your wheels with Orton. It was nice that he played mistake-free football this year in order to stabilize the program, but sooner or later you have to go out and find a real franchise quarterback who's going to be the driving force.

You should be looking to trade UP ala what Shanahan did in 2006 with Cutler. You've got a sold core of talent on both sides of the ball, so spending a few extra picks, or future picks, to move up and get a REAL quarterback should be priority #1.

Any sign that the Denver Broncos are willing to enter next season with Orton as the unquestioned starter is a bad sign. Signing him to a long-term contract would be equally dumb.

Denver is a perfect situation for any young quarterback with franchise potential. There won't be a better time to pull the trigger on one. Strike now before you get stuck with Orton and begin praying you'll somehow avoid Philip Rivers, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger in the playoffs.
i think this is the most sense i have ever heard out of you. Problem though. Mcd is not all patriot way like i thought he was. IE he runs alot more then they did in New England. I dont know how much he values a first round QB. He takes great pride in coaching up late round QB's. Brandstater might be his guy. Kyle Orton has proved to be a good QB nothing great nothing awful. So Mcd might not wanna shake things up. Although we do have a good pick this year. and if we can keep up our winning ways it might be tough to be this high again.

McCoy reminds me alot of Simms. Not a first rounder IMO i would take him though in the second.
Bradford is a interesting thought. But i think he will be gone if Washington has a pick ahead of us.
Mallet is a guy that hasnt earned a first round grade. IMO. Great year this year. but Snead had a great year his sophmore. i want a bigger body of work on him.
Tebow. yeah right



The biggest bonus this year with trading down is this. OG C DE (3-4) are fairly easy to find in the mid rounds. So the more ammo we have for those the better. about the only guys i want in the top ten are Berry Suh the defensive tackle from Oklahoma whose name escapes me. Maybe McClain or possibly a qb.We can find some of our biggest needs in the middle rounds this year. So i definelty see a reason to trade down.

Broncos_OTM
12-16-2009, 06:53 AM
its so stupid to just say "trade down" without even knowing whos on the board when you want to just start trading down nonstop.

our main needs as i see them are. LG C DE 2-3-4 rounds are where these guys usually get selected. and it hypothetically would leave us with the ability to get BPA in the first. I have no problem with people wanting to trade down. Although i hate it when people make stupid ideas on a trade down that would make no sense to the other team. There has to be someone they want and value highly.

azbroncfan
12-16-2009, 07:54 AM
I do this all the time in Madden, sign the best FA's and then trade them for picks. Why can't we do that here?

broncosteven
12-16-2009, 11:46 AM
I do this all the time in Madden, sign the best FA's and then trade them for picks. Why can't we do that here?

Do you only play one or 2 franchise seasons? I would think your cap would be destroyed by the 2nd year.

azbroncfan
12-16-2009, 11:47 AM
Do you only play one or 2 franchise seasons? I would think your cap would be destroyed by the 2nd year.

I give them big contracts with no signing bonuses so there is no cap hit.

lex
12-16-2009, 03:27 PM
our main needs as i see them are. LG C DE 2-3-4 rounds are where these guys usually get selected. and it hypothetically would leave us with the ability to get BPA in the first. I have no problem with people wanting to trade down. Although i hate it when people make stupid ideas on a trade down that would make no sense to the other team. There has to be someone they want and value highly.

Center is an interestng position. There are three juniors that apparently are vastly better prospects than what you have with seniors in 2010. If those juniors (ODowd, Pouncey, Wisnewski) all go pro, its a good year to take one of them. If they dont go pro, maybe it would make sense to sign a rent-a-vet like Mawae, for example.

Broncos_OTM
12-16-2009, 10:36 PM
Center is an interestng position. There are three juniors that apparently are vastly better prospects than what you have with seniors in 2010. If those juniors (ODowd, Pouncey, Wisnewski) all go pro, its a good year to take one of them. If they dont go pro, maybe it would make sense to sign a rent-a-vet like Mawae, for example.
Odowd would be a good to great pick for the broncos. I liked pouncey alot this year. Though he has problems with Mammoth NT's (Terrance Cody ate his lunch.) Wisnewski is a good intriguing thought. He needs to defiently get in the weight room he IMHO needs another year to season and get stronger. i think he is probably the smartest center but i seriously have to question how he is gonna match up against big beefy NT and might not ever be strong enough. i think he would be a very good pick for a ZBS team.

My favorite of the three is M Pouncey.

Another couple guys to look at are JD walton and Tennant from BC

BowlenBall
12-17-2009, 06:52 AM
I'm a big, biiiiiig proponent of trading down every single year, unless you've got a can't miss, one-in-a-million prospect like John Elway at the top of the draft.

First of all, the second round always produces 10-15 quality players, year in and year out. It's my favorite round, and the one in which super bowl champions are made. I love to have as many shots at players in this round as possible.

Second, having a high pick is no guarantee that the player won't be a bust. The problem is, you've put all of your eggs in one basket from a talent standpoint and from a financial standpoint, and if they do flame out (see Lions, Detroit), then it's very hard for your team to recover for several years.

Here's a little thought experiment -- let's assume that a top-5 pick can be flipped into multiple 2nd round picks (minimum of 3, maximum of 5, I'll take the average of 4). Then, let's look at the last 10 years and see who the top 5 bust was, and which 4 players were available in the 2nd round.

2009
1/2/Jason Smith (too early to tell, but has only played 1 game this year)
OR
2/33/Louis Delmas
2/35/James Laurinaitis
2/38/Rey Maualuga
2/42/Jairus Byrd

2008
1/4/Darren McFadden (again, too early to tell, but very disappointing so far)
OR
2/37/Curtis Lofton
2/42/Eddie Royal
2/49/DeSean Jackson
2/55/Ray Rice

2007
1/1/JaMarcus Russell
OR
2/37/Eric Weddle
2/44/Sidney Rice
2/47/David Harris
2/51/Steve Smith (NY Giants)

2006
1/3/Vince Young (no busts in top 5 this year, but Young came close)
OR
2/33/DeMeco Ryans
2/52/Greg Jennings
2/57/Devin Hester
2/60/Maurice Jones-Drew

2005
1/1/Alex Smith
OR
2/41/Michael Roos
2/45/Lofa Tatupu
2/51/Nick Collins
2/62/Vincent Jackson

2004
1/2/Robert Gallery
OR
2/33/Karlos Dansby
2/34/Chris Snee
2/43/Julius Jones
2/44/Bob Sanders

2003
1/2/Charles Rogers
OR
2/39/Rashean Mathis
2/42/Ken Hamlin
2/54/Anquan Boldin
2/56/Osi Umenyiora

2002
1/3/Joey Harrington
OR
2/34/DeShaun Foster
2/37/Andre Gurode
2/51/Clinton Portis
2/62/Antwaan Randle El

2001
1/3/Gerard Warren
OR
2/32/Drew Brees
2/36/Chad Ochocinco
2/44/Kris Jenkins
2/61/Shaun Rogers

2000
1/4/Peter Warrick
OR
2/38/Marvel Smith
2/39/Mike Brown (Chicago Bears)
2/47/Jerry Porter
2/60/Brad Meester

In general, any one of the four 2nd-rounders listed are better than the top-5 player. And the contracts of all four combined are less than the high first-rounder's alone.

Trade down and hit on one of the four, you're way ahead of the game. Hit on two of the four, you're a playoff team. Hit on three or four, and you're a dynasty.