Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Trading back multiple times - Theory


Recommended Posts

You guys on this page seem to better be able to talk about team building strategy than the main page - which I really appreciate. 

 

So @panthers320 did a mock that shows Carolina trading back a few times picking up multiple 1st round future picks. Which got me thinking..

Given how much patience Tepper has shown allowing the rebuild, is there a case to be made that we should trade back several times to pick up more draft picks in NEXT years draft? That this strategy, for the long term might be better for the team than staying put and picking what falls?

If we have the ability to trade down in the 1st and pick up 2nd rounders next year given how many needs we have would that better serve us long term? 

 

What's your thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always a fan of trading back and think our unwillingness to do it is a big issue with it lack of depth/talent on our roster.

We could potentially be in a good position if we're looking to trade back and grabbing extra picks in this draft but I don't know about the next. This looks like a strong QB draft compared to the next, same with the OL (particularly OT). This year might be our best shot injecting talent at positions of great weakness.

There's rumors that the Bears or other teams might be aggressive in moving up for a QB though. If someone is willing to back up the Brinks for a big move like that. Take the extra picks in both drafts.

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. Unfortunately I think we are just out of the 'sweet spot' for trades ups. But who knows how the draft will fall. 

But you make a good point there are some strong positions in positions of need for us in this draft, so we might want to stay. Also Rhule is still knowledgeable with these kids whereas less so with next years.. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading back to get more picks is a valid strategy IF we don't grade this crop of available QB's high or IF we don't have a potential franchise caliber player that is around at #8. With the unbelievable lack of quality depth on the roster, multiple 2nd's, 3rd's, 4ths, 5th, etc would be a big help to keep both the salary cap down and perhaps developing some better depth along the roster. Considering the dearth of overall talent on the roster, it would actually make some sense.

That said.....we will struggle to be a competitive team in the NFL without a franchise QB and we will almost definitely not be competing for Super Bowls without one. So, if there is a QB you identify as "your guy" or a couple of guys, you either move to get them or you see if one slips to 8. 

The reason you see so many teams reach every year for QB's is that the new rookie structure makes the penalty for whiffing on a high draft pick QB very low. And the reward for hitting is so unbelievably high. 

Edited by kungfoodude
  • Pie 5
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd honestly say you have to judge all of those situations on an individual basis. Who was available at the time, what did they need, etc. I'm not so much concerned about the method itself as I am whether it was the right thing to do in the moment.

That's going to be the situation coming up too. Who will still be there, who will be gone, what moves will we have made in free agency, yada yada yada.

I'm fine with trading down. Fine with trading up too if it doesn't cost too much. Just depends on the circumstances.

Edited by Mr. Scot
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'd honestly say you have to judge all of those situations on an individual basis. Who was available at the time, what did they need, etc. I'm not so much concerned about the method itself as I am whether it was the right thing to do in the moment.

That's going to be the situation coming up too. Who will still be there, who will be gone, what moves will we have made in free agency, yada yada yada.

I'm fine with trading down. Fine with trading up too if it doesn't cost too much. Just depends on the circumstances.

This isn't really more than a theoretical question because free agency hasn't happened, evaluations haven't happened, combines and workouts haven't happened. Hell, the new GM probably hasn't even stepped into his new office yet.

We are a long way from layman being definitive about what we should do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

This isn't really more than a theoretical question because free agency hasn't happened, evaluations haven't happened, combines and workouts haven't happened. Hell, the new GM probably hasn't even stepped into his new office yet.

We are a long way from layman being definitive about what we should do.

I get that, but that leaves the only real discussion being whether you like the idea of trading down or not.

As a method,.I'm fine with it. but like anything else, there are times when it's a good idea and times when it might not be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I get that, but that leaves the only real discussion being whether you like the idea of trading down or not.

As a method,.I'm fine with it. but like anything else, there are times when it's a good idea and times when it might not be.

I think in theory that kind of move is ideal for teams with the kind of overall roster weaknesses that we have. But, like I said, the QB question really throws a wrench into that plan. 

I get the crowd that always stumps for building the OL and the team THEN getting the QB. I also get the crowd that always stumps for getting the QB and THEN building the team. 

IMO, that probably plays the biggest role in whether we do or do not trade down. Outside the obvious, "all our top guys are gone" scenario. 

We do have to keep in mind that the rumor mill had it that Rhule wanted to trade down in the last draft. So that is something to remember, as well.

  • Pie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If we dont like the QB crop or all top 4 are gone by 8, I'm fine with trading back. We have multiple holes on our line. Add some picks in 2 and 3 if possible, get some guards and a RT if we cant keep Moton, LB possibly a DB. We need a lot and if "the guy" isnt there, let's fill our other needs as best as we can. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I think in theory that kind of move is ideal for teams with the kind of overall roster weaknesses that we have. But, like I said, the QB question really throws a wrench into that plan. 

I get the crowd that always stumps for building the OL and the team THEN getting the QB. I also get the crowd that always stumps for getting the QB and THEN building the team. 

IMO, that probably plays the biggest role in whether we do or do not trade down. Outside the obvious, "all our top guys are gone" scenario. 

We do have to keep in mind that the rumor mill had it that Rhule wanted to trade down in the last draft. So that is something to remember, as well.

The Patriots have lived and died by it for years. Hasn't always worked though.

As to the Matt Rhule rumor, I actually think it's true but hey...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not expressing my views here-but the argument for trading back is compelling.

  • 1. It takes OL a year or so to get their footing.  Not many rookies are dominant.
  • 2. We have holes at OT, OG x 2, OC, TE, CB, S, MLB, and possibly FB, DE, WR, and DT.  And that is not even looking carefully at expiring contracts. Trading UP for the third or fourth best QB in the draft could be stupid, if you are sacrificing quality players to fill other needs.
  • 3. If you want to increase the chances of a young QB coming in and doing well, build the OL, give him weapons (RB, WR, TE)  and give him a solid defense.
  • Bridgewater is still under contract for 2021 at least.  So we have an experienced QB (I know, you hate him, but with a better D, TE, and an ungraded OL....) 

After a 5 win season, we are all frothing at the mouth for a QB, but if our guy does not fall to us, I am not sure moving up is the best long term solution compared to trading back and filling holes. 

Just a theory--and one that should be considered, since there are literally hundreds of options.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

The Patriots have lived and died by it for years. Hasn't always worked though.

As to the Matt Rhule rumor, I actually think it's true but hey...

The Pats had a period where they were crushing the draft and then they sort of morphed to being pretty ho-hum in the draft and crushing free agency. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...