Trade Up To 1st Round

[powderblueboy]

I don't think Epenesa will be as great as he was for Iowa. What I do think is that he'll average 5-10 sacks, and play the run well. I'm also looking toward Ingram pricing himself off the team. I think in 10 years, he'll have a Justin Smith type of career. Not elite, but solid.

justin smith was elite during the jim harbaugh era

[Steve]

The difference between 5 and 10 sacks a year is huge. A 5 sack a year is a guy who adds little to your team pass rush (as a starter). A 10 sack a year guy is a starter and potential all pro if he brings enough other production to the table. As far as not being as great as he was in college, that is probably true of most college players when they get in the NFL.

The thing with Espenesa is that he is going to be somewhat similar to Justin Smith. The Bengals tried to make Smith a speed rushing DE harassing QB off the blindside with speed, which was stupid, because he was not that type of player. But the closer he moved to the C, his speed was less of a liability and he was very productive, despite being somewhat stiff and not particularly athletic. Too many draft people fall in love with the athletic side of things, and not every good football player is a great athlete.

Most of Espenesa's sacks come from inside stunts, or counters back to the inside. He has just enough speed, that if a QB holds the ball too long, then he can get around the corner. But not too many NFL guys take many sacks like that. He is not an amazing athlete, but he is very smooth and efficient. He uses his hands very well, and throws blockers hands off, allowing him to get instant penetration. While he is kinda slow for an outside guy, he has OK speed for an inside rusher.

People keep comparing him to outside/pure edge players, and that is just not where he is going to make a living. He is probably going to spend most of his time as a 3 technique guy, and will probably have to get a lot stronger, just like Smith did. But his hand use is pretty good, and despite some athletic limitations, he is the kind of player who can play DE in either a 43 or 34, then slide inside to rush the QB with a situational guy coming on to take his place on the edge (or the 34 OLB rushes like a 43 DE).

[Guest]

I would trade the 3rd and the 2nd round pick for a 1st rounder every year (2 players in the top 32 with the 5th year option contract on both of them)

I disagree and believe that the trade up approach is generally a recipe for disaster.

I like Murray, but it is almost always better to have the extra picks. The trade chart has always overvalued higher draft picks, almost ridiculously so.

Trading back and otherwise stockpiling draft picks is the best way to build a championship caliber team, not trading up. Extra picks minimize the impact of the draft pick misses and partial misses that all teams have.

If we wanted to pick somewhere in the teens and 20s to select Murray, again, a player I like, I would have strongly preferred trading out of #6 overall to accomplish that and picking up extra picks versus trading up and sacrificing picks.

From a trade chart value standpoint combined with the way the draft fell, we could have traded back and ended up with Kenneth Murray, Patrick Queen, Jonathan Taylor and Josh Jones versus Justin Herbert and Kenneth Murray. Our LB unit would have gone from being a area of weakness to an area of strength with tons of speed and playmaking ability. The hypothetical trade back produces 4 probable starters in 2020 versus 1 with the trade up approach.

[gzubeck]

I disagree and believe that the trade up approach is generally a recipe for disaster.

I like Murray, but it is almost always better to have the extra picks. The trade chart has always overvalued higher draft picks, almost ridiculously so.

Trading back and otherwise stockpiling draft picks is the best way to build a championship caliber team, not trading up. Extra picks minimize the impact of the draft pick misses and partial misses that all teams have.

If we wanted to pick somewhere in the teens and 20s to select Murray, again, a player I like, I would have strongly preferred trading out of #6 overall to accomplish that and picking up extra picks versus trading up and sacrificing picks.

From a trade chart value standpoint combined with the way the draft fell, we could have traded back and ended up with Kenneth Murray, Patrick Queen, Jonathan Taylor and Josh Jones versus Justin Herbert and Kenneth Murray. Our LB unit would have gone from being a area of weakness to an area of strength with tons of speed and playmaking ability. The hypothetical trade back produces 4 probable starters in 2020 versus 1 with the trade up approach.

Well, we needed a QB so getting the best available was not an option for trade down. Would you trade a 2nd and third for Bosa? The answer is yes...Murray might be a bosa like player with huge impact on defense. The risk is worth the potential reward here. No regrets and will not be looking in rear view mirror if it doesn't work out! :whistlin:

[Guest]

Well, we needed a QB so getting the best available was not an option for trade down. Would you trade a 2nd and third for Bosa? The answer is yes...Murray might be a bosa like player with huge impact on defense. The risk is worth the potential reward here. No regrets and will not be looking in rear view mirror if it doesn't work out! :whistlin:

Your question assumes improper trade values in a trade that no team would do as 1:3 is worth 2200 by itself and even the first picks of both rounds two and three combined are only worth 845, but if you were to balance the trade values based upon the chart, then I would have done the following trade back of 2016 draft picks which is even very slightly unbalanced against the Chargers and yet still definitely tends to prove my point about the value of trading back. The picks traded for in my example were at one point all held by the 49ers, who drafted 7th overall in the first round in 2016.

Bosa (1:3) plus 4:102 for DeForest Buckner (1:7), Chris Jones (2:37) and Yannick Ngakoue (3:68). Bosa plus 4:102 is actually worth 12 draft pick trading points more than Buckner, Jones and Ngakoue, but if you forced me to settle for the three Pro Bowl DL players and sacrifice the 12 draft pick trading points instead of getting just the one Pro Bowl player in Bosa, then yeah, I could live with that.

Of course, if I wanted full trade back value and the 49ers did not want to part with their 2016 6th round pick, I could have agreed to accept their 5th round pick in 2017 under the theory that a pick in the next year's draft is worth one round less. That pick turned out to be some guy named George Kittle. Then it would have been Bosa plus a 4th for Buckner, Jones, Ngakoue and Kittle--all balanced by the chart and spiking the ball obvious as to why trade backs are almost always the best way to move about the draft board.

Does that make the point clear enough?

As soon as you say, "we needed a QB and could not trade back", you just failed as a GM. What value was offered for the pick? What should we be able to get with that value in a trade back? Who is the BPA at 1:6? Those should be the questions that the GM asks.

If you do not like the value offered (i.e., significantly less than chart value), then reject the trade possibility and take the BPA. A GM can always take the BPA. Only use positional need as a tie breaker when there are similarly ranked players as the potential BPA. Try to avoid trading up as a general rule. Do not reach. To me, these concepts are a part of GMing 101.

[rikardo]

I disagree and believe that the trade up approach is generally a recipe for disaster.

I disagree, example:
In 2011; I remember I and a lot of people here were very high on JJ Watt we needed 3-4 DE and we did draft that position we just did not trade up.
JJ Watt was selected #11
we selected Corey Liuget at #18

I would have given a 2nd (Marcus Gilchrist) and a 3rd (Vincent Brown) + Liuget for JJ

[gzubeck]

Your question assumes improper trade values in a trade that no team would do as 1:3 is worth 2200 by itself and even the first picks of both rounds two and three combined are only worth 845, but if you were to balance the trade values based upon the chart, then I would have done the following trade back of 2016 draft picks which is even very slightly unbalanced against the Chargers and yet still definitely tends to prove my point about the value of trading back. The picks traded for in my example were at one point all held by the 49ers, who drafted 7th overall in the first round in 2016.

Bosa (1:3) plus 4:102 for DeForest Buckner (1:7), Chris Jones (2:37) and Yannick Ngakoue (3:68). Bosa plus 4:102 is actually worth 12 draft pick trading points more than Buckner, Jones and Ngakoue, but if you forced me to settle for the three Pro Bowl DL players and sacrifice the 12 draft pick trading points instead of getting just the one Pro Bowl player in Bosa, then yeah, I could live with that.

Of course, if I wanted full trade back value and the 49ers did not want to part with their 2016 6th round pick, I could have agreed to accept their 5th round pick in 2017 under the theory that a pick in the next year's draft is worth one round less. That pick turned out to be some guy named George Kittle. Then it would have been Bosa plus a 4th for Buckner, Jones, Ngakoue and Kittle--all balanced by the chart and spiking the ball obvious as to why trade backs are almost always the best way to move about the draft board.

Does that make the point clear enough?

As soon as you say, "we needed a QB and could not trade back", you just failed as a GM. What value was offered for the pick? What should we be able to get with that value in a trade back? Who is the BPA at 1:6? Those should be the questions that the GM asks.

If you do not like the value offered (i.e., significantly less than chart value), then reject the trade possibility and take the BPA. A GM can always take the BPA. Only use positional need as a tie breaker when there are similarly ranked players as the potential BPA. Try to avoid trading up as a general rule. Do not reach. To me, these concepts are a part of GMing 101.

My GM'ing and Tom Telesco's GM'ing have been fine for this draft! :rimshot:

[Topcat]

I disagree, example:
In 2011; I remember I and a lot of people here were very high on JJ Watt we needed 3-4 DE and we did draft that position we just did not trade up.
JJ Watt was selected #11
we selected Corey Liuget at #18

I would have given a 2nd (Marcus Gilchrist) and a 3rd (Vincent Brown) + Liuget for JJ

Yep...in retrospect, yes. Both Gillie and Brown turned out to be meh...

[wu-dai clan]

New Orleans would have taken Kenneth Murray at 24.
Murray was our guy.
No looking back here.


Patrick Queen,
taken by Baltimore at 28,
does not have the intangibles,
especially leadership,
that Murray has.

Mickey Loomis is babbling about Zack Baun.
No Mickey, we all know you wanted Murray.
It is a pyrrhic victory to try and try to trade up for Baun,
get him finally at 74,
draft Cesar Ruiz at 24,
and then release Larry Warford.

Once again,
TT excels at intel.
Spy vs Spy.

[dmac_bolt]

I disagree and believe that the trade up approach is generally a recipe for disaster.

I like Murray, but it is almost always better to have the extra picks. The trade chart has always overvalued higher draft picks, almost ridiculously so.

Trading back and otherwise stockpiling draft picks is the best way to build a championship caliber team, not trading up. Extra picks minimize the impact of the draft pick misses and partial misses that all teams have.

If we wanted to pick somewhere in the teens and 20s to select Murray, again, a player I like, I would have strongly preferred trading out of #6 overall to accomplish that and picking up extra picks versus trading up and sacrificing picks.

From a trade chart value standpoint combined with the way the draft fell, we could have traded back and ended up with Kenneth Murray, Patrick Queen, Jonathan Taylor and Josh Jones versus Justin Herbert and Kenneth Murray. Our LB unit would have gone from being a area of weakness to an area of strength with tons of speed and playmaking ability. The hypothetical trade back produces 4 probable starters in 2020 versus 1 with the trade up approach.

I’m pretty sure there is no best way. Trade up and have one less pick, trade down and have one more. What matters most is who you pick. I remember year after year Cleveland traded down and collected a huge stockpile of lousy players and were back in that same position the next year to trade down again and stockpile even more lousy players. Bad GMs making bad choices, doesn’t matter how many choices they get. NE has traded up many times and traded down many times over the years.

your strategy could be good, maybe not. The problem I see in it is we come out of the draft without a franchise QB. Its a QB league so thats a problem.

If Murray turns out to be what I think he will be - at a spot that has ached on the roster for a long time - its a great move imo.

[Formula 21]

I’m pretty sure there is no best way. Trade up and have one less pick, trade down and have one more. What matters most is who you pick. I remember year after year Cleveland traded down and collected a huge stockpile of lousy players and were back in that same position the next year to trade down again and stockpile even more lousy players. Bad GMs making bad choices, doesn’t matter how many choices they get. NE has traded up many times and traded down many times over the years.

your strategy could be good, maybe not. The problem I see in it is we come out of the draft without a franchise QB. Its a QB league so thats a problem.

If Murray turns out to be what I think he will be - at a spot that has ached on the roster for a long time - its a great move imo.

IMO, its too early to say Herbert is not a franchise qb. Give him a few years. He’s got some special qualities.

And Murray is a great pick. Time will tell on him too.

[madcaplaughs]

I'd love to be wrong about the trade. If Murray is Ray Lewis, or Mike Singletary, then he's certainly worth a 2nd and 3rd round pick. It's just that this was a deep draft, and I think we might have had a couple of good players, rather than one really good one?