Trade Up To 1st Round

[Boltjolt]

I 100% agree that it is easy to see things after the fact. That was one of the points of the post that you quoted. The poster to whom I responded cherry picked some bad draft picks from A.J. Smith to justify a hypothetical trade up for J.J. Watt. The other poster to whom I responded did the same thing but got the trade values from the chart wrong so it was a crazy trade that nobody would do.

Neither approach is valid in terms of being realistic, but if you are going to use that hindsight approach, then I can kick the crap out of it virtually every time by trading back instead of trading up. I clearly showed that in both the Bosa example and the Watt example.

I get that you will want to assert that it is all hindsight and that I never would have known that certain players would outperform their draft slot. Neither would those cherry picking trade ups that would have worked because bad picks were made in the draft slots to be traded away.

There is a significant miss/partial miss rate with picks at every stage of the draft, so if you want to push the point about hindsight, my response is that more picks are better in the absence of hindsight because that helps to offset draft pick misses/partial misses whereas trade ups accentuate their impact (see Te'o, Manti; Attaochu, Jeremiah; and Gordon, Melvin).

I like Murray as a player. He represents solid value at 1--23. But from a strategy standpoint, it would have been better trade out of 1--6 down to where we could have selected Murray instead of reaching for Herbert (wasting draft capital) and trading up for Murray (wasting more draft capital due to the trade chart being skewed).

One poster commented that stockpiling draft picks did not work for Cleveland. That proves nothing other than that the Browns were inept drafters who wasted their draft capital. The same GM will always be better with more picks versus fewer picks in cases of small range trade backs.

Telesco's inability to draft effectively in the third round does not justify the trade up. There have been good players available even if Telesco was incapable of finding them. That is what matters. Frankly, if a GM struggles to draft well, that justifies trading back even more so in order to allow the GM to have a greater number of attempts to get it right.

Lastly, I am saying Telesco used bad draft strategy regadless of how well Murray does. If Telesco were to throw darts at a draft board, he just might pick the perfect player, but I would not recommend that as a draft strategy either. So, yes, without Murray even playing a down, I am saying Telesco screwed up in terms of the stategy employed. Even if the pick works, the strategy was, is and always will be bad.

This is not a case in which we got no value. We clearly did with Herbert and Murray, but it is a case where we did not get as much value as we should have had with picks 6, 37 and 71.

I don't necessarily agree.

We'll see how Herbert turns out. He is the key here. When you need to draft your next franchise QB and are in position to do so, you have to do it. I didn't necessarily like him at #6 but if we don't do it there, maybe Jax does and we lose out. It could be worse.... It could of been last years clas we had to choose from.

So again,, we'll see how he turns out. If he is great then of course..... You will be wrong and the third rounder won't matter at all if Murray is great. Third rounders even with AJ haven't done well here. The last one to do well for us besides Keenan was Nick Hardwick in 2004.

Im willing to bet a lot more third rounders fail than not. I'm always wanting more picks but I don't mind getting more top players either.

[Maniaque 6]

I think the Chargers priority was to get one of Top 3 QBs in that draft
No reason to trade up cause if none of them is there, I. Simmons
If your QB was there at 6, get the best LB in 2nd.
TT didn't like what he saw.
The trade up took place at 2nd round instead of the 1st.
I prefer that !