PDA

View Full Version : Kubiak: Not easy to trade down in the draft


CloakNNNdagger
03-13-2010, 04:51 PM
For starters, to get down, you need a team that wants to move up.

“Sitting in the draft room for many years, I think those are conversations that always come up: 'Well, wouldn’t it be nice to move back and pick up a couple other picks?'" Texans coach Gary Kubiak said. “Well in that 10 minutes or whatever you have before that pick, if you’re not a hot commodity at that time and nobody wants to talk to you, you better be ready to do business.

“I think it’s probably a hell of a lot easier said than done.”

Link (http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/10150/the-case-for-not-trading-down-in-draft)


I posted this, since this comes up every year (and already has this offseason). If you want to trade down, you have to have shrewd negotiators who can make immediate on-the-fly decisions..........unlike what we've seen in the past few years during games.

TheRealJoker
03-13-2010, 04:54 PM
Also, there needs to be a player teams are willing to move up to get available at our pick. If there was a player that coveted, why not just take the great value pick at 20?

Trading down is difficult unless you're not looking for positive value for yourself (but rather more picks no matter the value).

Maddict5
03-13-2010, 05:10 PM
Link (http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/10150/the-case-for-not-trading-down-in-draft)


I posted this, since this comes up every year (and already has this offseason). If you want to trade down, you have to have shrewd negotiators who can make immediate on-the-fly decisions..........unlike what we've seen in the past few years during games.

:rolleyes:

any chance for a dig? if only we hadnt traded down the year before last it might have some credibility

ArlingtonTexan
03-13-2010, 05:16 PM
Draft fans in pretty much every city think their team can always trade down...pretty much ignoring that there is usually not a trade up partner. Your team has to always have a pick ready to go even if they really don't like the value.

Carr Bombed
03-13-2010, 05:28 PM
:rolleyes:

any chance for a dig? if only we hadnt traded down the year before last it might have some credibility

Yeah, wasn't it the Ravens who traded up for Joe Flacco....and we got Duane Brown and Steve Slaton with what was originally the Jaguars 3rd round pick, which the Ravens got when they traded down with the Jags, so they could take Derrick Harvey.

I think that's correct.

CloakNNNdagger
03-13-2010, 05:31 PM
:rolleyes:

any chance for a dig? if only we hadnt traded down the year before last it might have some credibility

There was no dig in presenting the fact that it's harder to trade down than one realizes and that it takes quick smart minds to do so well. There was a "wish" that that could extrapolate to those same characteristics being shown on the field.

awtysst
03-13-2010, 06:22 PM
Link (http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/10150/the-case-for-not-trading-down-in-draft)


I posted this, since this comes up every year (and already has this offseason). If you want to trade down, you have to have shrewd negotiators who can make immediate on-the-fly decisions..........unlike what we've seen in the past few years during games.

Almost every team wants to trade down, only a few want to trade and only if they get the right kind of deal. In addition to needing shrewd negotiators, you need to have a player or group of players you are targeting at the new spot. Nothing is worse than trading down and then losing out on all of your targets: See Travis Johnson pick. As much as the C & C music factory might spin it, I really believe they had no clue who they wanted and just grabbed a random name out of a hat!

jppaul
03-13-2010, 06:48 PM
Twenty is primetime trade down territory for teams that have spend thier first already and want to get back into the first to grab another player they had targeted that fell.

awtysst
03-13-2010, 06:51 PM
Twenty is primetime trade down territory for teams that have spend thier first already and want to get back into the first to grab another player they had targeted that fell.

Ok, but it all goes back to whether a team can get good value for the pick or not. You can easily make a trade and get nothing of value back. The key is to get good value. THATS what makes it so tough.

gtexan02
03-13-2010, 07:03 PM
Great, lets trade up for Eric Berry if he falls past 10

Norg
03-13-2010, 08:19 PM
In our history I don't think we have ever traded down lol

JB
03-13-2010, 08:29 PM
In our history I don't think we have ever traded down lol

2008- 18 down to 26?
2005- 13 down to 16?

This does not count the trade for Schaub...

Scooter
03-13-2010, 08:31 PM
In our history I don't think we have ever traded down lol

travis johnson. :gun:

edit: duane brown as well, thanks jb.

DocBar
03-13-2010, 08:59 PM
Great, lets trade up for Eric Berry if he falls past 10 I'm almost cool with that.

Ole Miss Texan
03-13-2010, 09:24 PM
I love the draft because of the anticipation towards your pick. Who's going to be available,who are we going to select... or are we going to be able to trade down!?

We've be fairly successful in trading down in the past, in my opinion. One not mentioned yet was in 2007. New Orleans trade up with us in the 4th round to select RB Antonio Pittman. We moved down 16 spots to their 4th (used to select Fred Bennett) and received their 5th (used to select Brandon Frye).

El Tejano
03-13-2010, 10:00 PM
I like the way the draft is set up this year. Now, after day one, I can put my draft board in order again and then go from there. Just hate that it's on a Thursday. May have to take off from work. Ha Ha Ha

76Texan
03-14-2010, 12:20 AM
April 26, 2003: Traded second-round pick (36th overall) and fourth-round pick (117th overall) to New England in exchange for second-round pick (41st overall) and third-round pick (75th overall); traded third-round pick (83rd overall) and seventh-round pick (262nd overall) to Oakland in exchange for 2004 second-round pick.

April 25, 2004: Traded fifth-round pick (159th overall) to Jacksonville in exchange for sixth-round pick (175th overall) and seventh-round pick (210th overall).

April 23, 2005: Traded first-round pick (13th overall) to New Orleans in exchange for first-round pick (16th overall- DT Travis Johnson) and 2006 third-round pick

April 29, 2007: Traded fourth-round draft pick (107th overall) to the New Orleans Saints in exchange for the Saints' 2007 fourth-round pick (123rd overall- CB Fred Bennett) and a 2007 fifth-round pick (163rd overall- G/T Brandon Frye).

April 26, 2008: Traded first-round pick (No. 18 overall) to the Baltimore Ravens for first-round pick (No. 26 overall- T Duane Brown) a third-round pick (89th overall- RB Steve Slaton) and a sixth-round pick (173rd overall- S Dominique Barber).

BSofA04
03-14-2010, 12:52 AM
IMO, if the opportunity presents itself for a trade down, I'd pull the trigger if Wilson, Thomas and Spiller are off the board.

Lucky
03-14-2010, 08:31 AM
I like the way the draft is set up this year. Now, after day one, I can put my draft board in order again and then go from there. Just hate that it's on a Thursday. May have to take off from work. Ha Ha Ha
I used to skip class back when the draft was held on Tuesday mornings. Berman at 9 in the morning is hard to handle. Kiper's air was still huge. Paul Zimmerman was wrong about everything.

Norg
03-14-2010, 12:57 PM
2008- 18 down to 26?
2005- 13 down to 16?

This does not count the trade for Schaub...

sorry i meant trade down to the lower numbers

awtysst
03-14-2010, 01:34 PM
I used to skip class back when the draft was held on Tuesday mornings. Berman at 9 in the morning is hard to handle. Kiper's air was still huge. Paul Zimmerman was wrong about everything.

Tuesday morning draft? Wow! When was that?

Lucky
03-14-2010, 01:46 PM
Tuesday morning draft? Wow! When was that?
In the '80s. I don't remember exactly when it was moved to the weekend.

According to NFL.com, here was the past schedules for the NFL draft (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8116faa2&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true):

The NFL draft was a Saturday-Sunday event from 1995 to 2009. It took place on Sunday and Monday from 1988 to 1994, and prior to 1988, it was held on one or two weekdays.

awtysst
03-14-2010, 02:02 PM
In the '80s. I don't remember exactly when it was moved to the weekend.

According to NFL.com, here was the past schedules for the NFL draft (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8116faa2&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true):

I guess it makes sense that it would be held on 2 weekdays since they did not think too many people would want to watch it. I mean if you think about it, unless you have really followed college football or know the players, it can be mind-numbingly boring to watch the draft.

steelbtexan
03-14-2010, 02:25 PM
There was no dig in presenting the fact that it's harder to trade down than one realizes and that it takes quick smart minds to do so well. There was a "wish" that that could extrapolate to those same characteristics being shown on the field.

The Texans management are shrewed. Where else can an orginazation not make the playoffs for 8 yrs and still sell out every game.

I dont think of the word shrewed to describe Kubes.

However I will say it was pretty shrewed of Kubes to finagle a contract extension out of McNair. Despite having a below .500 record and having his team unprepared to play a full game.

Brisco_County
03-14-2010, 02:26 PM
Trading down also depends on how much depth there is in the draft. This would be a good draft to trade down in, considering there wouldn't be a must-have player on the board at the time.

ArlingtonTexan
03-14-2010, 02:30 PM
I guess it makes sense that it would be held on 2 weekdays since they did not think too many people would want to watch it. I mean if you think about it, unless you have really followed college football or know the players, it can be mind-numbingly boring to watch the draft.

It is amazing that the draft has become anything of significant as a television event. Essentailly, you are watching a business meeting of 32 divisions of a company where the highlight is someone reading a name off a 3 by 5 card.

CloakNNNdagger
03-14-2010, 06:12 PM
I guess it makes sense that it would be held on 2 weekdays since they did not think too many people would want to watch it. I mean if you think about it, unless you have really followed college football or know the players, it can be mind-numbingly boring to watch the draft.

I can guarantee that the move was mostly due to increasing already bloated REVENUES. More total hours, more pre-draft analysis, more player interview time, and much more opportunity for post 1st round daily draft analysis. With a 24 hour lag to the 2nd round, there is more opportunity for coaches to take a breath and more liesurely rethink the status and next moves. This, in turn, leads to a huge amount of additionally generated speculation by a further expanded media, as to what moves each team could take. More time begets more money, money money!!!!!!!! You, my friends, are not the true concern for the owners or players in this matter..........unless, of course, you are invited to share in "a piece of the revenues pie." Now, everybody at the count 3......hold your breath...........:spin:

Dutchrudder
03-15-2010, 10:33 AM
Also, there needs to be a player teams are willing to move up to get available at our pick. If there was a player that coveted, why not just take the great value pick at 20?

Trading down is difficult unless you're not looking for positive value for yourself (but rather more picks no matter the value).


If the coveted player is say SS Taylor Mays or TE Jermaine Gresham, and you don't need them, then trade back a few spots and get an extra pick. I bet if the Texans do trade in this draft, they go back to 22 for New England's 4th round pick or a swap of 2nd's so the Pats can ensure they get the TE. They just had two TE's signed away in free agency and the Bengals (pick 21) are also in the market for a pass catching TE.

Another scenario may be an OT that falls and a team wants to hop up to ensure they get a starting LT or RT. The Packers, Eagles and Cowboys may be looking to move up for Bruce Campbell.

badboy
03-15-2010, 10:37 AM
April 26, 2003: Traded second-round pick (36th overall) and fourth-round pick (117th overall) to New England in exchange for second-round pick (41st overall) and third-round pick (75th overall); traded third-round pick (83rd overall) and seventh-round pick (262nd overall) to Oakland in exchange for 2004 second-round pick.

April 25, 2004: Traded fifth-round pick (159th overall) to Jacksonville in exchange for sixth-round pick (175th overall) and seventh-round pick (210th overall).

April 23, 2005: Traded first-round pick (13th overall) to New Orleans in exchange for first-round pick (16th overall- DT Travis Johnson) and 2006 third-round pick

April 29, 2007: Traded fourth-round draft pick (107th overall) to the New Orleans Saints in exchange for the Saints' 2007 fourth-round pick (123rd overall- CB Fred Bennett) and a 2007 fifth-round pick (163rd overall- G/T Brandon Frye).

April 26, 2008: Traded first-round pick (No. 18 overall) to the Baltimore Ravens for first-round pick (No. 26 overall- T Duane Brown) a third-round pick (89th overall- RB Steve Slaton) and a sixth-round pick (173rd overall- S Dominique Barber).Many forget we also got Barber with that 6th.

Yankee_In_TX
03-15-2010, 02:11 PM
Twenty is primetime trade down territory for teams that have spend thier first already and want to get back into the first to grab another player they had targeted that fell.

Like the Browns and Quinn! How'd that work out for them :)

2slik4u
03-15-2010, 02:17 PM
IMO, if the opportunity presents itself for a trade down, I'd pull the trigger if Wilson, Thomas and Spiller are off the board.

Agreed 100%. Im all about more picks if its a possibility.

Hooston Texan
03-15-2010, 03:21 PM
Usually, it is the team trading up that initiates the discussion--because there is a particular player they covet. A team that wants to trade down can only make that fact known to the other 31 and then hope someone else has a compatible target.

In general, teams only trade up in the first round for one of five categories of players: QB, OT, pass-rusher (4-3 DE or 3-4 OLB), 3-4 DLs and CB. In the last five drafts--2005 to 2009--there were, as far as I can tell, 25 trade-ups in the first round. Of those 25, 21 were for players in the above categories.

2005: OT Jammal Brown, DT Marcus Spears, CB Fabian Washington, QB Jason Campbell
2006: QB Jay Cutler, DT Haloti Ngata
2007: CB Darrelle Revis, DE Jarvis Moss, QB Brady Quinn, OLB Anthony Spencer, OT Joe Staley
2008: DE Derrick Harvey, OT Brandon Albert, QB Joe Flacco, OT Jeff Otah, OT Sam Baker, CB Mike Jenkins
2009: QB Matt Sanchez, QB Josh Freeman, OT Michael Oher, OLB Clay Matthews

The other four trade-ups were for WR Santonio Holmes, DT Sedrick Ellis, TE Dustin Keller and WR Jeremy Maclin.

So, if we hope to trade down, we need to root for a QB, OT, pass rusher, 3-4 DT or CB falling to 20. If a stellar DT or CB is sitting at 20, chances are we'll take him. The pass-rushing crop looks fairly weak this year, so I'm not sure there's anyone who would inspire someone to move up to 20. The OT class boasts five players expected to go in the top 15 (Okung, Campbell, Baluaga, Williams, Davis) but not much after that. Meanwhile, the only QBs under serious top 20 discussion are Bradford and Clausen.

If Clausen or one of the OTs fall, then we may very well get a call. Otherwise, we'll likely stick to our pick.

El Tejano
03-15-2010, 03:26 PM
Like the Browns and Quinn! How'd that work out for them :)

Not so good but as he became a coveted player, it ended up working out real well for Dallas who the Browns traded with.

ArlingtonTexan
03-15-2010, 04:13 PM
Usually, it is the team trading up that initiates the discussion--because there is a particular player they covet. A team that wants to trade down can only make that fact known to the other 31 and then hope someone else has a compatible target.

In general, teams only trade up in the first round for one of five categories of players: QB, OT, pass-rusher (4-3 DE or 3-4 OLB), 3-4 DLs and CB. In the last five drafts--2005 to 2009--there were, as far as I can tell, 25 trade-ups in the first round. Of those 25, 21 were for players in the above categories.

2005: OT Jammal Brown, DT Marcus Spears, CB Fabian Washington, QB Jason Campbell
2006: QB Jay Cutler, DT Haloti Ngata
2007: CB Darrelle Revis, DE Jarvis Moss, QB Brady Quinn, OLB Anthony Spencer, OT Joe Staley
2008: DE Derrick Harvey, OT Brandon Albert, QB Joe Flacco, OT Jeff Otah, OT Sam Baker, CB Mike Jenkins
2009: QB Matt Sanchez, QB Josh Freeman, OT Michael Oher, OLB Clay Matthews

The other four trade-ups were for WR Santonio Holmes, DT Sedrick Ellis, TE Dustin Keller and WR Jeremy Maclin.

So, if we hope to trade down, we need to root for a QB, OT, pass rusher, 3-4 DT or CB falling to 20. If a stellar DT or CB is sitting at 20, chances are we'll take him. The pass-rushing crop looks fairly weak this year, so I'm not sure there's anyone who would inspire someone to move up to 20. The OT class boasts five players expected to go in the top 15 (Okung, Campbell, Baluaga, Williams, Davis) but not much after that. Meanwhile, the only QBs under serious top 20 discussion are Bradford and Clausen.

If Clausen or one of the OTs fall, then we may very well get a call. Otherwise, we'll likely stick to our pick.

:bravo: This is an example of getting what the initial post was about and giving additional context and examples to support the difficulty in trading down.

badboy
03-15-2010, 04:18 PM
Usually, it is the team trading up that initiates the discussion--because there is a particular player they covet. A team that wants to trade down can only make that fact known to the other 31 and then hope someone else has a compatible target.

In general, teams only trade up in the first round for one of five categories of players: QB, OT, pass-rusher (4-3 DE or 3-4 OLB), 3-4 DLs and CB. In the last five drafts--2005 to 2009--there were, as far as I can tell, 25 trade-ups in the first round. Of those 25, 21 were for players in the above categories.

2005: OT Jammal Brown, DT Marcus Spears, CB Fabian Washington, QB Jason Campbell
2006: QB Jay Cutler, DT Haloti Ngata
2007: CB Darrelle Revis, DE Jarvis Moss, QB Brady Quinn, OLB Anthony Spencer, OT Joe Staley
2008: DE Derrick Harvey, OT Brandon Albert, QB Joe Flacco, OT Jeff Otah, OT Sam Baker, CB Mike Jenkins
2009: QB Matt Sanchez, QB Josh Freeman, OT Michael Oher, OLB Clay Matthews

The other four trade-ups were for WR Santonio Holmes, DT Sedrick Ellis, TE Dustin Keller and WR Jeremy Maclin.

So, if we hope to trade down, we need to root for a QB, OT, pass rusher, 3-4 DT or CB falling to 20. If a stellar DT or CB is sitting at 20, chances are we'll take him. The pass-rushing crop looks fairly weak this year, so I'm not sure there's anyone who would inspire someone to move up to 20. The OT class boasts five players expected to go in the top 15 (Okung, Campbell, Baluaga, Williams, Davis) but not much after that. Meanwhile, the only QBs under serious top 20 discussion are Bradford and Clausen.

If Clausen or one of the OTs fall, then we may very well get a call. Otherwise, we'll likely stick to our pick.Would it not be correct to say that a QB expected to go between # 20 and the team wishing to trade up's pick could also be considered at the #20?

painekiller
03-15-2010, 04:41 PM
Usually, it is the team trading up that initiates the discussion--because there is a particular player they covet. A team that wants to trade down can only make that fact known to the other 31 and then hope someone else has a compatible target.

In general, teams only trade up in the first round for one of five categories of players: QB, OT, pass-rusher (4-3 DE or 3-4 OLB), 3-4 DLs and CB. In the last five drafts--2005 to 2009--there were, as far as I can tell, 25 trade-ups in the first round. Of those 25, 21 were for players in the above categories.

2005: OT Jammal Brown, DT Marcus Spears, CB Fabian Washington, QB Jason Campbell
2006: QB Jay Cutler, DT Haloti Ngata
2007: CB Darrelle Revis, DE Jarvis Moss, QB Brady Quinn, OLB Anthony Spencer, OT Joe Staley
2008: DE Derrick Harvey, OT Brandon Albert, QB Joe Flacco, OT Jeff Otah, OT Sam Baker, CB Mike Jenkins
2009: QB Matt Sanchez, QB Josh Freeman, OT Michael Oher, OLB Clay Matthews

The other four trade-ups were for WR Santonio Holmes, DT Sedrick Ellis, TE Dustin Keller and WR Jeremy Maclin.

So, if we hope to trade down, we need to root for a QB, OT, pass rusher, 3-4 DT or CB falling to 20. If a stellar DT or CB is sitting at 20, chances are we'll take him. The pass-rushing crop looks fairly weak this year, so I'm not sure there's anyone who would inspire someone to move up to 20. The OT class boasts five players expected to go in the top 15 (Okung, Campbell, Baluaga, Williams, Davis) but not much after that. Meanwhile, the only QBs under serious top 20 discussion are Bradford and Clausen.

If Clausen or one of the OTs fall, then we may very well get a call. Otherwise, we'll likely stick to our pick.

That makes it look highly unlikely that we can trade down.

Brandon Graham is one of the only guys I can see gathering interest, and he would be a good fit for the Pats. I had a thought, what if the Texans took him and put him across from Mario? Sorry not going to happen with Barwin already here.

Dutchrudder
03-15-2010, 05:15 PM
Usually, it is the team trading up that initiates the discussion--because there is a particular player they covet. A team that wants to trade down can only make that fact known to the other 31 and then hope someone else has a compatible target.

In general, teams only trade up in the first round for one of five categories of players: QB, OT, pass-rusher (4-3 DE or 3-4 OLB), 3-4 DLs and CB. In the last five drafts--2005 to 2009--there were, as far as I can tell, 25 trade-ups in the first round. Of those 25, 21 were for players in the above categories.

2005: OT Jammal Brown, DT Marcus Spears, CB Fabian Washington, QB Jason Campbell
2006: QB Jay Cutler, DT Haloti Ngata
2007: CB Darrelle Revis, DE Jarvis Moss, QB Brady Quinn, OLB Anthony Spencer, OT Joe Staley
2008: DE Derrick Harvey, OT Brandon Albert, QB Joe Flacco, OT Jeff Otah, OT Sam Baker, CB Mike Jenkins
2009: QB Matt Sanchez, QB Josh Freeman, OT Michael Oher, OLB Clay Matthews

The other four trade-ups were for WR Santonio Holmes, DT Sedrick Ellis, TE Dustin Keller and WR Jeremy Maclin.


I can't help but notice that the Ravens traded up for at least 3 of those you mentioned. They also pick several spots behind us and may be looking for a safety. Whether that is Taylor Mays or Earl Thomas, I don't know, but if Earl is falling towards us, just hope they don't trade up to 19 to snag him right before we do.

badboy
03-15-2010, 05:19 PM
I can't help but notice that the Ravens traded up for at least 3 of those you mentioned. They also pick several spots behind us and may be looking for a safety. Whether that is Taylor Mays or Earl Thomas, I don't know, but if Earl is falling towards us, just hope they don't trade up to 19 to snag him right before we do.If Thomas gone maybe they will offer a bit for #20 for Mays?

Dutchrudder
03-15-2010, 05:21 PM
That makes it look highly unlikely that we can trade down.

Brandon Graham is one of the only guys I can see gathering interest, and he would be a good fit for the Pats. I had a thought, what if the Texans took him and put him across from Mario? Sorry not going to happen with Barwin already here.

Often times the team trading up is trying to snag a player before another team does. Moving 1-5 spots in up in the draft is a rather cheap price once you get past pick 15 and it can make a huge difference in the long-run.

I would love to see the Texans trade back 1-5 spots and pick up a 3-6 round pick for it and still draft Ryan Matthews right in front of the Chargers. It would be a great play on the FO's part and it would help us bolster our biggest needs later in the draft, or give us ammo to move up in later rounds.

GP
03-16-2010, 10:37 PM
Stay at 20, or move up to grab a top 10 guy.

I'd rather lose our 2nd round pick in order to grab a top 10 guy than to move down out of the #20 spot.

If they aren't willing to take a risk and move UP, then they freakin' better stay right at 20 and just refuse the urge to "get cute" and attempt a move-down with some other team.

I can see the logic they used when moving down, selecting Duane Brown, and then using the 3rd on Slaton. I see the logic there. However, using our old friend "Mr. Hindsight," we grabbed a decent OL but did not exactly translate the RB pick (Slaton) into something as serviceable as first imagined when Slaton had a good rookie year.

Which brings me to the hesitancy I have in regards to trying this tactic again.

I don't want a half-back pass on first down, in the red zone, on the road.

I want us to stay at 20, or show some moxie and kiss our 2nd round pick goodbye if there's a guy that's on the radar at the Top 10 "range" that they think can do for us what Brian Cushing did for us this past year.

There are so many bad teams right now, ahead of us, that I think we actually would have takers if we wanted to surrender our #20 overall AND our 2nd round pick. There are some stinker teams out there, IMO, who need #20 overall and two picks in round 2 to get better (in a hurry).

We need another Brian Cushing-type player, and he's got to either be there at 20 or higher up...requiring us to make a jump.

Last season, Kubiak made a lot of 4th down calls (to go for it) and he had one really bad call (halfback pass) that overshadowed the guts he showed by choosing to go for a lot of 4th downs.

I need to see, from Kubiak, that he won't get cute on this draft.

Look, as much as I ride this guy's case a lot...I think he has done a pretty dadgum good job of making his picks count. We lost two 2nd rounders over two years, for Schaub. No telling what else we would have pulled down had we had those two 2nd rounders. I mean, I know we had to get a QB--and I know the price was fair when you look at what other teams are going through with their QB situations--but he lost two 2nd rounders.

All I ask Smithiak is that they have a guy or two ready at #20, use their time and really pull the trigger on the one they want, or throw the bomb to AJ and let him go get it (so to speak). I have THAT level of confidence in them when it comes to draft day.

But I don't want to see us go lower than #20, unless some team wants to get stoopid and sell us the farm. Which I doubt will happen.

GP
03-16-2010, 10:46 PM
I want to expand my thoughts a bit.

I really DISLIKE drafting first rounders after pick #10. I think, and this is just my opinion, that draft classes have about 10 really special guys who are somehow better than their competitors around them. After pick 10, you're getting some guys who might be 2nd rounders parading around as 1st rounders (i.e., Travis Johnson). Hated the pick as soon as it was made--And, "yeah," we all went "uggh..." but then we drank our Kool Aid and put on our happy faces afterwards. Didn't we, everyone? Yes we did.

You have game film on these guys. You have drills at the combine. You have interviews with them. Test scores. And you know your team's needs better than anyone else.

So out of the whole draft class, after evaluating all this stuff, you should know which 10 guys are just a bit better-looking than the others. Sure, you're going to find some later-round picks who outperform those who were hyped up.

We're at the spot, IMO, where trading down would be like using Chris Brown for a halfback pass. It's cute in all the wrong ways.

Trading UP, however, would be like using Andre Johnson on a newly-designed play that nobody has ever seen before.

Why?

Because Andre Johnson is THAT good. Throw it to him. NOW.

And I think this group of coaches made such a great pick with Cushing last year, that they ought to know they can get the guy the want at #20. Or throw it to AJ (so to speak) and trust that the pick works out.

If we trade down, that screeching noise you hear (in the far distance) will be me on my couch...throwing a huge hissy fit about it.

JB
03-16-2010, 11:04 PM
I want to expand my thoughts a bit.

I really DISLIKE drafting first rounders after pick #10. I think, and this is just my opinion, that draft classes have about 10 really special guys who are somehow better than their competitors around them. After pick 10, you're getting some guys who might be 2nd rounders parading around as 1st rounders (i.e., Travis Johnson). Hated the pick as soon as it was made--And, "yeah," we all went "uggh..." but then we drank our Kool Aid and put on our happy faces afterwards. Didn't we, everyone? Yes we did.

You have game film on these guys. You have drills at the combine. You have interviews with them. Test scores. And you know your team's needs better than anyone else.

So out of the whole draft class, after evaluating all this stuff, you should know which 10 guys are just a bit better-looking than the others. Sure, you're going to find some later-round picks who outperform those who were hyped up.

We're at the spot, IMO, where trading down would be like using Chris Brown for a halfback pass. It's cute in all the wrong ways.

Trading UP, however, would be like using Andre Johnson on a newly-designed play that nobody has ever seen before.

Why?

Because Andre Johnson is THAT good. Throw it to him. NOW.

And I think this group of coaches made such a great pick with Cushing last year, that they ought to know they can get the guy the want at #20. Or throw it to AJ (so to speak) and trust that the pick works out.

If we trade down, that screeching noise you hear (in the far distance) will be me on my couch...throwing a huge hissy fit about it.

That's pretty much how I feel about it. This is the year to make a bold move and trade up. Use next years picks and maybe a player or two...( Studdard and Meyers to Gibbs in Seattle?)... and go get a difference maker for this team.
I do not know which player to go get, depends on the cost. But we are so close, I think that one player at the right spot could be the difference.

The Pencil Neck
03-16-2010, 11:07 PM
I really DISLIKE drafting first rounders after pick #10. I think, and this is just my opinion, that draft classes have about 10 really special guys who are somehow better than their competitors around them. After pick 10, you're getting some guys who might be 2nd rounders parading around as 1st rounders (i.e., Travis Johnson). Hated the pick as soon as it was made--And, "yeah," we all went "uggh..." but then we drank our Kool Aid and put on our happy faces afterwards. Didn't we, everyone? Yes we did.

...massive snip...

If we trade down, that screeching noise you hear (in the far distance) will be me on my couch...throwing a huge hissy fit about it.

I totally and completely disagree.

To me, the 15-50 is where the meat of the draft is. Most of the top 10 guys seem to bust. There's such a huge expectation. For every Andre Johnson, there seem to be 2 Charles Rogers.

But in this 15-50 range, you get guys like Demeco Ryans and Brian Cushing and Chris Johnson and Felix Jones and Ed Reed, etc. With this team and this FO (as opposed to C&C), I feel good about 3rd and 4th round draft picks. The more 2nd-4th round picks we can get, the better. The top 10, I don't want any part of.

TheRealJoker
03-16-2010, 11:22 PM
I disagree as well. This is the year we need to trade back into the bottom of the 1st round so we can grab another surefire starter at a position of need to solidify our chances at a playoff run.

I am much more confident in Smithiak doing this than I ever was in Casserly. Whatever we do, we need to get impact players from day 1 at positions of need. No project picks with our first 2 picks (whether we trade down or not). We need to grab AT LEAST two surefire starters in the draft and a couple other contributors if we want to make the playoffs against an NFC East schedule next year. Its no longer a guaranteed 3-1 against nonconference teams :(

steelbtexan
03-17-2010, 12:17 AM
I disagree as well. This is the year we need to trade back into the bottom of the 1st round so we can grab another surefire starter at a position of need to solidify our chances at a playoff run.

I am much more confident in Smithiak doing this than I ever was in Casserly. Whatever we do, we need to get impact players from day 1 at positions of need. No project picks with our first 2 picks (whether we trade down or not). We need to grab AT LEAST two surefire starters in the draft and a couple other contributors if we want to make the playoffs against an NFC East schedule next year. Its no longer a guaranteed 3-1 against nonconference teams :(

Smithiak have been great in the war room. (minus OkOye)

If somebody they really like falls to say 15 I could see trading up to get him.

I'm all for trading down. The difference between for instance Wilson and Ghee or Thomas and Burnett is neglegible. This is such a deep draft. there isn't much difference between pick 20/50.

With Smithiaks record of great drafting an extra pick in the 3rd rd should net another starter with the depth in this draft.

If they dont want to trade down I would trade 2011 2nd rd pick for a 2010 3rd rd pick. Because there is alot of 2nd rd talent in this years draft that will be available in the 3rd rd.

If there was ever a year to trade future picks and/or players to aquire more 2010 picks. This is the year to do it. IMHO.

See GP There's something positive for you. LOL

GP
03-17-2010, 12:58 AM
Smithiak have been great in the war room. (minus OkOye)

If somebody they really like falls to say 15 I could see trading up to get him.

I'm all for trading down. The difference between for instance Wilson and Ghee or Thomas and Burnett is neglegible. This is such a deep draft. there isn't much difference between pick 20/50.

With Smithiaks record of great drafting an extra pick in the 3rd rd should net another starter with the depth in this draft.

If they dont want to trade down I would trade 2011 2nd rd pick for a 2010 3rd rd pick. Because there is alot of 2nd rd talent in this years draft that will be available in the 3rd rd.

If there was ever a year to trade future picks and/or players to aquire more 2010 picks. This is the year to do it. IMHO.

See GP There's something positive for you. LOL

I did a double-take as I read your post, then looked at the screen name, then the post, then the screen-name again. Thought I was hallucinating.

The good thing, for us, is that we aren't going to be one of those teams trying to hit on a QB in round 1.

I don't like ANY of those guys. None of them. I don't see any of them being a prototypical QB in the NFL. Man, can u imagine being a fan of one of those teams who knows their future rests in Jimmy Clausen, or Colt McCoy? Ouch.

The Pencil Neck
03-17-2010, 01:23 AM
I don't like ANY of those guys. None of them. I don't see any of them being a prototypical QB in the NFL. Man, can u imagine being a fan of one of those teams who knows their future rests in Jimmy Clausen, or Colt McCoy? Ouch.

If I was wanting a QB, I'd be targetting Lefevre.

But I wouldn't pull the trigger before the 3rd. And maybe not until the 4th.

steelbtexan
03-17-2010, 01:28 AM
Yep

I was in Kubes corner on the Schaub trade.

Kubes knows his QB's and if they want to work hard (not HWNSNBM) the skies the limit.

I didn't get why people were so down on Schaub.

Getting Schaub for 2 2nds was a steal. IMHO

Think about it teams like the Browns,Raiders.Bills and Redskins have been looking for a franchise QB for years. Wasting many high draft choices.

We've got our QB. To think many people wanted Sage to be the starter over Schaub makes me LOL.

The Pencil Neck
03-17-2010, 01:35 AM
Yep

I was in Kubes corner on the Schaub trade.

Kubes knows his QB's and if they want to work hard (not HWNSNBM) the skies the limit.

I didn't get why people were so down on Schaub.

Getting Schaub for 2 2nds was a steal. LMHO

Think about it teams like the Browns,Raiders.Bills and Redskins have been looking for a franchise QB for years. Wasting many high draft choices.

We've got our QB. To think many people wanted Sage to be the starter over Schaub makes me LOL.

Yeah, I was on the Schaub early adopter program, too.

I think with HWWNBN, Kubes looked at the tape and thought, "Oh. He's not making his reads correctly. That's easy to fix." And then HWWNBN simply didn't put in the work to fix his problems. But Kubes gave him lots of creative, quick, underneath options and HWWNBN completion percentage went up and people who weren't watching closely (like the Panthers) thought he'd been fixed.

So, like you, I trust Kubes with QBs. If he says Orlavsky is going to be a good backup with a little work, I'm buying it.

GP
03-17-2010, 02:54 AM
If I was wanting a QB, I'd be targetting Lefevre.

But I wouldn't pull the trigger before the 3rd. And maybe not until the 4th.

He is THE only one out of the bunch that I think has the toolbox.

But what's sad is that he won't get picked until late 2nd (at best), or 3rd/4th.

He's got all the sexy QBs ahead of him, and they aren't NFL-ready by a mile.

I guess maybe I am too big of a TTU fan, but Bradford and McCoy are really overrated in my book.

1. I thought McCoy looked better in 2008 than in 2009. Even in the loss to TTU last year, he found a way to almost win that game (while having taken a beating while doing it). This season, to me, was very pedestrian.

2. And I thought Bradford's title game effort two years ago was very revealing: He had no idea how to run a hurry-up offense, having to stand there and gaze at the sideline signals instead of taking his team down the field. That cost them the game, IMO. He wasted sooooo much time by hurrying the team to the line, yet not able to use a true "2-minute, no-huddle" system.

Jimmy Clausen is David Carr 2.0 to me. California kid, looks good, has the family who follows him everywhere, poster-boy material. But never won anything significant. Was probably on a team that didn't have enough weapons to really contend for anything significant, but still....I think he is going to be the love-child of David Carr and Jeff George.

Tebow is toast. He got exposed in the SEC Championship game this year. I had sorta' thought he might be a Garrard or McNabb type of QB, but his performances in the SEC game, and then afterward, revealed that he doesn't have the ability to stand in a pocket and make reads in the face of complex defensive packages (such as what Saban's crew runs in Alabama). Some team is going to Matt Jones him, thinking they can use him as a Wildcat formation QB. Someone will fall in love with him, and it will be a mistake.

The QBs in this class are woeful, IMO.

GP
03-17-2010, 02:58 AM
Yep

I was in Kubes corner on the Schaub trade.

Kubes knows his QB's and if they want to work hard (not HWNSNBM) the skies the limit.

I didn't get why people were so down on Schaub.

Getting Schaub for 2 2nds was a steal. IMHO

Think about it teams like the Browns,Raiders.Bills and Redskins have been looking for a franchise QB for years. Wasting many high draft choices.

We've got our QB. To think many people wanted Sage to be the starter over Schaub makes me LOL.

I was up-and-down with Schaub. I admit it.

And I still have a fear of him getting hammered from the blindside at some point, knocking him out of the game, and maybe more. I just worry about his size and footwork in the pocket. If he can continue throwing the ball away, like he started doing at the end of this past season when things were covered, he'll be OK.

But then again: Our center (Myers) is going to get him killed at some point. Sorry to bag on the guy, but he has alligator arms and sometimes blows his blocking reads...leaking a blitzer right through to Schaub.

If I were Kubiak, I would tell my RB or FB that their very FIRST blocking read is right there in the middle, to clean up Myers' slop.

nero THE zero
03-18-2010, 11:02 AM
I want to expand my thoughts a bit.

I really DISLIKE drafting first rounders after pick #10. I think, and this is just my opinion, that draft classes have about 10 really special guys who are somehow better than their competitors around them. After pick 10, you're getting some guys who might be 2nd rounders parading around as 1st rounders (i.e., Travis Johnson). Hated the pick as soon as it was made--And, "yeah," we all went "uggh..." but then we drank our Kool Aid and put on our happy faces afterwards. Didn't we, everyone? Yes we did.

The facts don't really support this. Let's take a look at the 2009 All-Pro team first rounders and where they were drafted in the first round:

Peyton Manning -- #1
Chris Johnson -- #24
Adrian Peterson -- #7
Andre Johnson -- #3
Larry Fitzgerald -- #3
Dallas Clark -- #24
Ryan Clady -- #12
Joe Thomas -- #3
Jake Long -- #1
Steve Hutchison -- #17
Nick Mangold -- #29
Dwight Freeney -- #11
Kevin Williams -- #9
Haloti Ngata -- #12
DeMarcus Ware -- #11
Patrick Willis -- #11
Ray Lewis -- #26
Charles Woodson -- #4
Darelle Revis -- #14


Out of the 19 All-Pro players that were selected in the first round, 11 of them were taken outside of the top 10 picks.

So, you are more likely to find a special player outside of the top 10 picks in the first round than you are inside of the top 10 picks.

infantrycak
03-18-2010, 11:05 AM
So, you are more likely to find a special player outside of the top 10 picks in the first round than you are inside of the top 10 picks.

Plus the top 10 is where you pay stupid money.

Anyway, that was a funny assertion coming from a team with Cushing as a rookie.

nero THE zero
03-18-2010, 11:08 AM
Plus the top 10 is where you pay stupid money.

Yep, and in our case, it'd cost you extra resources (picks and/or players) on top of the extra stupid money.

So, we would have to pay extra money and picks and/or and players for a less likely chance at getting an all-pro by trading into the top 10.

Not a strategy I endorse.

GP
03-18-2010, 02:37 PM
The facts don't really support this. Let's take a look at the 2009 All-Pro team first rounders and where they were drafted in the first round:

Peyton Manning -- #1
Chris Johnson -- #24
Adrian Peterson -- #7
Andre Johnson -- #3
Larry Fitzgerald -- #3
Dallas Clark -- #24
Ryan Clady -- #12
Joe Thomas -- #3
Jake Long -- #1
Steve Hutchison -- #17
Nick Mangold -- #29
Dwight Freeney -- #11
Kevin Williams -- #9
Haloti Ngata -- #12
DeMarcus Ware -- #11
Patrick Willis -- #11
Ray Lewis -- #26
Charles Woodson -- #4
Darelle Revis -- #14


Out of the 19 All-Pro players that were selected in the first round, 11 of them were taken outside of the top 10 picks.

So, you are more likely to find a special player outside of the top 10 picks in the first round than you are inside of the top 10 picks.

Yeah, but if I am GM of the Texans...I would have drafted Chris Johnson no matter where I stood in the first round. I watched him play in his bowl game, and I was so impressed with him that I was like "Dadgum, that guy is gifted."

Look, draft POSITION means that you get a crack at a guy before the teams behind you. So if my Texans are drafting in the Top 10...I feel very confident that I am going to get the guy I want.

Drafting at #20, I feel you've got less of a chance of getting who you really want. The pool from which you select from is obviously smaller.

Granted, the money IS a problem. I see that. I concur.

When I say that I'd like to be drafting in Top 10, it's partially because you have more to select from. But it's also because the Texans have done a pretty good job on draft day the past four years. When you're good, you can select Brian Cushing at #10 just as easily as you select him at #15.

Except we got reallllllly lucky that nobody scooped him up before our pick. I mean, that was some serious good fortune for the Texans.

My whole statement is based on (a) the pool of players, and (b) our actual "draft position" where there might be 19 teams ahead of us, instead of 9.

painekiller
03-18-2010, 04:16 PM
When I say that I'd like to be drafting in Top 10, it's partially because you have more to select from.

I'd rather pick 32nd. We would have just won the Superbowl, the player makes less, you are more inclined to take BPA not reach, and we would have just won the Superbowl.

Screw the top ten, they cost to much and they tend to bust more then they hit.

If you want the top pick trade for it.

Texan_Bill
03-18-2010, 09:54 PM
I'd rather pick 32nd. We would have just won the Superbowl, the player makes less, you are more inclined to take BPA not reach, and we would have just won the Superbowl.

Screw the top ten, they cost to much and they tend to bust more then they hit.

If you want the top pick trade for it.

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/4607523/images/1242875392137.gif

http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/images/applause.gif

GP
03-19-2010, 12:30 AM
I'd rather pick 32nd. We would have just won the Superbowl, the player makes less, you are more inclined to take BPA not reach, and we would have just won the Superbowl.

Screw the top ten, they cost to much and they tend to bust more then they hit.

If you want the top pick trade for it.

Well that's sort of a no-brainer.

I'm saying that picking in the area of #20 is a good place to consider moving way up and taking a run at a guy who isn't going to be there at #20. You're likely going to lose your 2nd round pick, as compensation, but you get the chance to grab a guy who would have been picked up at any of the 19 spots ahead of you.

19 teams, 19 players. Then it's your turn at 20. With 20 players off the board, you don't have much to work with until you're trying to sort out if someone is really a late 1st rounder, or if they are more of a 2nd rounder parading as a 1st rounder.

If your draft team hits on Brian Cushing at #15, you have to believe that they know what they are doing. And if they know what they are doing, why not give them a chance to leap upward and be in position to get a guy we need.

Everyone on here is jizzin' themselves about CJ Spiller, but why even waste the keystrokes on this board for Spiller when he's going to be long gone before our pick at #20?

If five teams (who are ahead of us) take the five best DBs on the board, and another five teams (who are also ahead of us) take the five best RBs on the board, and the next five teams take the best DLs on the board, and then the four teams take the best four OL on the board...that leaves us with either (a) Taking essentially the sixth-best DB or the sixth-best RB, the sixth-best DL on the board or the fifth-best OL left on the board, or (b) drafting BPA and maybe getting a guy at TE or LB or WR where there's not really a "need" but more because the best guys at DB, RB, DL or OL were gone.

Does that sound like we really got "great" 1st round value if that scenario plays out? Not to me. It's simple logic: When you are THIS far down the line in the 1st round, like we are, this would be a good time to jump up there and really piss off teams 11-19.