PDA

View Full Version : It has to be asked.


mussop
04-22-2010, 09:07 PM
If Jackson was our guy, why not trade down with Dallas who just traded up to get Bryant? :kitten: Its very likely Jackson would of still been there. This is a mirror situation as when we drafted Brown in the first a few years back.

Im not complaining. It just seems like we dont always get all that we could.

JB
04-22-2010, 09:16 PM
They may not have got a call from Dallas. Dallas knew the Texans nor the Bengals would take him, so why trade up that far?

TheRealJoker
04-22-2010, 09:20 PM
Gotta have a dance partner. I think having the Bengals up next hurt us (very unlikely for them to go WR).

gtexan02
04-22-2010, 10:33 PM
NE probably would have taken him

threetoedpete
04-23-2010, 07:33 AM
The other question is how high was Mathews on their board really ? Once they saw all of the move ups, didn't they think he was worth the sacrifice of picks ? injury history ? Obviously, chargers were worried about someone. I mean just how many of the eight bodies representing their draft picks do they actually think will make the final roster ? Jackson was safe...and that was about all. Said it before the draft if they wanted Iupati or Earl, they'd have to move up. Obviously they didn't value those two players above Jackson to sacrifice picks.

Maddict5
04-23-2010, 07:46 AM
If Jackson was our guy, why not trade down with Dallas who just traded up to get Bryant? :kitten: Its very likely Jackson would of still been there. This is a mirror situation as when we drafted Brown in the first a few years back.

Im not complaining. It just seems like we dont always get all that we could.

i agree. alot of people were bitching then as to why we didnt trade down more before taking brown before it emerged SD wouldve taken him with the very next pick.

NE took a physical corner that can also cover in mccourty @#26. if we trade with dallas kareem is still on the board when they pick @ #23. imo its pretty likely that they then wouldve taken kareem given he was generally higher rated, is very smart & saban and bill have very close links

:clap: to smith for not trading imo

ChampionTexan
04-23-2010, 08:45 AM
As to why the Texans didn't trade down (beyond the obvious and probable reason that there wasn't a willing partner), the thing that makes the most sense to me is that they wanted a CB who would be able to start from day one, and believed that Jackson was the best, and maybe only, way to achieve that goal. Total speculation on my part, but with 4 CB's taken from their pick to the end of the first round, I'm not sure you can get comfortable that any specific player will still be there if you trade down more than one spot.

As to the idea of trading down in general, obviously, sometimes it's great, but let me say this about the two teams that were far and away the most active.

The Broncos traded numerous times, and pretty much ended up with Tim Tebow as the net result of all of that. Time will tell how things work out, but if I were a Bronco fan, I'd be even more ticked off than the last year has already made me. I do not view trading down as a winning strategy for them.

The other most active would be the Patriots. I thought trading down was a strategy to accumulate more picks because you had so many needs, and one or two stud players wasn't going to get you over that hump. That doesn't strike me as the Patriots. Granted the strategy is similar to recent drafts, but I don't think you look back on the recent Pat drafts as doing all that much to improve their team once you get past Jerrod Mayo (a #10 overall pick) anyway).

I like what the Cowboys did, but it was one specific move. I don't like what the Broncs or Pats did at all.

JB
04-23-2010, 08:52 AM
Actually, I thought the Pasts did allright. They basically moved down 5 spots in the first and moved up 5 spots in the fourth and picked up a 3rd (90).

And still got the guy they wanted.

Maddict5
04-23-2010, 08:56 AM
Actually, I thought the Pasts did allright. They basically moved down 5 spots in the first and moved up 5 spots in the fourth and picked up a 3rd (90).

And still got the guy they wanted.

how do you know?

gtexan02
04-23-2010, 08:57 AM
23. Packers - Kareem Jackson - From what I read, the Packers like him a lot.

From Eric Winston's mock. If we traded with Dallas, godo chance GB would have taken Jackson

JB
04-23-2010, 09:01 AM
how do you know?

I don't know Just my opinion. But there was a lot of talk about them wanting a corner, and they still got the first corner taken after us. Unless you think they may have wanted Tebow?

Mailman
04-23-2010, 09:03 AM
The Pats almost certainly would've taken him at 22 instead of trading down with Dallas. Never underestimate the Saban-Belichick connection.

JB
04-23-2010, 09:07 AM
The Pats almost certainly would've taken him at 22 instead of trading down with Dallas. Never underestimate the Saban-Belichick connection.

Yes, the Pats would have taken Jackson, i believe. But since he was gone, they felt safe trading down twice and still got McCourtey.

WolverineFan
04-23-2010, 09:13 AM
I understand the argument but guys need to realize that you can't trade at will just because you want too. As others have pointed out, you need two to dance. Other teams that were real active had higher picks and were really aggressive (Broncos) and to their fault.

Josh McDaniels looked like a genius until he traded 5 picks for Demaryius Thomas and Tim Tebow. Those are two guys who are costly 1st round picks who will make zero impact next year.

kiwitexansfan
04-23-2010, 12:27 PM
If you like the guy, take the guy, only trade out if you don't like anyone.

You can't predict what the other 31 teams are going to do, so do what you have to do when you get a chance to do it.

Hardcore Texan
04-23-2010, 12:48 PM
If you like the guy, take the guy, only trade out if you don't like anyone.

You can't predict what the other 31 teams are going to do, so do what you have to do when you get a chance to do it.

Exactly, but people what to 'what if' it to death.....:deadhorse:

michaelm
04-23-2010, 04:02 PM
If us armchair GMs are smart enough to see these potential trade down scenarios, then certainly the guys actually making the calls can see them too.
I mean come on, do you really think they woke up this morning and were like "Shit! Trade down..! Why didn't we think of that? I'll have to remember that for next year, if I have a job..."

Goldensilence
04-23-2010, 04:06 PM
If you like the guy, take the guy, only trade out if you don't like anyone.

You can't predict what the other 31 teams are going to do, so do what you have to do when you get a chance to do it.

Great post.

From the looks of it might not have been there if we traded back past NE. So I don't think it's a reach at all.

Ole Miss Texan
04-23-2010, 04:50 PM
If you like the guy, take the guy, only trade out if you don't like anyone.

You can't predict what the other 31 teams are going to do, so do what you have to do when you get a chance to do it.

Couldn't agree more. I love trading down and collecting picks but the risk is not always worth it. If there's a guy that fits what your team does really well and you have him graded around that spot, just take him.

A GREAT scenario to be in would be if you had a handful of players all rated very closely together and at positions of need. Someone called and you'd only move down several slots and pick up a decent draft pick. You look at your board and think about the worst case scenario (ie you move down 4 slots and your top 3 players get selected). If that were to happen you you'd still like that 4th guy on the list + the extra pick, you're gravy. That's assuming there isn't a guy you have rated head and shoulders higher that still available.

I would have loved a trade down and pick up of Jackson or Wilson or McCourty. Particularly what I've been reading about Jackson- I love it. But I am totally fine with them standing pat and selecting him, EVEN IF THEY HAD A TRADE DOWN OFFER AND PASSED ON IT.

GP
04-24-2010, 04:54 AM
If us armchair GMs are smart enough to see these potential trade down scenarios, then certainly the guys actually making the calls can see them too.
I mean come on, do you really think they woke up this morning and were like "Shit! Trade down..! Why didn't we think of that? I'll have to remember that for next year, if I have a job..."

LOL. LOL. LOL.

"Why didn't we think of that?!?!?" LOL.

painekiller
04-24-2010, 06:11 AM
If Jackson was our guy, why not trade down with Dallas who just traded up to get Bryant? :kitten: Its very likely Jackson would of still been there. This is a mirror situation as when we drafted Brown in the first a few years back.

Im not complaining. It just seems like we dont always get all that we could.

In Eric Winston's mock he said that Green Bay wanted Jackson bad, or so the rumor mill was saying. So a trade down to Dallas would have cost them Jackson. Jackson was the only one of the DBs ready to play today. He has played in Saban's pro style defense, and been coached up by Saban for three years.