We only dropped eight picks. While not a straight across trade, at this point there isn't that much drop off (talent wise) either. We get a free pick for almost nothing. I'm sure the guy they got pegged to pick will probably still be available at 40. "In PC & JS we trust".
So we got a second and fourth for the #32 first round pick
- Thread starter mort
- Start date
SuperFreak
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 804
- Reaction score
- 0
We won't have to pay a second rounder as much money as the last pick in the first round either.
RiverDog
Well-known member
NorthDallas40oz":1zyowp9h said:
Good point, and I agree, based on point value, this wasn't a great trade, simply an OK trade.
But the name of the game isn't to collect draft points. The name of the game is to figure out if you are going to be able to pick the same player at #40 that you would have taken at #32, something we will never know with any degree of certainty, or if there are multiple players that would have been acceptable at #32 that we can get at #40, which is probably the case. One of those picks, Minnesota's at 32, is obviously a player we would not have taken, and I suspect that either Houston or Oakland, two QB hungry teams, will scoop up Derek Carr, QB out of Fresno State, with their 2nd round pick, as he's the best QB left on the board. That explains Minnesota's side of the trade. They wanted to get in ahead of Houston and Oakland so they could get their man.
We don't have a 3rd rounder, and this high 4th round slot is almost as good as where we would have been picking had not the Harvin trade been factored in. We have a need at positions that are supposed to be plentiful in this draft, so trading down is a good option. I like it.
Here's the players I think we might take at #40:
WR Cody Latimer, Indiana, or Marquis Lee, WR USC. Lee probably doesn't make it to 40.
OL Joel Bitonio, Nevada, or OG Xavier Su'u Filo, OG UCLA. Xman probably doesn't get to 40.
At #64, I'm guessing DT Stephon Tuitt, Notre Dame. 64 might be a little high to take this guy, but we need a replacement for Red Bryant, and I think this guy works for us. PC and JS have shown that they don't much care about which round a player is supposed to go in. If they want him, they'll pull the trigger.
King Dog
Well-known member
I read somewhere last night our guy at #32 was going to be Dominique Easley, who went to the Patriots at #29.
Steve2222
New member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2012
- Messages
- 1,993
- Reaction score
- 1
King Dog":3bkbejpr said:
Would make sense with Quinn being the DL coach at Florida.
RiverDog
Well-known member
King Dog":3b42cydf said:
Could be, and that might have been a factor in our willingness to trade out of the pick. But my question is who we would have taken at #32 had we not made the trade, and will that guy be there at 40?
SeatownJay
Active member
I would've preferred to get our original 3rd rounder (#96) back from Minnesota, but I'm happy with their 4th rounder.
Seahawk Sailor
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 22,963
- Reaction score
- 1
We can speculate all we want, especially after the fact, about how much bang for the buck we shoulda-woulda-coulda gotten from the trade, but look at it this way: in ten short minutes, we had to talk to about a half a dozen teams, wrangle back and forth what they're willing to give up for the pick, and figure out if a) it's worth it, b) we can get any more elsewhere or from them, and c) we can still stick to the draft plan that way and get the guys we're targeting. That's an awful lot of circus going on in just ten minutes.
Perhaps if the time for negotiations were longer, we could have gotten a better deal. Perhaps if a team below was far more emphatic about picking a certain player, we could have gotten a better deal. But maybe Minnesota said, "hey, we're interested in your pick for a swap and our 4th rounder. If not, we're comfortable not making the trade." In that case, you either lose out or you pull the trigger.
Bottom line: it wasn't an absolute fleecing, but those come fairly rarely, and the Redskins and Raiders weren't in a position to deal there. It was, however, a solid decision that netted us a lot more than what we had originally.
Perhaps if the time for negotiations were longer, we could have gotten a better deal. Perhaps if a team below was far more emphatic about picking a certain player, we could have gotten a better deal. But maybe Minnesota said, "hey, we're interested in your pick for a swap and our 4th rounder. If not, we're comfortable not making the trade." In that case, you either lose out or you pull the trigger.
Bottom line: it wasn't an absolute fleecing, but those come fairly rarely, and the Redskins and Raiders weren't in a position to deal there. It was, however, a solid decision that netted us a lot more than what we had originally.
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,612
I'm OK with trading back. The O-lineman and D-Lineman we're more than likely targeting will still be there at 40, so why not get more picks?
I know it's not sexy, but I want both our 2nd rounders to be O-Lineman, preferably one of them being Su'a-Filo from UCLA. Hearing Neuheisel gush over his ability and character makes him sound like a perfect fit.
Add in the fact that the Rams D-Line is freaking scary as hell now means we need to go O-Line early and often the next two days.
I know it's not sexy, but I want both our 2nd rounders to be O-Lineman, preferably one of them being Su'a-Filo from UCLA. Hearing Neuheisel gush over his ability and character makes him sound like a perfect fit.
Add in the fact that the Rams D-Line is freaking scary as hell now means we need to go O-Line early and often the next two days.
Seahawk Sailor
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 22,963
- Reaction score
- 1
I'm positively giddy about trading back. I wanted that to happen so bad I could taste it, and I'm certainly glad it did. I agree with you on the O-linemen, Sgt. Largent. While the prospect of getting a big, tall, handsy receiver is the "sexy" thing, and it is really intriguing, shoring up that line is priority #1 for me. We keep Russ clean and dry, and he'll pick apart any secondary with who we have catching the ball, or anyone else for that matter.
Of course, if we can still snag Pro Bowl-type protection later on in the draft and still snag that clutch receiver, all the better, I suppose.
Of course, if we can still snag Pro Bowl-type protection later on in the draft and still snag that clutch receiver, all the better, I suppose.
Smelly McUgly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 0
Poor John Schneider. I love him, but he sometimes struggles with getting value for his trades.
Jac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,310
- Reaction score
- 745
I wonder where their red line is on "first round" talent. I.e., maybe they continue to climb down from #40 to continue adding picks.
Seahawk Sailor
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 22,963
- Reaction score
- 1
Jac":321ctqqk said:
I actually kind of hope that.
Smelly McUgly":321ctqqk said:
And with regard to Schneider "struggling to get value" for his trades, I don't think that's terribly the case. He's traded almost half of the high trades around, and we've gotten good value for them. Just because he doesn't reap a blockbuster windfall like the Rams did when they fleeced the Redskins for the RGIII pick doesn't mean he doesn't get good value. It's not every day you can get Dan Snyder or The Ghost of Crazy Al to trade with you, after all.
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,612
Smelly McUgly":3vx9gxha said:
Which time are you talking about? When he traded back to and still got Kam in the 5th round? Or when he traded back to get Richard Sherman also in the 5th round?
I love how Schneider turned over an entire roster and built a SB champion from thin air through the draft, and yet people still criticize him? That's laughable to me.
