|
Post by Frank Reynolds on Dec 15, 2014 11:29:51 GMT -5
I remember there was a time when all the mock drafts had Eugene Smith going number 1 overall.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Reynolds on Dec 15, 2014 11:31:28 GMT -5
i call this the trade no scenario. Where we don't go chasing waterfalls.Wasn't there a song like that? Don't go chasing waterfalls Listen to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to Or something like that.... I think you're referring to this one.
|
|
|
Post by Bavarian on Dec 15, 2014 14:23:04 GMT -5
It may be possible to trade up to that number 1 spot if oakland has the pick, but we're going to have to trade our entire draft to do it. Are you prepared to do that? This team has so many holes that we can't really afford to do that. We're not even close to ready to compete, with or without mariota. If oakland has the first pick (worth 3,000 points) and we have say the 6th pick (worth 1,600 points), we're going to have to trade every single one of our picks just to get to get close to the value of that 3,000 point first pick. walterfootball.com/draftchart.phpI know one bargaining chip that might get their attention: Mo Wilkerson. Oakland could really use him in their 4-3 as a move DT. And if the team moves to a 4-3, he's more expendable than you might realize. Besides that, he's becoming expendable in a 3-4 the way Coples is playing in his spot. More than this, you have to pay Richardson in a few years at the same position which would create a gross salary team imbalance. Then you free future cap space on other players. Do we need two all-pros at the 3-4 DE position? This is a spot that regularly sees double teams. I think not.
|
|
|
Post by sec.101row23 on Dec 15, 2014 14:30:25 GMT -5
and maybe one of us wins the Powerball lottery, too. Let's get serious here : Mariota(no matter what) is going to be drafted at #1, Period. (well that's my opinion anyway) It's Winston(with all his baggage) that is the question of where he drops. Not that I actually want him but he just might be a significant upgrade to what we have right now. ALTHOUGH, I would prefer Cooper... I would love Cooper, but he's not dropping to five or six. Expect the raiders to pick him before our pick. Cooper will be there at 5, no doubt in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by sec.101row23 on Dec 15, 2014 14:34:57 GMT -5
It may be possible to trade up to that number 1 spot if oakland has the pick, but we're going to have to trade our entire draft to do it. Are you prepared to do that? This team has so many holes that we can't really afford to do that. We're not even close to ready to compete, with or without mariota. If oakland has the first pick (worth 3,000 points) and we have say the 6th pick (worth 1,600 points), we're going to have to trade every single one of our picks just to get to get close to the value of that 3,000 point first pick. walterfootball.com/draftchart.phpI know one bargaining chip that might get their attention: Mo Wilkerson. Oakland could really use him in their 4-3 as a move DT. And if the team moves to a 4-3, he's more expendable than you might realize. Besides that, he's becoming expendable in a 3-4 the way Coples is playing in his spot. More than this, you have to pay Richardson in a few years at the same position which would create a gross salary team imbalance. Then you free future cap space on other players. Do we need two all-pros at the 3-4 DE position? This is a spot that regularly sees double teams. I think not. Rarely are players involved in draft day trades, besides how much value would Wilkerson really have when he has only one year remaing on his contract and he is scheduled to be a free agent in 2016. Teams don't want players in those trade scenarios, they want the picks and for the Jet to go from 6 to 1 is going to cost a ton.
|
|
|
Post by The Tax Returns Are in Kenya on Dec 15, 2014 15:04:14 GMT -5
It may be possible to trade up to that number 1 spot if oakland has the pick, but we're going to have to trade our entire draft to do it. Are you prepared to do that? This team has so many holes that we can't really afford to do that. We're not even close to ready to compete, with or without mariota. If oakland has the first pick (worth 3,000 points) and we have say the 6th pick (worth 1,600 points), we're going to have to trade every single one of our picks just to get to get close to the value of that 3,000 point first pick. walterfootball.com/draftchart.phpI know one bargaining chip that might get their attention: Mo Wilkerson. Oakland could really use him in their 4-3 as a move DT. And if the team moves to a 4-3, he's more expendable than you might realize. Besides that, he's becoming expendable in a 3-4 the way Coples is playing in his spot. More than this, you have to pay Richardson in a few years at the same position which would create a gross salary team imbalance. Then you free future cap space on other players. Do we need two all-pros at the 3-4 DE position? This is a spot that regularly sees double teams. I think not. Agree. I think Idzik has been holding out on his extension for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by CTJetsFanII on Dec 15, 2014 15:07:23 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, next year's pick is "de-valued" by 1 year in the current year. Example: Next year's 1st round pick would be valued as a 2nd round pick this year. Maybe that's the chip we use to move up if we really want somebody. I tend to agree with what others have said......let's build the rest of the team if we can't get Mariota or Winston and take another chance on a QB later. Moving up to #1 would probably prove too costly regardless. However, moving up from #5 (or #4) to say #3 may not be as bad.
|
|
|
Post by Bavarian on Dec 15, 2014 15:14:55 GMT -5
I know one bargaining chip that might get their attention: Mo Wilkerson. Oakland could really use him in their 4-3 as a move DT. And if the team moves to a 4-3, he's more expendable than you might realize. Besides that, he's becoming expendable in a 3-4 the way Coples is playing in his spot. More than this, you have to pay Richardson in a few years at the same position which would create a gross salary team imbalance. Then you free future cap space on other players. Do we need two all-pros at the 3-4 DE position? This is a spot that regularly sees double teams. I think not. Rarely are players involved in draft day trades, besides how much value would Wilkerson really have when he has only one year remaing on his contract and he is scheduled to be a free agent in 2016. Teams don't want players in those trade scenarios, they want the picks and for the Jet to go from 6 to 1 is going to cost a ton. While I'm aware it isn't commonplace to trade players, it does happen and rarely of this magnitude but this would be a blockbuster deal to move up to #1. I don't understand when you say teams don't want "such a player" - he's a young veteran pro bowler who has leadership skills and the type you don't see hitting FA. With all the god-awful FA signings they had recently, this is a sure thing. And they have lots of cap space. He's still on his rookie deal for next season and what a tremendous building block in the right direction for such a team to allow for Kahlil Mack to shine. Ditto for JAX. What good is another bad pick by the Raiders scouting team? Thanks for the reply but I still think this is viable. If I'm either of these teams, I'd be listening.
|
|
|
Post by Bavarian on Dec 15, 2014 15:19:45 GMT -5
I would love Cooper, but he's not dropping to five or six. Expect the raiders to pick him before our pick. Cooper will be there at 5, no doubt in my mind. You replied to that poster but didn't address WHY the Raiders would pass on Cooper.
|
|
|
Post by Bavarian on Dec 15, 2014 15:22:01 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, next year's pick is "de-valued" by 1 year in the current year. Example: Next year's 1st round pick would be valued as a 2nd round pick this year. Maybe that's the chip we use to move up if we really want somebody. I tend to agree with what others have said......let's build the rest of the team if we can't get Mariota or Winston and take another chance on a QB later. Moving up to #1 would probably prove too costly regardless. However, moving up from #5 (or #4) to say #3 may not be as bad. This is true based on the value chart however I don't think it's devalued quite that much (and entire round). Maybe I'm wrong. I know the Rams were happy to see the Redskins attain the #2 pick overall for them.
|
|
|
Post by sec.101row23 on Dec 15, 2014 15:26:35 GMT -5
Rarely are players involved in draft day trades, besides how much value would Wilkerson really have when he has only one year remaing on his contract and he is scheduled to be a free agent in 2016. Teams don't want players in those trade scenarios, they want the picks and for the Jet to go from 6 to 1 is going to cost a ton. While I'm aware it isn't commonplace to trade players, it does happen and rarely of this magnitude but this would be a blockbuster deal to move up to #1. I don't understand when you say teams don't want "such a player" - he's a young veteran pro bowler who has leadership skills and the type you don't see hitting FA. With all the god-awful FA signings they had recently, this is a sure thing. And they have lots of cap space. He's still on his rookie deal for next season and what a tremendous building block in the right direction for such a team to allow for Kahlil Mack to shine. Ditto for JAX. What good is another bad pick by the Raiders scouting team? Thanks for the reply but I still think this is viable. If I'm either of these teams, I'd be listening.
So how much value do you think Wilkerson will have in that trade? To go from 6 to 1, would cost a 2015 second and a 2016 first. Wilkerson certainly isn't going to be worth the 2016 first, and given his contract situation isn't going to be equal to a 2015 second. It makes for interesting discussion, but it's hardly realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Bavarian on Dec 15, 2014 15:37:16 GMT -5
While I'm aware it isn't commonplace to trade players, it does happen and rarely of this magnitude but this would be a blockbuster deal to move up to #1. I don't understand when you say teams don't want "such a player" - he's a young veteran pro bowler who has leadership skills and the type you don't see hitting FA. With all the god-awful FA signings they had recently, this is a sure thing. And they have lots of cap space. He's still on his rookie deal for next season and what a tremendous building block in the right direction for such a team to allow for Kahlil Mack to shine. Ditto for JAX. What good is another bad pick by the Raiders scouting team? Thanks for the reply but I still think this is viable. If I'm either of these teams, I'd be listening.
So how much value do you think Wilkerson will have in that trade? To go from 6 to 1, would cost a 2015 second and a 2016 first. Wilkerson certainly isn't going to be worth the 2016 first, and given his contract situation isn't going to be equal to a 2015 second. It makes for interesting discussion, but it's hardly realistic. Says you. I said he'd be a bargaining chip however that chart is often waived to make deals as you recall we fleeced Cleveland twice in player for pick deals involving Sanchez and Braylon. I'm sure a combination of additional picks would be necessary.
|
|
|
Post by sec.101row23 on Dec 15, 2014 15:45:43 GMT -5
So how much value do you think Wilkerson will have in that trade? To go from 6 to 1, would cost a 2015 second and a 2016 first. Wilkerson certainly isn't going to be worth the 2016 first, and given his contract situation isn't going to be equal to a 2015 second. It makes for interesting discussion, but it's hardly realistic. Says you. I said he'd be a bargaining chip however that chart is often waived to make deals as you recall we fleeced Cleveland twice in player for pick deals involving Sanchez and Braylon. I'm sure a combination of additional picks would be necessary.
I'm not saying it, history is saying it. The Jets trade with Cleveland for Sanchez was an anomaly, the Braylon trade has nothing to do with this subject as he was traded in October and wasn't a part of draft day trade up scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Bavarian on Dec 15, 2014 15:50:42 GMT -5
Says you. I said he'd be a bargaining chip however that chart is often waived to make deals as you recall we fleeced Cleveland twice in player for pick deals involving Sanchez and Braylon. I'm sure a combination of additional picks would be necessary.
I'm not saying it, history is saying it. The Jets trade with Cleveland for Sanchez was an anomaly, the Braylon trade has nothing to do with this subject as he was traded in October and wasn't a part of draft day trade up scenario. You're boring me.
|
|
|
Post by sec.101row23 on Dec 15, 2014 15:55:10 GMT -5
I'm not saying it, history is saying it. The Jets trade with Cleveland for Sanchez was an anomaly, the Braylon trade has nothing to do with this subject as he was traded in October and wasn't a part of draft day trade up scenario. You're boring me. I know, facts can be boring for some.
|
|