Why I don't like trading back this year. Even if he moves up in the 4th. Because the chance to improve the quality of players added, would be better had we kept our 3rd and used it with out remaining tradeable picks and come away with 2 3rds. I would take 2 3rds and a 5th, over 3 or 4 4ths and a 5th.
Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins
And take who? At #88?
Maybe they discerned the level of talent, the "quality of players added" was something they deemed negligible at this point between, let's say, the next 60 picks.
The only way we would have gotten two R3s was to trade up. Without the trades made at #88 and #93, we wouldn't have had the goods to trade up in R3 - not for two of them.
By stockpiling 10 selections in the next 4 rounds, Ted has given us a chance to add a third R4, and maybe more. If they see little change in the quality of the last 10-15 players, from #88 on, then what is the harm in being able to add another quality player?
If Ted trades back up into the top of R4 at #99 with KC or #100 with OAK, he could come away with two players that were projected maybe top 50! Just for that one choice that he turned into many...
We could venture to say, Ted could trade up with BOTH KC and OAK, to get 2 of the top 3 picks in the round, and still have another R4 left over, or possibly enough ammo to trade back into the bottom of R4 for another... and still have the R5 comp pick.
I would gladly take 4 quality, targeted players over 3 (2 really, because I do not see how he could have possibly managed two R3s - not without trading away from next year. BTW the numbers you propose just don't really add up. Let's just call it 3 quality players vs. 2 in rounds 3-4). It is precisely what we need. Both need and opportunity drove both R3 trades, and I anticipate they will result in more, trades moving us up to those players we wish to have out of this draft at exceptional value.