A moving up question

[Cow Bell Fever]

I'm not real knowledgeable when talking what it takes to move up in the draft. I know it takes a ton to move up into the top 10, but what would it take, realistically, for us to move up to pick 11-15?????

[UCMehayward]

There is a point system involved... Im not sure what it is... Im sure one of our very knowledgeable Bengal counterparts will know

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by UCMehayward

There is a point system involved... Im not sure what it is... Im sure one of our very knowledgeable Bengal counterparts will know

By "very knowledgeable", I think you mean "isn't too lazy to google it".

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by Cow Bell Fever

I'm not real knowledgeable when talking what it takes to move up in the draft. I know it takes a ton to move up into the top 10, but what would it take, realistically, for us to move up to pick 11-15?????

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php


17 - 950
21 - 800
53 - 370

11-15 range between 1250 and 1050.

Considering you have to overpay most the time, it would cost 17 and some big time change.

[SunsetBengal]

Originally Posted by Cow Bell Fever

I'm not real knowledgeable when talking what it takes to move up in the draft. I know it takes a ton to move up into the top 10, but what would it take, realistically, for us to move up to pick 11-15?????

I can't tell you off the top of my head, and I'm not interested enough to google it. But, in my opinion, it would be a bad idea. It would defeat the entire purpose of having the extra pick in the 1st. Kinda like cutting your toes off, so your foot will fit in a cool looking shoe.

[Cow Bell Fever]

Originally Posted by SunsetBengal

I can't tell you off the top of my head, and I'm not interested enough to google it. But, in my opinion, it would be a bad idea. It would defeat the entire purpose of having the extra pick in the 1st. Kinda like cutting your toes off, so your foot will fit in a cool looking shoe.

I'm just asking cause I don't think its good to give up both our first founders, but if we could move up 2-5 picks and only give up one 1st and a 4th and 5th, or a 2nd next year, to get the guy we really want, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

[7sLefty]

Originally Posted by Cow Bell Fever

I'm just asking cause I don't think its good to give up both our first founders, but if we could move up 2-5 picks and only give up one 1st and a 4th and 5th, or a 2nd next year, to get the guy we really want, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

Well supposably before trich became a top 5 pick when they were talking about him slippin in the draft we were gonna do a deal with Arizona at 13 for trich...not sure what the deal was

[Cow Bell Fever]

Originally Posted by Boomerdaulton21

Well supposably before trich became a top 5 pick when they were talking about him slippin in the draft we were gonna do a deal with Arizona at 13 for trich...not sure what the deal was

Yeah, only moving up 4 picks would only cost us 1 first rounder plus later picks, but if you do that for trich, Barron, DeCastro, or Floyd I would think it would be a good idea!

[7sLefty]

Originally Posted by Cow Bell Fever

Yeah, only moving up 4 picks would only cost us 1 first rounder plus later picks, but if you do that for trich, Barron, DeCastro, or Floyd I would think it would be a good idea!

Yeah I was willing to be ok with that for trich.. Barron is a toughy though...I do think he is that good but we have youth at that position so it seems like a bit much...as far as decastro I'd e will to chance he'll be there at 17...hopefully withou trading up...Flloyd is another one....tremendous talent ....no doubt but wr depth in the draft this yr is incredible.. We may take two wr in later rds oppose from one in the 1st.

[Cow Bell Fever]

Originally Posted by Boomerdaulton21

Yeah I was willing to be ok with that for trich.. Barron is a toughy though...I do think he is that good but we have youth at that position so it seems like a bit much...as far as decastro I'd e will to chance he'll be there at 17...hopefully withou trading up...Flloyd is another one....tremendous talent ....no doubt but wr depth in the draft this yr is incredible.. We may take two wr in later rds oppose from one in the 1st.

Yeah, I guess it just all depends on the big board and how badly they want someone the closer it gets to their pick. I just remember when the Jets moved infront of us to take Revise from us a few years ago. The jets wanted him and it worked out for them.....

[7sLefty]

Originally Posted by Cow Bell Fever

Yeah, I guess it just all depends on the big board and how badly they want someone the closer it gets to their pick. I just remember when the Jets moved infront of us to take Revise from us a few years ago. The jets wanted him and it worked out for them.....

No doubt and not for nothing but a possible good idea would be to package a trade for next yrs extra 2nd rd pick maybe...I think it depends on how the chips start to fall...some people are ok with Glenn if decastro isnt there...I'm notso I'd prefer going OG in the 2nd or 3rd but that's just me

[Asmith(DE)]

The point system is different than previous years. Given a rookie wage scale, those higher picks require more to move up.

Still very doable to move up a couple slots, but I wouldn't do it unless it were to fill an urgent need and it were a player you were in love with.

[Go Cards]

Do not know the cost. But would not give up any of our first 3 round picks from this year or future years to move up just a couple spots.

The player we want may fall those couple spots anyway. But if cost is a later round pick. Sure why not.

[whodey13]

Some Hypothetical trades.

17 and 53 gets us to 10 and maybe 9.

21 and 53 gets us to 13 maybe 12

21 and 84 might get us to 16, can't trade with ourselves, for sure would get us to 18

17 and 84 gets us to 14, maybe 13.

53 and 84 gets us to 36

Beyond this it is worthless

[andro56]

Originally Posted by Cow Bell Fever

Yeah, only moving up 4 picks would only cost us 1 first rounder plus later picks, but if you do that for trich, Barron, DeCastro, or Floyd I would think it would be a good idea!

I agree. Joe Reedy has repeatedly stated that the Bengals aren't taking a guard in the first and I'm thinking that they have high interest in Floyd by deciding to go to his pro-day instead of working out Okoye.

[Asmith(DE)]

Originally Posted by whodey13

Some Hypothetical trades.

17 and 53 gets us to 10 and maybe 9.

21 and 53 gets us to 13 maybe 12

21 and 84 might get us to 16, can't trade with ourselves, for sure would get us to 18

17 and 84 gets us to 14, maybe 13.

53 and 84 gets us to 36

Beyond this it is worthless

No.
You'd have to throw in a 3rd/2nd from next year, under all of those above cases, except for maybe the last one.
It's never worth it unless you're looking at a franchise type player at an impact position. This is why you rarely see such trades. (From smart organizations anyways..)

[whodey13]

Originally Posted by Asmith(DE)

No.
You'd have to throw in a 3rd/2nd from next year, under all of those above cases, except for maybe the last one.
It's never worth it unless you're looking at a franchise type player at an impact position. This is why you rarely see such trades. (From smart organizations anyways..)

Not sure what you are talking about but i used the trade value chart for all of those projections. What is your extra 3rd/2nd based on?

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by andro56

I agree. Joe Reedy has repeatedly stated that the Bengals aren't taking a guard in the first and I'm thinking that they have high interest in Floyd by deciding to go to his pro-day instead of working out Okoye.

I've figured as much, and that's just sad. It proves that MB still has his say. The guard position has never been "sexy" enough for him to take one in the 1st round. If Jacob Bell starts at guard this year, say goodbye to Andy. He will look like Carson did in the 2008 preseason.

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by whodey13

Not sure what you are talking about but i used the trade value chart for all of those projections. What is your extra 3rd/2nd based on?

If something cost you exactly $5.00, would you sell it at or below that price?
No you try to get more. Especially if more than one party has interest.
Basic common economic theory.
Supply demand.
There is only one pick and if multiple people want it, then the price goes up.

[whodey13]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

If something cost you exactly $5.00, would you sell it at or below that price?
No you try to get more. Especially if more than one party has interest.
Basic common economic theory.
Supply demand.
There is only one pick and if multiple people want it, then the price goes up.

You make a lot of assumptions. It is actually the other way around more often. Teams usually want out of their spot and are willing to take less. Blockbuster trades like julio jones and rgIII aside, usually trades actually give up slightly less value.

You know another economic theory is that in an illiquid market prices fall. That is why the trade value chart was created.

If you look at historical data instead of spouting rhetoric, you would realize there is no meaningful trend with regard to over or underpaying.

2011 NFL Draft Trades: Value Chart Verdicts

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...aft-day-trades

actually more down "wins" than up.

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by whodey13

You make a lot of assumptions. It is actually the other way around more often. Teams usually want out of their spot and are willing to take less. Blockbuster trades like julio jones and rgIII aside, usually trades actually give up slightly less value.

You know another economic theory is that in an illiquid market prices fall. That is why the trade value chart was created.

If you look at historical data instead of spouting rhetoric, you would realize there is no meaningful trend with regard to over or underpaying.

2011 NFL Draft Trades: Value Chart Verdicts

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/po...aft-day-trades

actually more down "wins" than up.

We can basically throw all those trade values and charts out the window. The rookie wage scale has changed everything and over time, as teams get acclimated to the changes, trade values will become more established again.

We might see more trades up this year, whereas in years past, teams didn't want the high picks because of the colossal contracts that came with them. Everyone thinks the Redskins gave up so much to get RGIII, but trades like that might become more common.

Teams can now trade picks without worrying about contracts. The high picks are actually becoming a bargain when you look at the production of players like Cam Newton, AJ Green , etc.

[whodey13]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

We can basically throw all those trade values and charts out the window. The rookie wage scale has changed everything and over time, as teams get acclimated to the changes, trade values will become more established again.

We might see more trades up this year, whereas in years past, teams didn't want the high picks because of the colossal contracts that came with them. Everyone thinks the Redskins gave up so much to get RGIII, but trades like that might become more common.

Teams can now trade picks without worrying about contracts. The high picks are actually becoming a bargain when you look at the production of players like Cam Newton, AJ Green , etc.

I would argue that the value was distorted before. The chart was made when rookie wages were not an issue, and they are no longer an issue again. I would say it is more applicable now.

Think about it this way, 2 years ago was a top 5 pick worth disproportionately more than other picks? The answer is no because of the mega contracts. Currently is it? Maybe. But the trade chart says it is and it was created in a time more similar to now than 2 years ago(Earlys 90's)

[Go Cards]

Originally Posted by andro56

I agree. Joe Reedy has repeatedly stated that the Bengals aren't taking a guard in the first and I'm thinking that they have high interest in Floyd by deciding to go to his pro-day instead of working out Okoye.

May have been there for Floyd. Sure they were. But Floyd may be long gone when we pick.

Think we were also present to look at SS Harrison Smith a little closer as well.