Possible Trade Down Partners (+ difficult math!)

[NewColtsFan]

So,  suppose the pick comes to the Colts and we're not wild about who is left at pick 29?

 

What if -- for the first time as a GM -- Grigson decides to trade down.    He's traded up twice,  but never down.

 

Let's see if there are some natural partners, and perhaps some teams that are likely not a good fit to make a deal.....

 

The trick is to move down far enough to get a decent pick in return (#4) but not so far that you might not get the player(s) you want...

 

 

29  Indy    640 points

30  GB      620

31  NO      600

32  NE       590

 

R2

 

33  Ten     580       Teams rarely trade within their division makes Titans an unlikely partner.

34  TB      560       A good target but does an 80 point drop get your their 4?

35  Oak    550       Same as Tampa, but now it's a 90 point drop?

36  Jax     540       See Tennessee at 33.

37  NYJ    530       Another good target, this is as far as my comfort level goes.  8 Spots, but now we might need more than just a 4, and that makes things more difficult.

 

NOTE:     These are the next 4 teams and you'll see who they are and their points.  Doing a deal with one of these teams might make a trade far more difficult.

 

38  WSH  510

39  CHI    500

40  NYG   490

41  ATL    480

 

4th round teams plus points....

 

100   Tenn    100 points

101   NE         96

102   Oak       92

103   Jax        88

104   NYJ       86

105   WSH     84

106   Chi        82

107   ATL       80

108   NYG     78

109   TB        76

 

Note the difference in points between the fall-off from the first to the second round,  and the points for the 4th round pick that we'd get in return.    If that number is too far off,  we'd likely ask for more...   a 6 or a 7, depending on how much.    Makes trades more difficult.

[Yoshinator]

So,  suppose the pick comes to the Colts and we're not wild about who is left at pick 29?

 

What if -- for the first time as a GM -- Grigson decides to trade down.    He's traded up twice,  but never down.

 

Let's see if there are some natural partners, and perhaps some teams that are likely not a good fit to make a deal.....

 

The trick is to move down far enough to get a decent pick in return (#4) but not so far that you might not get the player(s) you want...

 

 

29  Indy    640 points

30  GB      620

31  NO      600

32  NE       590

 

R2

 

33  Ten     580       Teams rarely trade within their division makes Titans an unlikely partner.

34  TB      560       A good target but does an 80 point drop get your their 4?

35  Oak    550       Same as Tampa, but now it's a 90 point drop?

36  Jax     540       See Tennessee at 33.

37  NYJ    530       Another good target, this is as far as my comfort level goes.  8 Spots, but now we might need more than just a 4, and that makes things more difficult.

 

NOTE:     These are the next 4 teams and you'll see who they are and their points.  Doing a deal with one of these teams might make a trade far more difficult.

 

38  WSH  510

39  CHI    500

40  NYG   490

41  ATL    480

 

4th round teams plus points....

 

100   Tenn    100 points

101   NE         96

102   Oak       92

103   Jax        88

104   NYJ       86

105   WSH     84

106   Chi        82

107   ATL       80

108   NYG     78

109   TB        76

 

Note the difference in points between the fall-off from the first to the second round,  and the points for the 4th round pick that we'd get in return.    If that number is too far off,  we'd likely ask for more...   a 6 or a 7, depending on how much.    Makes trades more difficult.

If the Jets do not take Mariota in the 1st or if the Titans just take him at 2, I could see us trade down with them and them move up 9 spots to our pick at 29. I think at that point we could get a 2nd, 4th, and 6th, or 2nd, 4th, and 7th for the pick. I'd say most likely the former because they would want Hundley at this point. Just a pure hypothetical situation that is somewhat realistic though.

[DougDew]

delete.

[DougDew]

In your scenario, yes, I would do the trade for the fourth.

IIRC, if you trade down farther to 45, you can get that team's mid 3rd rounder too. The mid second and mid third equals the 640 point value of 29.

At 45, I think Randall, Rowe, Anthony, McKinney, and Perryman would be available. I'm not up on the DTs as much, but with the depth this year, a good one would be available at 45 and may be the BPA there. Also, the OLman that some want could be there too. A lot of options would still exist if our 1st pick was 45...then we'd have a nice third round talent too.

The teams in the 45 area are the saints, vikes, dolphins, and chargers.

Say SD trades Rivers for #2, they may want to trade up to 29 to get Philip Dorsett, a rare blow the top off the guy to grow with Mariota.

[pacolts56]

In your scenario, yes, I would do the trade for the fourth.

IIRC, if you trade down farther to 45, you can get that team's mid 3rd rounder too. The mid second and mid third equals the 640 point value of 29.

At 45, I think Randall, Rowe, Anthony, McKinney, and Perryman would be available. I'm not up on the DTs as much, but with the depth this year, a good one would be available at 45 and may be the BPA there. Also, the OLman that some want could be there too. A lot of options would still exist if our 1st pick was 45...then we'd have a nice third round talent too.

The teams in the 45 area are the saints, vikes, dolphins, and chargers.

Say SD trades Rivers for #2, they may want to trade up to 29 to get Philip Dorsett, a rare blow the top off the guy to grow with Mariota.

I might add the 49ers to that list too Doug.

 

They've lost two ILB's with Willis and Borland retiring...and their #15 spot is a bit high for any of the ILBs in this draft. They're paper-thin at NT and I think they'll take one at the #15 spot. 

 

And if Erik Kendricks is still on the board at #29....and Grigson/Pagano are happy with Perryman a bit later....we could have the makings of a trade-down with SF and their 2nd and 3rd round positions would be an equitable deal.

 

We would then have their #46 and #79 picks in addition to our #61 and #93.

 

I'm guessing that Rowe, Perryman and Tartt could be had along with whoever we like at #93.

[#BringBobBack]

as long as we get at least a 3rd(preferably)  or 4th i'll be happy

[Superman]

To me, it depends on the board (no duh). 

 

If there's 8-10 guys you really like still on the board, and you get an offer to move down 8 spots, then take it. Unless one or two of those guys really stand out from the rest, you're still getting a player you have a first round grade on, plus an extra 4th (presumably), and you're not getting a lesser quality player. 

 

But I wouldn't be passing on Eric Kendricks because I have my eye on Denzel Perryman later. I'd rather just have Kendricks.

 

And really, getting an extra 4th isn't that big of a value, IMO. If you get to the 4th and you really like a guy, do the TY Hilton trade. You're getting an advance year of out next year's draft pick, and it's for a player that you think can help you now. And you have a year to get the value of the trade back (many have discussed trading Werner for a future pick, or Freeman, etc.) 

 

What I don't think we should be doing is getting enamored with guys in the 40-50 range and talking them up to being just as good as the guys that will be available at 29. If the board works out that way, cool, if not, we should probably take the best guy that fits the team's ideals. 

[Colts_Fan12]

I agree with Superman I certainly wouldn't trade back for Perryman if Kendricks was on the board

[pacolts56]

To me, it depends on the board (no duh). 

 

If there's 8-10 guys you really like still on the board, and you get an offer to move down 8 spots, then take it. Unless one or two of those guys really stand out from the rest, you're still getting a player you have a first round grade on, plus an extra 4th (presumably), and you're not getting a lesser quality player. 

 

But I wouldn't be passing on Eric Kendricks because I have my eye on Denzel Perryman later. I'd rather just have Kendricks.

 

And really, getting an extra 4th isn't that big of a value, IMO. If you get to the 4th and you really like a guy, do the TY Hilton trade. You're getting an advance year of out next year's draft pick, and it's for a player that you think can help you now. And you have a year to get the value of the trade back (many have discussed trading Werner for a future pick, or Freeman, etc.) 

 

What I don't think we should be doing is getting enamored with guys in the 40-50 range and talking them up to being just as good as the guys that will be available at 29. If the board works out that way, cool, if not, we should probably take the best guy that fits the team's ideals. 

 

I agree with Superman I certainly wouldn't trade back for Perryman if Kendricks was on the board

That trade down would add the #46 and #79 picks and would be more aimed at locking on Eric Rowe and Jaquiski Tartt, and still landing a solid ILB vs the run in Perryman. How Grigson has any of these guys valued is anyone's guess.

 

I actually mocked Kendricks, Rowe and Tartt to us without the trade down, and that would be my ideal outcome. 

 

But Rowe is the wild card in that scenario and he could be gone by #61. It's hard to tell...he's ranked all over the map from the 2nd to the 4th round. The trade down would move us into a much more realistic shot at Rowe and Tartt though.

 

And I DO like Kendricks....but Perryman is no slouch vs the run.

 

So I'd be willing to gain the higher certainty of adding FS Rowe and SS Tartt at their value range, and the difference between Kendricks and Perryman is an acceptable price. 

 

And after the Rowe, Perryman and Tartt selections we'd still have our #93 3rd round pick as well, which I don't think is a bad outcome at all with the projected OL, WR and RB value in that range.

[Colts_Fan12]

That trade down would add the #46 and #79 picks and would be more aimed at locking on Eric Rowe and Jaquiski Tartt, and still landing a solid ILB vs the run in Perryman. How Grigson has any of these guys valued is anyone's guess.

I actually mocked Kendricks, Rowe and Tartt to us without the trade down, and that would be my ideal outcome.

But Rowe is the wild card in that scenario and he could be gone by #61. It's hard to tell...he's ranked all over the map from the 2nd to the 4th round. The trade down would move us into a much more realistic shot at Rowe and Tartt though.

And I DO like Kendricks....but Perryman is no slouch vs the run.

So I'd be willing to gain the higher certainty of adding FS Rowe and SS Tartt at their value range, and the difference between Kendricks and Perryman is an acceptable price.

And after the Rowe, Perryman and Tartt selections we'd still have our #93 3rd round pick as well, which I don't think is a bad outcome at all with the projected OL, WR and RB value in that range.

I don't want an ILB for stopping the run I want Kendricks cause he seems like the only one worth a crap in coverage cause our ILBs are not good in coverage

Plus Irving is a good run stopping ILB

[DougDew]

To me, it depends on the board (no duh). 

 

If there's 8-10 guys you really like still on the board, and you get an offer to move down 8 spots, then take it. Unless one or two of those guys really stand out from the rest, you're still getting a player you have a first round grade on, plus an extra 4th (presumably), and you're not getting a lesser quality player. 

 

But I wouldn't be passing on Eric Kendricks because I have my eye on Denzel Perryman later. I'd rather just have Kendricks.

 

And really, getting an extra 4th isn't that big of a value, IMO. If you get to the 4th and you really like a guy, do the TY Hilton trade. You're getting an advance year of out next year's draft pick, and it's for a player that you think can help you now. And you have a year to get the value of the trade back (many have discussed trading Werner for a future pick, or Freeman, etc.) 

 

What I don't think we should be doing is getting enamored with guys in the 40-50 range and talking them up to being just as good as the guys that will be available at 29. If the board works out that way, cool, if not, we should probably take the best guy that fits the team's ideals.

I agree. It depends on who is on the board at 29, and would not pass on a player that had superior ability just to pick up another mid rounder.

The positions of most need for the Colts are RT, ILB, S, RB, and possibly G and C. From a 30,000 foot level, all of those positions tend to be the ones that are devalued come draft day and tend to fall...as well as the DT position being deep. That helps to support a trade down, IMO.

Say Kendricks is available at 29, but the draft is falling so that a player of an equal grade as Kendricks, say Goldman, looks to be available at 36, do you pass on Kendricks and trade down, getting Goldman and then the ILB at 61...or possibly Rowe.

I think the Colts have a lot of options this year, which should make for an entertaining draft.

[pacolts56]

I don't want an ILB for stopping the run I want Kendricks cause he seems like the only one worth a crap in coverage cause our ILBs are not good in coverage

Plus Irving is a good run stopping ILB

Kendricks is better in coverage...I'll give you that but stopping guys like Gronkowski and Julius Thomas is pretty lofty expectations. And we just plain suck at run defense vs NE.

 

I guess if I had a choice between Kendricks and losing a shot at Rowe and Tartt....or getting Perryman and Rowe and Tartt, I'd take the latter.

 

Hopefully....my mock will materialize and we get Kendricks plus those two Safeties. But if Kendricks and the NTs are taken already we need a plan for that too.

[Colts_Fan12]

Kendricks is better in coverage...I'll give you that but stopping guys like Gronkowski and Julius Thomas is pretty lofty expectations. And we just plain suck at run defense vs NE.

I guess if I had a choice between Kendricks and losing a shot at Rowe and Tartt....or getting Perryman and Rowe and Tartt, I'd take the latter.

Hopefully....my mock will materialize and we get Kendricks plus those two Safeties. But if Kendricks and the NTs are taken already we need a plan for that too.

I'm personally interested in taking Holliman later in the draft and working with him on his tackling if you just get him to be an average tackler he would be a steal with his ballhawking skills but not many are a fan of that idea

[Hoose]

I agree with the concept of not passing on a player you believe is worth the 29th pick, and I don't believe the Colts would do that if such a player were there. However, if they are in trade mode, Oakland would be a great partner. But rather than picking up an extra pick, I can see a scenario where the Colts move well up in the third round.

 

Such as, Colts trade their 1st and 3rd to Oakland; Raiders trade their 2nd and 3rd to Indy. The value chart favors the Colts, but not by that much. ( Oakland picks are valued at 800; Colts at 768 ).

And in this situation, the Colts are getting 3 players in the top 70. Those early third round picks are gold this year. This is a team that is knocking on the door. They are looking for talent, not quantity.

[Superman]

That trade down would add the #46 and #79 picks 

 

How are Pittsburgh (46) and Baltimore (79) going to share our 29th pick? It would have to be 48 and 79 from Baltimore. And I think moving down 19 spots is too far. I think moving down 17 spots is too far. I don't think I'd do that unless it were two separate trades, dictated by the board, and we picked up another mid round pick in the process.

 

And while we'd be getting more players, I think moving down from 29 to the mid to late 40s means missing out on better players in the late first / early second. I wouldn't want to move down any further than 40. We don't even really have room for the picks we have. 

[Superman]

I agree. It depends on who is on the board at 29, and would not pass on a player that had superior ability just to pick up another mid rounder.

The positions of most need for the Colts are RT, ILB, S, RB, and possibly G and C. From a 30,000 foot level, all of those positions tend to be the ones that are devalued come draft day and tend to fall...as well as the DT position being deep. That helps to support a trade down, IMO.

Say Kendricks is available at 29, but the draft is falling so that a player of an equal grade as Kendricks, say Goldman, looks to be available at 36, do you pass on Kendricks and trade down, getting Goldman and then the ILB at 61...or possibly Rowe.

I think the Colts have a lot of options this year, which should make for an entertaining draft.

 

If you want Kendricks, I think you should just take him. He's much better than any of the ILBs that will be there at 61. Perryman, McKinney, etc. The only one that's really intriguing to me is Dawson, but I'd still rather have Kendricks. I think we'd be better off moving up for another top 40-50 guy, even surrendering a future pick, than moving out of 29.

 

Of course, it all depends on the board, and how far back you're moving. If you have 8 guys you like at 29, and you get an offer to move back to 35, then you know you're getting one of your 8 guys, and you get an extra pick. That extra pick can be used as collateral, maybe packaged with 61, to move back up to the top 50 and get a guy that you like but won't be in our range. Maybe you could get out of there with Kendricks and Jordan Phillips or Goldman in the top 50. 

[pacolts56]

How are Pittsburgh (46) and Baltimore (79) going to share our 29th pick? It would have to be 48 and 79 from Baltimore. And I think moving down 19 spots is too far. I think moving down 17 spots is too far. I don't think I'd do that unless it were two separate trades, dictated by the board, and we picked up another mid round pick in the process.

 

And while we'd be getting more players, I think moving down from 29 to the mid to late 40s means missing out on better players in the late first / early second. I wouldn't want to move down any further than 40. We don't even really have room for the picks we have. 

Is this trade value chart wrong?

 

http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=sf

 

It says it was updated April 16th so it's the chart I used to calculate the 49ers picks and shows they have #46 and #79.

 

Pittsburgh and Baltimore were playoff teams....have they made deals for those picks since last week?

[Superman]

Is this trade value chart wrong?

 

http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=sf

 

It says it was updated April 16th so it's the chart I used to calculate the 49ers picks and shows they have #46 and #79.

 

Pittsburgh and Baltimore were playoff teams....have they made deals for those picks since last week?

 

You're right, I'm stupid. I think I was looking at last year's draft order.

 

Even still, going down to 46 is a big drop. You're passing up 17 players.

[NewColtsFan]

Honestly,  if we're moving down,  I'd like to stay in the 30's...    top of the 2nd round.

 

So,  at the top of the 2nd here's what I see...

 

33.  Tenn:    Not a good match; teams rarely trade within their own division.

34.  TB:       Good Match.   I'd be happy to trade down here.

35.  Oak:     Ditto.    I'd be happy to trade down here.

36.  Jax:      See Tenn.   Don't think this happens.

37.  NYJ:     Good Match.  Happy to trade here.    This is 8 deep.   A quarter of a round.    This is where my comfort level for trading back ends.    If we trade back more -- even a little -- then I want more than a 4. 

 

NOTE:    We could trade back with GB or NO or NE,  but the drop is so little,  we wouldn't get a 4.   Likely a 5.

[pacolts56]

You're right, I'm stupid. I think I was looking at last year's draft order.

 

Even still, going down to 46 is a big drop. You're passing up 17 players.

True, 17 spots is a big drop....and my preferred top 3 picks I mocked for us are Kendricks, Rowe and Tartt.

 

But Rowe, Tartt, Perryman and the #93...perhaps RT Daryl Williams....wouldn't be a bad group either, IMO.

 

11 more days and we'll find out. 

[Manning1887]

The point system is more of a guide than the gospel. Good old supply and demand also plays a prominent role. The more demand for our pick, the higher the price. 

 

I could actually see a nice trade with Carolina, whereby they take an offensive tackle such as DJ Humphries at #25, then seek to trade up in order to select a receiver such as Jaelen Strong to pair with Kelvin Benjamin. Perhaps we could get a #2 and #4 this year, and a #2 in 2016. This trade is somewhat similar to the Cordarrelle Patterson trade a couple of years ago where the Vikings gave a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round pick to the Patriots to move back into the first round.