Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Last years trade down
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Denver Broncos
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
germ-x


Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 7871
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

broncos67 wrote:
b_rent87 wrote:
Could have had Bernard Pierce


This is a good point, and hindsight is always perfect. That being said, I liked Pierce a lot coming out, but we don't know what Hillman can do yet.


I liked Pierce as well. Though, i think last year during this time Denver wanted to add speed and more of a gamebreaker at the position. Ultimately i think they moved up for Hillman because there was a run on these types of backs at the end of the 2nd round.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul-mac


Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Posts: 9098
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pierce is like the ultimate meat and potatoes back. He's a poor man's Ben Jarvus Green-Ellis
_________________
Big Palooka wrote:
Broncos won't make the playoffs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
broncospride95


Joined: 04 Feb 2010
Posts: 2345
Location: Chicago to Boulder
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

broncos67 wrote:
broncospride95 wrote:
b_rent87 wrote:
It has been repeatedly stated no teams were that high on him. Could have waited for him

Where?


Never seen it reported. Just because the media thinks something is a reach doesn't make it so.

That's my point.

I trust the Broncos scouts/FO much more than I trust what the media labels as a reach. Every year, every team can look back at a previous draft and say, "Wow. I really wish we would've selected x player." There's a reason the draft is called a crap shoot. You're not going to hit on every pick; that's just how it works.

I know it's early on, but overall I'd say Elway/Fox have done a good-great job at drafting and filling out this team. I like the direction this team has been heading.
_________________

Props to Joe_is_the_best on the sig

Blackhawks-Broncos-Bulls-CU-Cubs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ProfessorBronco


Joined: 18 Feb 2011
Posts: 243
Location: Grand Junction, CO
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AKRNA wrote:
broncos67 wrote:
copeland wrote:
broncos67 wrote:
The chart is a guide and I personally don't think teams use it much when considering trades. I do, however, think Denver could've gotten much more than they did last year. I think Elway got a bit fleeced as a new GM. We still picked up talented players, but I would hope if we trade down this year we receive better compensation.


I hear ya, but I think AKRNA hit nail on the head. Elway seems to have wanted out of that spot worse than he wanted to stay. I have no problem with that cause it shows me that, in order to stick to the plan in place, he'll do what it takes to make it happen.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I like that he has a plan, and will sacrifice a few spots to ultimately put the plan in place.


That may be true, but part of trading down is maximizing value. When you start to give the illusion that you'll just trade down for the hell of it, you become a sucker. The last thing you want to do in the arena where teams are built, is sacrifice anything just to stick to something by the book. If there were no other options to trade down, fine, but if you have the opportunity to pick up better quality picks, you better do it.


No one would disagree with that. The flip side is though you have to take the best offer you get.

At least he got something. We all would have squawked if he would have grabbed Wolfe at 28.


Here's my problem with that assertion with the new cba and rookie wage scale first rounders get 5 year deals, and they get them for value dollars vs previous years. So the risk is lower an the reward is there as well. Who here would like to have Wolfe on an extra year for that rookie salary? I know I would. It's a pretty cool dichotomy. If you hit consistently on firsts it provides more financial flexibility. If you don't or miss for a few years, it doesn't put you in cap hell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ProfessorBronco


Joined: 18 Feb 2011
Posts: 243
Location: Grand Junction, CO
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

germ-x wrote:
broncos67 wrote:
b_rent87 wrote:
Could have had Bernard Pierce


This is a good point, and hindsight is always perfect. That being said, I liked Pierce a lot coming out, but we don't know what Hillman can do yet.


I liked Pierce as well. Though, i think last year during this time Denver wanted to add speed and more of a gamebreaker at the position. Ultimately i think they moved up for Hillman because there was a run on these types of backs at the end of the 2nd round.


Or Turbin, or Miller. I still am not a fan of the trade up for Hillman. To me, with the type of player that he was and his perceived role moving forward, trading up was not the best choice. Especially now that we're hearing how they want a bell cow. And they obviously liked Turbin a little because they had him in for visits twice. We've seen it in consecutive drafts, where the F.O. feels compelled to waste the assets they've accummulated while trading down to trade up for boom or bust type guys.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AKRNA


Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 5203
PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ProfessorBronco wrote:
germ-x wrote:
broncos67 wrote:
b_rent87 wrote:
Could have had Bernard Pierce


This is a good point, and hindsight is always perfect. That being said, I liked Pierce a lot coming out, but we don't know what Hillman can do yet.


I liked Pierce as well. Though, i think last year during this time Denver wanted to add speed and more of a gamebreaker at the position. Ultimately i think they moved up for Hillman because there was a run on these types of backs at the end of the 2nd round.


Or Turbin, or Miller. I still am not a fan of the trade up for Hillman. To me, with the type of player that he was and his perceived role moving forward, trading up was not the best choice. Especially now that we're hearing how they want a bell cow. And they obviously liked Turbin a little because they had him in for visits twice. We've seen it in consecutive drafts, where the F.O. feels compelled to waste the assets they've accummulated while trading down to trade up for boom or bust type guys.


I think thats a bit of a reach. I don't really see how they've "wasted" assets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
copeland


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Posts: 644
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AKRNA wrote:
ProfessorBronco wrote:
germ-x wrote:
broncos67 wrote:
b_rent87 wrote:
Could have had Bernard Pierce


This is a good point, and hindsight is always perfect. That being said, I liked Pierce a lot coming out, but we don't know what Hillman can do yet.


I liked Pierce as well. Though, i think last year during this time Denver wanted to add speed and more of a gamebreaker at the position. Ultimately i think they moved up for Hillman because there was a run on these types of backs at the end of the 2nd round.


Or Turbin, or Miller. I still am not a fan of the trade up for Hillman. To me, with the type of player that he was and his perceived role moving forward, trading up was not the best choice. Especially now that we're hearing how


they want a bell cow. And they obviously liked Turbin a little because they had him in for visits twice. We've seen it in consecutive drafts, where the F.O. feels compelled to waste the assets they've accummulated while trading down to trade up for boom or bust type guys.


I think thats a bit of a reach. I don't really see how they've "wasted" assets.


I'm gonna say it and ya'll can kill me for it, but...
I think this type of thinking comes from being a fan that thinks they know more than they do, rather than actually how an NFL executive, scout, and GM thinks. We all sit here saying how we could or should do this or that, not really knowing the true story in the least. I'm a big believer in perspective, and fans really have none when it comes to how it really works. Opinions are great and it all works for discussion, but in the end, we will never know the reasoning for any of their decisions. Unless you're Al Davis.
_________________
I long for the days when giving your word, with a firm handshake, was the "signature on the contract."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thebestever6


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 2197
PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PackAtBroncos07 wrote:
broncospride95 wrote:
b_rent87 wrote:
It has been repeatedly stated no teams were that high on him. Could have waited for him

Where?


I'm sure another NFL scout saw what we saw in Hillman. I'd be very surprised if that were actually true.

I know what need someone is referring to as our "biggest one" but is there really a player at the top that would be worth selling our draft class for?

I don't believe a player in this years class that is worth trading up for. Personally I have always been against trade ups this year we might have many needs but great front offices look ahead. You have to account for aging players, future free agency, contracts, and depth. I think trading down is the best opportunity, and I also believe that there will be value in trading down. I can see either the bills or eagles trading up to get a qb. Eagles maybe Manuel and Bills Nassib. Some say jets could trade up but IMO they have too many needs to trade up.
_________________
Props to Deadpulse for the Sig:

Big Palooka wrote:
"They don't have to worry about him making consistent passes. They will win another 2-3 max with him at QB."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
broncosfan_101


FF Fanatic
Moderator
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 13025
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donut wrote:
Quote:
^ No. 29: Baltimore → Minnesota (D). Baltimore traded this selection to Minnesota for their second (35th) and fourth round (98th) selections this year.

Quote:
No. 25: Denver → New England (D). Denver traded this selection to New England for their first (31st) and fourth round (126th) selections this year

Its about the same.

Donut wrote:
He got pretty much identical value as the Ravens did that yr. If he could've gotten more he would have.


Going back a bit, but this is so false. Obviously the trade value chart is just a guide, but if we talk about this in 'points', we moved down 120 points, and only received 46 points for it. Baltimore moved down 90 points and received 108 points. It's not even close to the same. Not even close.

The DIFFERENCE between the returns is worth a mid-to-high 4th rounder.
And get this: after our next trade down from 31 to 36 (which we used the pick we got in the first trade), we STILL didn't get a pick as valuable as the one Baltimore got. We moved down from 25 to 36 and only got 101 in return. Baltimore moved from 29 to 35 and got 98. That's HORRIBLE for Elway. He got fleeced.

It's only one draft, so it's not necessarily a trend yet, but he did a terrible job and he needs to learn from his mistakes.
_________________
big_palooka wrote:
Lomax taking home the MVP. Good choice. Solid poster and BP hater Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
broncos67


Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 22296
Location: Conshohocken
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

copeland wrote:
AKRNA wrote:
ProfessorBronco wrote:
germ-x wrote:
broncos67 wrote:
b_rent87 wrote:
Could have had Bernard Pierce


This is a good point, and hindsight is always perfect. That being said, I liked Pierce a lot coming out, but we don't know what Hillman can do yet.


I liked Pierce as well. Though, i think last year during this time Denver wanted to add speed and more of a gamebreaker at the position. Ultimately i think they moved up for Hillman because there was a run on these types of backs at the end of the 2nd round.


Or Turbin, or Miller. I still am not a fan of the trade up for Hillman. To me, with the type of player that he was and his perceived role moving forward, trading up was not the best choice. Especially now that we're hearing how


they want a bell cow. And they obviously liked Turbin a little because they had him in for visits twice. We've seen it in consecutive drafts, where the F.O. feels compelled to waste the assets they've accummulated while trading down to trade up for boom or bust type guys.


I think thats a bit of a reach. I don't really see how they've "wasted" assets.


I'm gonna say it and ya'll can kill me for it, but...
I think this type of thinking comes from being a fan that thinks they know more than they do, rather than actually how an NFL executive, scout, and GM thinks. We all sit here saying how we could or should do this or that, not really knowing the true story in the least. I'm a big believer in perspective, and fans really have none when it comes to how it really works. Opinions are great and it all works for discussion, but in the end, we will never know the reasoning for any of their decisions. Unless you're Al Davis.


I agree completely. We can speculate all we want, but at the end of the day, there's a reason that every player gets selected. The GM and coach assemble the team a certain way. They see the progress of players physically and mentally and they understand all the little nuances that fans have absolutely no idea about.

Determining the value off of the chart is fine for a snap judgement, by the way, but the real determinant is success. If Ronnie Hillman performs up to snuff, no one will give a damn.
_________________


Thanks, Tzimisce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul-mac


Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Posts: 9098
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you're math is off, 101


We traded down from 25 to 36, and gained 101 and 126 for it. That's a net loss of 18 points.

Baltimore traded down from 29 to 35 and gained 98, that's a net loss of 2 points.


Honestly for going back 11 picks, getting two fourth is a pretty decent return for it, if you packaged them together it would be equal to a late third round pick and that's really as good as any team will ever give you for an 11 pick trade late in the first round.

Trading up is cheap, that's economics, there's more demand to trade down and less supply to trade up. Very few deals according to the TVC ever have the selling team winning the deal.

We moved back 6 picks initially from 25 to 31, can you really expect a third round pick for that?

And then another 5 picks.


Now had we traded 25 straight to Tampa Bay for 36 then maybe we could have gotten their third but that's not really the point.
_________________
Big Palooka wrote:
Broncos won't make the playoffs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
broncosfan_101


FF Fanatic
Moderator
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 13025
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
No. 31: Denver → Tampa Bay (D). Denver traded this selection and their fourth round (126th) selection to Tampa for their second (36th) and fourth round (101st) selections this year.


We used the pick we got for moving from 25 to 31 in the trade down from 31 to 36.

Traded 25, got 31 and 126.
Traded 31 and 126, got 36 and 101.

We turned pick 25 into picks 36 and 101.
Baltimore turned pick 29 into 35 and 98.

Baltimore turned a worse pick (29th) than ours (25th) into a better pick (35th) than ours (36th), AND got more in return to do it (98th-101st). That's embarrassing for Elway.
_________________
big_palooka wrote:
Lomax taking home the MVP. Good choice. Solid poster and BP hater Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul-mac


Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Posts: 9098
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

broncosfan_101 wrote:
Quote:
No. 31: Denver → Tampa Bay (D). Denver traded this selection and their fourth round (126th) selection to Tampa for their second (36th) and fourth round (101st) selections this year.


We used the pick we got for moving from 25 to 31 in the trade down from 31 to 36.

Traded 25, got 31 and 126.
Traded 31 and 126, got 36 and 101.

We turned pick 25 into picks 36 and 101.
Baltimore turned pick 29 into 35 and 98.

Baltimore turned a worse pick (29th) than ours (25th) into a better pick (35th) than ours (36th), AND got more in return to do it (98th-101st). That's embarrassing for Elway.



Aye, you're right. My mistake.

I forgot we flipped New England's fourth back to Tampa.

The Bucs deal was the bad one imo.


The thing is, though, you can only take what's on offer, at the end of the day.

One thing only a selected few will ever know is whether Derek Wolfe was the guy at 31, or even at 25, or if there's a guy that we missed out on by moving back.

If Wolfe was the guy then getting anything extra is a bonus, if not then it's not such a good move.

Coincidentally, the pick ended up being Omar Bolden, so if Derek Wolfe was the guy at 25, then we've basically manipulated the draft into getting ourselves a free player in Bolden. Even if Wolfe wasn't going to be the pick, then maybe it's still a win, as Derek Wolfe and Omar Bolden are better than just, say, for argument's sake, Dont'a Hightower who was taken at 25.
_________________
Big Palooka wrote:
Broncos won't make the playoffs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
broncosfan_101


FF Fanatic
Moderator
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 13025
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

paul-mac wrote:
broncosfan_101 wrote:
Quote:
No. 31: Denver → Tampa Bay (D). Denver traded this selection and their fourth round (126th) selection to Tampa for their second (36th) and fourth round (101st) selections this year.


We used the pick we got for moving from 25 to 31 in the trade down from 31 to 36.

Traded 25, got 31 and 126.
Traded 31 and 126, got 36 and 101.

We turned pick 25 into picks 36 and 101.
Baltimore turned pick 29 into 35 and 98.

Baltimore turned a worse pick (29th) than ours (25th) into a better pick (35th) than ours (36th), AND got more in return to do it (98th-101st). That's embarrassing for Elway.



Aye, you're right. My mistake.

I forgot we flipped New England's fourth back to Tampa.

The Bucs deal was the bad one imo.


The trade with NE was a -74 point trade. The trade with TB was only a -10. Again, the value chart is just a guide, but the NE trade was just awful.
_________________
big_palooka wrote:
Lomax taking home the MVP. Good choice. Solid poster and BP hater Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul-mac


Joined: 12 Jul 2009
Posts: 9098
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tend to think of it as picks gained v picks lost though.


The Pats trade we moved down 6 spots, stayed in the first round and picked up a 4th round pick. On examination that really isn't an awful trade at all.


The Tampa trade we moved down 5 spots, all the way out of the first round, picked up a 4th round pick but also lost a fourth round pick.
_________________
Big Palooka wrote:
Broncos won't make the playoffs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Denver Broncos All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group