Photo

BSL: Full 3 Round Mock Draft


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 jkough1

jkough1

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,779 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 03:58 PM

Looking later, if McDowell falls to #59, I'd be interested in the Ravens considering him. Especially if they go offense with the 1st pick. Even if he isn't an edge rusher, that value would intrigue me. 



#22 jkough1

jkough1

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,779 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 04:22 PM

Also curious what folks would think if Williams / Davis were off the board and SF wanted back in the 1st and offered us their first next year for our 1st. Would you do it? You'd almost want a Trubisky on the board when we pick...

 

Barnwell suggested trading for their 2nd and a future 2nd today...

 

http://www.espn.com/...ls-all-32-teams



#23 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,753 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 04:29 PM

Straight up 2018 1st for #16 or do you mean pay the future 1st to move up from their 2nd (#34) to #16?

 

For me the decision is a slam dunk in each case.  Just in opposite directions depending on the exact details.



#24 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,843 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 17 April 2017 - 04:35 PM

Also curious what folks would think if Williams / Davis were off the board and SF wanted back in the 1st and offered us their first next year for our 1st. Would you do it? You'd almost want a Trubisky on the board when we pick...

 

Barnwell suggested trading for their 2nd and a future 2nd today...

 

http://www.espn.com/...ls-all-32-teams

If I am giving up o one for a two, basically moving down 17 spots, I need more than just a future 2.  

 

Not close IMO.


@mikeghg

#25 jkough1

jkough1

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,779 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 05:01 PM

Straight up 2018 1st for #16 or do you mean pay the future 1st to move up from their 2nd (#34) to #16?

 

For me the decision is a slam dunk in each case.  Just in opposite directions depending on the exact details.

 

Sorry to clarify, moving this year's 1st for next year's Niners 1st. 

 

Or moving this year's first for this year's Niner's 2nd and next year's Niner's second (he also suggests to 4th's). 



#26 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,753 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 08:33 AM

Sorry to clarify, moving this year's 1st for next year's Niners 1st. 

 

Or moving this year's first for this year's Niner's 2nd and next year's Niner's second (he also suggests to 4th's). 

 

Hard pass. 



#27 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    Sr. Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 74,766 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 April 2017 - 08:41 AM

If someone wants our first and we are completely trading out of the first round, us getting their 2nd this year and first next year or us getting a 2 and 3 this year and a 2 next year would need to be on the table...and that doesn't happen if Davis or Williams are there.


@BSLRobShields

#28 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,753 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 08:53 AM

If someone wants our first and we are completely trading out of the first round, us getting their 2nd this year and first next year or us getting a 2 and 3 this year and a 2 next year would need to be on the table...and that doesn't happen if Davis or Williams are there.

 

Agree completely.



#29 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    Sr. Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 74,766 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:14 AM

Future picks are typically worth one round less in a trade.

 

So, a first next year is like a 2 this year.


@BSLRobShields

#30 jkough1

jkough1

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,779 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:33 AM

So, a first next year is like a 2 this year.

 

Looks like this happened in 2009 with Seattle. Obv happened for us with Jamal, too.In the Seattle trade, Denver got 2.37 (Alphonso Smith) and Seattle ended up getting 1.14 (Earl Thomas). Wow! Given the other was Kelly for Jamal that's also way unbalanced. Assuming the Falcons were good it's just 12 draft spots of value assuming the prior year's position at 30, ended up being 37 draft spots sooner (we gave up 2.42 for Kelly). 

 

It's assumably inverted that our 2nd won't have future 1st value, but now I'm curious would we give someone our 2nd this year for a future 1st? I mean those two examples above are stupid slam dunk yes's in retrospect for the team that gave up the 2nds...but 2.47 is probably going to be too far back for any future 1st, you'd be giving up an assumed 15 draft spots at minimum...

 

As for the trade Barnwell recommended, I tend to agree in this draft class, that's not enough for two 2nds and two 4th's for a 1. And if Ozzie loves this class he'd want that 3rd more than the two 4ths. 



#31 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    Sr. Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 74,766 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:40 AM

The Pats have traded for future picks routinely.  Not first rounders but the same principle applies.


@BSLRobShields

#32 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    Sr. Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 74,766 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:41 AM

Looks like this happened in 2009 with Seattle. Obv happened for us with Jamal, too.In the Seattle trade, Denver got 2.37 (Alphonso Smith) and Seattle ended up getting 1.14 (Earl Thomas). Wow! Given the other was Kelly for Jamal that's also way unbalanced. Assuming the Falcons were good it's just 12 draft spots of value assuming the prior year's position at 30, ended up being 37 draft spots sooner (we gave up 2.42 for Kelly). 

 

It's assumably inverted that our 2nd won't have future 1st value, but now I'm curious would we give someone our 2nd this year for a future 1st? I mean those two examples above are stupid slam dunk yes's in retrospect for the team that gave up the 2nds...but 2.47 is probably going to be too far back for any future 1st, you'd be giving up an assumed 15 draft spots at minimum...

 

As for the trade Barnwell recommended, I tend to agree in this draft class, that's not enough for two 2nds and two 4th's for a 1. And if Ozzie loves this class he'd want that 3rd more than the two 4ths. 

I think you make a move like that if you don't really love the prospects in a given year and see the following year as a better draft.


@BSLRobShields

#33 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,753 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:42 AM

Future picks are typically worth one round less in a trade.

 

So, a first next year is like a 2 this year.

 

I've looked back at a lot of trades, and I've found that a future pick is usually worth more than a current pick one round later.  It varies with each trade, and depends on the teams involved, but I think that typically a future 1st is worth about the mid-point of a current first and a current 2nd.



#34 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,753 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:44 AM

Looks like this happened in 2009 with Seattle. Obv happened for us with Jamal, too.In the Seattle trade, Denver got 2.37 (Alphonso Smith) and Seattle ended up getting 1.14 (Earl Thomas). Wow! Given the other was Kelly for Jamal that's also way unbalanced. Assuming the Falcons were good it's just 12 draft spots of value assuming the prior year's position at 30, ended up being 37 draft spots sooner (we gave up 2.42 for Kelly).

 

Future picks tend to be assumed to be in the middle of the round as far as draft value goes.  That, again, varies depending on who is involved in the trade.  A future Browns #2 is worth more than a future Patriots #2.



#35 bnickle

bnickle

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,172 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 10:12 AM

I would do it for the 49ers first next year because Im pretty sure they'll be in the TOp 10 again. Im not doing it for anything less. Too much value in this years draft. 


  • BSLRobShields and Mike B like this

#36 jkough1

jkough1

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,779 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 10:14 AM

That was Barnwell's point going back to all this. That he thinks the Ravens would want value in this year's draft for the pick. 

 

So let's tweak it. What if it's Ravens 1st for Niners 2nd, 2nd (next year) and 3rd. AND you assume a top tier guy isn't on the board for them. 



#37 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    Sr. Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 74,766 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 April 2017 - 10:15 AM

That was Barnwell's point going back to all this. That he thinks the Ravens would want value in this year's draft for the pick. 

 

So let's tweak it. What if it's Ravens 1st for Niners 2nd, 2nd (next year) and 3rd. AND you assume a top tier guy isn't on the board for them. 

I am probably making that deal because it sounds to me that guys in the 20-50 range could be interchangeable.


@BSLRobShields

#38 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    Sr. Orioles Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 74,766 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 18 April 2017 - 10:16 AM

But none of this matters because Trubisky is a lock to go in the top 10 and probably top 5.

 

The niners may just draft him 2nd.


@BSLRobShields

#39 jkough1

jkough1

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,779 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 12:16 PM

But none of this matters because Trubisky is a lock to go in the top 10 and probably top 5.

 

The niners may just draft him 2nd.

 

You'd have to think at that point someone does something stupid and trades back into the 1st or up in the 1st there for him. 



#40 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,753 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 01:00 PM

That was Barnwell's point going back to all this. That he thinks the Ravens would want value in this year's draft for the pick. 

 

So let's tweak it. What if it's Ravens 1st for Niners 2nd, 2nd (next year) and 3rd. AND you assume a top tier guy isn't on the board for them. 

 

If none of the WR, CB, or pass rushers that we covet are available, I'd do it.  I'd rather trade up using our 3rd round pick to say #12 for Williams or Davis than miss out on both and take that deal to move down.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners