Would you trade down to #30?

I disagree strongly. They traded for a pick that was 4 picks ahead of our natural 4th round pick, and kept our 4th round pick for Jones. Had they simply been concerned about Shark, they could have traded up a handful of spots. A 6th rounder could have gotten us even higher than pick 111, and not sacrificed a valuable 3rd round pick. Even if Cleveland wouldn't have been interested in that trade, someone in the 108-111 range would likely have taken the deal. This was definitely about getting Jones.

 

We'll never know but I'll never believe they traded up to get Jones, makes no sense to me. They've said it was about getting Shark, I have no reason to not believe them.

 

If their story is that the trade was ALL about Shark, then their story is completely unsupported by common sense or evidence. Think about it - we're sitting at pick #115, and we want to move up a few spots because we're concerned that he won't make it to #115. Ultimately we ended up grabbing pick #111 - a 4 spot difference. There are a myriad of ways that any competent organization can use to move up 4 spots in the 4th round that do not involve giving up a 3rd round pick. The only way you make a move like we did last year is if you want TWO players that you feel are going to be off the board shortly. If all they wanted was to ensure that we got Shark, they would have done something much less "splashy" than trading away a future 3rd. So, if the team is saying that they made the move to get Shark, it's a half-truth. There's more to the story. The only other explanation is horrid draft mismanagement and incompetence IMO.

 

Like what? If I'm a GM, I'm not in love with extra 5th and 6th round picks, I'd want a 3rd. You also need a dance partner, I'm sure their first choice wasn't to give up a 3rd, if the Steelers were really set on getting Shamarko and Cleveland put the screws to them a little, then they'd have a decision to make, risk losing out on Shark or give up the 3rd. From what I read, they really liked Shamarko.

 

Well OK, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. If what you are postulating is what truly happened - that KC was so unprepared that he had to give up a future 3rd just to find a way to move up 4 spots in the 4th round, then the last sentence in my prior post applies: "The only other explanation is horrid draft mismanagement and incompetence IMO." I really don't think that's how it went down.

 

Completely different discussion. What we are discussing is did they make that trade so they could get Landry or Shamarko.

For the record, I didn't want them to draft Jones.

 

I don't understand that? How was he unprepared? I'm trying to make sense of what you are saying, so tell me what you think should have went down.

 

Let me put some numbers to my explanation using the infamous draft value chart. Now just to be clear, I don't take the draft chart as gospel, but I've found that most of the draft trades that are done tend to line up in the ballpark of the draft chart. So we're sitting at #115 (64 points). We're worried that Shark is going to be picked, so we grab #111 (72 points) - and give up a future 3rd worth 190 points to get it. We had pick #150 (31.4 points) and pick #186 (17 points) available to induce someone to trade down. Per the chart, pick #150 would have gotten us up as high as pick #101 and pick #186 would have gotten us as high as #107. With the number of draft day trades that take place, and the number of teams that always seem to be looking to move down for more picks, I find it pretty much impossible to believe that we wouldn't have found someone willing to trade in that 101 - 111 range. Instead we gave up a future 3rd (190 points) for pick #111 (72 points). To get to #111 from #115 would have taken 8 points, and we had 31.4 and 17 point picks in our arsenal. Again, I find it pretty much impossible that someone wouldn't have taken our 5th to move down just a few spots.

Now why would I think that? Go back and look at the draft tracker for the 4th round of 2013. There were 13 picks made in the 4th round where the team that picked acquired the pick via trade, including picks 101, 102, 104, 106, 109 and 110. The Giants used pick #110 to grab Ryan Nassib, and only gave up a 6th rounder to move up from #116. If I had time, I would dig into the others, but I'm pretty sure none of them required that the acquirer give up anything close to a future 3rd. Therefore, the only plausible explanations are 1) they wanted TWO players and were willing (stupidly IMO) to trade away a future 3rd to get the second of those players (Jones), or 2) They mismanaged the draft so badly that they were dragged over the coals by the Browns and got a crappier - by far - deal than the Giants got for less valuable pick swap.

Any way you slice it, that was not KC's finest hour IMO.

 

Ok, thanks for laying it out, more plausible to me now. I guess I'm just hung up on Jones influencing them any, he's a guy that possibly could have gone undrafted.

 

I agree 100%. IMO it was either horrid draft management, or over-valuing a particular player (to an extreme). Based on past track record, I'm pretty sure it was the latter. It's hard to accept that they valued Jones that high, but I think that's the case.

 

Yea, if we had ended up with Barrett instead of Landry I would also feel a whole lot better. There are plenty of good projects who went after Landry who would have made the deal less painful.

 

Yeah, like John Simon, given how our dline is looking, he would have come in handy this coming season. I pimped him hard last year, not very athletic but a solid football player and great leader.

Make matters worse, the Ravens took him :kapow:

 

I don't hate him and I like the pick more now then when we took him but there is still no way I would have ever drafted him in the 4th. Maybe he is a hidden gem, I hope he is but there is a very good chance we never get any returns worth a 4th round pick for him. Sure, Ben misses games here and there but last year he played the whole season and could very well again this year with him embracing getting the ball out faster. It's more to do with value and the returns you get from said position then the player himself.

Tell you right now, I'd much rather have Simon or Barrett a thousand times over Landry.