OK, am I crazy?

[Brandon]

Listen Brandon, if that really is your name, obviously I was having a bit of fun there. But...is a move down 3 places for an extra 3^rd round pick so far out there that it should not be considered? No, it is not. If it makes you feel better toss in a 2009 pick along with our 3^rd.

 

All I'm saying is that the cost of trading up, particularly into the top 10, is almost always higher than expected. The Broncos gave up a 3rd and a 5th last year to move up from 21 to 17, for example, and it'll be more with the higher picks. It also gets worse if there's a 'great' prospect on the board. The Cleveland trade up from 7 to 6 for Kellen Winslow in 2004 being an example (they gave up pick 37 for that one spot; of course, they were also raked over the coals for it).

[d_wag]

The chart says that, but that's not gospel. Most teams usually want extra incentive to trade out of a high pick. And if you were the Ravens, would YOU trade Sedrick Ellis for a 3rd round pick? That's basically what they'd be doing.

 

extra incentive? try a discount

 

TEAMS WANT TO TRADE DOWN

Posted by Mike Florio on April 11, 2008, 10:56 a.m.

 

With the draft 15 days away, we’re hearing that plenty of teams want to trade down. The only problem? No one wants to trade up.

 

Whether it’s the result of a less-than-stellar group at the top of the board or the out-of-whack financial investment required to take a top-ten pick or the picks that need to be given up to make a move north, no one is interested.

 

It doesn’t mean a trade or two won’t happen. Indeed, this year might be the best year for someone to try to bust the existing trade chart, since the teams that would have to trade up would have leverage, given the number of teams that want to move down.

 

http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/

 

and with any luck, this will result in massive changes to that ridiculous and out-dated draft value chart

[Brandon]

extra incentive? try a discount

 

TEAMS WANT TO TRADE DOWN

Posted by Mike Florio on April 11, 2008, 10:56 a.m.

 

With the draft 15 days away, we’re hearing that plenty of teams want to trade down. The only problem? No one wants to trade up.

 

Whether it’s the result of a less-than-stellar group at the top of the board or the out-of-whack financial investment required to take a top-ten pick or the picks that need to be given up to make a move north, no one is interested.

 

It doesn’t mean a trade or two won’t happen. Indeed, this year might be the best year for someone to try to bust the existing trade chart, since the teams that would have to trade up would have leverage, given the number of teams that want to move down.

 

http://www.profootballtalk.com/category/rumor-mill/

 

and with any luck, this will result in massive changes to that ridiculous and out-dated draft value chart

 

Its both. Everyone wants to trade down in the top 10, but they also want a fortune for doing so. How many pick-for-pick trades have occurred in the top 10 in recent years. Very few.

[stewy23]

I think Sedrick Ellis will be one hell of a football player but there are a couple of reasons why he won't be a Buffalo Bill:

A. We have invested a lot to get McCargo, Stroud, S. Johnson & K. Williams on this team. This is too high a pick to spend on a position that is not a top need. We addressed this position by getting Stroud and Johnson this offseason. There is no need to address it again.

B. I don't see Sedrick Ellis falling out of the top 10. The Bengals are in desperate need of a DT and I highly doubt they even get a chance to select Dorsey. It's definitely not worth it to move INTO the top 10 where everyone is trying to get out.

C. IF Ellis falls and he's the best player available when we select, I don't see him being on this team for more than an hour or so. Too many other teams are in the market for good defensive tackles and I see us trading him off for picks/players.

[Chandler#81]

I think Sedrick Ellis will be one hell of a football player but there are a couple of reasons why he won't be a Buffalo Bill:

A. We have invested a lot to get McCargo, Stroud, S. Johnson & K. Williams on this team. This is too high a pick to spend on a position that is not a top need. We addressed this position by getting Stroud and Johnson this offseason. There is no need to address it again.

B. I don't see Sedrick Ellis falling out of the top 10. The Bengals are in desperate need of a DT and I highly doubt they even get a chance to select Dorsey. It's definitely not worth it to move INTO the top 10 where everyone is trying to get out.

C. IF Ellis falls and he's the best player available when we select, I don't see him being on this team for more than an hour or so. Too many other teams are in the market for good defensive tackles and I see us trading him off for picks/players.

 

I'd have to agree, if only because there are still too many areas that require addressing right now.

 

IMO, we're not yet good enough to take BPA.

[Brandon]

I think Sedrick Ellis will be one hell of a football player but there are a couple of reasons why he won't be a Buffalo Bill:

A. We have invested a lot to get McCargo, Stroud, S. Johnson & K. Williams on this team. This is too high a pick to spend on a position that is not a top need. We addressed this position by getting Stroud and Johnson this offseason. There is no need to address it again.

B. I don't see Sedrick Ellis falling out of the top 10. The Bengals are in desperate need of a DT and I highly doubt they even get a chance to select Dorsey. It's definitely not worth it to move INTO the top 10 where everyone is trying to get out.

C. IF Ellis falls and he's the best player available when we select, I don't see him being on this team for more than an hour or so. Too many other teams are in the market for good defensive tackles and I see us trading him off for picks/players.

 

I agree, but as far as the Bengals are concerned, I think they'll probably take Derrick Harvey. Their defense recorded only 22 sacks in 07. Geathers and Odom, the presumptive starters, have played well in rotational roles, but I don't believe they'll rely on them as starters.

[stewy23]

I agree, but as far as the Bengals are concerned, I think they'll probably take Derrick Harvey. Their defense recorded only 22 sacks in 07. Geathers and Odom, the presumptive starters, have played well in rotational roles, but I don't believe they'll rely on them as starters.

 

You may be right, but the problem with Harvey is that he didn't get a lot of sacks in college. He's not really a premiere pass-rusher as much as he is a good all-around defensive end. The Bengals need to address their entire D-Line and it looks like Ellis would be a good first step. Harvey would be nice there, too but I think you get more value with Ellis.

[d_wag]

Its both. Everyone wants to trade down in the top 10, but they also want a fortune for doing so. How many pick-for-pick trades have occurred in the top 10 in recent years. Very few.

 

so what's that tell ya? the chart is screwed up and needs a radical change

[d_wag]

I think Sedrick Ellis will be one hell of a football player but there are a couple of reasons why he won't be a Buffalo Bill:

A. We have invested a lot to get McCargo, Stroud, S. Johnson & K. Williams on this team. This is too high a pick to spend on a position that is not a top need. We addressed this position by getting Stroud and Johnson this offseason. There is no need to address it again.

B. I don't see Sedrick Ellis falling out of the top 10. The Bengals are in desperate need of a DT and I highly doubt they even get a chance to select Dorsey. It's definitely not worth it to move INTO the top 10 where everyone is trying to get out.

C. IF Ellis falls and he's the best player available when we select, I don't see him being on this team for more than an hour or so. Too many other teams are in the market for good defensive tackles and I see us trading him off for picks/players.

 

i'm not really buying your first point - the coaches have mentioned many times that they like johnson's versatility and ability to play DE......with him on board, the bills need a DT or a DE for the rotation in my eyes (not just a DE)........johnson plays at whatever position is not addressed

[stuckincincy]

I agree, but as far as the Bengals are concerned, I think they'll probably take Derrick Harvey. Their defense recorded only 22 sacks in 07. Geathers and Odom, the presumptive starters, have played well in rotational roles, but I don't believe they'll rely on them as starters.

 

If Ellis/Dorsey is there, that is who CIN will select.

 

Geathers played LB because their entire starting LB corps got wiped out...in the Bflo game, Geathers and 7th round rookie Ndukwe were the OLBs

 

They expect LBs Thurmann and Brooks to return.

 

I feel that if Ellis is gone, it's Rivers, or OL, or a trade-down...and owner Brown probably doesn't want to pay top 10 $$$.

 

And if somehow McFadden is there...

[stewy23]

i'm not really buying your first point - the coaches have mentioned many times that they like johnson's versatility and ability to play DE......with him on board, the bills need a DT or a DE for the rotation in my eyes (not just a DE)........johnson plays at whatever position is not addressed

 

I have seen/heard the coaches say how versatile Johnson is but the D-Line is lacking a good pass-rush opposite Aaron Schobel. Johnson can play end in a rotational system but he's more geared towards stuffing the run. I think they are more worried about the pass rush than anything else. I agree that they need to add another guy to the rotation, but I think that guy will be a pure edge-rusher for passing downs. Kelsay and Denney are solid as pass rushers and run stoppers but neither is spectacular at getting to the QB. That's where the line is lacking the most now that they sured up the run D via Stroud.