Here's the thing I don't get:

In a given year how many players drafted actually make the team ? Usually the top 4 are safe but it quickly fades after that.

So how does it help moving down getting (more) overall lower quality players ? I've seen mock drafts having us getting 11, 12, 13 players. There's only gonna be so many spots available.

We just got like 3 or 4 starters on D in free agency and probably another 1 or 2 that will see snaps. Why not stick with the top of each round spots we have instead of getting more of less ?

I just don't see what this infatuation with trading down does for us especially with all the activity in free agency this season.

(04-12-2020, 11:32 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Here's the thing I don't get:

In a given year how many players drafted actually make the team ? Usually the top 4 are safe but it quickly fades after that.

So how does it help moving down getting (more) overall lower quality players ? I've seen mock drafts having us getting 11, 12, 13 players. There's only gonna be so many spots available.

We just got like 3 or 4 starters on D in free agency and probably another 1 or 2 that will see snaps. Why not stick with the top of each round spots we have instead of getting more of less ?

I just don't see what this infatuation with trading down does for us especially with all the activity in free agency this season.

The draft is a crap shoot.  If you want 4 starters you are more likely to get 4 starters out of 12 picks than 7.

To take advantage of coaching in the Senior Bowl? Higher probability of hitting on the picks when you have more of them? Because of some of the free agents signed one year deals? To push some of the street free agents off the roster and improve the depth? Pick your poison.

(04-12-2020, 12:01 PM)Schmitbuck Wrote: To take advantage of coaching in the Senior Bowl? Higher probability of hitting on the picks when you have more of them? Because of some of the free agents signed one year deals? To push some of the street free agents off the roster and improve the depth? Pick your poison.

The knowledge gained in senior bowl could give Bengals a big edge for sure.

I don't think you can decide if it is good or bad without knowing who is available to select.

So, while In general I am in favor of trading down and getting more picks, I don't think a trade should be made until we are actually on the claoc and know who is available for us to get.

(04-12-2020, 12:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think you can decide if it is good or bad without knowing who is available to select.

So, while In general I am in favor of trading down and getting more picks, I don't think a trade should be made until we are actually on the claoc and know who is available for us to get.

Agree.  

Nobody knows for certain, but I have a feeling that they got burned trading down in the second last year.  When they made the deal, there were a few nice OL available.  They probably thought that one of them would still be around when they moved back, but none were.  I seem to remember rumors of them having an eye on Risner, who went before.  I guess it's a numbers game, but I don't think it worked out the way they thought it would, hence Drew Sample.

EDIT: Just looked at that round and saw that the OL actually went before the Bengals traded back, so I mis-remembered how it went down.

I like the idea of trading up early and trading down late. After Burrow, if there's another guy they really want I have no problem trading back up into the first to make sure they get him. Or even trading back up into the second or third round for the same reason. When we start hitting later rounds, I have no problem trading back and adding an extra pick or two. If trading back in the fourth gets us an extra 5th or 6th, go for it.

I'm not saying to trade up every round. I realize that may seem how I intended it. I'm just saying if they wanted to get back into an early round, do it.

I agree with the idea that trading back can only make sense, given any specific situation. As I have before, I'll use Cleveland as a good example of a bad example. For a few drafts in a row, they had an abundance of picks in the early rounds. Will all the top talent they selected, they should be a dynasty by now, right? But they're not.

I think that the Bengals are in a good position to make in draft trades, if they see a specific situation that can benefit the team, at that particular moment. Mindlessly trading for the sake of amassing picks is just not a good strategy in my book.

(04-12-2020, 12:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I agree with the idea that trading back can only make sense, given any specific situation.  As I have before, I'll use Cleveland as a good example of a bad example.  For a few drafts in a row, they had an abundance of picks in the early rounds.  Will all the top talent they selected, they should be a dynasty by now, right?  But they're not.  

I think that the Bengals are in a good position to make in draft trades, if they see a specific situation that can benefit the team, at the particular moment.  Mindlessly trading for the sake of amassing picks is just not a good strategy in my book.

I don't think there's an urgency to accumulate picks this year.  They did a lot of heavy lifting in FA.  The defense has been added to on every level, which opens things up quite a bit.  

The downside is that we had a ton of needs going in.  Either way, I'd rather see them take advantage of having the first pick in every round this year.  

Most of us have been indoctrinated into using the Jimmy Johnson approach in Madden for so many years to fix a bad Bengals team that it can't help but come out.

You run a draft simulator, think you can press your luck and trade back to seemingly get more quality. I'll agree that it's situational. If Baum for instance is your guy, you don't trade back unless it's a haul. If players are similar (like the 10 or so 2nd-3rd rd grade recreivers), you're more likely to deal back to get a 2 for 1 sale. I think though the reason you hear trade back so much is erring on that side feels like it allows you to make more great picks....right or wrong.

(04-12-2020, 12:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I agree with the idea that trading back can only make sense, given any specific situation.  As I have before, I'll use Cleveland as a good example of a bad example.  For a few drafts in a row, they had an abundance of picks in the early rounds.  Will all the top talent they selected, they should be a dynasty by now, right?  But they're not.  

I think that the Bengals are in a good position to make in draft trades, if they see a specific situation that can benefit the team, at that particular moment.  Mindlessly trading for the sake of amassing picks is just not a good strategy in my book.

Browns have had 6 different HCs and 5 different GMs in the last 8 years. It's an incomparable situation that can't be used as an example for anything other than bad ownership.

If every year/every other year the FO and HC changes, the players they are looking for changes too. So every year they are resetting on the players they want/need. Just look at the Bengals now and their switching to a 3-4 defense. What happens when their defense is garbage again in 2020, they fire the guy, and the next guy wants to switch them back to a 4-3? Some of those players will be useless in the new defensive scheme.

Consistency is key, but only if that consistency is with somebody competent. Then draft picks are great.

(04-12-2020, 12:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think you can decide if it is good or bad without knowing who is available to select.

So, while In general I am in favor of trading down and getting more picks, I don't think a trade should be made until we are actually on the claoc and know who is available for us to get.

Trades develop pre draft as well. Bengals know Houston, Chicago, Indy, LAR don’t have a first round pick and own two seconds. Might they discuss trade possibilities in the days ahead? I think so. Then as you say, it’s the clock and who is left.

The Pats tend to milk trade downs to positive results, though there are certainly exceptions of teams betting the farm on impact players(typically QBs) and being rewarded for it.  I'm in the camp of belief that the draft is not a "crap shoot" - some teams just draft better than others.  It's part of the process of building a roster and it shows up in their W/L records.  How many high draft picks have the Browns whiffed on?  Would BB have drafted those same players at those same spots?  Oh I forgot, there's a narrative with some folks that the Pats "aren't good at the draft" lmfao.  They're good at everything.  

Back to OP's question:  should teams try to trade down like robots in order to try to replicate the Pats?  Not necessarily.  I think that the ideal approach involves recognizing where the glut of talent is likely to be in the draft.  If there's no one available at 33 who's graded significantly higher than the players who will likely be there at 44, a trade down makes sense.  If there's a player at 33 who you have graded as a high impact starter who you believe should've gone in the first 20 picks, a trade down doesn't make sense.  You also need to have a better board than other teams.

It also makes sense to work the draft board in order to hit needs.  You aren't going to take 6 DBs in a row like a robot even if your board tells you that they're the best players, are you?  The ideal answer is likely very complex and involves an awful lot of mathematical constructs which synthesize gobs of raw data into digestible models, paired with an intuitive executive decision maker who can synthesize a lot of input from subordinates and work it into a cohesive strategy.  

It’s really specific to the situation

Like this year the WR and OL classes are really deep. The Bengals will have to judge the talent at the top of a given round to see what if it’s worth trading back for then see if there are phone calls to entertain. It takes 2 to tango after all.

Like pick 33, there will probably be calls to move up there, but is there a guy they covet sitting there they know they won’t be able to pick at there spot and Is the compensation they are getting back worth losing the player? That’s tough to think about.

Say Tee Higgins, Zach Baun and Cesar Ruiz are there at pick 33 and you get a phone call from a team offering there 2 3 and 5 to move up. Is that enough to miss out on a day 1 starter in Ruiz, an AJ clone, or one of the most versatile defenders in this draft? That’s a really hard decision to make.

Whether anyone likes it or not it's still a young man's game meaning that the more young men you can recruit the easier it is to have a team. Whether you get the players you want is another story, but one thing never changes. It'll always be a young man's game. We can fantasize that they could bring back the all time greats, but can you realistically win with a team of old men against a bunch 20 something's? Probably not..

(04-12-2020, 12:58 PM)phil413 Wrote:   I'll agree that it's situational. If Baum for instance is your guy, you don't trade back unless it's a haul.  If players are similar (like the 10 or so 2nd-3rd rd grade recreivers), you're more likely to deal back to get a 2 for 1 sale.  I think though the reason you hear trade back so much is erring on that side feels like it allows you to make more great picks....right or wrong.

Your example provides a great example of what I was trying to say. 

With the unexpected activity in free agency Cincinnati now has the luxury of trading down or not. As Fred wrote earlier, it all depends who is still on the board.

I’m with you 74, I’m not usually in favor of trading back. Rather have quality picks over quantity. How often are we really going to find a Geno in the late rounds? You might get some solid players, but impact players are not very likely. I like the idea of picking 1st each round this year. That’s a nice luxury to have.

(04-12-2020, 11:32 AM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I just don't see what this infatuation with trading down does for us especially with all the activity in free agency this season.

I'm with you, I don't think Brown/Tobin/Zac need to worry about trading down.  In a world of Internet-mock drafting, armchair GMing, and the media praising a guy like Belichick for often stockpiling picks, I understand why the average fan like us on this forum like thinking about trading down.

I think their actual plan is to enjoy getting the top pick of every round.  For rounds 1 & 2, they have the luxury of thinking through their pick without having to adapt in real time.  I think they'll gladly take that advantage.

I understand the premise on trading picks to go up or down.

I have to agree with Nicomo, the 1st pick in each round is very hard to come by. Nobody has that luxury every year. They should be regarded as valuable and not chess pieces to be moved around a board.

It can be argued, that the 1st pick in every round is just as valuable as #1OA. The player you get at the top of every round should be more talented/useful than any player taken after him.

In theory, the Bengals could come out of this draft with the 7 best players...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk