Trade DOWN in the draft?

[phil413]

Though milksheikh poses a good question about trading up, what about trading down?  I'll throw the disclaimer out there: I know it comes down to making the best deal, not necessarily dealing up or down or having an extreme style like Jimmy Johnson or a Mike Ditka type gamble.


As deep as this roster is, when you look at the positons you find yourself saying "boy they could really use an early pick at this position" It's a reasonable bet that they sign about half of their own FA's and don't sign any big FA's.  I think they'll end up with a few descent vets, but as great as this roster is it's going through a sort of transition.  Just look at the DL as an example.  They have the same starters they had 5 years ago and they play a rotation.  They whiffed on Still, Thompson couldn't crack the dressed list and Hunt to date looks too raw to contribute.  They proactively drafted Clarke and Hardison, but as promising as they are...it's possible they could draft another DL early, especially if they let Gilberry go.  So most of us agree they'll at least take a NT by the mid rounds if not first, but what if there is a DE or speed rusher BPA that's too hard to pass up?

I'm not saying they'll lose so many FA's that they'll need to make a move to land an extra starter early, but it's not like they're so deep anymore that they'll be cutting mid round guys if they add too many picks.  Take these other positions into account as well:

Corner: Even if they keep Pacman, Dennard is coming off an injury and Shaw is possibly a tweener.  The league is leaning pass and I don't want the injuries to pile up again, they'll need to have another solid corner that can play outside.  Long term a descent rookie corner is a benefit as a "big money" position.  You don't want to be weak at the position when you're negotiating a long term deal with Dre, looking on the FA market or trying to figure out what you actually have if you have more injuries.  Drafting a corner looks more like a need as time goes on. 

Linebacker: Burfict is out 3 games and no matter our opinion still a wildcard week to week.  He could make big plays to win a game or flag or knock himself out of a week or two.  Rey M is a solid 2 down LB, Dawson is a personal favorite but untested, Hawk and Flowers are back of the rotation guys ideally.  Even if you think they need to reload at the back or front 4 positions first, they could stand to add another LB early that can make an impact. 

Safety: If one of them stays, Williams is coming along at safety but I'd still feel more comfortable with another body there if he struggles in coverage, or just as insurance.  Smith looks good at times, but he has to bring his A game weekly to overcome his height disadvantage.  I just shudder when thinking about TE's roaming the middle if they don't add young talent at LB and S really. 

Guard/Center:  I see one pop up in a lot of mocks, and don't blame you for doing so.  I haven't given up on Bodine, but you need competition/insurance.  Throw in the fact that Zeitler is due a big deal that Cincy may not pay, sure they hedged their bets with the 2 early OL picks but you need another solid body inside at some point and may be tempted to take one early if they're available.

Wide Receiver:  We know the drill, they're likely going to need one early.  Just like corner, the longer you wait to draft one the longer you'll wait to groom one.  You don't want to have to depend on a rookie pick to start opposite AJ, but if he happens to beat out Sanu or a vet (if you lose Jones) then so bet it. 

Even if the plan isn't to trade down, looking at these factors starts to tip the scale.  Especially if you get extra value from a team wanting to leap the Steelers for a DB, Seattle for a OT, GB for a DL, ect...  Also consider Cincy draft board could have a lot of similar players around 24.  If they have say Reed, Nkemdiche, Clark ranked very close they could justify sliding down say 5 or 6 slots and still getting one of them while adding a free player in the 3rd round with them.  It doesn't have to be all the same position, just an example.  So it's not so much that Cincy needs to trade down to get extra picks but the class and positions they'll be looking at could dictate making the move.   

[Benton]

I dunno.

There's good amount of DL talent this year. We've been neglectful of that position for a while. It depends on the needs of who comes behind us. There's a good chance of having some very talented guys at DL and CB when we pick. I'd hate to lose out on either of those positions of need — and settle for another late 2-4 round guy who doesn't contribute much — because we wanted to get another project in rounds 3-4.

[Shake n Blake]

(02-12-2016, 07:39 PM)Benton Wrote: I dunno.

There's  good amount of DL talent this year. We've been neglectful of that position for a while. It depends on the needs of who comes behind us. There's a good chance of having some very talented guys at DL and CB when we pick. I'd hate to lose out on either of those positions of need — and settle for another late 2-4 round guy who doesn't contribute much — because we wanted to get another project in rounds 3-4.

Agreed. It looks like we'll be able to snag a good DT at 24. I'd stand pat.

[phil413]

(02-12-2016, 07:39 PM)Benton Wrote: I dunno.

There's  good amount of DL talent this year. We've been neglectful of that position for a while. It depends on the needs of who comes behind us. There's a good chance of having some very talented guys at DL and CB when we pick. I'd hate to lose out on either of those positions of need — and settle for another late 2-4 round guy who doesn't contribute much — because we wanted to get another project in rounds 3-4.

(02-12-2016, 08:42 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Agreed. It looks like we'll be able to snag a good DT at 24. I'd stand pat.

You're talking about a different scenario.  This whole post is based off a large range of prospects being there, if someone is "their guy" you don't deal down and play around, I thought that went without saying but no...of coarse you don't give up on your guy if the value is there.  I agree with getting a DT if possible, I addressed that scenario at the end: "Even if the plan isn't to trade down, looking at these factors starts to tip the scale.  Especially if you get extra value from a team wanting to leap the Steelers for a DB, Seattle for a OT, GB for a DL, ect...  Also consider Cincy draft board could have a lot of similar players around 24.  If they have say Reed, Nkemdiche, Clark ranked very close they could justify sliding down say 5 or 6 slots and still getting one of them while adding a free player in the 3rd round with them.  It doesn't have to be all the same position, just an example.  So it's not so much that Cincy needs to trade down to get extra picks but the class and positions they'll be looking at could dictate making the move."  I personally would take Reed or Billings so far, but that's why they have scouts.  Regardless, if they have a few players ranked similarly no matter the position I'd consider dealing down only a few slots for an extra 3rd.  The extra 3rd could be a much needed corner, or a BPA that should have been a 2nd rounder, or even insurance to let you go total BPA in the 2nd and address one of those positions with one of the 3rds...not some distant project.    

[fredtoast]

The draft is a much bigger crap shoot than a lot of people want to admit. Everyone wants to think that they can select a "can't miss" prospect in the first round. but even the very best teams in the NFL have first round picks that are complete duds.

So I am almost always in favor of trading down. But it is much harder to trade up or down in the draft than many people think. You always have to find another team that wants your pick.

[Bengal Dude]

(02-16-2016, 05:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The draft is a much bigger crap shoot than a lot of people want to admit.  Everyone wants to think that they can select a "can't miss" prospect in the first round.  but even the very best teams in the NFL have first round picks that are complete duds.

So I am almost always in favor of trading down.  But it is much harder to trade up or down in the draft than many people think.  You always have to find another team that wants your pick.

The Bengals had a potential partner last year with the Cardinals. The Bengals felt like they wouldn't be able to select Cedric at 24 so they opted against it.

[fredtoast]

(02-16-2016, 05:41 PM)Bengal Dude Wrote: The Bengals had a potential partner last year with the Cardinals. The Bengals felt like they wouldn't be able to select Cedric at 24 so they opted against it.

What were the Cards offering?

[Bengal Dude]

(02-16-2016, 05:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What were the Cards offering?

I never saw what they were offering. It's just what Hobs said post-draft. The Cards wanted to jump the Steelers for Dupree.

[RoyleRedlegs]

This is not the year to trade down. Either go get your guy or sit pat. We don't have so many needs we need more picks.

[Benton]

(02-12-2016, 09:27 PM)phil413 Wrote: You're talking about a different scenario.  This whole post is based off a large range of prospects being there, if someone is "their guy" you don't deal down and play around, I thought that went without saying but no...of coarse you don't give up on your guy if the value is there.  I agree with getting a DT if possible, I addressed that scenario at the end: "Even if the plan isn't to trade down, looking at these factors starts to tip the scale.  Especially if you get extra value from a team wanting to leap the Steelers for a DB, Seattle for a OT, GB for a DL, ect...  Also consider Cincy draft board could have a lot of similar players around 24.  If they have say Reed, Nkemdiche, Clark ranked very close they could justify sliding down say 5 or 6 slots and still getting one of them while adding a free player in the 3rd round with them.  It doesn't have to be all the same position, just an example.  So it's not so much that Cincy needs to trade down to get extra picks but the class and positions they'll be looking at could dictate making the move."  I personally would take Reed or Billings so far, but that's why they have scouts.  Regardless, if they have a few players ranked similarly no matter the position I'd consider dealing down only a few slots for an extra 3rd.  The extra 3rd could be a much needed corner, or a BPA that should have been a 2nd rounder, or even insurance to let you go total BPA in the 2nd and address one of those positions with one of the 3rds...not some distant project.    

You can't bet on a player taking a tumble unless you're going to bet on another team trading up to take a gamble.

I understand your thinking, but it's always a gamble to drop back. If you go back six spots because there's 3-4 picks you rank at that spot — and you're pretty sure the six teams in between are valueing only 2-3 of those picks — there's nothing that prevents another team from trading up.

Say we trade with the Broncos because we've got five players graded for our first round pick and they're all there. Nothing stops any of the second round teams from throwing picks at the Steelers or Arizona or whoever to trade back into the first and get one of those guys we're eying.

I understand the thinking, but unless I was in rebuilding mode and just looking to restock everything, I wouldn't trade back. Especially not when our defense is arguably a playmaker away from being a consistent top 10. Which isn't to say we're getting one at 24, but the odds are better.

[fredtoast]

(02-16-2016, 06:01 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: This is not the year to trade down. Either go get your guy or sit pat. We don't have so many needs we need more picks.

In general I agree with this.  But I would not mind dropping 10 spots in exchange for an extra pick in the top 5 of the third round.

All depends on who is left on the board at #24.

[fredtoast]

(02-16-2016, 06:08 PM)Benton Wrote: I understand the thinking, but unless I was in rebuilding mode and just looking to restock everything, I wouldn't trade back. Especially not when our defense is arguably a playmaker away from being a consistent top 10. Which isn't to say we're getting one at 24, but the odds are better.

The question is "Do we have a better chance of getting a good player with one pick at 24 or two picks in the top 5 of the second and third rounds.

In my opinion the draft is such a crap shoot thet we are better off with two picks to get a good player than one.

And I assume everyone agrees we don't need to be stockpiling picks lower than the third round.

[Benton]

(02-16-2016, 06:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The question is "Do we have a better chance of getting a good player with one pick at 24 or two picks in the top 5 of the second and third rounds.

In my opinion the draft is such a crap shoot thet we are better off with two picks to get a good player than one.

And I assume everyone agrees we don't need to be stockpiling picks lower than the third round.

I can see that part of it, too. Personally, the only way I'd do it is for the other team's 2017 first rounder and a pick this year. But only because we are in a pretty good spot if we can re-sign the bulk of our players in FA.

[Bengalfan11164]

What the bengals need entirely hinges on their free agency.

both starters at safety are free agents. Nelson and Iloka.
2 significant contributors at CB are free agents. Hall and pacman.
Defensive tackle back ups are free agents. Sims, Thompson, Gilberry.
2 wr starters - sanu and Marvin jones. Plus hang on Brandon Tate.
Vinnie Rey is a free agent and burfict is suspended 3 games. E Lamur is ufa as well.

When we lose some of these players, it will be much clearer the holes that need filling AND the depth that can be drafted.

This isn't 2015 anymore. All those contracts have expired.

This team will have more than 7 needs going into the draft.

We will need one wr starter, at least. We could need up to 3 wrs in the draft. (Is wright ever going to be healthy? Another year of Tate?)
if the bengals don't re sign Eric Winston, I could see 3 oline needs. C2, rt2, and lg2.
There is a chance we will need another safety if Nelson or Iloka leave in free agency.

There are 7 needs, without addressing the defensive line (perhaps 3 additional picks - hunt is a log, no heir apparent to peko, and no semblance of interior pass rush when Atkins is off field, and no younger version of gilberry), lb (could use 3 picks), CB depth is needed if pacman or hall leave.

So, yes, if there is a similar situation to the zeitler/decastro 1st round, I'd gladly trade back a few places to pick up a bonus 3rd round pick.

[09ItsOurTime]

I'm not a fan of trading down where we are in the first unless the offer BLOwS US AWAY. If we are trading out of the first it can't be less than a 1st rounder next year, plus the second round pick of the team this year. A first round pick is more than just that. It's PR, it's marketing, PLUS 1st rounders are signed for a year longer than second+ rounders i believe. A 3rd round pick isnt worth moving out of the first.

Plus we are directly in front of the steelers so our pick may literally determine both picks.

[*Go Cards*]

(02-12-2016, 07:39 PM)Benton Wrote: I dunno.

There's  good amount of DL talent this year. We've been neglectful of that position for a while. It depends on the needs of who comes behind us. There's a good chance of having some very talented guys at DL and CB when we pick. I'd hate to lose out on either of those positions of need — and settle for another late 2-4 round guy who doesn't contribute much — because we wanted to get another project in rounds 3-4.

Spot on and Bengals have been neglecting entire defense in early rounds as of late. 

[*Go Cards*]

Yet if player sought is thought to be available later like Zeitler than am fine with adding more pics as well.

But if the right player falls into their lap than think Bengals should snap him up quickly.

Have to play the draft on the fly per who you like and who is selected and not selected.

Still would be very happy if a second round pic was added for McCarren and a back up was acquired through FA though.