Trading down, good or bad ?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(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.