Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Darin Gantt: Trade down from #33

TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jay Roosevelt Veteran

Jay Roosevelt

Posted
Posted

Depends entirely on the situation.

Who's on the board? How far are we trading down? What are we getting in return?

I don't have any issues with trading down, but it needs to make sense. I do think often times staying where you are and taking the better player provides more value than trading down and getting 2 or more lesser players.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted

Nobody said the trade had to be franchise changing--and this draft is loaded--where the level of talent drops around 7, then again around 15 but the shelf for the next tier stays pretty flat until about 40. 

Take the last example--a fourth to move up 5 spaces.  If I did not have a player I liked, or if there were three or four on my board there, I might take that deal.

The reason there is not a lot of action is not because there is no interest.  When Marty drafted Jimmy Clausen, he actually tried to trade up to 33 with the Rams, but they turned him away.  Chances are a player with first round talent drops to #33, making it the equivalent of trading a first for a second and fourth.  That is not equal value.

The Panthers really need to replace that missing second rounder in the 2025 draft to give them capital they might need to move up in round 1 for a QB if they need to do that.

Keeping that in mind, I might consider a future second to swap 2024 second rounders. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted
Just now, Jay Roosevelt said:

Depends entirely on the situation.

Who's on the board? How far are we trading down? What are we getting in return?

I don't have any issues with trading down, but it needs to make sense. I do think often times staying where you are and taking the better player provides more value than trading down and getting 2 or more lesser players.

And the bottom line is the talent available.  This draft should have some studs at 33 when in the past, there was a drop off.  Markets are about supply and demand, not history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrcompletely11 Grand Master

mrcompletely11

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

And the bottom line is the talent available.  This draft should have some studs at 33 when in the past, there was a drop off.  Markets are about supply and demand, not history.

I doubt we trade back from 33 unless a qb or 2 have dropped.   I would simply go BPA at 33 if we stayed there and use 39 as a play chip after we see how the draft is going

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, SurvivalSloth said:

I'm not a fan of the two dimes > one quarter mindset. Take the BPA. 

When I have mocked, I do not like the trade down scenarios, but I am trying to fill that second round pick in 2025.  I think you trade to keep from reaching.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
45catfan Grand Master

45catfan

Posted
Posted
Just now, MHS831 said:

When I have mocked, I do not like the trade down scenarios, but I am trying to fill that second round pick in 2025.  I think you trade to keep from reaching.

 

Like you said, the second round is loaded, so moving back a few spots isn't going to hurt.  If we aren't in love with the pick at #33 or #39, move back.  I would really like another 3rd or 4th rounder this draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...