Trade-Down Scenario In First More Plausible Than In Previous Years

Okay, before you even start, I know that the Pittsburgh Steelers have not traded out of the first round since Dan Rooney put a stop to the practice of trading picks for players in the mid-60s. To be specific, 1967 was the last year in which the Steelers did not make a selection in the first round of a draft.

In my research, the Steelers traded their ninth-overall selection in the 1967 NFL Draft to the Packers in July of 1966 exchange for tight end Tony Jeter and defensive lineman Lloyd Voss, the latter of whom played six year for the Steelers. The Packers used that selection on guard Bob Hyland, who went on to have a long career, but only three of those seasons came with the Packers before he was traded to the Bears for the 1970 season.

So yeah. I know. But that doesn’t mean that the Steelers can’t trade out of the first round, and there is good reason to think that if there were a year more likely for it to happen than others, the 2017 NFL Draft would be it.

For starters, they’re drafting in the right place. They are picking 30th-overall, which is the third-to-last selection in the opening round. They could trade down just three spots, acquire an extra pick somewhere else in the draft, and likely not affect a great deal the range of players that they were already considering.

I write this now because general manager Kevin Colbert mentioned some interesting things during the Steelers’ pre-draft press conference that I, in fact, was already curious about. For one thing, he was asked by a reporter if the fifth-year option would be a factor in their decision to trade down. He was pretty emphatic that it wouldn’t, saying “it doesn’t affect us at all”.

Really, it’s the difference between Stephon Tuitt and Ryan Shazier. The Steelers will likely be giving Tuitt a long-term extension this summer. Next year, the team will have Shazier under the fifth-year option and use that as a guide to work out a long-term extension. Or if the talent demanded it, they could use the franchise tag the same way the fifth-year option is used and still work out a long-term deal.

Colbert also laid out how they go about preparing for the draft, and how they do their own mock draft for the first round, not for every team, but just for themselves—essentially, who they would pick if they had the top selection, and on down the line. But he mentioned that they do the mock all the way through a trade-down scenario as well.

That means that the Steelers are going to come in on Thursday with a list of probably 35-40 names that they would be comfortable using their top pick on, and as their natural pick approaches, they will take a look at their board and see if they can get something done.

“Of course we’re open to trading up or trading down”, he said. “We will make all the calls. We will know what the cost is to go up. We will know what we can pick up to go down”. They make these calls every year. It’s just rare that it happens. The last time they traded out of a round for picks was in 2009, trading their second-round pick for two in the third. I’m not suggesting that this will be the year they trade out of the first round—but it’s not a ridiculous notion either.

About the Author

Matthew Marczi

Passionate Steelers fan with a bit of writing ability. Connoisseur of loud music. Follow me on Twitter @mmarczi.

  • Mike Lloyd

    I agree. With where they are, and the depth of this draft and the big board valuations, I could see them trading down 5-8 spots, getting an extra 3rd, and still getting one of the guys off their board who they feel is better value and has an equivalent grade.

  • KiJana Haney

    Honestly in this draft class trading down out of the first is the best way to accrue another 3rd round pick. I think trading down work be great for depth because this is the deepest draft class at the positions of need we have had in years. I wouldn’t want to miss out on certain first round talent but if watt, and conley are gone we should trade down. being able to double down on players like awuzie and rivers would be great.

  • george

    Going down 4 picks would involve Cleveland, SF, Jacksonville or Chicago. Do you see a scenario where they would want to move up 1-4 picks and for whom (or what position)?

  • RickM

    The draft is 100% fluid and immediate reactions and decisions occur based on the most recent pick(s). Teams often don’t know if they want to move up to the very last second – because they don’t know whether the player they want will just have been taken.

    Until Colbert realizes that he HAS to also wait for the phone to ring on his own pick as well, he won’t be good at working the board and he won’t trade back in Round 1. My guess right now is that Colbert will race up his 1st and 2nd round picks immediately. He won’t even give the teams immediately behind him time to process the picks at 28 and 29. Teams can’t make a number of trade-up decisions in advance – it’s impossible because they don’t know who will have been taken.

  • harding36

    So, this all means we’re trading UP, right?

  • Marcel Chris Chauvet

    Yes. But that will be driven by the quarterbacks

  • Marcel Chris Chauvet

    Is there any merit to combining this with the seemingly disappointed tone that Colbert took when discussing the lack of compensatory picks the Steelers got? It’s obvious he wants more picks. But is it believable that he’d move out of the first to get them?

    Having said all that, the asking price has to be 2nd and 3rd. I wouldn’t entertain offers for anything less. And that is for the top of the 2nd. If we’re moving a dozen spots (which will never happen), the price tag would also include next year’s 2nd or 3rd.

  • george

    Cleveland has the 1st and 12th so I think they’ll have their guy before 30 but maybe SF uses their 1st on other than a QB and we will have an opportunity there. I don’t see Jacksonville giiving up on Bortles and taking a QB in the 1st. Nor so I see Chicago using a 1st on a QB after paying Glennon that big cash.

  • Sam Clonch

    I could just as well see them trading up if someone they like falls. Moving up to 25 would cost one of our 3rd round picks, and would get us ahead of teams like SEA, DAL, GB who may be targeting similar players.

    It’s impossible to say though until things start falling out on draft night. We’ll see.

  • Sam Clonch

    If you go by the draft value chart, going from #30 in the first to #5 in the second is only worth 90 points, which would equate to a 4th round pick.

  • Sam Clonch

    Go look up the value charts. You’re looking at a 4th round pick, no way they get an early 3rd for moving back only that far.

  • Marcel Chris Chauvet

    I really think the plausible scenario is Jax jumping ahead of SF to get ‘their guy’ before the niners have a shot at him. Like you, I think Cleveland will already have a QB by then. I can’t see why SF would trade up in that scenario.

  • Jeff Peterson

    The only plausible one I see is the jets. They get our 1st, we get their 39th (510 pts), 107th (80 pts) & 5th (31 Pts).

  • Craig M

    Everything depends on the persons available, their value/ our needs- I can see us trading up or down w/ this scenario. If a Polamalu type player is there we go after him or a dominant OLB/ Edge rusher and move up- otherwise trade down and go for a better core group overall of quality players.

  • Sam Clonch

    That works out value wise at least. Hoping a prospect falls still that they can’t pass up.

  • Biggie

    It is of course all dependent on who is available. If their target player is there, take him. If not but there are a number of guys available they like and can guarantee getting one with a small move back then go ahead. Moving from where they are to the first 10 picks of Rd 2 will get them a 4th pretty much when looking at value chart. That would be nice if we could still get a solid Edge, ILB or Secondary help with the first pick.

  • Clutterbox

    If they didn’t trade down last year with Denver (which I believe that Artie Burns would have been available), I doubt they will trade this year. Like you mentioned, Steelers have not traded since 2009 and not traded down in the first since 2001. Steelers FO apparently do not like or care about trading down anymore for whatever reason and I do not see this methodology changing.

  • blackandgoldBullion

    You are assuming that the teams trading up use logic. History has shown that silly teams who are desperate for particular players will overpay, at least in the first round or two.

  • blackandgoldBullion

    Agreed. They basically never do it. But this is probably the best year to trade down if they do indeed consider it.

  • Sam Clonch

    Lol, yeah, I’m personally a big fan of logic. It just seems so LATE to overpay. The illogical side of me that’s too lazy to fact check, says that the crazy over-pays happen at the top of the round.

  • KiJana Haney

    What if you dropped to the late thirties or early forties?

  • S.T.

    “Didn’t trade down last year” ≠ didn’t try or weren’t willing. It takes two hands to clap.

  • Sam Clonch

    Well, #30 overall has a value of 620. First pick of the 3rd round is 265, last (regular) pick is 116. So to get to towards the top of the 3rd (where teams like CLE/SF/CHI are drafting), you’d need about that much in that kind of range.

    250 points for a top 3rd rounder would be a 2nd round value of 360 (620-260). So a top 3rd pick compensation would mean a team drafting 22nd in the 2nd round would have to swap for Steelers #30 in the 1st.

    To just get ANY pick in the third, they would want value of 116. 620-116=504. 2nd round pick of value 504 comes in at around 39. Which is the Jets. Which actually have a comp pick at #107, which would probably be about equal compensation, and completely destroys my whole argument, lol!

    Dang it. Haha! I’d still be scared moving down, giving teams chances to jump ahead. They’d have to have 8-9 guys left on their board who they liked.

  • Shane Mitchell

    Watching the press conference it was almost as if he has already had some trade talks about it, the 5th year option with a 1st round selection might not be important to Colbert but for teams looking to draft a QB it is important, and the end of the first round is where some teams might want to make a move up to draft a QB.

  • John Bennett

    They don’t move unless there is something they think is special is there.

  • Clutterbox

    It was there last year and Denver was willing from all accounts. Seattle was the next pick after the Steelers in the first round and they traded with Denver and gain a extra 3rd round.

  • KiJana Haney

    haha lets see what they do but trading back to wouldn’t be so bad to do. There is so much talent in this draft it would make sense to go back. This is the first year I actually think they might trade back.

  • S.T.

    And not liking the price is also not the same thing as being unwilling to trade. I take your point, but I’m sure the Steelers’ trade inactivity historically has been the result of not getting the value in return they seek in order to move, not because of any philosophical opposition to executing trades.

  • D.j. Reynolds

    I want a trade out of the first in the worst way! There is a lot of 2nd-3rd round talent and if we could get an extra pick or 2 in those rounds for a trade-down of 5-10 spots, we should jump at the chance!

  • D.j. Reynolds

    Kind of depends. That kind of trade up for the other team would likely be for that QB they covet. If you look at such trades, I believe you will discover that teams often give up more to move up and take a QB (this is only a gut reaction-no empirical evidence).

  • Sam Clonch

    Has been pointed out to me by Alex that Steelers probably have 15-20 guys that they have “first round” grades on. If they come up at #30, have 5 guys left on the board with a 1st round grade, they may entertain moving back a few spots. Taking a 1st round guy in the 2nd makes sense. Similarly, if they have NO 1st round grades left on the board, then you can listen.

    What doesn’t make sense is if they have maybe 1-2 “first round” guys left, they don’t move back 5 spots. You don’t potentially give up a 1st round guy in order to get a second rounder of less impact/potential and a 4th rounder.

  • D.j. Reynolds

    Also, what about a trade down from end of first to teens of 2nd round? What type of pick might we get for that? We could then end up with Peppers or Jones or CB and Rivers in 2nd and have 3 picks in the 3rd, right?

  • Sam Clonch

    I personally think, looking at history, they’ll do everything they can to get a “1st round” talent. If are still some there at #30, and they think they can move back and get one still in the 2nd, they may pull the trigger. If all 1st round guys are gone, may also move back. I personally think the team is only a few players away, so I’d pull for them to move up if they think everyone will be gone by the time they pick.

    What I don’t want them to do, is to pass on a 1st round rated guy in favor of a 2nd rounder and a later pick. I want 1st round talent, and Colberts draft history tells me he probably does too.

  • Sam Clonch

    I did some math earlier, for Steelers to land a pick in the top of the 3rd, a team would have to movie up from around #22 in the second to equal the value of the 30th overall pick. Of course, a team picking at 22 in the second doesn’t HAVE a high 3rd. They will be closer to the end of the (regular) third round picks.

  • Conserv_58

    I’m glad that you posted this thread, Matthew.

    I watched Colberts recent draft talk interview today and based on his comment regarding trading down in the first round I came away thinking that he may just follow through on what I’ve been saying about the idea of him opting to trade down. I’ve said several times in this site that if there was ever a draft that was an ideal situation for him to trade down in the first round this is that draft. You echoed my reasoning for why they are ideally positioned, (#30) to move down two to three spots without losing too much ground to aquire a player they covet. The idea of aquiring an additional second or third round pick with the depth of talent available in this draft makes moving down a very attractive option.

    Of course as Kevin Colbert said, he thinks that, this year, there is going to be a lot of moving up and down in the first round. He then said that if they choose to trade down it depends on what players they have at the top of their board are still available to them.

  • Conserv_58

    👍 We are of like minds on this subject, Shane. Colbert gave me the impression that he agrees with what I’ve said multiple times about this being an ideal draft for him to trade down in the first round.

  • Conserv_58

    Then again, the Steelers also bucked another long held tradition by starting three rookies on the defense last season. Kevin Colbert has always said that nothing is off the table when it comes to the draft. I have a strong feeling that we may see him trade out of the first round, IF all of the prerequisites for him to do so are in alignment.

  • Conserv_58

    This.

  • Steel Realist PAul

    MM, I’m this close to my final mock and I believe I’m calling a trade down from 30 for Tonah Kpassagnon in the early second.

    This year makes sense to trade up or down and maybe they actually try.

  • Matthew Marczi

    I think this definitely goes in line with Alex’s article. They were not expecting to get a comp as high as the third round, no, and that was a plus, but they were also expecting to have a higher number of picks. Depending on how many ‘wants’ they feel they may have, the failed expectation of having 9 or 10 picks instead of 8 could definitely play into a desire to trade down (in any round, of course, not just the first).

  • Matthew Marczi

    There’s a good chance Burns would have been gone within the next 1-3 picks after the Steelers. There were teams looking to trade up at the time and they abandoned ship after Burns was picked. I believe one team seeking a cornerback even subsequently traded down after that.

  • Matthew Marczi

    Exactly. Just look at what the Vikings did a few years ago. The quarterback position plays a big role in this hypothetical.

  • Steeler-Drew

    If Colbert does trade down I don’t see it being more than 5-6 picks. He already stated the number of players they like has to match the number of picks to not miss out on a player. I doubt at #30 they will have 8-10 players they like to yield another 3rd round pick. The most likely scenario as trading down 3-5 picks to yield another 4th round pick. The question is what are they going to do with that pick. If it’s to choose a CB, S, OLB, ILB, RB, or TE I’m all for it. But if it’s used to waste a pick on a 4th round QB I say don’t bother.

  • LucasY59

    the 5th yr option might not have a big impact on the Steelers decision, but it could be significant to the team trading up to get the 1st rdr, especially if that teams is trading so they can pick a QB (which seems to be the most likely reason to trade, and another reason for why this might be the 1st trade out in a long time for the Steelers)

    to the team getting the QB they might value the idea of having a QB at a lower cost for an additional yr as a reason to throw in an additional pick to get the Steelers to accept (something like a early 2nd, 3rd and 5th, and since QBs are so potentially valuable they might even offer a 2nd, 3rd and 4th, look at the early 1st rd trades that teams make for QBs, multiple 1st rd picks as well as 2nds and 3rds are given in those situations, so giving up a 2nd 3rd and 4th kinda looks like a deal)

    *at a minimum the Steelers would get a better offer than the Seahawks got last yr, which was a 1st #31(5 picks later) as well as a 3rd #94 (for trading #26) so early 2nd rd and early 3rd rd or else the Steelers stay put and pick who they want at #30

    sticking with the cost aspect of why the trade could be appealing, is that the structured rookie Salary for the player picked #30 is considerably less than a player picked in the top 10, add in that picking a QB late in this yrs 1st rd (for the top 4 prospects) is closer to where their talent/skill level/value is and I think that IF a QB is available there will be at least one team that is interested in a trade (and likely more than one since this yr seems to have more than the average number of teams looking for a WB, and multiple trade offers = better trade offers, so that is another reason for why they could get a 2nd, 3rd and 4th)

    what should make it appealing to the Steelers is that they only move about 10 spots (ideally) and get at least an extra top 100 pick (closer to top 75) and likely another close to (at least) top 150 (which could be used on one of the earlier picks to move up as well and get a specific player they want in the 2nd or 3rd, or kept since the talent depth is still good at that pick)

    the extra appeal of extra picks is that there is a lot of talent in this draft, so moving 10 spots could get them a similar player to who they would take at 30 and gets the extra picks (which are valuable because the top 150 players talent seems seems like it is at the level that is normally just top 100 in other drafts)

  • LucasY59

    I think around 5 spots is ideal (and where they would be happy trading to) but I think around 10 spots is still possible, but also where they draw the line (unless a team is willing to make a ridiculous offer like this yrs 2nd 3rd and 4th, as well as next yrs 1st or something like that)

    as for the difference being a 3rd or 4th pick as the difference between moving to 5 spots vs 10, I dont agree, the Broncos gave a 3rd rdr for moving 5 spots last yr so in order for the Steelers to trade it will take a minimum of a extra 3rd no matter who they trade with (especially since the Steelers would be trading out of the 1st and the Seahawks still got a 1st when they moved the 5 spots)

    I do agree that if all the Steelers do with the extra pick is take a QB who will barely be good enough to challenge landry for the #2 spot (and is nowhere near good enough of a prospect to be a future starter) they have wasted their time with the trade

  • LucasY59

    great example with Bridgewater, my main reference is last yr with Denver and Seattle (because it was so recent) but the Vikings trade is closer to what the Steelers would get if they traded (and of course both involve the Seahawks as the team that cashed in on another team needing a QB)

  • LucasY59

    there were rumors of the chefs wanting Burns, but we will never know since the Steelers had their pick turned in with about 9 minutes still on the clock

    also KC did well by trading out of the 1st last yr, they got Chris Jones who played very well as a rookie for them, so KC is another example of how trading out can work to a teams benefit
    (also in the article I looked up about that trade it mentioned 4 top WRs already gone as well as 4 top CBs…Artie was the 5th)

  • LucasY59

    recent trades that were similar

    2016:
    Seattle trades #26 (1st) for #31 (1st) and #94 (3rd) only move back 5 spots (stay in 1st rd) and get a extra top 100 pick

    KC trades #28 (1st) & #249 (7th) for #37 (2nd) #105 (4th) and #178 (6th) surprised they didnt get better value for trading out of the 1st, but the team they traded with got a OL not a QB with the trade, but they did get to a #105 pick for moving back 9 spots, plus moved up 71 spots from their 7th rd pick

    2014:
    Seattle trades #32(1st) for #40 (2nd) and #108 (4th), get 108 for moving 8 spots

    so I think the value of the trades is increasing (especially if the team is trading for a QB) so I think the reason the Steelers did not get a better offer from Denver than the one that Seattle took last yr, and that shows that the only way they will accept a trade this yr is if a team offers more, so I think Colbert would want a early 3rd as the extra pick, or maybe an extra 4th and a 5th, along with the early 2nd, they will also want to stay in the top ten range of the the 2nd rd (wont want to move back any further)

  • LucasY59

    I think the only way Colbert accepts is if the team is desperate and offers a deal that is better than the “book value” or points, he wants it to be to his advantage, so that would force the team to give up a 2nd and a 3rd (instead of a 2nd and a 4th) or else he wont make the deal

    they could also do some swapping of later picks so that a team doesnt give up picks just picks later in the rds to add some value without the Steelers getting extra picks, the team could swap #30 for the other teams early 2nd, and then the Steelers late 3rd for the early 3rd and same with the fourth, the Steelers wouldnt necessarily be getting extra picks, but would be picking at a much earlier spot in each rd that they swap picks in

  • LucasY59

    yes the crazy amounts teams have to give up to move to the beginning of the 1st rd make the amount a team would need to over pay to get back into the end of the 1st seem like nothing,

    the Rams gave up two 1sts two 2nds and two 3rds, for a 1st a 4th and a 6th,

    so a team to get a 1st and only give up a 2nd and 3rd would be a pretty good deal comparitively

    either one of these trades would (likely) be for a QB, and so if a team is willing to trade for the guy they must think he has a shot at being a good player at the most important position in football, so there is a chance they would give up even more for the 30th pick (a 4th in addition to the 2nd and 3rd, or start swapping draft positions in the 3-4-5 rds)

  • LucasY59

    up down back forward

  • LucasY59

    agree, but he did say they have already prepped to see what they could get (which isnt the same as what a team might actually offer) so the scenarios are being somewhat thought out, but back to your point, I absolutely agree that he should wait until there is a minute left on the clock, instead of the opposite, and see what reality is instead of what they were guessing, at the very least it will help them gauge how accurate their guesses were, and a best they get a better offer than they expected (maybe one they cant refuse) but even if they do nothing but make the pick they were going to make anyway, there is no benefit to racing to see how fast they can turn in their card

  • LucasY59

    yes, to get ahead of each other or the Saints, and the most likely reason is there is only one QB left and most of those teams still need one

  • Sam Clonch

    2014, Vikings moved up from 8th pick in the second (40th overall), to #32 overall to take a QB, Teddy Bridgewater.

    They gave up their #40 pick, and their 4th rounder (#108). So thats the recent, pretty much exact comparison. An additional 4th, for a QB late in the 1st. Talk of a high third is pure fantasy.

  • LucasY59

    #1 overall should obviously not be a QB, and at #12 they might not still have Trubisky available OR there could be a different BPA, so they might still be in need of a QB with their #33 pick, so I do think Cleveland could be a trade partner

    I think the Niners and the Bears are still looking for their QB for the future despite the QBs they added in FA, they might punt another yr, but arent guaranteed to get a early pick or QB next yr, so if they think the value is right, I could definitely see them interested in a trade as well, kinda the same thing with Jax, they have a QB, but they also have a new FO and so the future is pretty unclear with Bortles

    plus like I mentioned in the other reply all 4 of those teams might need to get ahead of New Orleans (because they are looking for a future guy to eventually replace Brees)

    the tricky thing about this yrs QBs is that all 4 of the top guys are not day 1 ready and will need some time to develop, but all of the teams have a QB that can start the season and give the rookie time to learn (even Cleveland has Osweiler) so picking at the end of rd 1 makes way more sense than picking a developmental guy at the beginning of rd 1

  • LucasY59

    last yr Denver move 5 spots (not even out of the 1st rd…) and gives up #94

    so in order to get a team to accept a trade (out of the 1st) they have to beat that deal, and like I said that is better than giving up multiple 1sts, 2nds, and 3rds

  • Sam Clonch

    1) Value differance between 26 and 31 is greater than #30 and 35 overall.
    2) Denver gave up a LATE 3rd rounder, which is worth less than half of the early 3rd rounder you seem to be expecting.

  • nikki stephens

    kevin you lazy ass liar. I have ranted and screamed at the tv 4 of the last 5 years where you guys race your pick up w/o even using your phone OR waiting for someone. Many have surmised, you think you get an extra christmas bonus or pick if you dash to the podium in 90 seconds. Now I am not gonna bitch much about the selections (cuz many of the 1st rd picks have worked out) But geez, stop lying, you are one of the quickest teams as of late and exercise nothing for “all options” and such.

  • nikki stephens

    Let me state to steeler fans, I strongly disagree w/ everyone getting hot and heavy w/ adding picks. Personally, we would do ourselves much better having adding a 2nd rd or 3rd and dumping or moving some 4th, 5th, 6th picks. This team doesn’t have 8 open roster spots – and one of its strong suits is UDFA and seasoning them on the practice squad. We would be best off w/ 2- 2nds, high 3rd, 3rd comp, and high 4th, and throw in a 7th…6 picks than 8 or more…..for what, to cut 3-4 of them?

  • Conserv_58

    Uh, apparently it din’t cross your mind that there is also the option for Colbert to package those additional picks to move into position to get a player they covet.

  • nikki stephens

    ummm “din’t” cross YOUR MIND “I strongly disagree w/ everyone getting hot and heavy w/ adding picks” I was referring to alot of the board discussion and people’s mock drafts about having so many needs and need for additional picks / selections. Not really talking about colbert and doubt your scenario – he has NEVER demonstrated a parcells, J Jones, B Buttchek type of draft maneuvering.

  • Guest12

    Trading down would be pointless. We would at best get a 3rd in return. That means our first pick is not till #62, the very end of the second round. So pretty much, our first pick would be a 3rd round talent taken in the 2nd round, and then we would have 3 picks in the 3rd, or 3 mediocre players that we HOPE will pan out to be better than where they were drafted. Doesn’t sound like a good scenario. There are a lot of good players in the draft but when you look at the mocks, pretty much the same guys are all being projected as 1st rounders, give or take about 10 players, so with us not picking till the end of the 2nd we won’t be getting a first round talent that fell because of draft depth, we would be picking from the bottom of the pile of the best players. Stick with your first and pick one of the top players in the draft, or use that extra 3rd and see if you can move up a few spots, but there should be no reason why we should be trading out of a very talented first round if we are not getting an early 2nd in return, which won’t happen.

  • Mike Lloyd

    You are right Sam. I neglected to look at the charts. Nevertheless, if I can grab an equivalent player moving back to say—35-38 and grab a 4th I do it. Especially an earlier 4th which it would be…
    It won’t happen anyway.

  • Sam Clonch

    I’ve started a “draft info” document. Taking Dave’s 1st round candidates list, Alex’s position rankings, that value chart, going to print it all out and go into a bar tomorrow night looking like an accountant about to do an audit!

  • Guest12

    Don’t be surprised if Cleveland ends up with picks 1 and 2.

  • Mike Lloyd

    Lol. That’s going to be the new wave draftnik!

  • Guest12

    A trade up is more likely. Last year the Broncos gave pick #31 and pick #94 to the Seahawks for pick #26. That is virtually the same scenario for us. We have pick 30 in the first and pick 94 in the third. With GB, DAL, SEA having the ability to take “our guy” right before us, I could see them pulling the trigger on a trade up.

  • LucasY59

    that would be typical of CleveLOLand, Biscuit can be another bad pick by them (mainly because they waste all the extra picks they earned by trading out of #2 last yr, when that QB looks like he will actually be good)

  • Guest12

    If Cleveland was smart, they would grab Myles Garret and Jamal Adams in the first round, and look for the QB in the next 2 draft’s. I would even go as far to say as go after Dobbs or Kaaya in the middle rounds. You would think being in the same division as us and the Ravens, that they would have learned that you win the big games with a great defense. Not that I want them to become a powerhouse, but this is a defensive draft for the most part, with some offensive gems still available in the middle rounds. It would be smart to build up the defense.

  • Jason McDonald

    That draft chart was made before the 5th year option. Not as relevant as it was before the last CBA. For a team drafting a QB that 5th year is extremely valuable

  • Sam Clonch

    Interesting point, just found a new one from draftnek. I still don’t see any way to get an early 3rd, unless we move into the middle of the 2nd. Maybe a late third, more likely a 4th+5th and change. I’ll add the new chart to my stack of stuff to take to the bar tonight either way!

  • Jason McDonald

    I could see something like trading with Denver and getting their #52 ,on of their 3rds and a late round pick.. Also, look at previous years draft trades and what has actually happened since the 5th year option. You will likely be surprised to see how often trades like that happen.

  • Sam Clonch

    I seem to remember the Vikings moving up about 5 spots to #32, and giving up a 4th and a 5th to take Bridgewater….

  • Jason McDonald

    Paxton Lynch was a 2 and a 3. The Pats got a 2,3,4 and 7 from the Vikings for the 25 when they took Cordarerelle Patterson

  • Sam Clonch

    Bad examples to try and disprove the value chart then. Using the chart, the Broncos only overpaid for Lynch by 24 points (which is equivalant to a mid-5th rounder), and the Vikings overpaid for Patterson by 8 points (equivalent to a late 6th round pick).

    By comparison, someone in the top 5 giving an early 3rd round pick to move up to #30, would be overpaying by about 120ish points, which is basically equivalent to ANOTHER late 3rd round pick. Just not gonna happen.

  • Jason McDonald

    We will see. Many GMs have publicly said they dont use that chart anymore. The 5th year option is a game changer

  • Sam Clonch

    If someone wants to stupid overpay, I hope the Steelers listen, lol! I don’t see any sterling examples of someone doing so though.