The Julio Jones Trade

[peeker643]

I think Hiko is right in regard to Twitter. I had to read way too many tool boxes talk about Julio Jones not fitting in w/Browns and Shurmur and Colt and all that happy crap.

Yeah, they were the same tool boxes who regale the browns for trading up to take a freaking RB which is part of what I don't understand other than it being a clear case of homerism.

Couple questions though: Is Julio Jones scheme irrelevant? Meaning, is he a playmaker and a perennial all-pro type in whatever offense he plays in? He's ridiculously big, fast and strong and may have been the best run blocking WR in the game the second he was drafted.

So is he scheme irrelevant? 'Elite' to throw around an overused term here?


And if you're of the opinion the Browns needed to deal that pick because of McCoy and Shurmur, should you only pick shitty players in that position or trade down so that elite talents arent "wasted"?

What's the rationale for being okay with getting what turned out to be a decent DT, a QB at #22, Greg Little and picks you wasted to move up for a RB you didn't need?

Also, all things being equal in this day and age and with what you know about each guy, would you take Julio Jones today or deal the pick again? Would you trade out of Jones and up for TRich?

Just interested to hear what people think.

I just have a big problem with inconsistency colored by organizational devotion and that's what I seem to get from Browns fans on this subject.

Plus I loved Julio Jones

[e0y2e3]

I tend to side with the HooDOOOOOOO interpretation of things here:

The ATL trade was great GMing when you are trying to rebuild a team with roughly four good players on it.

The ATL trade fell apart when you ended up with a fat Walrus sticking his nose in things and forcing one of those firsts to be The Ginger.

And Julio Jones would still be really talented in C-Town, but he'd have roughly meh stats.

[Hikohadon]

He's better than I thought he would be coming out. He didn't impress me in Alabama all that much, but has been "really good" at this level.

Probably, he'd be "really good" anywhere. Including here.

If Colt/Shurmur were the things keeping you from getting a Julio, then replace them. Colt can easily be upgraded by probably 50 available people. I don't know what coach runs a scheme where you couldn't use a Julio.

But they got a king's ransom to trade back, and I think that the failure to capitalize on that is more Heckert's failing rather than proof they should've stayed and taken Julio.

Is what they got > Julio? Probably not, not at this point at least.

[peeker643]

I tend to side with the HooDOOOOOOO interpretation of things here:

The ATL trade was great GMing when you are trying to rebuild a team with roughly four good players on it.

The ATL trade fell apart when you ended up with a fat Walrus sticking his nose in things and forcing one of those firsts to be The Ginger.

And Julio Jones would still be really talented in C-Town, but he'd have roughly meh stats.

That makes sense. Good intentions, wrong dimensions kind of thing.

And honestly asking here, but when are you forced to take the "elite" guy off the board as opposed to trading down? Or is it only QB you do that for? Meaning, do you take "elite" despite having a lot of needs at any point (other than QB)?

And while your point makes sense, same group picked TRich, right? If you agree with Jones deal, can you agree with TRich deal.

Or, on the flip side, if you pimp the Jones deal can you love the TRich deal? It seems to me I see a shitload of homerific response to these deals.

[FUDU]

Have to agree with those that are behind the rebuild approach for that draft.

Honestly, would the team have been any better the past two seasons if we did draft Jones, regardless of who was QB, but ESPECIALLY if Colt was?

That draft doesn't have to potential to hurt us for years to come like last season's draft and the acquisitional costs you remind us of every once in a while.

[Madre Hill, Superstar]

I tend to side with the HooDOOOOOOO interpretation of things here:

The ATL trade was great GMing when you are trying to rebuild a team with roughly four good players on it.

The ATL trade fell apart when you ended up with a fat Walrus sticking his nose in things and forcing one of those firsts to be The Ginger.

And Julio Jones would still be really talented in C-Town, but he'd have roughly meh stats.

I'm here as well. Talent like Jones is great to have, but not absolutely neccessary given that he 'n Megatron get to watch Torrey Smith and Michael Crabtree on TV next Sunday. If Gordon's almost as good as Jones, then it all hinges on Weeds and what we get out of him.

[pup]

Pretty much agreed with the trade at the time, because I think the WR position can be filled adequately without it being a top 10 pick.

The execution of the assets from that trade are not going to go down in history as anything all that special. But I would guess it would not be too hard to come with a list of players they COULD have used those picks on that would make the original trade a whole hell of a lot better.

[peeker643]

He's better than I thought he would be coming out. He didn't impress me in Alabama all that much, but has been "really good" at this level.

Probably, he'd be "really good" anywhere. Including here.

If Colt/Shurmur were the things keeping you from getting a Julio, then replace them. Colt can easily be upgraded by probably 50 available people. I don't know what coach runs a scheme where you couldn't use a Julio.

But they got a king's ransom to trade back, and I think that the failure to capitalize on that is more Heckert's failing rather than proof they should've stayed and taken Julio.

Is what they got > Julio? Probably not, not at this point at least.

Same question then- Is there a point where you have to start taking the elite guys as opposed to trading back and is it likely that taking a couple elite guys helps more than accumulating later picks in the first and 2nd-4th rounds?

I can see the philosophy of the king's ransom and I agree that's what they got. And I also agree you have to get rid of the garbage as opposed to drafting more of it because getting something nice would just start to stink with the garbage you have. But didn't they go 180* away from that with the next draft? Why are people ok w/Trich and still minimizing just how good Jones is/will be?

[HoodooMan]

How many WRs in the NFL would you trade our next two 1sts, a 2nd, and some lower round throw-ins for?

My number would be zero.

There are only a handful of teams for which I think something like that would make sense. Maybe NE with Tom Brady not getting any younger, maybe the same for Denver and New Orleans. And this is talking about great NFL WRs--not a Top 10 WR prospect.

And as e0 alluded to, I loved the trade. Though I wish they'd have worked out better (and maybe they still can), I'm fine with Taylor & Little. The Weeden pick is still the worst one we've ever made.

[FUDU]

Why are people ok w/Trich and still minimizing just how good Jones is/will be?

Is that what people are doing, objective non homer type people anyway?

[Hikohadon]

He's better than I thought he would be coming out. He didn't impress me in Alabama all that much, but has been "really good" at this level.

Probably, he'd be "really good" anywhere. Including here.

If Colt/Shurmur were the things keeping you from getting a Julio, then replace them. Colt can easily be upgraded by probably 50 available people. I don't know what coach runs a scheme where you couldn't use a Julio.

But they got a king's ransom to trade back, and I think that the failure to capitalize on that is more Heckert's failing rather than proof they should've stayed and taken Julio.

Is what they got > Julio? Probably not, not at this point at least.

Same question then- Is there a point where you have to start taking the elite guys as opposed to trading back and is it likely that taking a couple elite guys helps more than accumulating later picks in the first and 2nd-4th rounds?

I can see the philosophy of the king's ransom and I agree that's what they got. And I also agree you have to get rid of the garbage as opposed to drafting more of it because getting something nice would just start to stink with the garbage you have. But didn't they go 180* away from that with the next draft? Why are people ok w/Trich and still minimizing just how good Jones is/will be?

You're assuming that Heckert considered Julio "elite".

You're also assuming that Heckert received a similar offer for the #4 pick last year that he turned down bc he had to have Richardson. If someone made that same offer, he might well have taken it - again. Meaning they would've traded back both years, showing consistency.

My recollection might be hazy, but I thought the Browns tried to trade up in 2011 in order to get one of the players they DID consider "elite", like AJ Green. If they had been successful in that trade up, then they would've traded up both years - showing consistency.

There are too many factors - situation, player evaluation, offers on the table, their view of the roster - to really compare the situations and say "If you liked A, then you can't like B." Or vice versa.

My only strong feeling on this is that I would be pissed - then and now - if they were offered the same trade package for Richardson as they were for Julio and turned it down.

PS - I too detest that opinion "We shouldn't draft very talented Player X because (QB/Coach/GM/scheme/weather/uniform color/etc.)".

[Hikohadon]

How many WRs in the NFL would you trade our next two 1sts, a 2nd, and some lower round throw-ins for?

My number would be zero.

I think most people's would be zero (Although I might consider it for Megatron).

But I think a lot more people would make the trade if it were Weeden, Little, Taylor, and Marecic for said WR.

As I said, if it turned out to be a bad trade, that's on Heckert's drafting more than it is on the trade itself.

[peeker643]

Why are people ok w/Trich and still minimizing just how good Jones is/will be?

Is that what people are doing, objective non homer type people anyway?

You're not that dumb. People are defending the TRich pick to death. And waaaay too many people are only selectively objective.

[peeker643]

It's assuming a lot. More than just that Heckert thought of Jones as elite. It assumes Heckert was the deciding factor on every pick. I don't think that's true but all I can do is assign the picks and trades to the regime as a whole.

And yeah, it's hindsight and I guess I come out on the same side. Great deal in and of itslef but awful execution on the picks they received in that they the got a couple decent players and seemingly threw away some of the most important parts of the haul.

Personally I loved Jones coming out of AL. Enough to pass up that kind of haul? No. But I also did and do and will think that Jones > TRich in terms of now and in the future and far harder to find than a powerful back with limited burst/explosiveness.

A lot of things bother me, as you all know. But it's just tough for me to understand people who can laud the TRich moves while minimizing the fact that Jones is at least as good a player if not better who will likely last a lot longer.

He's better than I thought he would be coming out. He didn't impress me in Alabama all that much, but has been "really good" at this level.

Probably, he'd be "really good" anywhere. Including here.

If Colt/Shurmur were the things keeping you from getting a Julio, then replace them. Colt can easily be upgraded by probably 50 available people. I don't know what coach runs a scheme where you couldn't use a Julio.

But they got a king's ransom to trade back, and I think that the failure to capitalize on that is more Heckert's failing rather than proof they should've stayed and taken Julio.

Is what they got > Julio? Probably not, not at this point at least.

Same question then- Is there a point where you have to start taking the elite guys as opposed to trading back and is it likely that taking a couple elite guys helps more than accumulating later picks in the first and 2nd-4th rounds?

I can see the philosophy of the king's ransom and I agree that's what they got. And I also agree you have to get rid of the garbage as opposed to drafting more of it because getting something nice would just start to stink with the garbage you have. But didn't they go 180* away from that with the next draft? Why are people ok w/Trich and still minimizing just how good Jones is/will be?

You're assuming that Heckert considered Julio "elite".

You're also assuming that Heckert received a similar offer for the #4 pick last year that he turned down bc he had to have Richardson. If someone made that same offer, he might well have taken it - again. Meaning they would've traded back both years, showing consistency.

My recollection might be hazy, but I thought the Browns tried to trade up in 2011 in order to get one of the players they DID consider "elite", like AJ Green. If they had been successful in that trade up, then they would've traded up both years - showing consistency.

There are too many factors - situation, player evaluation, offers on the table, their view of the roster - to really compare the situations and say "If you liked A, then you can't like B." Or vice versa.

My only strong feeling on this is that I would be pissed - then and now - if they were offered the same trade package for Richardson as they were for Julio and turned it down.

PS - I too detest that opinion "We shouldn't draft very talented Player X because (QB/Coach/GM/scheme/weather/uniform color/etc.)".

[bac5665]

The ATL trade had one purpose, to allow us to trade up to get Luck or RGIII. Bad luck (I may well be the last person on Earth who doesn't blame our FO for losing out on RGIII) and STL being idiots blew that play for us, so all that was left was Weeden.

Let me put the trade this way: is JJ worth Little, some trash and the chance of an elite QB? The obvious answer is yes. It's looking like we missed on the QB, although there is still some hope left. But JJ gave us the roll of the dice. In this league given how important QBs are and how unimportant WRs are, I cannot imagine not taking that trade every time.

Trading JJ got us a toss of the dice. I'll take a toss of the dice for an elite QB over a sure elite WR every single time. Every single time.

[motherscratcher]

I'm not sure you can evaluate that trade based on the eventual outcomes of the pick. The trade, in and of itself, was a good one, and there exists an alternate thread in the space time continuum where the Browns turned the assets attained for Jones into something more than Weeds, Taylor et al. We just happen to live in this shitty one. But I'd do that trade again.

And as far as the TR trade goes, I guess I'm not seeing all of the people defending that to the death. At the time I was initially pissed and that turned into "well, I guess they got their guy" acceptance while realizing there wasn't a slam dunk alternative.

I was hoping for a trade back at the time, and I do think Heckert might have done that as well, only the packages offered were probably not approaching what we got from Atlanta.

But it's too simplistic to imply that everyone who is OK with a trade back one year and a trade up the next is a homerific hypocrite.

[mattvan1]

He's better than I thought he would be coming out. He didn't impress me in Alabama all that much, but has been "really good" at this level.

Probably, he'd be "really good" anywhere. Including here.

If Colt/Shurmur were the things keeping you from getting a Julio, then replace them. Colt can easily be upgraded by probably 50 available people. I don't know what coach runs a scheme where you couldn't use a Julio.

But they got a king's ransom to trade back, and I think that the failure to capitalize on that is more Heckert's failing rather than proof they should've stayed and taken Julio.

Is what they got > Julio? Probably not, not at this point at least.

Same question then- Is there a point where you have to start taking the elite guys as opposed to trading back and is it likely that taking a couple elite guys helps more than accumulating later picks in the first and 2nd-4th rounds?

I can see the philosophy of the king's ransom and I agree that's what they got. And I also agree you have to get rid of the garbage as opposed to drafting more of it because getting something nice would just start to stink with the garbage you have. But didn't they go 180* away from that with the next draft? Why are people ok w/Trich and still minimizing just how good Jones is/will be?

I think you ALWAYS take the "elite" (there's that word agin) guys unless you have re-defined soul-crushing suck, fired your HC one year too late, and are about to implement an offense 20 years behind the times with either Jake Fucking Delhomme or Seneca Wallace as your QB. Then you do a little bit of trade-a-rama, ultimately to (mostly) blow it on Owen Marecic and Brandon Weeden.

[FUDU]

Why are people ok w/Trich and still minimizing just how good Jones is/will be?

Is that what people are doing, objective non homer type people anyway?

You're not that dumb. People are defending the TRich pick to death. And waaaay too many people are only selectively objective.

Agree that many people defend the TRich pick to death, but in relevance to the drafting or non drafting of Jones? Not so sure.

We have the luxury of hindsight for your posed question, but honestly I think we can all agree we didn't have much talent on the team heading into the 2011 draft, quantity was probably a higher priority than quality. We might have improved on that a little in 2011 but come 2012 draft we still needed legit talent. I know some positions are more crucial than others but once we stop talking QB, DL & DB I'm not so sure it matters where your next best players are located (WR, RB) if you know you don't have the QB.

IOW, are we anything other than 5-11 and drafting in the top 7 or 8 if we did both previous drafts quite differently, and still didn't have the right QB?

[peeker643]

Agree with a great deal of that. You do the right thing often enough and good things should happen. I agree that trade was the right thing to do.

As to the Trich thing, look at twitter. Hell, look at some of the writers of TCF on Twitter and tell me that's not homerific and hypocritical.

You can defend the trade itself and be persuasive and most likely right. I agree.

What you CANNOT DO is say with the players received and the end result (or what looks to be the end result) that the Browns 'won' the trade and you CANNOT defend TRich and demean J Jones and have ANY credibility at all IMO. None. ZERO.

Guess that's where I was trying to go with it.

I'm not sure you can evaluate that trade based on the eventual outcomes of the pick. The trade, in and of itself, was a good one, and there exists an alternate thread in the space time continuum where the Browns turned the assets attained for Jones into something more than Weeds, Taylor et al. We just happen to live in this shitty one. But I'd do that trade again.

And as far as the TR trade goes, I guess I'm not seeing all of the people defending that to the death. At the time I was initially pissed and that turned into "well, I guess they got their guy" acceptance while realizing there wasn't a slam dunk alternative.

I was hoping for a trade back at the time, and I do think Heckert might have done that as well, only the packages offered were probably not approaching what we got from Atlanta.

But it's too simplistic to imply that everyone who is OK with a trade back one year and a trade up the next is a homerific hypocrite.

[FUDU]

The ATL trade had one purpose, to allow us to trade up to get Luck or RGIII. Bad luck (I may well be the last person on Earth who doesn't blame our FO for losing out on RGIII) and STL being idiots blew that play for us, so all that was left was Weeden.

Let me put the trade this way: is JJ worth Little, some trash and the chance of an elite QB? The obvious answer is yes. It's looking like we missed on the QB, although there is still some hope left. But JJ gave us the roll of the dice. In this league given how important QBs are and how unimportant WRs are, I cannot imagine not taking that trade every time.

Trading JJ got us a toss of the dice. I'll take a toss of the dice for an elite QB over a sure elite WR every single time. Every single time.

Your argument hinges on the assumption RG3 was on not just the Browns radar in 2011 but everyone's, I'm not convinced of that at all. If that is not the case, your argument for the ATL trade is on thin ice.

[bac5665]

Peeks, are the people trying to demean the JJ trade? Cause I guess I've seen one or two people saying they wouldn't have done it, but I haven't seen anyone say that it was a disaster.

Now that's separate from people commenting about what we did with the pieces from that trade, i.e., people complaining about Weeden and Maricic, etc. Obviously there are plenty of those.

But I haven't seen too many people demeaning the JJ trade. I barely see anyone disagree with it.

Have you had a different experience?

[peeker643]

No, not the trade itself. More so the ability/impact/value of the players involved and the scrambled rationale that says you don't need one (Jones) while you had to make the deal for other (TRich).

I'll be first to admit I hated moving up for TRich. I'd have had less of an issue taking him where they sat if he was there. I'd have just been far happier had they addressed other needs there and gotten any number of RBs later.

The other thing I have a hard time reconciling is the completely different tone of those two drafts and all I can come up with is the "Desperation Ass-Saving" theory that says they let the draft come to them in 2011, jumped on a deal from Atlanta and accrued more picks (regardless of how they spent them that year) and in 2012 they were facing dismissal and forced picks based on popularity and panic.

Peeks, are the people trying to demean the JJ trade? Cause I guess I've seen one or two people saying they wouldn't have done it, but I haven't seen anyone say that it was a disaster.

Now that's separate from people commenting about what we did with the pieces from that trade, i.e., people complaining about Weeden and Maricic, etc. Obviously there are plenty of those.

But I haven't seen too many people demeaning the JJ trade. I barely see anyone disagree with it.

Have you had a different experience?

[bac5665]

[quote="peeker643"]No, not the trade itself. More so the ability/impact/value of the players involved and the scrambled rationale that says you don't need one (Jones) while you had to make the deal for other (TRich).

I'll be first to admit I hated moving up for TRich. I'd have had less of an issue taking him where they sat if he was there. I'd have just been far happier had they addressed other needs there and gotten any number of RBs later.

The other thing I have a hard time reconciling is the completely different tone of those two drafts and all I can come up with is the "Desperation Ass-Saving" theory that says they let the draft come to them in 2011, jumped on a deal from Atlanta and accrued more picks (regardless of how they spent them that year) and in 2012 they were facing dismissal and forced picks based on popularity and panic.

As far as TRex goes, I didn't like the trade. I thought it was abundantly clear that they were bluffing and we didn't need to do it. That said, I don't care; the trade cost us very little. We lost more pride and respect around the league than we did draft assets.

Was it a good idea? Would I have done it? No. Did it cost us much? No. Worrying about it is like worrying about the $5 dollar bill in his dresser while the house is on fire. Sure, you look like an idiot for not grabbing that bill while you were grabbing your socks, but it doesn't really matter past being embarrassing.

[mattvan1]

No, not the trade itself. More so the ability/impact/value of the players involved and the scrambled rationale that says you don't need one (Jones) while you had to make the deal for other (TRich).

I'll be first to admit I hated moving up for TRich. I'd have had less of an issue taking him where they sat if he was there. I'd have just been far happier had they addressed other needs there and gotten any number of RBs later.

The other thing I have a hard time reconciling is the completely different tone of those two drafts and all I can come up with is the "Desperation Ass-Saving" theory that says they let the draft come to them in 2011, jumped on a deal from Atlanta and accrued more picks (regardless of how they spent them that year) and in 2012 they were facing dismissal and forced picks based on popularity and panic.

As far as TRex goes, I didn't like the trade. I thought it was abundantly clear that they were bluffing and we didn't need to do it. That said, I don't care; the trade cost us very little. We lost more pride and respect around the league than we did draft assets.

Was it a good idea? Would I have done it? No. Did it cost us much? No. Worrying about it is like worrying about the $5 dollar bill in his dresser while the house is on fire. Sure, you look like an idiot for not grabbing that bill while you were grabbing your socks, but it doesn't really matter past being embarrassing.

The whole pride and respect thing is so overblown, IMO. Start beating guys up and winning games between the lines and shazaam! Sudden respect.

WTF are you doing grabbing your socks if your house in on fire? I'd like poor analogies for $500, Alex.

[peeker643]

Hard to quantify what it cost. The same people who love and value Billy Winn will tell me the picks sent to MN were no big deal. The same people who marvel at Alfred Morris tell me 6th round picks have no value. The Vikings took Jarius Wright in the 4th with the pick the Browns gave them. He had more catches, more yards and same # of TDs as Travis Benjamin who Browns took earlier in the 4th and Wright was "generally" regarded as a better receiver.

Point being you can't tell me that those picks are worhtless or cost very little and in the next breath tell me what a steal Billy Winn or Alfred Morris was or tell me what a value a receiver like Benjamin or Wright are.

Not if you're being realistic IMO.

If you're okay with trade giving up potential perennial pro bowler to stiockpile picks and fill numerous holes (which there were/are) then you lose a bit if credibility telling me those picks you acquired to fill those holes are worthless because you used them to move up and take a guy like TRich. And again, not disparaging TRich, I think he'll be a good back for 4-5 years. But seems to me people talking out both sides of their mouth where these picks are concerned.

No, not the trade itself. More so the ability/impact/value of the players involved and the scrambled rationale that says you don't need one (Jones) while you had to make the deal for other (TRich).

I'll be first to admit I hated moving up for TRich. I'd have had less of an issue taking him where they sat if he was there. I'd have just been far happier had they addressed other needs there and gotten any number of RBs later.

The other thing I have a hard time reconciling is the completely different tone of those two drafts and all I can come up with is the "Desperation Ass-Saving" theory that says they let the draft come to them in 2011, jumped on a deal from Atlanta and accrued more picks (regardless of how they spent them that year) and in 2012 they were facing dismissal and forced picks based on popularity and panic.

As far as TRex goes, I didn't like the trade. I thought it was abundantly clear that they were bluffing and we didn't need to do it. That said, I don't care; the trade cost us very little. We lost more pride and respect around the league than we did draft assets.

Was it a good idea? Would I have done it? No. Did it cost us much? No. Worrying about it is like worrying about the $5 dollar bill in his dresser while the house is on fire. Sure, you look like an idiot for not grabbing that bill while you were grabbing your socks, but it doesn't really matter past being embarrassing.

[jerryroche]

I don't think Peeks's contention (about how some people are hypocritical when it comes to the JJ trade rationale vs. the TRich trade rationale) can be logically disputed. But, maybe unintentionally, it has opened up this thread to some pretty darned entertaining second-guessing and 20-20 hindsight from other posters.

I personally tend to concentrate on looking forward and hoping for the value of having guys like TRich and Billy Winn and even Weeds on the roster, rather than worrying over not having JJ. Say what you will about Heckert's draft-day decisions, but the team he just left Banner et. al. is far and away more talented than the team he inherited. No, it hasn't shown up in the won-loss record yet, but I'm fairly confident that Heckert's young talent will mature fairly soon.

[peeker643]

I don't think Peeks's contention (about how some people are hypocritical when it comes to the JJ trade rationale vs. the TRich trade rationale) can be logically disputed. But, maybe unintentionally, it has opened up this thread to some pretty darned entertaining second-guessing and 20-20 hindsight from other posters.

The nature of the draft and the process certainly lends itself to the 2nd guessing. In real time I was enamored with Jones and in real time I was content to take TRich at #4 or whomever else (Claiborne) was available.

I just think from a process persepctive you first of all have to have one and 2nd of all have to utilize it steadfastly. No issue with stockpiling picks to accrue talent in 2011. Problem with tossing picks away in 2012 when so many holes were left to be filled.

The TRich deal would make more sense to me if you were in position like ATL was in 2011 where one key, talented piece recognized as the missing one. And preferably not one w/4-6 yr shelf lif

[bac5665]

Peeks,

The value of a late pick is extremely hard to quantify, sure. And I do think that those picks have some value. I did not say that they are valueless.

Tent Richardson adds a lot of value to this organization, in a lot of smalls ways. It is extremely difficult to try and add up all of the value he adds. On the field, he adds a skill player that changes the way defenses play this team. That is valuable. Any time you can change the opponent's game plan, you do it. He comes from a winning background, coached by one of the best college coaches of all time. There is value in having that background on a team. And off the field, he adds interest and story to the franchise, and, for better or for worse, that stuff matters.

The odds we get T-Rex (and his value, V) at 4 were X. The odds we don't were 1-X. The pick we gave up is worth the the value that we get from it, W times the odds that we get that value, Y.

So the question is, is V(1-X) > W*Y. I have no freaking clue. Probably not, because X was likely close to 1. But, I still think that the odds of hitting on the late round pick were low. I think this because it is true, historically. Even with Heckert's success over the last 2 years, there is no reason to think that any given pick is going to do better than the NFL historical average.

This is my point. The draft is all about loss of chance and playing the odds, rolling the dice, and trying to limit the risk as much as possible. Heckert's move was about limiting the risk. I cannot fault that strategy, even when I think he read that situation well. Like so much about the last few years, I think he likely had a good, solid plan, and then executed poorly. Get the sure thing when you can, roll the dice when you have to. Yeah, you want to hit on those die rolls when you make them. Yes, they have value. But the sure thing has value to, and generally more value. The only reason not to like the trade is if you think that T-Rex adds less value than most 3 or 4 overall picks, or if you think that X, in my equation above, was close to 1. I happen to think that X was close to 1. But that's an error of execution, not philosophy.

Sorry, this is complicated and I'm probably explaining this badly. Like all things worth discussing, the draft is complex, and I think there is much nuance here.

[motherscratcher]

Peeks,

The value of a late pick is extremely hard to quantify, sure. And I do think that those picks have some value. I did not say that they are valueless.

Tent Richardson adds a lot of value to this organization, in a lot of smalls ways. It is extremely difficult to try and add up all of the value he adds. On the field, he adds a skill player that changes the way defenses play this team. That is valuable. Any time you can change the opponent's game plan, you do it. He comes from a winning background, coached by one of the best college coaches of all time. There is value in having that background on a team. And off the field, he adds interest and story to the franchise, and, for better or for worse, that stuff matters.

There is a lot of assumption here. adn we all know what happens when we assume things...an innocent child dies in Africa.

I'm not sure we can assume that the defense changes the way they play us. At least not any more than every defense changes the way it plays week in and week out. I'm not buying the TR is drastically changing game-plans. And the winning background thing...meh, most of these guys come from winning backgrounds. That doesn't make Lydell Ross an NFL running back. I'm also not sure how much whatever "interest and story" means adds to the franchise. You know what I think adds to the franchise? Winning. No matter who the RB is and where you drafted him.

Other than that stuff I completely agree.

Sorry, this is complicated and I'm probably explaining this badly. Like all things worth discussing, the draft is complex, and I think there is much nuance here.

Yes.