Should TT trade out of first round?

[thequick12]

If the Seahawks are truly willing to trade Sherman to a rival then I would be suspicious that they know something that their rivals may not know fully, at least not yet. A very costly, nearer-the-downhill-slide, coach-killer is not what GB needs regardless of his past performances, if that's what he eventually turns-out to be. The fact that the Seahawks are entertaining the possibility of trading him in itself seems like a red flag to me.

He may have worn out his welcome there. apparently he has some kind of ongoing feud with the Seattle media. He does have salary cap numbers of 11.4 and 11 million which would be significant savings. and he is 29 years old. I guess he and the gm have publicly said there is no bad blood. and now I guess the Patriots are considering trading Malcom Butler for Sherman. if they get that done I hate to say it but it'd be a genius move by nfl standards. Ship a guy off who wants to be paid 10 m but doesn't deserve it for arguably the best corner in the league. and the 29 thing really not asure big a deal at cb as other positions as it seems db, qb, and wr can play effectively into mid to late 30,s most often. point being is whoever gets him I expect he'll play just as well as he has his entire career I don't expect a dropoff just because Seahawks willing to trade him, we don't know maybe the trade is his idea

 

[Dantés]

In my opinion, there are a number of factors contributing to shopping Richard Sherman.

#1, I won't try and diagnose him on the internet but he generally acts like a narcissist in the media. He is constantly reminding everyone (convincing himself?) of how good he is and how bad other players are that he doesn't like. Lately, he's publicly criticized his own coaches, justified it, and then frozen out any media who were critical of that action. It's very possible that all his garbage we actually see/hear is just the tip of the iceberg and that the team is getting tired of his act.

#2, Forward looking franchises often try to flip aging stars earlier than expected for some sort of compensation. New England has often done this (Richard Seymour comes to mind). Sherman is still on top of his game, but he's 29. Seattle is likely weighing the options of losing out on his last 2-3 good years but getting premium draft picks vs. taking those last years, but getting nothing when he moves on. And while I don't think they're in cap trouble, moving his cap hit in the process wouldn't hurt.

#3, This is probably the most overlooked, but cornerback just isn't the premium position in that defensive system that it is in others. I'm not saying it doesn't matter and I'm not saying Sherman isn't good, but ultimately that defense is fueled by two things: Getting pressure with 4 and a guy named Earl Thomas. Sherman is great regardless, but that system makes him look better than he actually is. He's often put on a level with the true elites like Patrick Peterson or vintage Revis, but he isn't actually on their level. He's never done with any kind of regularity what those guys did consistently-- single cover the opposing #1 and shut them down.

With all that said, I would not be in favor of trading for him. His price tag is going to have his performance in that defensive system baked into it-- which means someone is going to overpay for a guy who will almost certainly take a step down in a different system (again-- not saying he would ever be anything less than very good, but he's not elite). Plus I personally find the guy insufferable.

 

[brandon2348]

In my opinion, there are a number of factors contributing to shopping Richard Sherman.

#1, I won't try and diagnose him on the internet but he generally acts like a narcissist in the media. He is constantly reminding everyone (convincing himself?) of how good he is and how bad other players are that he doesn't like. Lately, he's publicly criticized his own coaches, justified it, and then frozen out any media who were critical of that action. It's very possible that all his garbage we actually see/hear is just the tip of the iceberg and that the team is getting tired of his act.

#2, Forward looking franchises often try to flip aging stars earlier than expected for some sort of compensation. New England has often done this (Richard Seymour comes to mind). Sherman is still on top of his game, but he's 29. Seattle is likely weighing the options of losing out on his last 2-3 good years but getting premium draft picks vs. taking those last years, but getting nothing when he moves on. And while I don't think they're in cap trouble, moving his cap hit in the process wouldn't hurt.

#3, This is probably the most overlooked, but cornerback just isn't the premium position in that defensive system that it is in others. I'm not saying it doesn't matter and I'm not saying Sherman isn't good, but ultimately that defense is fueled by two things: Getting pressure with 4 and a guy named Earl Thomas. Sherman is great regardless, but that system makes him look better than he actually is. He's often put on a level with the true elites like Patrick Peterson or vintage Revis, but he isn't actually on their level. He's never done with any kind of regularity what those guys did consistently-- single cover the opposing #1 and shut them down.

With all that said, I would not be in favor of trading for him. His price tag is going to have his performance in that defensive system baked into it-- which means someone is going to overpay for a guy who will almost certainly take a step down in a different system (again-- not saying he would ever be anything less than very good, but he's not elite). Plus I personally find the guy insufferable.

It's funny you bring these points up about Sherman as I have said similar things in the past and got raked over the coals on here as many thought I was crazy for liking Sammie Shields over him per our system.

Everything you said about the Hawks system is correct but I will add that they did ask Sherman to play in the slot sometimes and also cover a TE on a few occasions and he did perform well in those duties. He is really good in the red zone too.

How much could he help the Packers? I think quite a bit considering our current guys. He would at the very least be very valuable in covering guys like Julio Jones and Dez Bryant who we have no answer for right now. He could be a difference maker considering the Packers needs. The question is can you deal with all his antics as you pointed out.

At the end of he day I really don't see anything materializing between TT and the Seahawks and Richard Sherman.

 

[FrozenTakesInGB]

The closer the draft gets the more likely it is looking to me like the Packers will trade their first round pick. I typically would be upset about trading out of the first round, but here is a trade that I would love. The Cleveland Browns trade for #29 and the Packers recieve #33 and #108. According to the Draft trade chart the Packers would "win" the trade 658 to 640. The other aspect that I would love is, we would hold the first pick on days two and three of the draft, something about that is really appealing to me.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The closer the draft gets the more likely it is looking to me like the Packers will trade their first round pick. I typically would be upset about trading out of the first round, but here is a trade that I would love. The Cleveland Browns trade for #29 and the Packers recieve #33 and #108. According to the Draft trade chart the Packers would "win" the trade 658 to 640. The other aspect that I would love is, we would hold the first pick on days two and three of the draft, something about that is really appealing to me.

This would be my ultimate scenario as well, as long as there are 5-6 guys that the Packers are interested in at #29. Having that "long clock" after day 1 and day 2 is a big thing in my mind. It gives those teams picking at the top of rounds 2 and 4 plenty of time to really study the available players and knowing that they can pick whoever they want and not worry about them being gone.

 

[Dantés]

The downside to trading down to 33-- and I'm not saying it's a bad idea overall-- is that you lose that 5th year option.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The downside to trading down to 33-- and I'm not saying it's a bad idea overall-- is that you lose that 5th year option.

Downside yes, but adds trade value to that pick because of it. If memory serves me correct, the Packers have never used it (since it was put into place in 2011), although that might change with Ha Ha.

 

[PikeBadger]

The closer the draft gets the more likely it is looking to me like the Packers will trade their first round pick. I typically would be upset about trading out of the first round, but here is a trade that I would love. The Cleveland Browns trade for #29 and the Packers recieve #33 and #108. According to the Draft trade chart the Packers would "win" the trade 658 to 640. The other aspect that I would love is, we would hold the first pick on days two and three of the draft, something about that is really appealing to me.

I like the idea of having the first pick on days 2 & 3. Those picks probably have greater trade value potential than they are truly worth.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The downside to trading down to 33-- and I'm not saying it's a bad idea overall-- is that you lose that 5th year option.

As Pokerbrat has correctly pointed out the Packers haven't used the fifth year option even once up until now.

 

[PikeBadger]

As Pokerbrat has correctly pointed out the Packers haven't used the fifth year option even once up until now.

I get the impression that Thompson doesn't like the 5th year option concept and most likely would never use it.

 

[Dantés]

As Pokerbrat has correctly pointed out the Packers haven't used the fifth year option even once up until now.

Well there you go.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I get the impression that Thompson doesn't like the 5th year option concept and most likely would never use it.

I expect Thompson to use it on Clinton-Dix though. The simple reason the Packers haven't utilized it so far is that neither Sherrod, Perry or Jones deserved to be retained that way.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The last time a team traded the 29th pick was in 2013 when the Patriots received Minnesota's second (52nd), third (83rd), fourth (102nd) and seventh (229th) round picks in return.

A couple years back I did a run down on several recent first round trades (not including this one) relative to the antique Jimmy Johnson trade value chart:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm

Of the ones I looked at, I believe the Sammy Watkins trade was the only one that strayed meaningfully from the chart, though that required an assumption about the worth of the following year's 1st. rounder they surrendered in trade.

One would have thought that the trade chart would have been made obsolete in 2011 with the rookie salary scale. That has not been the case, and this Patriots trade is yet another example:

Pats: 640
Vikes: 380 + 175 + 92 + 7 = 654

That 14 point differential is equivalent to the first pick in the 7th. round, which amounts to a rounding error.

So, using the Johnson chart, what might the Packers expect in a trade-down? Here are a few permutations:

1) Trade down to #40 (500 pts.) + the equivalent of the #90 pick toward the bottom of the 3rd. round.

2) Trade down to #45 (450 pts.) + the equivalent of the #80 pick in the middle of the 3rd. round.

3) Trade down to #50 (400 pts.) + the equivalent of the #70 pick toward the top of the 3rd. round.

On the one hand, there is not a lot to differentiate #29 from #50 other than need, scheme fit, and a dose of subjective projection. On the other hand, you'd need to be confident that one of the players targeted for 11 - 21 spots down the draft will still be there. You run the risk of ending up holding your d*ck.

 

[brandon2348]

They should absolutely draft down. They could feasibly still get both Joe Mixon and Charles Harris by doing this and still have plenty of picks to address secondary and OL.

Scoop up Sidney Jones or Fabian Moreau or Sutton in the 3rd.

 

[PikeBadger]

A couple years back I did a run down on several recent first round trades (not including this one) relative to the antique Jimmy Johnson trade value chart:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm

Of the ones I looked at, I believe the Sammy Watkins trade was the only one that strayed meaningfully from the chart, though that required an assumption about the worth of the following year's 1st. rounder they surrendered in trade.

One would have thought that the trade chart would have been made obsolete in 2011 with the rookie salary scale. That has not been the case, and this Patriots trade is yet another example:

Pats: 640
Vikes: 380 + 175 + 92 + 7 = 654

That 14 point differential is equivalent to the first pick in the 7th. round, which amounts to a rounding error.

So, using the Johnson chart, what might the Packers expect in a trade-down? Here are a few permutations:

1) Trade down to #40 (500 pts.) + the equivalent of the #90 pick toward the bottom of the 3rd. round.

2) Trade down to #45 (450 pts.) + the equivalent of the #80 pick in the middle of the 3rd. round.

3) Trade down to #50 (400 pts.) + the equivalent of the #70 pick toward the top of the 3rd. round.

On the one hand, there is not a lot to differentiate #29 from #50 other than need, scheme fit, and a dose of subjective projection. On the other hand, you'd need to be confident that one of the players targeted for 11 - 21 spots down the draft will still be there. You run the risk of ending up holding your d*ck.

Also, Usually the team trading down out of the first round gets a premium for doing so.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Also, Usually the team trading down out of the first round gets a premium for doing so.

The premium is usually small, as in this example. Dunno about anybody else, but I don't get too excited about an extra 7th. round pick.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The premium is usually small, as in this example. Dunno about anybody else, but I don't get too excited about an extra 7th. round pick.

While I wouldn't go out of my way if I was TT to get an extra 7th rounder, the one aspect I do like about that 7th round pick, is if there is still someone on the board you really like, it guarantees you can grab him and not have to compete against 31 other teams to sign that player as an UDFA. Some were unhappy with the job that Schum did punting last year, a 7th rounder is the perfect opportunity to secure one of the top 5 college punters.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While I wouldn't go out of my way if I was TT to get an extra 7th rounder, the one aspect I do like about that 7th round pick, is if there is still someone on the board you really like, it guarantees you can grab him and not have to compete against 31 other teams to sign that player as an UDFA. Some were unhappy with the job that Schum did punting last year, a 7th rounder is the perfect opportunity to secure one of the top 5 college punters.

It seems Thompson doesn't value seventh round picks that much either though as he has traded away the team's selection in the last round in both 2015 and '16.

 

[HardRightEdge]

While I wouldn't go out of my way if I was TT to get an extra 7th rounder, the one aspect I do like about that 7th round pick, is if there is still someone on the board you really like, it guarantees you can grab him and not have to compete against 31 other teams to sign that player as an UDFA. Some were unhappy with the job that Schum did punting last year, a 7th rounder is the perfect opportunity to secure one of the top 5 college punters.

If Thompson sees fit, he could draft a punter with the 7th. round pick he already has.

And yes, the difference between a 7th. round pick and a UDFA from a talent/potential standpoint is near zero. They are all lottery tickets.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It seems Thompson doesn't value seventh round picks that much either though as he has traded away the team's selection in the last round in both 2015 and '16.

Well, it's worth 7 points in the Johnson equation as a trade kicker.

Players out of the 7th. round of some merit:

C.J. Wilson - a run defending rotational DE who probably wouldn't play much in the current "all nickel all the time" defense.

Matt Flynn - the best of the bunch; an adequate backup QB who could be relied upon for 0.500 ball against average competition

Sam Barrington - a serviceable starter who, if he were not injured as was the starter now, we'd be looking for an upgrade

Then the question becomes whether one or all of these guys would have been secured as UDFAs anyway.

The 7th. round pick is just one element of the 90 man numbers game.

Jeff Janis is the poster child for fan overvaluation of a 7th. round pick.

 

[PikeBadger]

If Thompson sees fit, he could draft a punter with the 7th. round pick he already has.

And yes, the difference between a 7th. round pick and a UDFA from a talent/potential standpoint is near zero. They are all lottery tickets.

The value potentially in the 7th round pick is packaging it with another pick to move up higher for someone you want.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Bottom line (for me), the 7th round pick has some value in either using it or trading it away. I view the pick as a possible guarantee of getting a guy you have listed as a high priority UDFA. I imagine there are guys on that list every year for the Packers that become unavailable, because the player is either drafted in the 7th or chooses to sign with another team as an UDFA.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The value potentially in the 7th round pick is packaging it with another pick to move up higher for someone you want.

7th. round picks are worth 7 2 - 14 points in the Jimmy Johnson schema, 7 in the case of the Packers pick. In a first round pick trade, that amounts to a rounding error.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

7th. round picks are worth 7 - 14 points in the Jimmy Johnson schema, 7 in the case of the Packers pick. In a first round pick trade, that amounts to a rounding error.

I must be looking at a different chart?

http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=gb

In this one, the 7th round pick is worth 1 measly point. But I would gladly trade back one spot in the 2nd (292 points) with the Steelers for their second round (284) and 8 7th round picks (1 point each - if they had that many picks). I like the trade chart, but you also have to take into consideration the value of "a draft pick" is equal to one player, no matter what round, that player is "yours". In other words, there is value to numbers.....the number of guys you obtain exclusive rights to after the draft.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I must be looking at a different chart?

http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=gb

In this one, the 7th round pick is worth 1 measly point. But I would gladly trade back one spot in the 2nd (292 points) with the Steelers for their second round (284) and 8 7th round picks (1 point each - if they had that many picks). I like the trade chart, but you also have to take into consideration the value of "a draft pick" is equal to one player, no matter what round, that player is "yours". In other words, there is value to numbers.....the number of guys you obtain exclusive rights to after the draft.

This chart you linked is essentially the same as the Jimmy Johnson chart, but adjusted to account for compensatory picks. The two charts are identical through pick 132. After that, slight variations of a fraction of a point per pick can be seen down to pick 224 (7 x 32). The 1-point picks are in effect the "8th. round" not in the Johnson chart.

However, I did misspeak earlier, but the error is not material to the case. The Johnson chart's 7th. round ranges from 2 - 14 points, not 7 - 14 as stated earlier.

Fans may overestimate the value placed on the ability to lock in a player rather than compete for him in the UDFA market. Thompson is a guy you'd figure would value such picks most, running 15 or 20 through the roster by first cuts while often keeping one or two on the roster. Yet, as the Captain noted, he traded away that pick the last 2 seasons.

In the UDFA market, one lottery ticket is just exchanged for another. Or looked at another way, you might lock in on a CB, lets say, for the 7th. round because you like "something" about him. If you don't get him, there are 30 others in the UDFA market who don't grade out much differently.