NFL Off-season 2022

[Roy H.]

It makes no sense to me.  They basically gave up a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for the 16th pick.

[gouki88]

It makes no sense to me.  They basically gave up a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for the 16th pick.

It's brutal. I'm not sure New Orleans are going to be a very good team, so those picks might be pretty solid.

[BitterJim]

It makes no sense to me.  They basically gave up a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for the 16th pick.

Future picks are generally valued about 1 round lower, but it's definitely a lot to give up. The only reasonable explanation I've seen for it is that they may be planning on moving up for a QB and 2 firsts this year is better ammo than 1 now and 1 next year. This is supposed to be a weak QB draft, though, so who knows.

[Roy H.]

It makes no sense to me.  They basically gave up a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for the 16th pick.

Future picks are generally valued about 1 round lower, but it's definitely a lot to give up. The only reasonable explanation I've seen for it is that they may be planning on moving up for a QB and 2 firsts this year is better ammo than 1 now and 1 next year. This is supposed to be a weak QB draft, though, so who knows.

I wonder, though:  if you're a team that is considering moving down, would you rather have two firsts this year, or a first this year and a future 1st, 2nd and 3rd?  It's obviously dependent upon what the trading team's needs are, but I've got to think that most teams with a record poorer than 16th would be looking to the future a bit, and would prefer the future picks (especially from a team that isn't a playoff lock).

[Donoghus]

It makes no sense to me.  They basically gave up a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for the 16th pick.

Future picks are generally valued about 1 round lower, but it's definitely a lot to give up. The only reasonable explanation I've seen for it is that they may be planning on moving up for a QB and 2 firsts this year is better ammo than 1 now and 1 next year. This is supposed to be a weak QB draft, though, so who knows.

I wonder, though:  if you're a team that is considering moving down, would you rather have two firsts this year, or a first this year and a future 1st, 2nd and 3rd?  It's obviously dependent upon what the trading team's needs are, but I've got to think that most teams with a record poorer than 16th would be looking to the future a bit, and would prefer the future picks (especially from a team that isn't a playoff lock).

Definitely the latter. 

[Donoghus]

PFT's speculation on the matter.

The thought process becomes different when trading up. Teams don’t trade up so that they can brag to friends and family that they have more or higher picks. They do it with a specific objective in mind. Often, they do it with one specific player in mind.

For the Saints, there are two likely explanations. One, perhaps they’ve run the various mock drafts and they’ve concluded that, with selections No. 16 and No. 19, they’re confident they will get players who will address specific needs immediately. Impact players who can make an immediate impact, whether at defensive end or offensive line or receiver.

Two, maybe this trade is a first step to another one.

The Saints recently made a play for Deshaun Watson. That means they were ready to make a major investment of picks in a quarterback. Now that they have two picks in the top 20, could they then send those picks to, say, the Giants at No. 5?

That would allow the Saints to cut the line in front of not one but two division rivals in the top 10, both of which are likely considering taking a quarterback — the Panthers at No. 6 and the Falcons at No. 8.

Unlike the 49ers, who moved to No. 3 roughly a month before the 2021 draft, the Saints would be wise to stay put, for now. A jump to No. 5 in the short term would invite the Panthers or Falcons (or someone else) to leapfrog the Saints. If New Orleans is thinking about making another trade aimed at snagging a signal-caller, they need to do it when the pick they’d be acquiring is on the clock.

If that’s what the Saints are thinking about doing, how much would it take to get to No. 5? Would No. 16 and No. 19 do it? Or would it take more? If so, how much more?

Ultimately, it may be less than whatever they would have given up to get Watson. And they’d be paying a rookie a lot less than Watson will receive.

Whatever the Saints are doing, they surely have a plan that consists of something more than, “Wow. Hey. Look at this. Yesterday we had two picks in the top 20. Now, we have two.” The Saints are up to something.

Maybe having picks No. 16 and No. 19 marks the end. Maybe it’s just the beginning.

[Vermont Green]

It makes no sense to me.  They basically gave up a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for the 16th pick.

Yeah, if you break this up, you can say:

#19 + #194 is exchanged for #18 + #237.  I am not sure what this part accomplishes for either team but PHI moves up 1 spot in the first round but drops back to #237 from #194.  Basically nothing.  Not sure why either team would bother to do this.  They probably end up with the same players in either case.

But that leave NO getting pick #16 this year in exchange for a 3rd this year, a 1st in 2023 and a 2nd in 2024.  This is the kind of trade that the Patriots used to like to make.  Move back in the current year but compile valuable picks in future years.  NO must really like someone they think they can get with #16, even if it is another trade up.

[A Future of Stevens]

I am generally a fan of pushing high quality assets out a bit if you have so many of them.
3 1sts, alot to take in one year. I would much rather get additional assets in the future, especially if my firsts all fall in the same ball park (15,16 and 19.)

[BitterJim]

It makes no sense to me.  They basically gave up a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for the 16th pick.

Future picks are generally valued about 1 round lower, but it's definitely a lot to give up. The only reasonable explanation I've seen for it is that they may be planning on moving up for a QB and 2 firsts this year is better ammo than 1 now and 1 next year. This is supposed to be a weak QB draft, though, so who knows.

I wonder, though:  if you're a team that is considering moving down, would you rather have two firsts this year, or a first this year and a future 1st, 2nd and 3rd?  It's obviously dependent upon what the trading team's needs are, but I've got to think that most teams with a record poorer than 16th would be looking to the future a bit, and would prefer the future picks (especially from a team that isn't a playoff lock).

I guess that depends on what they think about the rest of the draft, but you'd think most teams would prefer the latter (unless they thought the Saints were gonna be a playoff team with a worse pick next year, which seems unlikely). If it's part of an even bigger package to move into the top 5 or so, though, the team may want both an immediate and delayed return (like the 2 firsts plus one in 2024.

The one other factor would be how safe the GM they trade with's job is. If someone thinks they may lose their job after this season, they're likely to make more short-sighted moves.

[BitterJim]

PFT's speculation on the matter.

The thought process becomes different when trading up. Teams don’t trade up so that they can brag to friends and family that they have more or higher picks. They do it with a specific objective in mind. Often, they do it with one specific player in mind.

For the Saints, there are two likely explanations. One, perhaps they’ve run the various mock drafts and they’ve concluded that, with selections No. 16 and No. 19, they’re confident they will get players who will address specific needs immediately. Impact players who can make an immediate impact, whether at defensive end or offensive line or receiver.

Two, maybe this trade is a first step to another one.

The Saints recently made a play for Deshaun Watson. That means they were ready to make a major investment of picks in a quarterback. Now that they have two picks in the top 20, could they then send those picks to, say, the Giants at No. 5?

That would allow the Saints to cut the line in front of not one but two division rivals in the top 10, both of which are likely considering taking a quarterback — the Panthers at No. 6 and the Falcons at No. 8.

Unlike the 49ers, who moved to No. 3 roughly a month before the 2021 draft, the Saints would be wise to stay put, for now. A jump to No. 5 in the short term would invite the Panthers or Falcons (or someone else) to leapfrog the Saints. If New Orleans is thinking about making another trade aimed at snagging a signal-caller, they need to do it when the pick they’d be acquiring is on the clock.

If that’s what the Saints are thinking about doing, how much would it take to get to No. 5? Would No. 16 and No. 19 do it? Or would it take more? If so, how much more?

Ultimately, it may be less than whatever they would have given up to get Watson. And they’d be paying a rookie a lot less than Watson will receive.

Whatever the Saints are doing, they surely have a plan that consists of something more than, “Wow. Hey. Look at this. Yesterday we had two picks in the top 20. Now, we have two.” The Saints are up to something.

Maybe having picks No. 16 and No. 19 marks the end. Maybe it’s just the beginning.

The first option seems like it would make more sense as a draft day trade than one made now. Why move up for someone that you think might be there at 16/19 if you can wait and make the deal when you're sure?

[Vermont Green]

I am generally a fan of pushing high quality assets out a bit if you have so many of them.
3 1sts, alot to take in one year. I would much rather get additional assets in the future, especially if my firsts all fall in the same ball park (15,16 and 19.)

Yeah, in basketball, the value gradient of picks is very different than in football.  Even dropping from say pick 10 to pick 25 in basketball is a huge drop.  But in football, with 7 rounds, there is a lot of value in the middle rounds.  So to trade say pick 35 for pick 50 and a future 3rd is getting a lot of future value.  Those future 2nd, 3rd, even 4th round picks have a lot of value in football.

Thought of another way, in basketball, with 60 picks, a pick in the top 10% is a top 6 pick.   In football, there are 224 picks so there are 22 picks in the top 10%.  Your needs are going to vary from year to year but the Patriots have done well overall by trading back from what I can tell.  They may not this year as they have more pressing needs than in the past but it would not surprise me or disappoint me if they do end up with some trade backs.

[sgrogan]

It makes no sense to me.  They basically gave up a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for the 16th pick.

Future picks are generally valued about 1 round lower, but it's definitely a lot to give up. The only reasonable explanation I've seen for it is that they may be planning on moving up for a QB and 2 firsts this year is better ammo than 1 now and 1 next year. This is supposed to be a weak QB draft, though, so who knows.

I wonder, though:  if you're a team that is considering moving down, would you rather have two firsts this year, or a first this year and a future 1st, 2nd and 3rd?  It's obviously dependent upon what the trading team's needs are, but I've got to think that most teams with a record poorer than 16th would be looking to the future a bit, and would prefer the future picks (especially from a team that isn't a playoff lock).

In the NFL, the latter.
The hard cap in the NFL makes all the difference. A future 3rd can land you a starting/all-pro offensive lineman.
I think beyond 15-20 it doesn't matter. 43 is as good as 17. Stack assets and try to get in the top 10, where you can confidently draft an impact player.

[celticsclay]

Are the Patriots gonna grab any more receivers? Or take someone in the first round.

[Cman]

It makes no sense to me.  They basically gave up a 1st, 2nd and 3rd for the 16th pick.

Evan Lazar (who is a great follow for Patriot's related info) had the best tweet on this that I've seen:

https://twitter.com/ezlazar/status/1511071794320617476

[Cman]

Are the Patriots gonna grab any more receivers? Or take someone in the first round.

I really doubt they take a receiver in the first round, unless someone unexpectedly slips. I suspect CB or LB, if they don't trade back.