Draft value chart says......

[Stark]

27 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

yes I said that as well:

Totally agree this was a great deal for the Jets. There's no evidence of a better offer having been made (better on paper or otherwise), so I'm thrilled with this.

agree. 

[JohnnyLV]

57 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

McDougald had between nominal and zero trade value at the time this trade was made. Rosters were set and no one is injured yet. Only way Seattle could get something for him is if someone else lost their SS before (or during) the season - or their own handpicked starter was so terrible he needed to be benched - and became desperate enough to cough up a 6th or 7th rounder to save the current season.

This year he’ll be a 30 year-old coming off a disappointing season, and is a UFA after the season is over. While I’d agree it’s likely, it’s not even a sure thing he makes the Jets roster. As of right now he costs little (1/34 of his 2020 salary per week, or a hair over $100K/week) to see what he’s got. He was a throw-in on the trade, but the duo they want to start (Maye/Davis) make so little - $3MM cap charge between them - that the positional cost is still low even with McDougald. That, plus Maye hasn’t exactly been an ironman and veterans are more reliable for injury fill-in work than other backups.

Also wouldn’t be shocked to see Douglas approach McDougald with a pay cut offer if Davis looks good enough to start at FS right away. 

You must be looking at some other players stats. He is a very solid player with good leadership skills. In fact PFF thinks he is very underrated as a player. He is way more than a fringe JAG player. I think Seattle including him is maybe the most surprising thing about the trade.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Greensleeves said:

So why are Seattle fans and football guys saying he is a top 20 safety in this league - that is counting 2 on each team, so top 20 out of 64? This guy, by all accounts is a solid starter and will be starting this year and will be helping to bring Davis along so he can start in 2021. 

He was good in 2018 - maybe even borderline top 20 at that time - but had a down year in 2019.

Seattle fans can say what they want. There were once Jets fans that insisted Mark Sanchez was a top 20 QB. Opinions are like a-holes, and Seattle has many, many a-holes. If he was so magnificent then they wouldn't be burning their next two 1st round picks (plus a dash more) to upgrade from top 20.

He'll add some solid veteran leadership to the secondary but we'll really want Davis to look good enough right away to start him+Maye. 

[Sperm Edwards]

42 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

You must be looking at some other players stats. He is a very solid player with good leadership skills. In fact PFF thinks he is very underrated as a player. He is way more than a fringe JAG player. I think Seattle including him is maybe the most surprising thing about the trade.

Funny you'd bring up PFF. I don't place tremendous stock in their ranking as the be-all/end-all - they get some very right and some very wrong - but they gave him a lousy grade for last year.

https://www.si.com/nfl/seahawks/gm-report/the-case-for-and-against-extending-seahawks-safety-bradley-mcdougald

Quote

 

As previously mentioned, there was a drop off between McDougald's strong 2018 campaign and last season, though he did finish strong in the playoffs. His Pro Football Focus grade plummeted from 76.6 to 62.0, his missed tackles jumped from seven to 12, and he played through more injuries in 2019.

It's a tough call to say whether or not this is the start of wear-and-tear accumulated during McDougald's seven-year career setting in or just a minor bump in the road. But given his age, diminishing athleticism, and the fact he's had numerous injuries the last few years, giving him an extension could be risky.

 

Top 20 safeties don't blow 12 tackles in 14 games. This pre-offseason he was rumored to be a borderline cap casualty at ~$4MM on a team paying their next two cheap 1st round picks for a safety looking to cash in at 5x that annual rate. 

[Wonderboy]

14 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think it’s a damn solid deal for us as well. My whole question was weighing it against a potential trade for Dallas’ #17 pick, not whether or not Douglas was right to pull the trigger on this yesterday. That was it. Just like passing on a 4th rounder for R.Anderson, then not extending him at that time, and then not making a particularly strong push for him in March.

So even if Douglas did turn down #17 in April, because a lone 1st rounder wasn’t as good a headline as a 1st plus more, and even if that was worth more on paper, here in late July Douglas is in the spot he’s in now, not the spot he was in back in April. Looked at through that lens, the right move was clear. 

I’ll take the 2 firsts at 25 over the 17 any day of the week. 

[Sperm Edwards]

42 minutes ago, Wonderboy said:

I’ll take the 2 firsts at 25 over the 17 any day of the week. 

I probably would as well 9 times out of 10, but it depends on the position the team's in and which prospects are on the board. It's also different when it's a second #1 pick and not the only one you've got. That makes it easier, as we already saw the Jets use pick #11 on a much-needed LT prospect.

The problem is you don't get the lower pair of 1s now. It's not pick 17 this year vs two later 1st rounders this year. That's why teams more or less universally agree to assign those values (with the obvious exception of the upper part of round 1 where the pick values skyrocket).

You can make that pick conversion almost every year (though it'd require multiple trades to make it happen). Fans never want it, saying such trade-downs for lesser prospects are for suckers looking to accumulate lesser picks instead of taking the most elite player they can get a hold of who somehow slipped to that point. Those lesser-prospect picks would be referred to as trash, magic beans, the Mystery Box, and more. 

I think it's a puny minority of the board (with Cee Dee Lamb sitting there and the Jets desperate for a "true WR1" prospect) who would have advocated parlaying pick #17 into two future, lower 1st round picks in 2021 and 2022. People like you are saying this now because of one reason: we only know with the benefit of hindsight we were able to not only draft Mims in round 2, but trade down and still end up with Mims.

At that time? Sorry but I'm going to call you and everyone here Hindsight Liars  that you'd have said "Don't draft a desperately-needed WR1 there - a player pegged as a top 10 pick and holy f*** I can't believe our great luck - and instead trade that 1st round pick for future picks out of this draft entirely, and see what [lesser] WR falls to us in round 2." My bull***t-o-meter is off the scale on that prevarication.

And for the whatever'th time, there's no evidence that the #17 pick was ever offered to us, so this is was always just an academic or "what if" discussion.