Jump to content

3 Possible Trade Back Scenarios


Recommended Posts

This draft is going to be very interesting.   The Jets have some holes to fill with only 6 picks and will need to send one or 2 to GB for Rodgers.  How Douglas handles this is critical.

My first reaction was to favor the Pittsburgh or Washington trades, but after considering it further the Giants scenario may make the most sense.  A 1,2 and 3 seems more likely to help than a small drop back for a 3 or a 4 and 5.   We need starters, not special teamers.   The Giants scenario would give us a 1, three 2s, a 3 and a 4 .  Sending a second or third to GB still let’s us get 4 or 5 players that could contribute this year.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always like the idea of a trade down and this year with limited picks, possibly trading a pick for Rogers, and having a huge gap between 42-43 and our next pick, I think a trade down could be very beneficial.

I feel like the rounds 2-3 are the sweet spot for areas of need for us outside of OT (DT, C, LB, S).  But as always it takes 2 to tango, and we don’t know how many of these perceived holes in our roster are actually areas where the staff feels we need upgrades.  For example there seems to be sone intriguing LBs in the 2-3 round, but we don’t know if the staff feels comfortable with the development of our own players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pittsburgh supposedly is in on the tackles, as well.

The big one to me is New Orleans. They are always an all in team. They had Myles Murphy who is absolutely their type of DE and is rumored to go higher than expected and JSN who played with Olave at OSU in for top 30 visits. Those guys are likely not going to be there at 29. Pick 13 = 1150, 29 = 640, 40 = 500. That's pretty clean, if need be Saints could toss in a future pick or something, and again the Saints are aggressive and have looked at guys who will go earlier than their pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like all the scenerios for trading down. If the 3 OT Jets are targeting are off the board and GB is getting one of our 2nd rd. picks the QBs should be there for a team to trade up. I don't think there is a huge gap between the top 3 OTs with the 4th or 5th option at that position

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 32EBoozer said:

I would ask that only those open to this scenario respond. If you want to complain about accumulating picks & JD’s failings in selecting good players, I respectfully ask you to refrain from responding. 
 

This is obviously only an exercise of preparation if the 3 OT Jets are targeting are off the board and GB will be getting one of our 2nd rd. picks. These are realistically the only options I see working based on ‘23 draft capital…. No future assets have been taken into account. 
 

Again, with approximately 3.5 days remaining until Carolina is OTC, I’m just looking for something to pass the time. Rodgers thread bores me. 

If Qb on the board at #13:

 Washington- #13  Jets- #16; 97 & 150 —-New ownership wants a Qb to build around

If Top CB is there at #13:

Pittsburg- #13   Jets- #17; #80  —- Signed Patrick Peterson as a stop gap but lost Sutton in FA

If JSN, Flowers or QJ is on the board at #13

Giants- #13; #112.  Jets- 25; 57; 89 —-Giants need a WR for their new $40m Qb. It’s a reach, but if they love one of these 3, it may be worth it to them.

 

Living just outside DC and listening to sports radio Id say that first one could  very well be the ticket. Especially, as mentioned, after we give a pick or two up for A-Rod. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rhg1084 said:

Have the Jets ever traded down in the 1st round? Seems like people always post about it but it’s never actually happened 

JD only in charge for 3 drafts so far & was desperate for players. Now that we have some players, maybe he can change strategy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rhg1084 said:

Have the Jets ever traded down in the 1st round? Seems like people always post about it but it’s never actually happened 

Not to my knowledge but we are in a very  unique situation and when/if we surrender picks for Rodgers it may be what we do to bolster our roster this year with at least depth. We’ve had more injuries over the last few years than an old folks home that features full contact shuffle board. Plus that whole weird “win now?” thing that  seems to be in play as weird as it sounds for this organization. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, derp said:

Those guys are likely not going to be there at 29. Pick 13 = 1150, 29 = 640, 40 = 500. That's pretty clean, if need be Saints could toss in a future pick or something, and again the Saints are aggressive and have looked at guys who will go earlier than their pick.

I had them on my original list at the value you mentioned but thought better of it. They have many needs now that they have their FQB & didn’t think they’d part with #40 for such a move. 
Same could be said of Giants for a WR, but they have Eagles & Dallas in their division and need a Wr badly after losing out on OBJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rhg1084 said:

Have the Jets ever traded down in the 1st round? Seems like people always post about it but it’s never actually happened 

Parcells traded down from #1 in 1997….but that’s a can of worms that doesn’t need to be talked about here.

  • More Ugh 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 32EBoozer said:

I would ask that only those open to this scenario respond. If you want to complain about accumulating picks & JD’s failings in selecting good players, I respectfully ask you to refrain from responding. 
 

This is obviously only an exercise of preparation if the 3 OT Jets are targeting are off the board and GB will be getting one of our 2nd rd. picks. These are realistically the only options I see working based on ‘23 draft capital…. No future assets have been taken into account. 
 

Again, with approximately 3.5 days remaining until Carolina is OTC, I’m just looking for something to pass the time. Rodgers thread bores me. 

If Qb on the board at #13:

 Washington- #13  Jets- #16; 97 & 150 —-New ownership wants a Qb to build around

If Top CB is there at #13:

Pittsburg- #13   Jets- #17; #80  —- Signed Patrick Peterson as a stop gap but lost Sutton in FA

If JSN, Flowers or QJ is on the board at #13

Giants- #13; #112.  Jets- 25; 57; 89 —-Giants need a WR for their new $40m Qb. It’s a reach, but if they love one of these 3, it may be worth it to them.

 

In my opinion, if they really want to trade for Rodgers and really are going into this draft with the need to draft 2-3 ply and play rookies - then they’ve got to trade back.

Ideally, the get back into the 20’s while adding another 2nd and 3rd. Giving them:

1 (1)

2 (3)

3 (1)

At that point flipping a 2nd to GB is not killing us.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

I had them on my original list at the value you mentioned but thought better of it. They have many needs now that they have their FQB & didn’t think they’d part with #40 for such a move. 
Same could be said of Giants for a WR, but they have Eagles & Dallas in their division and need a Wr badly after losing out on OBJ.

Could’ve said that last year when they gave up the future #1 for Olave. People thought it had to be for a QB with how much they gave up. Moved up for Davenport a few years ago. They’re just aggressive. Part of the organizational philosophy.

I think Carr just reinforces that they’ll go after things. Constantly going for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 32EBoozer said:

This is obviously only an exercise of preparation if the 3 OT Jets are targeting are off the board and GB will be getting one of our 2nd rd. picks.

JMO, I no longer think JD will target or select an OT at #13, if we retain that pick.

I do agree we're almost assuredly going to trade one 2nd Rounder to GB as part of the Rodgers deal before Day 2 starts.

2 hours ago, 32EBoozer said:

If Qb on the board at #13:

 Washington- #13  Jets- #16; 97 & 150 —-New ownership wants a Qb to build around

There is ~0% chance this will happen.  The Commanders are not looking to draft a QB in 2023.

There is no reporting or source whatsoever that supports a "new owners want...." claim here.

And the new owners won't have any say or control until long after the draft is over. 

Head Coach/De Facto GM Ron Rivera is running this draft.

2 hours ago, 32EBoozer said:

If Top CB is there at #13:

Pittsburg- #13   Jets- #17; #80  —- Signed Patrick Peterson as a stop gap but lost Sutton in FA

Seems somewhat reasonable.

2 hours ago, 32EBoozer said:

If JSN, Flowers or QJ is on the board at #13

Giants- #13; #112.  Jets- 25; 57; 89 —-Giants need a WR for their new $40m Qb. It’s a reach, but if they love one of these 3, it may be worth it to them.

I think it's more likely now that the Jets draft the WR than trade down to give him to someone else.  All depends if JD also think Davis is "better than he showed last year" like he does with the Oline.  Or. conversely, if Davis is a part of the Rodgers deal.

I do think JD will strongly consider moving down, it's just very hard to predict who the partner will be if one shows themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only player I really covet this year is Skoronski.  If he is not there at 13, I would not mind a trade down.  It would be the smart play.  However, I dont see that happening.   They are going to take the best OT on the board, be it Skoronski, Paris Johnson or Broderick Jones.

Gotta keep Rodgers in one piece. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rhg1084 said:

Have the Jets ever traded down in the 1st round? Seems like people always post about it but it’s never actually happened 

Back in the 90s, we traded down from #3 to #4 so the Cardinals could take Garrison Hearst.  That was a good trade-down as we got the guy we wanted anyway in Marvin Jones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Warfish said:
3 hours ago, 32EBoozer said:

If Qb on the board at #13:

 Washington- #13  Jets- #16; 97 & 150 —-New ownership wants a Qb to build around

There is ~0% chance this will happen.  The Commanders are not looking to draft a QB in 2023.

There is no reporting or source whatsoever that supports a "new owners want...." claim here.

And the new owners won't have any say or control until long after the draft is over. 

Head Coach/De Facto GM Ron Rivera is running this draft.

You mean the Head Coach/ De Facto GM who would like to remain in said position? You don't think that an owner about to lay out $6 BILLION is not looking to get ahead of another lost season in DC? Snyder will order the selection of any player new ownership team would like to acquire. 

@The Crusher said: Living just outside DC and listening to sports radio Id say that first one could  very well be the ticket. 

  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nycdan said:

Back in the 90s, we traded down from #3 to #4 so the Cardinals could take Garrison Hearst.  That was a good trade-down as we got the guy we wanted anyway in Marvin Jones.

Johnny Johnson and Marvin Jones for Garrison Hearst.  

The following year they flipped a 5th to move up one spot and take Aaron Glenn.

Tuna did it twice in 1997, trading out of two HOF LTs for an undersized LB he didn't know how to use.  He probably would have done it in 1998 and 1999 but we lost the 98 pick for Curtis and the 99 pick for tampering with that fat ****er. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

You mean the Head Coach/ De Facto GM who would like to remain in said position? You don't think that an owner about to lay out $6 BILLION is not looking to get ahead of another lost season in DC? Snyder will order the selection of any player new ownership team would like to acquire. 

@The Crusher said: Living just outside DC and listening to sports radio Id say that first one could  very well be the ticket. 

Lol, guess we'll see.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 32EBoozer said:

This is obviously only an exercise of preparation if the 3 OT Jets are targeting are off the board

This is speculation. The Jets may be hoping for a run on tackles so other positions drop. The positions you mention -QB, CB, WR- should all be in play, as surprising as a QB there would be. But with NE right behind us, I could see someone looking to trade ahead of them for the last QB. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, slats said:

This is speculation. The Jets may be hoping for a run on tackles so other positions drop. The positions you mention -QB, CB, WR- should all be in play, as surprising as a QB there would be. But with NE right behind us, I could see someone looking to trade ahead of them for the last QB. 

Gee… ya’ think? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 32EBoozer said:

Gee… ya’ think? ?

I mean the line I quoted, suggesting the team is targeting an OT. I don’t think the team sees the same size need there as Jet fans always seem to see. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem w/ trading back is the potential talent pool at our next pick. Looking at your examples - 16/17 won't be a big jump but if a team is trading up for one of the top CBs or QBs I'd assume at minimum Skoronski, Jones, and Johnson are gone. Is Darnell Wright there? Because I'd be really worried about dropping back a few spots with everyone assuming we're taking a tackle and only one seemingly consensus round 1 option remaining. If the Pats took one we'd be somewhat SOL. It also makes it easy for a team like TB or Pitt (in the Washington trade back) to hop us. 

Maybe they love Dawand Jones from OSU - but are you going to take him at 17? If not him then who Kancey? 

I generally think trading back is a W - but this year based on how the class strengths (TE, CB, Edge) and weaknesses (safety, DT) line up with our strengths and weaknesses - I don't think its a good year to get cute. Everyone knows we need a tackle - if one is there at 13 - just grab him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I run to the podium if JSN is there. Otherwise I am OK with trading down. I really get the feeling we are not going OL. I think Saleh will push hard for DT, and I think Douglas will lean towards more weapons for Rodgers. I could even see us taking Bijan Robinson if he is there. If we are going all in for one year with Rodgers I think we need more offense. I hate the Rodgers move but it is what it is.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Columbia Jet Fan said:

Problem w/ trading back is the potential talent pool at our next pick. Looking at your examples - 16/17 won't be a big jump but if a team is trading up for one of the top CBs or QBs I'd assume at minimum Skoronski, Jones, and Johnson are gone. Is Darnell Wright there? Because I'd be really worried about dropping back a few spots with everyone assuming we're taking a tackle and only one seemingly consensus round 1 option remaining. If the Pats took one we'd be somewhat SOL. It also makes it easy for a team like TB or Pitt (in the Washington trade back) to hop us. 

Maybe they love Dawand Jones from OSU - but are you going to take him at 17? If not him then who Kancey? 

I generally think trading back is a W - but this year based on how the class strengths (TE, CB, Edge) and weaknesses (safety, DT) line up with our strengths and weaknesses - I don't think its a good year to get cute. Everyone knows we need a tackle - if one is there at 13 - just grab him. 

Agree completely, and if the jets do trade back, it would probably be with the understanding that the tackles they may have wanted in the 1st are gone and they’d be happy going DL and getting the extra picks.  In the end, it’s likely the chalk scenario of going OT in the first, trading one of those 2nd rounders, and I’d say they trade back in the 2nd to get day 3 picks.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...