Originally Posted by Mecca:
We don't pick top 5 so good luck with that.
Where was KC picking when they wanted a QB? Somewhere in the bottom 5?
How did they handle that?
When you accumulate draft capital, you have more picks. More picks means you can trade up and down to get desired players or even more draft capital.
When you have less picks you have less mobility and thus you're pretty much stuck picking where you land rather than pursuing coveted players. Or passing on those players and trading down to get back some of the capital you traded away. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
Trading picks for players has become actually more common than it ever has before because teams have finally realized unless you pick in the top 10, your pick doesn't really have that much value.
There isn't 1 right way to do it, hell in the early 80s when the Redskins where good they traded picks for players all the time.
In the 80's?
Before the salary cap?
Yeah. Obviously. There was far less roster turnover in the 80's. [Reply]
Originally Posted by T-post Tom:
Taking Ramsey's comments and creating a whole narrative about him wanting to go play for someone, so then they can trade him when his contract is up is just silly. What team is going to give up a king's ransom for a 1 year rental player? Ramsey knows no team is going to do that. And we are talking about a guy that showed up to training camp in a MFing Brinks truck.:-)
That wasn't a narrative. King said we COULD trade him in the offseason, he didn't say that's what would or should happen. It's called a hypothetical for a reason.
And as far as Ramsey wanting out, that's all Ramsey has ever said. He wants out of Jacksonville.
I get that you guys don't want him so you want to make him look as selfish as possible but you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't want him and I don't care if the Chiefs get him. But this isn't about money, it's about Ramsey wanting out of Jacksonville. It always has been. [Reply]
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale:
Where was KC picking when they wanted a QB? Somewhere in the bottom 5?
How did they handle that?
When you accumulate draft capital, you have more picks. More picks means you can trade up and down to get desired players or even more draft capital.
When you have less picks you have less mobility and thus you're pretty much stuck picking where you land rather than pursuing coveted players. Or passing on those players and trading down to get back some of the capital you traded away.
If you're argument is trading a future 1st to move up to take him then you're argument is an unproven CB is worth 2 1sts when a 24 year old All Pro is not on a win now team, give me the logic on this. [Reply]
Yeah. Obviously. There was far less roster turnover in the 80's.
Even today, 25% of 1st round picks see a second contract with the team that drafted them.
What it really comes down to is unless you are a team with a top 5-10 pick draft picks are overvalued. There are a few teams out there that have realized this. [Reply]
Originally Posted by gonefishin53:
I know this will be an unpopular take, but the Chiefs organization needs to start acting like a team that finally has an MVP, GOAT QB and start scouting, drafting, and coaching up homegrown talent and cheap FA acquisitions instead of using draft capital and huge contracts to acquire top shelf talent at a handful of positions. Depth of talent is critical to getting multiple SB trophies with our MVP, GOAT QB.
The Rams got to the Super Bowl last year after an offseason of almost exclusively trading draft picks for veteran players and making big free agent acquisitions. [Reply]
