PDA

View Full Version : Trading the No. 2 pick has become rare



Denver Native (Carol)
01-18-2011, 08:48 PM
One of the more pressing questions in the AFC West is what will the Denver Broncos will do with the No. 2 overall pick?

The Broncos will likely consider trading the pick to get more draft picks to help rebuild the team. Denver only has six picks. The problem is that it is very difficult to get out of the No. 2 spot.

I just didn’t realize how difficult it has been. I asked the fine folks at ESPN Stats & Information to check on the trade history of the No. 2 pick. The results were eye opening.

The No.2 pick hasn’t been moved in 11 years. So, the odds are very high that the Broncos will keep the pick and look at players such as Auburn defensive tackle Nick Fairley, Clemson defensive end Da’Quan Bowers or LSU cornerback Patrick Peterson in an attempt to fix the NFL’s worst-ranked defense.

The No. 2 pick has moved 13 times since 1967. It was traded three times in the 1990s, but 2000 was the last time it was moved. Below is a look at the trade history of the No. 2 and many thanks to ESPN Stats & Information for the help.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/36046/trading-the-no-2-pick-has-become-rare

Day1BroncoFan
01-18-2011, 08:51 PM
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/36046/trading-the-no-2-pick-has-become-rare

Maybe we're stuck with it or will have to lose to trade down.

Northman
01-18-2011, 08:53 PM
Drafting back and taking a guy like Dareus would be cool as long as we rape whoever we trade with. But, the reality is it probably wont happen.

TXBRONC
01-18-2011, 08:59 PM
Drafting back and taking a guy like Dareus would be cool as long as we rape whoever we trade with. But, the reality is it probably wont happen.

And that's tough part whose going want a player so that they are willing to mortgage their draft to get the player they want?

WARHORSE
01-18-2011, 09:28 PM
Of course it hasnt been traded. The money has gone into the stratosphere for signing the draft picks.


With a rookie cap in place, that pick will move if good players are involved.


I hear the rookies wage scale proposal gives the top pick 16 million total with 5 million guaranteed.

If thats the truth, the second pick will move very easily imo.

That scale is the league proposal to the union, which of course we know wont get accepted, but heck, even if the top pick was guaranteed 7 to 10 million with a contract around 22 million, the pick would still be hot.

I think we'll be able to move down a few. I hope we will if the picks are right.:coffee:

dogfish
01-18-2011, 09:42 PM
no offense to carol of course, but that's obsolete information. . .

there most likely is not going to be a CBA in place when the draft occurs, meaning that old trends may or may not apply. . . it's a brave new world out there. . .

no guarantees, but it very much looks like a rookie wage scale is going to be part of the new CBA-- the league has spoken very strongly on it, and there just doesn't seem to be a ton of resistance from the players union. . . as you would expect-- none of the current membership has anything to gain from fighting for it. . .

that has the potential to drastically alter the "tradability" of the top picks-- as they cease to represent such a ridiculous financial committment, their desirability will increase dramatically. . .

and in regards to this year's draft, and our pick. . . i think we may well find a taker. . . assuming that carolina goes another direction (which i do), we will control the rights to the top quarterback. . . granted, it's not a fraction as enticing with luck going back to school (he would've gone #1 anyway), but i think there's a great chance someone will want it. . .

not once since 2000 has there been an NFL draft without a QB taken in the first three picks, and only twice in that span did the first QB drop to the third spot. . . every other year during that time a QB has been one of the top two picks. . .

doesn't mean it has to happen this year, but there are too many teams in need for me to think the top couple guys will fall very far. . . it's always possible, i just don't see it. . . even if there aren't any true blue chip prospects, somebody will still want whatever the next best thing is-- it's the way it works when you don't have a quarterback. . .

1. Carolina (2-14)
2. Denver (4-12)
3. Buffalo (4-12)
4. Cincinnati (4-12)
5. Arizona (5-11)
6. Cleveland (5-11)
7. San Francisco (6-10)
8. Tennessee (6-10)
9. Dallas (6-10)
10. Washington (6-10)
11. Houston (6-10)
12. Minnesota (6-10)
13. Detroit (6-10)
14. St. Louis (7-9)
15. Miami (7-9)
16. Jacksonville (8-8)
17. New England - from Oakland (8-8)
18. San Diego (9-7)
19. New York Giants (10-6)
20. Tampa Bay (10-6)
21. Kansas City* (10-6)
22. Indianapolis* (10-6)
23.Philadelphia* (10-6)
24. New Orleans* (11-5)
25. Seattle* (7-9)
26. Baltimore* (12-4)
27. Atlanta* (13-3)
28. New England* (14-2)
29. Green Bay* (10-6)
30. New York Jets* (11-5)
31. Chicago* (11-5)
32. Pittsburgh* (12-4)


yellow = They could use a QB, but they need a lot of things-- it's a possibility.

green = They probably need a QB, whether it's an immediate need or not.

red = Immediate, glaring need.

something like that, IMO-- it's endlessly debatable, but the fact that there is always a need for quarterbacks isn't debatable. . . all we really need is one team that isn't cincy or buffalo to decide that gabbert or mallet is their guy and they can't take the chance of letting him run a gauntlet of QB-needy clubs. . .

for example, is harbaugh going to tank his first season badly enough to get luck? i don't see it happening-- he could've waited for luck and sold themselves as a package deal if that's what he wanted. . . if gabbert or mallet is his guy this year, can he wait and watch buffalo, cincy and arizona pick in front of him?

and here's the other thing i expect to change-- adherance to the old trade value chart. . . want to move down from number two? i'll make it easy for them-- don't demand a king's ransom to do it!

dropping from #2 to #7 should cost 1100 points, the equivalent of the #14 pick. . . that's why the following year's #1 is almost inevitably part of those trades-- most teams don't have an extra fairly high #1 in their back pocket. . . but there's no law that you have to follow that arbitrary chart, and not everyone does now. . . if we were willing to take somewhat less, i suspect teams would be all over it. . .

again, just as an example for the sake of discussion (just to avoid "nurrr, why would they do that?")-- if san fran wanted to trade with us, we could ask for their #2 and #3 along with their #1, instead of next year's #1 plus this year's #2 or whatever. . . i suppose it depends on whether you're sold on fairley or bowers (i'm guessing the panthers will take fairley), but i myself would more than gladly take something like an extra high 2nd and 3rd to drop down to pick #7. . . you may well be able to get marcell dareus there, possibly prince A-- and you can almost certainly get robert quinn if those one-year pass rushers are really your thing. . .

that would only add up to about 750 points instead of the 1100 suggested by the trade value chart, but i'd be thrilled to get two extra quality picks with all the needs we have. . . or get creative, see if you can get a quality young player thrown in instead of one of those picks. . .

rcsodak
01-18-2011, 10:09 PM
no offense to carol of course, but that's obsolete information. . .

there most likely is not going to be a CBA in place when the draft occurs, meaning that old trends may or may not apply. . . it's a brave new world out there. . .

no guarantees, but it very much looks like a rookie wage scale is going to be part of the new CBA-- the league has spoken very strongly on it, and there just doesn't seem to be a ton of resistance from the players union. . . as you would expect-- none of the current membership has anything to gain from fighting for it. . .

that has the potential to drastically alter the "tradability" of the top picks-- as they cease to represent such a ridiculous financial committment, their desirability will increase dramatically. . .
I must be tired, dog....but you lost me with the 'carol's info is obsolete', then saying there WON'T be a CBA, then saying there WILL be a rookie wage scale (so trading would be easier).
The last I heard, was the Union was pushing BACK on the rookie wage scale. They think the overpaying is because Owners got stupid, which isn't their fault.


and in regards to this year's draft, and our pick. . . i think we may well find a taker. . . assuming that carolina goes another direction (which i do), we will control the rights to the top quarterback. . . granted, it's not a fraction as enticing with luck going back to school (he would've gone #1 anyway), but i think there's a great chance someone will want it. . .

not once since 2000 has there been an NFL draft without a QB taken in the first three picks, and only twice in that span did the first QB drop to the third spot. . . every other year during that time a QB has been one of the top two picks. . .

doesn't mean it has to happen this year, but there are too many teams in need for me to think the top couple guys will fall very far. . . it's always possible, i just don't see it. . . even if there aren't any true blue chip prospects, somebody will still want whatever the next best thing is-- it's the way it works when you don't have a quarterback. . .

1. Carolina (2-14)
2. Denver (4-12)
3. Buffalo (4-12)
4. Cincinnati (4-12)
5. Arizona (5-11)
6. Cleveland (5-11)
7. San Francisco (6-10)
8. Tennessee (6-10)
9. Dallas (6-10)
10. Washington (6-10)
11. Houston (6-10)
12. Minnesota (6-10)
13. Detroit (6-10)
14. St. Louis (7-9)
15. Miami (7-9)
16. Jacksonville (8-8)
17. New England - from Oakland (8-8)
18. San Diego (9-7)
19. New York Giants (10-6)
20. Tampa Bay (10-6)
21. Kansas City* (10-6)
22. Indianapolis* (10-6)
23.Philadelphia* (10-6)
24. New Orleans* (11-5)
25. Seattle* (7-9)
26. Baltimore* (12-4)
27. Atlanta* (13-3)
28. New England* (14-2)
29. Green Bay* (10-6)
30. New York Jets* (11-5)
31. Chicago* (11-5)
32. Pittsburgh* (12-4)


yellow = They could use a QB, but they need a lot of things-- it's a possibility.

green = They probably need a QB, whether it's an immediate need or not.

red = Immediate, glaring need.

something like that, IMO-- it's endlessly debatable, but the fact that there is always a need for quarterbacks isn't debatable. . . all we really need is one team that isn't cincy or buffalo to decide that gabbert or mallet is their guy and they can't take the chance of letting him run a gauntlet of QB-needy clubs. . .

for example, is harbaugh going to tank his first season badly enough to get luck? i don't see it happening-- he could've waited for luck and sold themselves as a package deal if that's what he wanted. . . if gabbert or mallet is his guy this year, can he wait and watch buffalo, cincy and arizona pick in front of him?

and here's the other thing i expect to change-- adherance to the old trade value chart. . . want to move down from number two? i'll make it easy for them-- don't demand a king's ransom to do it!

dropping from #2 to #7 should cost 1100 points, the equivalent of the #14 pick. . . that's why the following year's #1 is almost inevitably part of those trades-- most teams don't have an extra fairly high #1 in their back pocket. . . but there's no law that you have to follow that arbitrary chart, and not everyone does now. . . if we were willing to take somewhat less, i suspect teams would be all over it. . .

again, just as an example for the sake of discussion (just to avoid "nurrr, why would they do that?")-- if san fran wanted to trade with us, we could ask for their #2 and #3 along with their #1, instead of next year's #1 plus this year's #2 or whatever. . . i suppose it depends on whether you're sold on fairley or bowers (i'm guessing the panthers will take fairley), but i myself would more than gladly take something like an extra high 2nd and 3rd to drop down to pick #7. . . you may well be able to get marcell dareus there, possibly prince A-- and you can almost certainly get robert quinn if those one-year pass rushers are really your thing. . .


that would only add up to about 750 points instead of the 1100 suggested by the trade value chart, but i'd be thrilled to get two extra quality picks with all the needs we have. . . or get creative, see if you can get a quality young player thrown in instead of one of those picks. . .OMG!!!!! I can just see the throngs of Denver fans going OFF on Bowlen/Elway/Xanders for giving away the BEST chance they ever had to get top prospects, by taking less than any other team would have.

Yikes, dog.... :shocked:

dogfish
01-18-2011, 10:17 PM
I must be tired, dog....but you lost me with the 'carol's info is obsolete', then saying there WON'T be a CBA, then saying there WILL be a rookie wage scale (so trading would be easier).
The last I heard, was the Union was pushing BACK on the rookie wage scale. They think the overpaying is because Owners got stupid, which isn't their fault.

token resistance. . . and from the looks of things, i am guessing that they won't have a new CBA signed by april, when the draft takes place. . .

however, they naturally WILL have to have one signed before those rookies are inked to contracts-- it seems very possible that the draft will take place in a void between the expiration of the current deal and signing of a new one. . .




OMG!!!!! I can just see the throngs of Denver fans going OFF on Bowlen/Elway/Xanders for giving away the BEST chance they ever had to get top prospects, by taking less than any other team would have.

Yikes, dog.... :shocked:

tough shit for them. . . i want what's best for the team, not what's going to make joe sixpack happy. . . i can get on board with drafting fairley, but i currently just don't see bowers or peterson as such can't miss, must have prospects that we're going to miss out on a culture-changer with either of them. . . JMO, obviously. . . the highest-rated guy isn't always the best guy, though. . .

Foochacho
01-18-2011, 10:41 PM
I agree with dog I would love to trade back even if we don't get back the amount owed on the point scale. The point scale is a good guide. But the value of the pick is really up to the seller. If we can get our guy a few spots back then make a deal stockpile what you can. You can get your guy (without reaching) and then some. If the analysts say you got hosed who cares. I would feel like we got hosed if an offer was on the table and we turned it down even though we could of still got our guy. All because it didn't equal the point scale.

Superchop 7
01-18-2011, 11:40 PM
You can always let the time expire.

Put yourself in prime position to get a deal. (Instead of swallowing a huge contract on a rookie)

Lets say Fairley is gone......and you are ok with Bowers, Peterson, or Dareus. You have the absolute power to sit back and let it play out, listening to offers along the way.

Big brass balls.

Just sayin.

BroncoStud
01-19-2011, 10:13 AM
I would love to see Denver move back to #5 or so, there are a number of teams that need a QB this year and this draft is thin at the top... I would just like to see us add a lot of depth as opposed to 1 playmaker.

WARHORSE
01-19-2011, 01:46 PM
I had to adjust your color coding.

1. Carolina (2-14)
2. Denver (4-12)
3. Buffalo (4-12)
4. Cincinnati (4-12)
5. Arizona (5-11)
6. Cleveland (5-11)
7. San Francisco (6-10)
8. Tennessee (6-10)
9. Dallas (6-10)
10. Washington (6-10)
11. Houston (6-10)
12. Minnesota (6-10)
13. Detroit (6-10)
14. St. Louis (7-9)
15. Miami (7-9)
16. Jacksonville (8-8)
17. New England - from Oakland (8-8)
18. San Diego (9-7)
19. New York Giants (10-6)
20. Tampa Bay (10-6)
21. Kansas City* (10-6)
22. Indianapolis* (10-6)
23.Philadelphia* (10-6)
24. New Orleans* (11-5)
25. Seattle* (7-9)
26. Baltimore* (12-4)
27. Atlanta* (13-3)
28. New England* (14-2)
29. Green Bay* (10-6)
30. New York Jets* (11-5)
31. Chicago* (11-5)
32. Pittsburgh* (12-4)


yellow = They could use a QB, but they need a lot of things-- it's a possibility.

green = They probably need a QB, whether it's an immediate need or not.

red = Immediate, glaring need.

something like that, IMO-- it's endlessly debatable, but the fact that there is always a need for quarterbacks isn't debatable. . . all we really need is one team that isn't cincy or buffalo to decide that gabbert or mallet is their guy and they can't take the chance of letting him run a gauntlet of QB-needy clubs. . .

for example, is harbaugh going to tank his first season badly enough to get luck? i don't see it happening-- he could've waited for luck and sold themselves as a package deal if that's what he wanted. . . if gabbert or mallet is his guy this year, can he wait and watch buffalo, cincy and arizona pick in front of him?

and here's the other thing i expect to change-- adherance to the old trade value chart. . . want to move down from number two? i'll make it easy for them-- don't demand a king's ransom to do it!

dropping from #2 to #7 should cost 1100 points, the equivalent of the #14 pick. . . that's why the following year's #1 is almost inevitably part of those trades-- most teams don't have an extra fairly high #1 in their back pocket. . . but there's no law that you have to follow that arbitrary chart, and not everyone does now. . . if we were willing to take somewhat less, i suspect teams would be all over it. . .

again, just as an example for the sake of discussion (just to avoid "nurrr, why would they do that?")-- if san fran wanted to trade with us, we could ask for their #2 and #3 along with their #1, instead of next year's #1 plus this year's #2 or whatever. . . i suppose it depends on whether you're sold on fairley or bowers (i'm guessing the panthers will take fairley), but i myself would more than gladly take something like an extra high 2nd and 3rd to drop down to pick #7. . . you may well be able to get marcell dareus there, possibly prince A-- and you can almost certainly get robert quinn if those one-year pass rushers are really your thing. . .

that would only add up to about 750 points instead of the 1100 suggested by the trade value chart, but i'd be thrilled to get two extra quality picks with all the needs we have. . . or get creative, see if you can get a quality young player thrown in instead of one of those picks. . .

Both Tennessee and Myhammy need QBs big time.

Marshall and the boys are crucifying Henne and hanging him out to dry, publically talking about how he cant play. Henne has to go, and Marshall will be singing about Kyle Orton.

And does anyone think Tennessee is going to go into the season with Kerry Collins as the starter? The guy is on his last leg.


One thing that will really jack up the value of our pick is if Buffalo shows interest in Cam Newton, which someone will undoubtedly want.

Also, Cincy has a huge need for a pass rushing DE, and it is by far their number one need.

If Carolina takes Fairley or Bowers, I think Cincy may try to move up.

BroncoStud
01-19-2011, 01:49 PM
I think the Roger Goodell understands the ramifications and lost revenue of a cancelled or postponed NFL season, my guess is that the CBA will get done after the Super Bowl.