Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz
Because they knew Manning wasn't going to play for SD under any circumstances, thus effectively eliminating any leverage to negotiate.
Again, Manning essentially orchestrated the entire process, not the "archaic" nature of the draft chart.
|
The fact that the Giants traded for Manning and gave up significant draft value and, arguably, reached for a QB (Rivers) that was expected to go in the bottom of the top 10 as "trade bait" suggests that the Giants very badly wanted Eli Manning. Very badly. The fact that the Chargers aggressively sought a trade before the draft and that drafted a QB they knew would never sign with the team means the Chargers really wanted to trade down at all costs.
This is a clear, clear, clear story of a team at #3 that badly wanted the top QB in the draft and a #1 pick team that didn't want that QB. It's a situation where the player in question was a close-to-surefire franchise QB was also evaluated much higher than the second pick in the draft and the second highest QB in that draft. And yet, the compensation was STILL considered too high.
If even a player as hyped up as Eli Manning isn't worth the ridiculously stupidly high trade value on the draft value chart, then why is that the same value the 49ers use to trade Alex Smith? Or that the Dolphins use to trade Jake Long?
(And for the record, I have never said that the draft chart is completely worthless or that they should take any pick they can get to trade down. Trade compensation should be based on how badly they want the best player on their board AND how confident they are that that guy will still be there when they are drafting--the confidence level increases significantly if the top 3 or 4 on your board are fairly equally valued).