According to NFL Network

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

The Chiefs first pick will be at 13. Washington is putting together their ammo to get this done.

[Pioli Zombie]

Patriots made a draft living out of trading out into future years. They are concerned with long term building. If Pioli can get a first next year to him that's as good as a first this year. And the Bledsoe trade to Buffalo showed they don't settle or get nervous. I think he'll get #13, a third, and next years first for the 3
Posted via Mobile Device

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by Micjones

I fully understand the concept.

Which means Philadelphia gave up the 19th overall pick for a #2 (2008), a #4 (2008), and a #2 (2009).
I'm sure Philadelphia sees the trade through the same lenses.

You clearly DO NOT understand the concept. Philly gave up the 19th overall pick in 2008 for a #2 (2008), a #4 (2008) and a #1 (2009) OR in value terms, a #2 (2008, a #4 (2008 and a #2 (2008).

Originally Posted by Micjones

It's not devalued by an entire round. And you haven't produced one shred of evidence to substantiate that claim.

There are several examples of past trades that validate my point. Teams trade up from the 2nd round back into the 1st and give up a #2 and a future #1. If the future #1 wasn't devalued then they wouldn't need to give up a #1 and a #2 for a #1.

Originally Posted by Micjones

So apparently...I'm wrong

This we can agree on.

[Pioli Zombie]

If Seattle wants Sanchez so bad flip picks with them for their second. Chiefs still get Curry at #4 and get their second back. Basically getting Cassel and Vrabel for nothing.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

You clearly DO NOT understand the concept. Philly gave up the 19th overall pick in 2008 for a #2 (2008), a #4 (2008) and a #1 (2009) OR in value terms, a #2 (2008, a #4 (2008 and a #2 (2008).




There are several examples of past trades that validate my point. Teams trade up from the 2nd round back into the 1st and give up a #2 and a future #1. If the future #1 wasn't devalued then they wouldn't need to give up a #1 and a #2 for a #1.



This we can agree on.

Got it.

You know better than both Peter King AND Jimmy Johnson (the man who came up with the chart in the first place). Johnson said future 1st's don't devalue an entire round.

Scott Pioli has consistently traded out for future picks because he believes future #1's lose as much value as you're suggesting. Get that guy outta here!!! He's and idiot.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by Micjones

Got it.

You know better than both Peter King AND Jimmy Johnson (the man who came up with the chart in the first place). Johnson said future 1sts don't devalue an entire round.

Peter King is a goon who gets many things wrong. Please provide a link w/ JJ's comments.

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

Peter King is a goon who gets many things wrong. Please provide a link w/ JJ's comments.

I'm sure you've never gotten anything wrong.
And I'm sure because of it... Everything else you've said has no merit.


But sure, I'll do some digging... Let me see what I can turn up.

What say you provide a link that substantiates your claim that future #1's devalue by an entire round? Fair?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefscafan

I like this deal I was also thinking why don't redskins trade campbel for a second and maybe another pick then trade us for 3 13 second pick third pick and pick next year would you do it?

How would you get a 2nd out of Campbell?

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by Micjones

What say you provide a link that substantiates your claim that future #1's devalue by an entire round? Fair?

Without spending too much time here's something I found (not the best source - about 5th paragraph down):

And though the Bears surrender a first-rounder in '10, NFL teams tend to drop the value of a future pick by one round, so a first-rounder next year is worth about a second-rounder this year.

http://nflblogs.profootballweekly.co...rs_traded.html