I posted this in another thread about what the Eagles should do with their draft thread, but I figured it was long enough to warrant a fan post, and I wanted to see what people thought about the idea of trading down. I know we're all clamoring to select 2 first rounders to make up for our lack of any first rounders these past couple years, but where I'm sitting I dread the thought of trading up and like the idea of trading down.

Why?

Let’s assume that the pundits are basically correct in their long-winded commentary hypothesizing that there is a shit-ton of depth in this draft, and not a whiffle-nut’s worth of top-tier talent. The real value-for-pick in the draft comes at pick 22 or so. That’s right where our first pick is, for all intents and purposes. I’m delighted with that.

What that is also saying is that there isn’t a massive drop-off in talent from the 1st to the 2nd. So let’s say that a team with a pretty good pick this year, say the Bills or something, decides they want leverage on Peters. This is just a random hypothetical example, that I really didn’t think totally through, but there are real scenarios like that that could play out that are more realistic. Anyway, I’ve chosen the Bills. They want insurance at tackle, since beyond Peters they got some kids who still have gangrene from gross-ass college showers. These kids suck. They aren’t good. They’re not a replacement for Peters, who, like him or not, is a bona-fide left tackle. So the Bills (who, on a related note, also suck) decide they want a guy like Beatty in the second half of the first round.

Trade:
Bills send 1st round (2010) + 2nd round (2009) + 3rd round (2010)
Eagles send 1st round (28 overall, 2009) + 3rd round (2009) + 4th round (2010) + 5th round (2009). Is that a fair trade? I don’t know. Maybe. Probably not. I didn’t compare the value charts at all.

Would the Bills do it? Maybe. Probably not. They are giving up what will probably be a high draft pick, given their divisional opponents and relative suckitude. Plus Lynch is gone their first 3 games, so they’re gunning for 1-2 headed into week 4.

Would the Eagles do it? Maybe. Probably not. They give up a lotta picks this year for a lottery next year. I will say that if the Eagles DID do this trade, I’d be happy.

The points are all moot, however, because it’s just a scenario. The real points are as follows:

We would a similarly talented player in the top half of the 2nd round as we would in the bottom half of the 1st. There is so much fluidity of talent there that a pick in the first half of the 2nd round might as well be a bottom half of the 1st round. It’s all about getting the player you want there. If the Eagles like a guy that will be available for the 37th pick, there’s no sense in picking him at 28 when you could get him at 35 or 36 or 37 and get a great pick for next year as well. Even moreso if they like 2 guys that will be there, since they’re going to get one.

Secondly, I don’t want us to trade that first for Peters, or Johnson, or Edwards. Maybe I’d be okay with Boldin, but I really do not think WR is our biggest need. That would be a fun trade, and I almost said Boldin, but whatever.

Thirdly, I do not think we have the best player possible at every position. The draft is partially a crapshoot, so drafting 12 guys means you have 12 chances at finding a real gem. Let’s overdraft! We have a need at RB? Sweet, draft 3 of them, at least 1 will probably turn out. Need a tackle? We only spent 3 picks on RB, why not spend 3 more on tackles! A TE you say? Bam, 3 more. And that still leaves 3 picks to fuddle around with DB and DE and LB, if you so desire. Obviously we don’t need to draft 3 of everything, but we do tend to overdraft to fulfill needs, and bringing 12 college studs to camp is not a bad idea if it means we end up with great position battles, players striving to get better, and maybe the cutting of some guys that really aren’t all that, and we just think they are because we haven’t seen what someone else can do.

Phew.