MIA's 2022 1st round draft pick and the PHI trade

[masterfins]

Prior to the draft it's also noteworthy to take into consideration that Chase sat out his Junior year in 2020, using Covid as the excuse.  Many times it happens that college players are hot one year and considered a Top 10 draft pick, only to play another college season and fall way down the draft list the following year.  Chase listened to the agents and sat out the year so he could be drafted high, IMO that worried me a little bit when the guy is afraid to play.

[Downunder Dolphan]

Prior to the draft it's also noteworthy to take into consideration that Chase sat out his Junior year in 2020, using Covid as the excuse.  Many times it happens that college players are hot one year and considered a Top 10 draft pick, only to play another college season and fall way down the draft list the following year.  Chase listened to the agents and sat out the year so he could be drafted high, IMO that worried me a little bit when the guy is afraid to play.

Quite a few of the top draft prospects sat out the year because of Covid and it didn't effect their draft stock either, so Chase was hardly alone here.

[Downunder Dolphan]

With San Francisco winning again, this trade is not looking so flash (at least it's not going to get too much worse from here).

So for trading down from 3 to get their two 1st rounders, then trading our own pick to Philadelphia move back up to get Waddle, we have effectively downgraded our first pick in next years draft from 15 to at least 30 (possibly 32 if San Francisco win it all).

So the question has to be asked (assuming Waddle was our first choice all along and not Chase or Pitts), was downgrading our first pick (at least) 15 spots really worth it for the Niners first the following year?

[Spider-Dan]

Just as a point of clarity: 30 is the one remaining position this pick cannot be.

If SF loses in the NFCCG, the pick will be 29.
If they win the NFC but lose in the SB, it's 31.
If they win it all, it's 32.

That said: yes, it was worth it.  MIA will need that additional first-round pick to trade up if they decide to move off of Tua, and even if they don't, a (good!) extra first-round pick will be worth it.

I've said something similar to this before, but if a team - even a good team like BAL or GB - offers you an extra first-round pick to trade back from mid-first to late-first, that's a good trade.

[Downunder Dolphan]

Just as a point of clarity: 30 is the one remaining position this pick cannot be.

Sorry about that - I got it from the CBS website that had us currently listed at pick 30.

Not sure how they had that one worked out... (strength of schedule?)

[EDGECRUSHER]

I've said something similar to this before, but if a team - even a good team like BAL or GB - offers you an extra first-round pick to trade back from mid-first to late-first, that's a good trade.

If we picked 15th and someone offers us their next year's 1st rounder to move back to 30th, I would agree that is a trade you make. However, we ALSO moved back from 3rd to 6th. Combine those two and I wouldn't make the trade. Each one is worth a 1st rounder to me personally but we all have different opinions on this.

[Spider-Dan]

However, we ALSO moved back from 3rd to 6th.

If you pick the same player at 6 that you really wanted to pick at 3, there is no downside here.

It seems to me that if MIA really wanted Kyle Pitts, they would not have traded down from 3; presuming they had the framework of a deal with PHI when they made the trade with SF, there was zero chance Pitts would still be on the board at 6.  So it's pretty clear that either they specifically wanted Waddle, or felt he was equivalent to other options available at 3.

[EDGECRUSHER]

If you pick the same player at 6 that you really wanted to pick at 3, there is no downside here.

It seems to me that if MIA really wanted Kyle Pitts, they would not have traded down from 3; presuming they had the framework of a deal with PHI when they made the trade with SF, there was zero chance Pitts would still be on the board at 6.  So it's pretty clear that either they specifically wanted Waddle, or felt he was equivalent to other options available at 3.

Even if you still got the player you want, the pick itself has value and should be treated as such. I disagree that we wanted Waddle the whole time and if we did, shame on our evaluators. I could understand some who viewed Waddle and Pitts the same due to position difference but no way could you have Waddle over Chase. I love Waddle, hope he is a Dolphin his whole career but it would be shocking if he had a better career than Chase.

[Spider-Dan]

Even if you still got the player you want, the pick itself has value and should be treated as such.

It was, which is why MIA got two first-round picks out of the trade.

MIA clearly expected that they would have a better record than SF in 2022, which is why they traded PHI their own pick instead of SF's.  If MIA predicts their own incompetence and trades PHI the 2022 SF pick, you no longer have any problem with this trade, right?

I disagree that we wanted Waddle the whole time and if we did, shame on our evaluators. I could understand some who viewed Waddle and Pitts the same due to position difference but no way could you have Waddle over Chase.

Do you also find it impossible (or irresponsible) to have valued Pitts over Chase?
I mean, ATL made the same mistake MIA did, and they didn't get any extra picks out of the deal.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

If you pick the same player at 6 that you really wanted to pick at 3, there is no downside here.

And an often overlooked upside beyond whatever compensation you get for the trade is the smaller cap hit on an unproven rookie.

[Downunder Dolphan]

Just as a point of clarity: 30 is the one remaining position this pick cannot be.

Sorry about that - I got it from the CBS website that had us currently listed at pick 30.

Not sure how they had that one worked out... (strength of schedule?)

NFL also has our first pick currently listed as pick 30 and not pick 29.

[Spider-Dan]

Hmmm.  Is it possible that SF's pick would come after CIN's if they both lose on Sunday, even though CIN won their division?

Normally division winners are slotted later than wild card teams.

[Downunder Dolphan]

Normally division winners are slotted later than wild card teams.

Yeah, that what I would have usually thought, but maybe they don't take that into account with draft pick allocations?

Both teams finished 10-7 during the regular season - head to head Cincinnati lost to San Francisco. I wonder if that's the criterion they are using?

[ArtieChokePhin]

Hmmm.  Is it possible that SF's pick would come after CIN's if they both lose on Sunday, even though CIN won their division?

Normally division winners are slotted later than wild card teams.

It goes by overall record where you finished in the playoffs.   Cincy and San Fran had identical records so the tiebreakers come into play but in the draft, they work in reverse.   Whoever would lose the tiebreaker for the playoff spot would win it in the draft.

[Spider-Dan]

That's not it either, for several reasons:

1) head-to-head does not matter for draft position* (this was extensively researched during Suck For Luck and Tank For Tua)
2) there are no playoff tiebreakers for teams in different conferences (for obvious reasons)

*As an example: MIA swept BUF in 2011, both teams finished 6-10, but in the 2012 draft, MIA picked 8th (Tannehill) while BUF picked 10th (Stephon Gilmore).