The point is paying the guy as a number six or seven pick, instead of a number three pick.
Printable View
Vikings did it two years in a row, with Bryant McKinnie and Kevin Williams. The were roundly mocked and pretty much paid the same as they would at the original spot. Both held out for the appropriate money, McKinnie for most of his first season. We really don't want or need that kind of problem, do we?
Let's just assume that passing until the eighth spot isn't an option. In that case, we did everything we could, didn't we?
No. There is no way that I will believe that noone was willing to trade up a few spots at no cost. We could have traded even-up with The Jets, or whoever, and saved a dime.
And, we could have not diminished he value of the pick, and taken another position of greater, or equal, need. (OT and NT come to mind.)
Just as many times as it has been unsuccessful.
Anything else, I will have to get back to you on, as I wasn't kidding. I am extremely tired.:D
Wouldn't that be depreciating the value of whatever we recieved in return?
Assuming we had no idea the Chiefs would take Jackson at 3 and they traded with the Jets (just swapping pick position) it sort of kills the value of having the third overall pick regardless if we take Jackson or switch to 20 (20 for jets?) without any compensation that comes with it because then speculationg would arise about what 'could of been' wouldn't it?
It'd look kind of silly.
Now top 10 maybe but outside of that I'm not sure if you can argue that.