This is a more fundamental question than one specific to the Bucs, but I'm curious why so many fans love the idea of trading back in the draft. Sure, NE has been successful with this model but I don't see other teams experiencing the same. On one hand, coaching tenure has to play a huge part as NE's stability long term allows us to see the effect trading back can have. On the other hand, perhaps it is more about coaching than drafting, or perhaps their talent assessment is just that much better. Regardless, there is no doubt the talent quality atop the draft is greater than following rounds. Trading back after the 3rd round is less of a risk IMO so this is focused more on 1-3. Personally, I just cannot see the value two adequate players have over one above average player. If your drafting is terrible then either option fails but, if you draft smart, are two 2nd round players more valuable than one 1st round player? Forget the argument about past drafts unless you compare every draft over the last 15 years. There are always anomalies, mistakes, superstars falling, etc. More simply put, are two starters more valuable than one franchise player? For me, I always hope to see us stay put and draft well. Trading back just seems like accepting mediocrity. Thoughts?
About 10 years ago some Harvard statistical study looked at the comparative value of picks. The result was basically that you are always better off trading back.
PewterReport.com prides itself on being the most complete, comprehensive news source covering the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and delivering inside scoop on the team found nowhere else.