Money

I love Rey, but the truth is that he's not sharp mentally and is far from a finished product. On the other hand, Laurenitis kinda sucks. He's just the next model in the Big-10 White LB Hype Machine, after luminaries such as A.J. Hawk, Bobby Carpenter, Paul Posluzny, Dan Conner, etc. etc.

I don't take issue with his level of competition. It doesn't mean he can't play, it just means it will take longer for him to impact (though there are rare exceptions like Marques Colston), which is why I'm anticipating a quiet rookie season from him...not unlike James Hardy last season. Even against lower competition, you can still see a lot of flaws in his game. He's gonna need a lotta time to develop...

That's quite the conjecture. How did you ever arrive at that conclusion about three people you've never met?

Height withstanding, it's more than likely he'll be a redshirt as a rookie. And while it's exciting to see him look so initimidating on tape, the jump ball is a pretty low percentage play as it is (though it works 100% of the time in his highlight reel), especially against NFL defensive backs. My concern is Barden's ability to add to his repetroire; right now, he runs a really limited number of routes and doesn't seem to generate a lot of separation. It is encouraging that Reese saw fit to trade up for him. I just hope we didn't fall in love with Ramses solely because he vaguely resembles Plax and has a matching Egyptian name. In the end, it's better to have someone good than someone tall ... hopefully that was one of Reese's considerations.

Strangely, kicker is an incredibly difficult position to project from college to pro. There's no clear methodology -- Adam Vinatieri hit something like 50% of his kicks in college and then developed into the best kicker of his generation. I guess the difference has something to do with the wider hashmarks in college and the different sized footballs...

Yeah, it was my major in college many, many ages ago...

The Jets actually outdid Ditka in 2003. They were 13th and traded up to number 4 (moving up nine spots instead of eight) to take Dewayne Robertson. But they had two first round picks (13 and, if memory serves, 22), so they didn't need to sacrafice as many total picks to move up. At least Ricky Williams was good. The fact that no team has successfully moved from the 20's to the top-5 confirms that the cost -- financial and personnel -- is too much. HOWEVAH, we've been looking at this from a narrow-minded perspective. One might alternatively conclude that the team drafting in the top-5 would never consider dealing their lottery pick for a package where the best individual pick they get is in the 20's. There are two sides to every agreement, and actively giving away a blue-chip prospect -- of which there are very few each year -- is just as inadvisible as paying an exorbitant price to get one (even Eli). Especially when you're operating within a business of probabilities and not determinisms. You mentioned the concept of "choice," but it's not a choice if the other team says "no thanks." The problems implicit in both sides of this hypothetical trade, combined with the absence of any such deal, suggests an overall impossibility. You're right that impossible is the wrong word, but you also know that's only a true in a theoretical sense. In a practical sense, there's a 0% chance we (or any other team in the 20s) trade into the top-5. Our interpretation of operational definitions are clearly the different, but the real-world outcome is the same. Instead of arguing with me, perhaps you should direct a strongly worded letter to the producers of the Mission: Impossible series. They are far bigger offenders in the semantic realm than I. Or should I just go fuck myself anyway?

I am attitude-less and schtick-less. I'm a comedy writer for crying out loud. This is probably more apparent in my blog than in my sports arguments.

Let me ask you this, since you're so eager to steal the know-it-all mantle from my trophy case: If any team has the resources to trade into the top-5, why has no one outside the top 20 ever done so? Surely there have been franchise-changing talents -- Calvin Johnson, Peyton Manning, Jim Finn -- so why, in your estimation, hasn't it happened? This is a sincere question. And although you seem enthusiastically desperate for a semantics argument, I won't give it to you. "Impossible", "unlikely", "implausible", "untenable" ... to me, in this scenario it's all the same because we are talking about a hypothetical that won't happen. You have voiced your disagreement, which is fine. Truth be told, I have an extensive vocabulary; I won six Spelling Bee's as a child. So if your goal in life (aside from aeronautics) is to belabor technicalities while losing sight of the bigger picture, I can most assuredly supply a lifetime of material.

Unfortunately, I'm not the points enthusiast. I happen to think to think that the chart is completely antiquated and insufficiently representative of the relative value and risk associated with each selection. But my opinion and the extensive research I've done on the subject is worthless -- NFL teams swear by the chart, even at their own peril. That's why every year I'm an advocate of trading down, including this year. There have been more moon landings than there have been NFL trades where a team moves up 25 spots into the top-5. So your own inability to get the moon (don't be sad, Lance Bass couldn't get there either), at the very least, goes to show what type of likelihood this ponderous scenario entails. Yes, the NFL Network guys are wrong (not uncharted territory for them). You, on the other hand, are correct that teams often trade out of the top-10 beause of their reluctance to incur the contratual cost. Doing so certainly has Will's Stamp of Approval (and I really need to find someone to design that stamp). As you might recall, I was vociferous in 2004 that if the Giants insisted on taking a QB, they should have traded down to Cleveland's pick (7th) and take Big Ben and pick up an extra 2nd rounder for future 1st in the process. HOWEVAH, teams in that top-10 commonly trade down only about 10 spots at the maximum (if that). Sure, the Rams might move out of that spot, but they sure as hell won't end up in the 20's. So although the Rams (or any other team) might desire to trade down, that doesn't improve our chances of ascertaining a top-5 pick. Face it, we're beat. We'll have to settle for a muscle-bound, sleek black man not named Michael Crabtree. I hope Plax 4 Prez wasn't serious when he said he'd cry...

Except Ditka had the 12th pick, which is enormously more valuable than the 29th pick. 560 points more valuable to be exact, which equates to 88%. So that's not a precedent at all. A trade of this nature has never happened before. Not even close. And it never will happen, especially now with the Ditka's Saints as a cautionary tale. If you want to refer to that as "possible", then be my guest. I suppose it's also possible that you could fly to the Moon tomorrow. Also, the economy has no bearing beause payrolls are supplied by the league. The money for salaries is directly derived from a perentage of the NFL's gross revenue. As long as the NFL continues to thrive financial, teams need not worry about the economy.

You might not care about the values, but teams interpret them as gospel. You can look at any draft day trade in the salary cap era, and it will be closely in line with the chart. That's why we had to give up a 3rd and a future 1st just to move up three measley spots to get Eli: The Giants and Chargers were stirctly going by the chart. We've never seen a team in the 20's trade into the top 5. And there have been plenty of franchise-changing talents that have come and gone, so it hasn't been from a lack of motivation.

When those picks have the collective value of our picks, a team sure will pass. That's why we've never seen someone in the 20's trade into the top-5. It's not rocket surgery ... just a simple but relevant numbers game. So you're gonna send me that check for $2600??

He's made some of the most sensational catches these bright blue eyes have ever seen. He can catch: TD vs. Jets (0:10 mark)

You stumbled upon a key difference between the two players. Braylon is a perfect fit for what we do offensively. He has a very similar skillset to Plax, and Cleveland deployed him in a comparably aggressive downfield attack. According to advanced production metrics, Plaxico Burress and Braylon Edwards might be the two most similar receivers in the league. Edwards is one of the absolute best homerun hitters in the game, and he challenges defensives vertially as well as anyone. We witnessed it firsthand on Monday Night. Boldin is a great player in his own right, but he operates in the mid and intermediate range. He's not a deep threat. With our current assortment of wideouts, the deep threat/Plax-facsimile works much better than guy who averages 12 yards per catch.

I wouldn't make that deal. Not for a 29-year old receiver with tons of mileage and too many injuries on his track record. Boldin is a guy with a small number of prime years remaining, and he's a poor bet to play a full 16 games.

All of our picks combined add up to 997 points. The 2nd pick is worth 2,600. The difference between 2,600 and 997, is 1,603 -- roughly the equivalent of the 6th overall pick in the draft. That's how big of a gap we're talking here. If the Giants offered their 2010 1st rounder, it still wouldn't be enough becuase we have a high expected win total. Realistially, for the deal to work out in terms of value, the Giants would have to offer their entire 2009 draft, plus their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks in 2010. 12 picks altogether. So if you think that qualifies as "possible" and insist on being a literalist, then you win (though I used the term "functionally impossible," which is a big difference). How about we shift the description to "Never ever gonna happen in a million years for any two teams competiting with National Football League"? Happy?

That doesn't make them more likely to strike a deal where they would be getting awful, awful value. They could do waaaaaaaaay better, if they do indeed desire to trade the pick.

Look at the numbers. When you draft at the bottom of every round (which we do), your picks aren't that valuable. If a team inside the top 10 or 12 (say, the 49ers) offered that package, then they would be able to move up to 2. A team drafting 29th? No chance. Stated differently... VG, I'll give you $997 if you give me $2,600. Deal?

If Owen Hart falls helplessly 78 feet at -9.8 m/s, how dead will he be when he hits the turnbuckle? a. Very b. Deader than a doorknob c. Canadian Crippler d. "Raw is Owen"

Or just stay put and use one of the top-60 picks on the best available receiver. Other parts of our roster need infusions of talent, not just WR...

I'd like to believe I'm clever on my own terms. Despite my best efforts, Plax 4 Prez continues to ignore a convincing numerically-based explanation of why his suggestion is a misguided fairytale - that's what's making him look less smart. And be wary of the pot calling the kettle black. After all, you were the one who couldn't wait to make fun of someone for typing "asidine." We're all God's children...

Unless we agree to trade Eli, it's not remotely attainable.

Evidentally not: Plus, I won't let any disparaging remark against my guy Braylon go without proper retaliation.

Plax 4 Prez, I have a problem that you AND ONLY YOU can solve. Add up the following values: 11.4 25.8 31 43 136 300 450 640