kyle021 Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 Draft USB loaded at CB, LB, DE, DT, TE, and SS/FS we have the 5th pick and there is about 9 guys I would be perfectly fine taking Allen, Williams, Howard, Foster, Thomas, Adams, Davis, Hooker, Lattimore, and even Fournette with that being said, I truly hope we trade back first and foremost. If Carolina wants to jump from 8 to 5 or SD from 7 to 5 or Buffalo from 10 to 5 I wouldn't mind one bit. I would prefer we actually drop to 12 and acquire a second and future first from Cleveland if they decide Garrett first and Trubisky/Watson/Kizer at 5... there is going to be an OT forced in the top 5 as well as the obvious Garrett and QB selection SF will make. Then you factor in Jvill likely to take Fournette at 4 and we are in prime position for a true impact defender or playmaking WR/TE day one at 5 However the quantity of elite prospects and mind you the quality of this draft... I would be stoked to drop back and pick up a future first. I would even go as far as saying I would be fine with dropping back to 12 with Cleveland and giving them our compensatory 3rd for their second and future first. From picks 5-12 there will be an elite defender waiting on us. What's the worst that happens? We take Barnett at 12 and have two first rounders next year? lol JR hit a fucking home run last year. I will forever love the Rams for moving to LA and Goff for being the over hyped QB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle021 Posted January 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 It shouldn't be forgotten there is already good trade relations with Cleveland and Philly GM and JR. Seems like Jrob has an abundance of connections league wide Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 Same here. If Tyrod doesn't go back to Buffalo they could trade up to our spot for a QB. But none QB needy teams likely won't trade up into the top 5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle021 Posted January 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 1 minute ago, headhunter said: Same here. If Tyrod doesn't go back to Buffalo they could trade up to our spot for a QB. But none QB needy teams likely won't trade up into the top 5. This true If Buffalo was our only trade partner and they offered up the 10th pick and 2nd rounder for 5 I would take it and not blink The value at 10 is equal to the value last year at 3 which begs the question of "why trade up?" Because the talent at the very top is truly special Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 18 seems like the likely spot to find a trade partner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingTitan Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 23 minutes ago, headhunter said: 18 seems like the likely spot to find a trade partner. I feel like 18 is a sweet spot for value this year Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charleytolar Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 I know it's not scripture but the trade valuation chart in no way could justify moving from 1-5 to even the middle of Round One and picking up an extra first next year: 1-5 is 1700 pts and 1-12 is 1200 pts The Browns at 1-12 and 2-33 would be sending 1780 points for the 1700 points that our 1-5 registers. They might do it if there is someone they really like-- much as we did with Conklin last year. Buffalso at 1-10 (1300 pts) and 2-44 (460 pts) would be slightly over-paying but again if their target is there they would probably do it... if we were willing. The trade value chart needs to have some kind of factoring value applied to it each year as sometimes the top of the draft is weaker or stronger and sometimes the second-round values stretch to the horizon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rekirts Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 Allen, Williams, Howard, Foster, Thomas, Adams, Davis, Hooker, Lattimore, and even Fournette Howard has been falling lately, the Miami TE has been passing him up on a few draft boards. He would be a terrible pick at #5.. I think the list goes Garrett, Allen, Williams, Adams, Hooker, Foster right now. Thomas might be able to move up if his combine is good as rumored. Trading back to 12 would put us out of range of these elite prospects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huston Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 Don't get the Hooker love, guy has only been playing football for a few years and a starter for just one. He is gets there fast but isn't a physical or sure tackler. Its going to be much harder to diagnose NFL offenses then Big Ten. Wouldn't touch him in the first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkster Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 If Tyrod doesn't resign in Buffalo, I don't know if they have a choice but to trade up. They have a pretty solid defense, new HC will want a new QB. Perfect trade candidate. Watson at 5 would be a great selection for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanruss Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 36 minutes ago, charleytolar said: I know it's not scripture but the trade valuation chart in no way could justify moving from 1-5 to even the middle of Round One and picking up an extra first next year: 1-5 is 1700 pts and 1-12 is 1200 pts The Browns at 1-12 and 2-33 would be sending 1780 points for the 1700 points that our 1-5 registers. They might do it if there is someone they really like-- much as we did with Conklin last year. Buffalso at 1-10 (1300 pts) and 2-44 (460 pts) would be slightly over-paying but again if their target is there they would probably do it... if we were willing. The trade value chart needs to have some kind of factoring value applied to it each year as sometimes the top of the draft is weaker or stronger and sometimes the second-round values stretch to the horizon. you can get closer if you drop back and do a 3rd this year and a first next (most equal this years 2nds with next years firsts) it doesnt immediately solve the hole of having no #2... but you could package a couple of those 3's and get back into the second round. so its better than just dropping back in the first this year and adding the second. because essentially you are just trading 2 3rd round picks this year for an extra first next year. but again.. the whole draft trade value thing is bunk. I do think we could pull off a swap of firsts while getting the 2 and next years 1 if a team is desperate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charleytolar Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, titanruss said: but again.. the whole draft trade value thing is bunk. I do think we could pull off a swap of firsts while getting the 2 and next years 1 if a team is desperate. Went back and looked at the Conklin trade using one of those charts: we gave up 1710 points to acquire the 1-8 pick (1400 points) which we used to acquire an all-pro tackle. Cleveland got WR Corey Coleman and a T prospect Shon Coleman plus whomever the get with our Second Round pick this year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanruss Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, charleytolar said: Went back and looked at the Conklin trade using one of those charts: we gave up 1710 points to acquire the 1-8 pick (1400 points) which we used to acquire an all-pro tackle. Cleveland got WR Corey Coleman and a T prospect Shon Coleman plus whomever the get with our Second Round pick this year. so if you think about it... thats essentially moving up 7 picks from 15 to 8, right? so dropping to 12 from 5 is also 7 picks but the #5 has higher proportionally higher value. so its possible according to the chart... i just dont think cleveland even considers wanting to move up to the #5. we'd need to go with someone like arizona... but then we'd likely be too far away for them to get a QB if they wanted to. so i bet we stick at 5. I could see us dropping to the late 1st with our #18 pick and picking up the 2nd that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 Jrob wants to trade down from 5 but I don't see any suitors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanskick8851 Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 17 minutes ago, charleytolar said: Went back and looked at the Conklin trade using one of those charts: we gave up 1710 points to acquire the 1-8 pick (1400 points) which we used to acquire an all-pro tackle. Cleveland got WR Corey Coleman and a T prospect Shon Coleman plus whomever the get with our Second Round pick this year. People get too caught up in the chart. It is a reference tool but it is not law. Sometimes you are willing to pay more to get the player you want. Also if you factor in other teams also offering deals for the pick you want then you are more inclined to offer a bit more to get to the spot you need to grab the prospect you are after. When it comes to QB's in the draft teams are usually a little more willing to offer more because they think he could be the face of their franchise. That is what we should hinge our hopes to. A QB needy team wanting to jump the Jets to get the QB they believe is their savior. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.