BeedoeLaw Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 If we were to trade back, and there is no Ramsey, Tunsil, Stanley, Jack, or Bosa when we pick, who is our target? I would say Hargreaves. Is he the only one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle021 Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 14 minutes ago, BeedoeLaw said: If we were to trade back, and there is no Ramsey, Tunsil, Stanley, Jack, or Bosa when we pick, who is our target? I would say Hargreaves. Is he the only one? No Ragland, Floyd, Buckner, Decker, Conklin, Apple, Treadwell, Alexander, Bell, Henry, Darren Lee (my favorite of this bunch) All make us a better team Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Face Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 Leonard Floyd, I like him better than Jack. He could play ILB or edge in our D. I think he could be a star. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos27 Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, Face said: Leonard Floyd, I like him better than Jack. He could play ILB or edge in our D. I think he could be a star. He was very smart to stay in school another year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctm Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 Best available OT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvgJoe Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 Hargreaves IMO under the scenario you listed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingTitan Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 I've had a Hargreaves hard on for a while. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnoxTitan Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 Depends on how far we go back. If we go back to 8-12 - I think Hargreaves, Treadwell, Buckner would be good picks. If we go back to 12+, then one of the big OT's will be available - Conklin or Decker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperFreak90 Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 If we trade back to 8 or 12 we better get a large haul of picks. I'll be pissed if we don't come away with multiple 1st and 2nd round picks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 Any trade down they make, other than Cleveland, they need to get a 1st next year. As for potential players we might want, that totally depends on whether we would drop to 7 or 15. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 26 minutes ago, SuperFreak90 said: If we trade back to 8 or 12 we better get a large haul of picks. I'll be pissed if we don't come away with multiple 1st and 2nd round picks. I'm afraid there's nobody in this draft teams want bad enough to make that kind of trade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said: I'm afraid there's nobody in this draft teams want bad enough to make that kind of trade. I don't think that's necessarily true. The 49ers and Rams are both pretty desperate for a QB. It's just a question of how much they like Wentz. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 12 minutes ago, Starkiller said: I don't think that's true. The 49ers and Rams are both pretty desperate for a QB. It's just a question of how much they like Wentz. Chip Kelly might want Wentz bad enough to trade up, but I don't believe Fisher does. But, if Kelly didn't/wouldn't sell the farm for Marcus, he damned sure won't for Wentz, so expect a lower offer than SF90 is talking about. I'd trade all the way down to 15 with the Rams to get both of their 2nds this year. 4 picks in the first two rounds is worth more this year than #1 and #33. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperFreak90 Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 13 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said: I'm afraid there's nobody in this draft teams want bad enough to make that kind of trade. Then I'd stay at 1. Don't give anyone that pick without a King's ransom for it. Take Tunsil or possibly Ramsey there then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 17 minutes ago, SuperFreak90 said: Then I'd stay at 1. Don't give anyone that pick without a King's ransom for it. Take Tunsil or possibly Ramsey there then. Who is so valuable at #1 that we can afford to give up the chance at 2 additional 2nd round picks for? Tunsil isn't when you consider Stanley, Conklin, Decker, Ifedi, Spriggs and Clark. Or the possibility of trading one of our 2nds for Schraeder, and still having 2 more. Ramsey isn't when you consider Hargreaves, Bell, Apple, Neal, Karl and Cash. Then there's guys suitable for #15 like Hunter Henry, Ragland, Floyd, Treadwell etc. Sorry, but I don't think anyone can sell #1 this year for a King's ransom, and I'd settle for far less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.