Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Catalyst

Trade up for Star Lotulelei?

70 posts in this topic

The more it looks like we won't sniff a top-5 pick and the more it seems like the Raiders will be the likely landing spot for Star Lotulelei the more I think we need to seriously consider trading up to get him.

I know some have the idea that Hankins is basically option 1-A, but that's frankly bullshit. Hankins has injury and consistency issues and Lotulelei is by far the better prospect and MUCH safer. Imagine having a Haloti Ngata type presence in the middle of our DL with Hardy and Johnson coming off the edges. We could put practically anyone beside Star and still field one of the best DL's in football.

What would it take? Likely at least our 2nd rounder and probably more, but it depends on where we're picking and we won't know for sure for a couple weeks. But it looks like it'd have to be the Raiders who we trade with and I have a sense they'd be willing to move down for the right price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fug no. all we need is a big ugly that can take up blockers and stuff the run. you can find them later in the draft and in FA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star is my favorite prospect in this draft and I'd die for him, but we cannot invest that much to trade up for him. There's still a lot of talents after Star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah absolutely not. He is my favorite player in the draft also but we can't afford to give up anything and we need as many assets as possible. We'll get a good player that will start and help us out big time no matter where we pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fug no. all we need is a big ugly that can take up blockers and stuff the run. you can find them later in the draft and in FA.

said Irvin, Fua, and McClain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we could give them next year's 2nd and maybe a player (Godfrey perhaps?) I'd be all over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way!

I agree. Keep our picks. We know we are without our 3rd and 7th plus either our 5th or 6th we gave up for Murphy. We may get one compensatory back. But with only 5 picks in a draft that is deep in many positions of need for us, lets hang on to what we have.

Giving away next years 2nd for a team coming off 3 straight losing seasons doesnt sound reasonable. Many of our vets contracts will be expiring after the '13-14 season so we will need those top draft picks to fill holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no no no no. I'd LOVE star, but we'd need to leapfrog Oakland mos likely, which is looking more and more likely like the second or first pick. Which would require a LOT. Even if that wasn't the case we still need the picks, if anything we need to see if we could tra DOWN for more pics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Same people defending Hillary a few months ago are now drawing the conclusion that Flynn... and by association Trump... must be guilty of something because Flynn is getting immunity from the FBI. Works both ways. For the record... IMHO both Hillary and Trump are crooks.  If justice in this nation were truly blind these two politicians and their henchmen would be doing a long stretch in prison by now.
    • Slot receivers don't exist in 2 TE sets unless we're lining a TE on the outside which I haven't seen much out of the currently constructed Panthers. Maybe McCaffrey if he were to be split out wide but the Panthers usually keep a RB with Cam in-case Cam needs the extra protection and audibles the RB to block.  The Panthers would be best suited pairing KB with a speedster such as Charles Johnson, who's adept at running deep routes. Keep Howard and possible the RB (if not blocking) on short routes, KB on working the intermediate routes, Olsen running intermediate/deep routes, and Johnson running deep routes. That way Cam has a receiver on every level. All of this assumes Shula constructs a properly worked passing attack. 
    • Yes, that is correct. My point being Clinton was impeached and stayed in office. Almost everyone calling for impeachment of Trump thinks it means to remove him from office. He would have to be impeached and then found guilty to do that. The impeachment alone does not remove him. And my original point, no one was bringing up the electoral college back then. It makes no sense. Because the popular would surely rid us of corrupt politicians, right?