Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

49ers Are 'Open For Business' For #2 Pick

bobsfoodbasics

By bobsfoodbasics,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Nails Newbie

Nails

Posted
Posted

It wouldn't cost NEAR what the trade chart says since they are so desperate and any additional assets is better than none, but I'm still not sure.  Maybe 8, 40, and 64 for 2 and Tartt, if we ensure we get our man.  I don't want to give up a pick next year since we're already down one but maybe our 1st for their 2nd next year could be swapped since they'll likely only be a few spots away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shocker Grand Master

Shocker

Posted
Posted

Honestly, if we traded our entire draft this year and did not touch next years draft we would getting a bargain (it should cost us more).  It is stupid expensive and IMO would be for ONLY Garrett and personally I don't think he is worth it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soul Rebel Mentor

Soul Rebel

Posted
Posted

I wonder if it's SF putting rumors about the Browns wanting a QB at 1. I know Schefter reported it, but he said 1 NFL Exec said it, so what if it's SF saying it in order to entice more teams to consider it. 

The only player that I would pay a king's ransom for at #2 would be Garrett. I'd love Fournette, Adams or Hooker, but not for the pricetag it would cost. 

By the same token, the Browns always seem to go full Browns and f it up some how, so I also wouldn't be surprised if Cleveland drafts Trubisky or Watson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
t96 Grand Master

t96

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, rodeo said:

Combined with that report that Garrett may not go 1st overall, I would be happy with moving up. But not for Fournette.

If the Browns pull a Browns and pass on Garrett I'd love to get him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
t96 Grand Master

t96

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Shocker said:

Honestly, if we traded our entire draft this year and did not touch next years draft we would getting a bargain (it should cost us more).  It is stupid expensive and IMO would be for ONLY Garrett and personally I don't think he is worth it either.

8 this year and next year's first could get up to 2. I'd definitely consider that. Would be getting game changing best player in draft AND still have our 2nd rounders and comp pick to add solid depth or possible starters in this deep draft. Ideally would only be losing pick 32 next year too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shocker Grand Master

Shocker

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

8 this year and next year's first could get up to 2. I'd definitely consider that. Would be getting game changing best player in draft AND still have our 2nd rounders and comp pick to add solid depth or possible starters in this deep draft. Ideally would only be losing pick 32 next year too.

Yeah, I hear you.  For Garrett its tasty but giving up next years one is risky as it gets.  Cannot imagine having Garrett here though.  Wow.  I would have to believe that SF would want very close to what Philly gave last year and that is just way too much.

I did notice an interesting stat:  Garrett had 8.5 sacks last yr but 4.5 came against UT San Antonio.  Feels like a sack master would have more production.  Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Marguide Newbie

Marguide

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

8 this year and next year's first could get up to 2. I'd definitely consider that. Would be getting game changing best player in draft AND still have our 2nd rounders and comp pick to add solid depth or possible starters in this deep draft. Ideally would only be losing pick 32 next year too.

Not even close. First of all, next year's first is considered to equal a second this year. Go check the chart and you will see how far you are from reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nails Newbie

Nails

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Shocker said:

Yeah, I hear you.  For Garrett its tasty but giving up next years one is risky as it gets.  Cannot imagine having Garrett here though.  Wow.  I would have to believe that SF would want very close to what Philly gave last year and that is just way too much.

I did notice an interesting stat:  Garrett had 8.5 sacks last yr but 4.5 came against UT San Antonio.  Feels like a sack master would have more production.  Just saying.

They're not getting what Philly gave up or even close.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
E CaT PanTHer 2 Newbie

E CaT PanTHer 2

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

8 this year and next year's first could get up to 2. I'd definitely consider that. Would be getting game changing best player in draft AND still have our 2nd rounders and comp pick to add solid depth or possible starters in this deep draft. Ideally would only be losing pick 32 next year too.

haha i like your thinking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • OldhamA
      Defensive Tackle: The Need that Shall Not be Named

      By OldhamA · Posted

      I've been screaming for DE for months. Forbidden topic indeed. 
    • rmoneyg35
      Defensive Tackle: The Need that Shall Not be Named

      By rmoneyg35 · Posted

      Great post! Now that I think on it, I think D line might be our biggest need. We are one player away from having a potential disastrous defensive line. Brown and Wharton struggled last year and Wharton has really only been a rotational player that specializes in one thing. Can we count on him being a full time starter? Jackson is unproven. Do you want a starting defensive line of Wharton, Brown and Jackson? I don’t want to risk it.   I honestly don’t think linebacker is that big of a need. If Rozeboom ends up coming back then why get a LB?   games are won in the trenches and I would honestly prefer us drafting an offensive or defensive linemen over any other position in the first. The prospect you mentioned seems like a good prospect who has had some good production as well. Only problem is defensive line is a position that can take time for a player to develop. Will whoever we draft be ready this season ? 
    • tukafan21
      At this point its Sadiq or bust... A

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      Have they though? I'll give you KC with Kelce, but c'mon, they weren't winning those SB's because they had a great TE, it was a combination of Mahomes and some great defenses.  Will also give you the 49ers and Ravens with Kittle and Andrews, but even then, both have missed time with injuries the last few years. After those 3 teams, the best teams of the last 2-3 years have not had elite TEs The Eagles had Goedert, he's good, not great. The Bills have also had good but not great TE's The Rams have had average TEs and still consistently run 2 and 3 TE sets with them and still win. The Bucs have been winning the South without a great TE The Lions' Laporta is more a name than a highly productive TE. The Texans have had a serviceable TE in Shultz, but nothing too amazing. Some of the best TE's in the league the last few years have been on some of the worst teams.  McBride, Bowers, Warren, Njoku, even Pitts this past year. A true elite TE is absolutely a weapon in today's game, but I think the best teams use that money elsewhere and find serviceable TE play, usually through a committee where each TE brings something else to the table.
×
×
  • Create New...