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

    • strato
      Panthers HC Dave Canales hints at adding more weapons for QB Bryce Young

      By strato · Posted

      I am trying to remember when I EVER said reach for need. My thing if someone falls you jump, if you can trade back a few slots and get help at the right value and pick up some ammo to move up from 51 which I think is outside the money zone, then you do that.   Take a WR later. Plenty of capable WRs have come from the 3rd round. Though this year I would go for C there if there was a reasonable choice. Take a TE if you must. I see more reason to take WR than TE. I think you give guys drafted two years ago and last year a chance to develop before cancelling them.    I think it is kind of unrealistic to throw everything all in on offense in hopes of going deep in the playoffs after an 8-10 year, even if it did have some nice bright spots in it.    And outside of this argument but relevant to it, I am bothered by Canales and Morgan and their apparent posture that we have arrived and are now in the big boy club. I don’t know where that comes from. They are out there talking like they are winners at 8-10. Backing into the playoffs in a real convoluted tie breaker scenario. They had some good games, yes. But the big feather n the cap, the LA Rams matchups, did you see what the Rams did? They didn’t fire the coaches but they fired their defensive backs. Bryce beat them yes, and it was pretty, but it was kind of like the Bucs and Mike Evans picking on our decimated secondary in 2022. Someone (Wilks) went down for allowing that to happen and they went down in LA too.  Wr aren’t as good as a whole lot of homers think we are. Shore up the trenches.    I think too many fans buy into it because they are so starved for anything that looks like a winner. 
    • Raskle
      2025 Draft Re-Grades (Or, One Idiot Doubles Down)

      By Raskle · Posted

      How exactly does one win OROY "by default"? Wouldn't winning the award mean that of the two, McMillon stayed strong the entire year while the other guy didn't and fizzled out? That's like saying Secretariat only won by default because the other horse stopped moving midway through the race. Absolutely zero logic in that statement, which makes me very glad that I've never really paid much attention to Walterfoozball.
    • Basbear
      Who was the better HC - Rivera or McDermott?

      By Basbear · Posted

      I agree, teams in the past have fired the HC in order to retain a coach on staff...hell it happened to Mcderp this year, rams in the past and Im missing another.  The fall off for the Panthers team defense was huge once Mcderp leftd and Ron could not fix it even when he named himself DC. 
×
×
  • Create New...