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!

     

Would you trade down for this?

SmokinwithWilly

By SmokinwithWilly,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

SmokinwithWilly Grand Master

SmokinwithWilly

Posted
Posted

First off, I needed a break from the Watson trade talks. I still think we end up with more DW threads than days until trade deadline, but I digress.

So without further ado, I'm a big proponent of trading down and trying to pick up extra picks if all 4 top QBs are gone by 8 and we don't make a move up to get one or end up with DW or MS, and Sewell is gone also. I've been thinking about trade partners and who could move and why and Jacksonville is a team I could see possibly wanting to trade back up and why.

We would give our 1st (8) and 4th(103) for Jax 1st (25) and 2nds (33 and 45). Now of course you have to ask who would Jax move up to get. Surtain, Smith, Chase, Slater, Parsons all possible to be available. But the player I could see them moving up for is Pitts. Everyone has seen how much a TE can exploit a defense and Pitts presents a mismatch nightmare and a great safety net for a rookie QB. He could be considered an elite talent. 

Now if we moved down it would open up a plethora of options having 4 picks in the top 45. We could add a QB like Newman, Trask or Jones if we wanted and still have extra picks to grab 2 guys that fall out of the first and bolster some positions where we are thin.

The trade is skewed in our favor naturally, an elite talent level pick for 3 very talented picks. Jax might want a 3rd instead of a 4th but it would still calculate in our favor. Given how many holes we have, with the top 4 being gone, and a chance to have 3 instant contributors vs 1, would you make that move?

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
joemac Grand Master

joemac

Posted
Posted

Meh. It’s a possibility. I see them using number 8 to make some noise though. Trading down for more picks doesn’t seem like the type of message they want to send this off-season. Honestly I’m going to support whatever they do. I like the brain trust we have now and I am willing to give them time to prove themselves and implement their vision.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mickeye76 Experienced

mickeye76

Posted
Posted

I agree with the original post.  If we miss out on top tier qb, a trade back has merit.  That 33rd pick has value.  It's practically a 1st.  We would still be in the meat of the draft at 25 and 33.  That 45 pick is not to bad as well.  The con to this is we would be missing out on the cream of the crop and would need our talent evaluators to hit on some sleepers.  The pro is I trust the new staff to find some gems, if it was hurney still I'd be wary of trading down.  Hurney hit in the top ten cause it was easier.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mickeye76 Experienced

mickeye76

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Mother Grabber said:

I think we have to keep 8, or whatever we end up with in the top 10-15. After that, we can play around with picking up more picks.

I agree 10 to 15 is a preferable range for a trade down.  25 is a bit further down than I like.  The offensive tackles and corners gonna be picked over pretty well by then.  

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Khyber53 Grand Master

Khyber53

Posted
Posted

There's always good value at the #8 pick spot. We've had it three times in our history and gotten Tim Biakabutuka (short career, though), Jordan Gross and CMC. Other #8 picks of note include guys like Ryan Tannehill, Ronnie Lott, DeAngelo Hall and Willie Roaf.

That being said, there are numerous wiffs at that pick as well. Let's face it, there are some teams that are constantly picking at eighth and above. Those teams often have generationally bad (sometimes near century-long bad) organizations replete with some of the worst scouting departments you can imagine.

I trust Rhule to request the player he needs to fit his plans (which might not exactly jibe with the Huddle's plan). I also like the possibility that new team management might be reinvigorating our scouting department (which needs more wins on picks in the second through seventh rounds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SOJA Mentor

SOJA

Posted
Posted

In your scenario above is Slater available because that's who I draft. At least you solidfy left tackle. 

Don't get me wrong this is the absolute nightmare scenario that is looking more and more real daily. There is a VERY real chance all four QB prospects are gone by 8 and we miss out on Watson. 

I think it's important to remember Fitts press conference. He says there are usually 14-16 guys in every draft who are basically tier 1. After that there is no discernable drop in talent from 16-50 or something in that neighborhood. I don't think he would want to give up a tier one player. Now if we were picking like 18 and all of them were gone I could buy into a trade like that for sure. 

Tepper wants a QB, unless Rhule/Fitts sell him on one of these secondary guys Jones, Newman, etc. there is no way to guarantee one of them is available in rotund 2. 

So we're left with two scenarios: we draft Jones at 8 (I might honestly quit this team) or we trade up to #2 or #3 overall. I am actively willing scenario two into the universe. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted

IMO, if QB doesn't work out for us we almost HAVE to trade down. But I'm not trading down for current draft capital. I'm trading for '22 draft capital and I want a 1st. The rebuild will have officially been delayed a year and we need to tool up to go after a guy (Howell or Rattler) in '22. Take a flier on a non-1dt round QB and hope he pans out. Meanwhile, we're probably looking at another year of misery with Teddy and reminiscing of that glorious win over the WFT.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • tukafan21
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • CamWhoaaCam
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By CamWhoaaCam · Posted

      Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • CamWhoaaCam
      With the first pick, don't draft a QB? Draft a DE? C'mon!

      By CamWhoaaCam · Posted

      Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...