Would you trade down for this?

[SmokinwithWilly]

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?

[joemac]

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.

[Growl]

why not just give away the pick so we don't have to deal with the pressure pf making it at all

[Panthers8969]

Would I trade down from 1.08 to 1.25 for 2 seconds??? And I have to give up a 4th? Hell no I’m not doing that. I would expect a future first and 1 of those seconds at the least, and I’m certainly not throwing in a 4th

[07579394]

No,if Parsons is there

[Mother Grabber]

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.

[mickeye76]

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.

[mickeye76]

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.  

[Khyber53]

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).

[DaveThePanther2008]

It's not a bad idea if we cannot get what we wanted. Fitterer has already said he likes to trade down for more picks.  If we could get three picks in the top 50 I am sure we would add some serious talent to our team.   It wouldn't be a bad idea.

If we can get a QB at 8 so be it but I am not sure one will be there at 8.

[SOJA]

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. 

[ForJimmy]

[LinvilleGorge]

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.

[chknwing]

I rather have a dime than two nickels