Latest NFL.com mock has us trading up to #2 for Zach Wilson

[Mr. Scot]

I like Wilson but what they'd have to trade to get to that spot would probably make me cringe.

[ECHornet]

I would look forward to the years of threads about who we could have had if we had just stayed at 8. 

[catnip]

How about NO !

[JawnyBlaze]

Absolutely. Two 1s two 3s and a 4 seems steep but I’d be ok with it for Wilson. Not for any other QB not named Lawrence though. 

[Pup McBarky]

[Mister]

if we cant get watson sure why not

[TLGPanthersFan]

Fine by me. 

[AceBoogie]

2 hours ago, WarPanthers89 said:

I’ll allow it. 

I see this ending in a similar fashion. 

[AceBoogie]

2 hours ago, DeAngelo Beason said:

As always, depends on what we give up.  Trey Lance scares the absolute crap out of me.  I really don't want us to settle for him.

Then imagine trading up for a player not as talented as him. 

[Shocker]

Good god that’s expensive 

[BrianS]

That's too many picks this year.  Like the idea, not sure about that comp.

[Hoenheim]

I'd honestly be worried about our ability to rebuild the oline and reinforce the D trading that many high picks away in two consecutive years.  

[SCO96]

1 hour ago, Hoenheim said:

I'd honestly be worried about our ability to rebuild the oline and reinforce the D trading that many high picks away in two consecutive years.  

That "draft chart' bothers me. It over values the top 5-10 picks in comparison to the other slots. I could see giving up a 1, 3, and 4 in this year's draft to move up 6 spots if you felt Wilson was a sure thing.  Or Maybe a 1,2, and 4. Why on earth do you have to give up a 1 and a 3 in the 2022 draft as well? Well, you have to because the "draft chart" says so.  You have to make sure the other choices add up to the value total of the #2 slot. Maybe...just maybe...that #2 pick ain't worth all that and is actually overpriced.

I vote no.

 

[mrcompletely11]

This is all crazy talk until the evaluations and interviews start