Who's your tradeback partner and why?

[tukafan21]

Denver

To me the best case scenario is that NE doesn't trade ahead of us to take a QB and only one is left when it gets to us at 8.

We can bluff a great NE offer to Denver so they give up something decent like maybe a 3rd rounder or maybe 2nd next year, we get the player we'd have taken at 8 but save a little money on the contract and get that extra pick.

[jfra78]

Eagles 12 and 37 is the best scenario to me.  12 gives us Slater or Darisaw then in 2nd round we have picks 37 and 39, almost back to back.

Edited April 16, 2021 by jfra78

[Smittymoose]

3 hours ago, jfra78 said:

Eagles 12 and 37 is the best scenario to me.  12 gives us Slater or Darisaw then in 2nd round we have picks 37 and 39, almost back to back.

Why would the Eagles do this when they just traded down from 6 to 12? What has materially changes for them?

I think the targets are NE and WFT. Maybe CHI, but I can’t see them trading up to draft a QB. That staff and FO has one year to look good, or the Bears will clean house. NE has the flexibility to move up after their FA spending spree. WFT has the flexibility because they have a really good talent foundation and a coach with a lot of job security.

You might extort Denver and get a third out of them if they are really hot on Lance or Fields and want to box out one of these other teams, but pretty unlikely.

[BrianS]

8 hours ago, panthers55 said:

Why. He isn't a better athlete than Darnold and he is a project.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!  I'm not a big Lance fan, but come on.  Trey Lance is a much better athlete than Sam Darnold.

You can argue a lot of things in Darnold's favor . . . NFL experience, age . . . huh.  That's not really a lot of things.

Honestly, let's say Lance is there at eight.  You've already got Darnold for a second and some change.  Assuming your staff believe in him, you draft Lance.  Your overall investment at QB is a first and a second.  If you get a franchise guy out of that investment, you're STILL ahead of the curve statistically.

 

[Khyber53]

I don't want to see us give up #8, I want to see us grab a foundational player that will start right out of the gates and be part of the team for years to come.

Now if someone backs up the Brinks truck and unloads multiple firsts and a couple of extras, I might be tempted to trade.

[Smittymoose]

7 minutes ago, BrianS said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa!  I'm not a big Lance fan, but come on.  Trey Lance is a much better athlete than Sam Darnold.

You can argue a lot of things in Darnold's favor . . . NFL experience, age . . . huh.  That's not really a lot of things.

Honestly, let's say Lance is there at eight.  You've already got Darnold for a second and some change.  Assuming your staff believe in him, you draft Lance.  Your overall investment at QB is a first and a second.  If you get a franchise guy out of that investment, you're STILL ahead of the curve statistically.

 

No you don’t. Lance is a major project. You don’t sink a top 10 pick into him if you think anything of Darnold. If you don’t think anything of Darnold, then you shouldn’t have given up more than a mid-round pick for him.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Smittymoose

[CarolinaLivin]

I don't think you trade down with denver to allow them to get a QB. I think we allow another team like NE to grab a QB so that Denver is pushed to trade for teddy (if it doesn't happen prior to the draft like some are expecting).

Lol just some poo to think about.

[shaqattaq]

Miami gives us #18, #36, and #156 for #8. That gives them 2 top 10 picks to surround Tua with playmakers, and they still have #50 in the 2nd. There will still be several LT's not named Slater or Sewell at #18 that can start day 1. We also get 2 day 1 starters at 36 and 39 (at least 1 of those in the secondary I hope). Everybody wins!

[OceanPanther]

No way we pick a QB at 8 after picking up Darnold ..  Should Kyle Trask ,  Kellen Mond, or Davis Mills be available in later rounds, I could see us taking one.   But at 8 we're taking the best player available. Not best QB available. 

Trading back..   Some one has to want our pick at 8 and be willing to give up a lot.   We can get a really good starter for US at 8...  so for us to trade back , they're going to have to give me a lot.

There are numerous teams picking late in the first round in need of  Wide Receivers.  This is a loaded draft for WR..  But these teams would have to give us A LOT..  maybe their starting left tackle lol and 2 first, 2 seconds.  etc.. Green Bay, Indianapolis , Philly, New England.

New England would be my guess.  

But I don't think anyone will offer enough and we'll get our own pick at 8

[jfra78]

2 hours ago, Smittymoose said:

Why would the Eagles do this when they just traded down from 6 to 12? What has materially changes for them?

I think the targets are NE and WFT. Maybe CHI, but I can’t see them trading up to draft a QB. That staff and FO has one year to look good, or the Bears will clean house. NE has the flexibility to move up after their FA spending spree. WFT has the flexibility because they have a really good talent foundation and a coach with a lot of job security.

You might extort Denver and get a third out of them if they are really hot on Lance or Fields and want to box out one of these other teams, but pretty unlikely.

You're probably right, but teams have done odd things in the draft before.  This was my best case scenario, not what I think will happen.  

[Happy Panther]

11 hours ago, cardiackat88. said:

Honestly, there is no real wrong answer.

We could trade back with NE or CHI, or we could grab Pitts, or Sewell, or Lance, or pretty much anything...

I think we are in a HELL of a good position no matter what road we take (unless its something drastic like moving up to #1 to draft a punter LOL) 

It seems like it will be difficult to screw this pick up.

[Jaxel]

Dallas - 10 and 41 for 8

Only player though I see them jumping for is Pitts, so it's unlikely.

[CanadianCat]

Lance falling could be the best thing for us for a trade back situation.

Some of the smartest drafting teams are ones that have traded back, received extra picks and continually trade one of those away per year to gain more. Look what Miami has done with the Tonsil picks (minus their trade back up)

Fit seems to be of that mindset. I think a trade back for future 1st's makes sense given the needs on the roster. We are still in a rebuild..

[irrevalentfalconsfan]

13 minutes ago, Jaxel said:

Dallas - 10 and 41 for 8

Only player though I see them jumping for is Pitts, so it's unlikely.

But you know DQ is gonna push likely for Surtain. 

 

On an unrelated note, good lord am I glad DQ got fired...