Who’s your ideal ‘trade back’ partner?

[Kentucky Panther]

None. I want to stay at 6 

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, rebelrouser said:

Can't trade past pick 17 because Chargers would take the last LT right in front of us. We would have to go with another position, which would be a mistake.  If any of the three top LT's are available at 6 stay put.  

There will likely be a good LT drafted after #17 and there will almost certainly be some LT busts drafted before #17. That's just the way the draft goes.

[rebelrouser]

11 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

There will likely be a good LT drafted after #17 and there will almost certainly be some LT busts drafted before #17. That's just the way the draft goes.

I like the chances of the top three. We cannot afford to draft Brady Christensen 2.0 with our first pick.  

[davos]

22 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

There will likely be a good LT drafted after #17 and there will almost certainly be some LT busts drafted before #17. That's just the way the draft goes.

I don’t know who that would be. This draft has a top-3, Penning and then a Cliff. Maybe the Tulsa kid or a Raimann but there’s a big talent gap.

[trueblade]

28 minutes ago, rebelrouser said:

Can't trade past pick 17 because Chargers would take the last LT right in front of us. We would have to go with another position, which would be a mistake.  If any of the three top LT's are available at 6 stay put.  

Why would the Chargers take a LT when they got Slater last year?

[CRA]

2 minutes ago, trueblade said:

Why would the Chargers take a LT when they got Slater last year?

Penning? That would my guess who they are referring to.  They might want him at RT

[LinvilleGorge]

15 minutes ago, rebelrouser said:

I like the chances of the top three. We cannot afford to draft Brady Christensen 2.0 with our first pick.  

It won't shock me if Christensen isn't ultimately the answer.

[Evil Hurney]

DELETE

Already asked.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Evil Hurney

[ENCPantherfan2]

3 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The Packers. #22, #28, and a mid-rounder. They come up for a WR.

22, 28, their 2nd, and Jordan Love. 

[rebelrouser]

4 hours ago, trueblade said:

Why would the Chargers take a LT when they got Slater last year?

Should have said tackle. Everything i'v read has them taking at tackle at 17 so that would be four tackles off the board at pick 18 and a disaster for us.  

[LinvilleGorge]

5 hours ago, WarPanthers89 said:

Anything in the Top 15 should be a blue chip player so I’m good with that. If you go back much farther you are taking a big risk and multiple teams have 20 players or less with a true first round grade on them.

It seems like we hear this every year. Multiple teams having less than 20 players graded as 1st round prospects.

Here's what I'll say about that... from a pure analytical standpoint, when you know there is a constant of 32 1st round picks if you are consistently coming up with far fewer than that number in your analysis then your system sucks.

[LinvilleGorge]

3 hours ago, ENCPantherfan2 said:

22, 28, their 2nd, and Jordan Love. 

No way you're getting that but considering what they signed Rodgers to, you honestly might get 22, 28, and Love if they actually wanted #6. Based on what I've heard about how Love has looked for them though... I might prefer a mid-rounder.

[John_Sutter]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It seems like we hear this every year. Multiple teams having less than 20 players graded as 1st round prospects.

Here's what I'll say about that... from a pure analytical standpoint, when you know there is a constant of 32 1st round picks if you are consistently coming up with far fewer than that number in your analysis then your system sucks.

I agree it’s a weird way to frame it, but if you’re digging into contract value of 1st vs 2nd/3rd rounders + the value you get from trading back to get multiple guys in that 2nd/3rd tier, then I think that’s pretty functional actually