Knowing how Fitterer likes to maneuver the draft

[therealmjl]

5 hours ago, Aussie Tank said:

Don’t throw stones in glass houses 

My thoughts exactly 

[therealmjl]

Nvm

Edited April 26, 2023 by therealmjl

[Jackie Lee]

33 minutes ago, Smithers said:

Maybe - but we have 66 players under contract already.  6 picks brings that to 72.  I’m sure we will add 2 more free agents after the draft, bringing us to 74.  Then come the UDFAs to bring us to 90 for camp.  Trading back to accumulate more picks while risking losing out on a more talented player just doesn’t make sense.

Yeah after doing numerous mock drafts, I'd rather pick at 39 and move back up into the 2nd/early 3rd for another impact player. We've already got projects on the roster left over from the rhule era and we'll add about 15-20 UDFA's. The UDFA's alone will probably land us a backup guard or DT or something

[Sir Big Spurr]

Can someone show me evidence that Fitt trading back to gain more picks has been beneficial to the team? I mean, we were drafting long snappers two years ago with those extra picks. 
 

And I know everyone will just blame Rhule for everything, but I thought I’d at least ask the question. 

[frankw]

Just don't get too cute with the trade downs if that's the path we take.

[JawnyBlaze]

I’d prefer not to trade down from 39, seems like a sweet spot where some guys I think will truly make an impact will be available. I wouldn’t mind trading up from 93 though. Would be awesome to land a top TE at 39 then trade up from 93 for Mingo

[GamecockSmitty4]

1 hour ago, Smithers said:

Maybe - but we have 66 players under contract already.  6 picks brings that to 72.  I’m sure we will add 2 more free agents after the draft, bringing us to 74.  Then come the UDFAs to bring us to 90 for camp.  Trading back to accumulate more picks while risking losing out on a more talented player just doesn’t make sense.

I was just being facetious but this is a good post. 

I would still make the argument that draft picks, especially at this point in the draft, is a crapshoot. Having more opportunities to hit is still a positive. 
 

I could also see a scenario where Fitt trades down to pick up another pick or two next year. This would provide more ammo to get a late first next year or just additional pick(s) to compensate for not having a first. 

[hepcat]

I could honestly see them trading up to get back into the 1st round if a player they like falls using that high 2nd round pick. If a top WR prospect falls and they have the chance to move up to grab him, I think they will. 

And like others have said, outside of a few positions like OL, CB, WR, and maybe LB, there aren't a lot of holes based on who is under contract. Personally I'm more in favor of trading down and acquiring picks for future years as well as this year but I think Tepper is hungry to win now and they'll want to get Bryce some weapons. 

[Bear Hands]

A combo trade up/down package is what I think could make a lot of sense to move up from 93 a tad.  Let's just capitalize on a top talent if there at 39.  If not, I can see us considering a MINOR trade down.  But yeah..a trade up/down-ski:  

A 93+132 type package to get up to ~75-85 with a team that gives us a later pick in the 160-170 range.  

Example: Lions give us 81, 159 for 93 & 132. Value isn't there but it's the general idea.

Also--Even though we don't have a 2024 1st, we have a 6th or 7th rounder we should be able to add on to a trade if we wanna move up a tad more at any spot.  

[Cdparr7]

I imagine they have a couple people at 39 they will take if they fall but 39 is probably going to be used to trade down 

[SCO96]

3 hours ago, JawnyBlaze said:

I’d prefer not to trade down from 39, seems like a sweet spot where some guys I think will truly make an impact will be available. I wouldn’t mind trading up from 93 though. Would be awesome to land a top TE at 39 then trade up from 93 for Mingo

I think we should be able to find a starter at #39. If legit pass rusher is available (DE or DT) on the board when we pick we need to take him. I'd say the say the same thing for WR, LB, or CB. 

[JawnyBlaze]

4 hours ago, GamecockSmitty4 said:

I was just being facetious but this is a good post. 

I would still make the argument that draft picks, especially at this point in the draft, is a crapshoot. Having more opportunities to hit is still a positive. 
 

I could also see a scenario where Fitt trades down to pick up another pick or two next year. This would provide more ammo to get a late first next year or just additional pick(s) to compensate for not having a first. 

There’s certainly merit to the “crapshoot” philosophy to drafting, but I tend to prefer quality over quantity and trust the decision makers.  Rarely do the teams known for trading back and stockpiling picks actually turn those picks into better players than they could have taken at their original spot (at least, in my observations). I’d rather have two firsts, two seconds and nothing else in every draft than a pick in every round, heh. I’ll take a quarter over three dimes any day, when it comes to football players. 

[JawnyBlaze]

52 minutes ago, SCO96 said:

I think we should be able to find a starter at #39. If legit pass rusher is available (DE or DT) on the board when we pick we need to take him. I'd say the say the same thing for WR, LB, or CB. 

Yea, other than DL I’d agree that a potential starter at any of those positions is someone we can’t pass on at 39 (with LB including  edge rushing OLBs).  I’d also add TE, even if they’re not necessarily going to start over Hurst on day one, there’s two or three guys that have really high potential to be exceptional players I would hate to pass on too

[Mr. Scot]

5 hours ago, therealmjl said:

My thoughts exactly 

What about throwing glass in stone houses?