Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Trade down please.....

Zod

By Zod,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Zod Grand Master

Zod

Posted
Posted

There is a strange assumption out there that no teams will want to trade up to the #1 slot. I think that is simply incorrect. There are plenty of teams that will want to trade up to #1, the only question is "at what cost?". Teams no longer have to worry about the huge cost of the first pick with the new rookie pay structure going into place.

I am of the opinion that we should target a team in the mid first round to trade up to the #1 pick but throw in not an additional first rounder from next year, but a second and third rounder from this year. That would give us 4 early round draft picks this season, something we desperately need, and still give us a J-Stew/Beason type selection.

Take San Diego for instance. They have the 18th pick. They also have 2 second round selections. It would be a win/win all around for them to move up to #1 and give up that extra second rounder and a third rounder.

Think about it, 4 picks in the top 3 rounds. That would go a long way in raising the talent level of this team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
panthers55 Grand Master

panthers55

Posted
Posted

If there is a rookie cap I think you keep the pick and get a sure impact player. There are still a number of quarterbacks worthy of a number 1 pick.

How well have we done in the second round lately?? The way we are going just give us 3 or 4 more sixth rounders, then we might have something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Highlandfire Newbie

Highlandfire

Posted
Posted

There is a strange assumption out there that no teams will want to trade up to the #1 slot. I think that is simply incorrect. There are plenty of teams that will want to trade up to #1, the only question is "at what cost?". Teams no longer have to worry about the huge cost of the first pick with the new rookie pay structure going into place.

I am of the opinion that we should target a team in the mid first round to trade up to the #1 pick but throw in not an additional first rounder from next year, but a second and third rounder from this year. That would give us 4 early round draft picks this season, something we desperately need, and still give us a J-Stew/Beason type selection.

Take San Diego for instance. They have the 18th pick. They also have 2 second round selections. It would be a win/win all around for them to move up to #1 and give up that extra second rounder and a third rounder.

Think about it, 4 picks in the top 3 rounds. That would go a long way in raising the talent level of this team.

Again Thank you!!! Nice to see some reasonable, smart, non hysterical postings.

Trading down is the best option right now and YES there will be trade offers. Bend someone over and make them pay for it but TRADE DOWN!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Squirrel Collaborator

Squirrel

Posted
Posted

Who is at #1 that a team would be willing to trade up to get? I see no real difference in picks 1 through 12 in this draft.

With the rookies scale cap there will be plenty of teams wanting the pick. If there wasnt a rookie scale I could see your point. There will be a rookie scale count on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj4life Newbie

mj4life

Posted
Posted

If there is a rookie cap I think you keep the pick and get a sure impact player. There are still a number of quarterbacks worthy of a number 1 pick.

i agree, we just have to do our homework on guys like newton & gabbert. the combine & workouts will determine alot IMO but don't think you trade past the top 10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Yep, like I said, I don't mind guaranteeing them money, but make the contracts smaller amounts in order to minimize cap implications. I don't know about "half," the actual amounts, whether more or less than half, would have to be determined by the NFL and NFLPA (which will probably be highly contentious, if not "impossible").  I'm just for whatever leads to the best product on the field while also unaffecting my wallet. As an aside, the NFL owners are greedy bastards in my estimation. They're trying to keep a larger portion of the pie, but players' agents are greedy as well, and they've sewn seeds of greed among the players. It's not all their fault; we all know what our society has evolved into, but the NFL wants a bigger piece of our smaller pocketbooks and refuses to "negotiate" with us (that's why we don't have cheaper and more reasonable à la carte options to view games that they're gradually trying to migrate to paid TV), so fu<k 'em. And then on top of that we have guys trying to water down the product even more by feeding greed. Change the way things are done so that we can at least see players prove themselves on the field without throwing wrenches into the engine that pays guys that have proven they can play on a pro level.
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      So if one of the parents wants to buy the theatre group or the band lunch they should get banned?
    • TD alt
      Teddy Checkdown in trouble

      By TD alt · Posted

      OK, I didn't realize this was about high school, but...if I'm spending my personal money trying to help some kids out, then no one is going to tell me how to spend my money. I get enough of the government spending my money--allocating my tax dollars--to children who don't really need anything, and now they're trying to tell me how to spend my personal money? Sure, there are many other issues to consider and rabbit holes that we could go down due to ethical concerns because it concerns kids, and the need for transparency is extremely important, but maybe as opposed to trying to stop kids from benefitting in darkness, we need to open up the blinds (and blinders) a little bit so that they can benefit in the light. I get where you're coming from, but this is a loaded and layered issue, and I'm just trying to give you some food for thought. 
×
×
  • Create New...