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!

     

The case for trading down


section543

Recommended Posts

I realize many of you hate the trade down scenarios, but here is my reasoning.

Looks like there is no consensus on can’t-miss prospects at 14. I think unless Star or one of 3 OT’s fall to us at 14, a trade down could be the best scenario IF we can find a partner. Minnesota could be willing to move up to get one of the WRs (assuming they’re there). If they would trade #23 & #52 for 14, it would help. Then, what if SF needs a final piece (S or DT?) and offers #31 & #34 for #23; QB-seeking team?; or Denver falls in love with one player to put them over the top?

Farfetched I know but would you do that? It (SF trade)would give us #31, 34, 44, & 52- 4 of the top fifty in a draft considered deep but not top-heavy. That would allow us to fill holes at DT, CB, OG, and S or WR. We would possibly get 4 inexpensive starters which help salary cap problems for 2014 when Cam and Hardy come due.

Some combination of 4:

CB-Banks, Slay, Wilson

DT- Hankins, Jenkins, (Bama DT?)

WR- Hopkins, (Austin if he falls), Allen, Hunter, Patton

OL- Warford, Watson,

S- Elam, Reid, Cyprien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people here would love such a scenario. It's just not even in the realm of realistic. If we could somehow swing Hankins, Hunter/Hopkins, Warford AND Rambo (or Elam, but Rambo is much preferred) it'd be an absolute wet dream. It's just not gonna happen and a lotta folks around here don't like it when people dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hah, that would certainly be having your cake and eating it too.

Well, it doesn't have to be Jordan, Mingo or Ansah would work. Point is, that with NO going to a 3-4, they will HAVE to get the key component for that scheme which is an OLB. Many teams behind them need the same cog.

My one and only mock had Pittsburgh moving in front of them since all of the Steelers LB's are old and some being cut.

I think if any of the three, Jordan, Mingo, or Ansah are on the board, we will have an opportunity to move down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize many of you hate the trade down scenarios, but here is my reasoning.

Looks like there is no consensus on can’t-miss prospects at 14.

I like the thought of trading down, but if there is no consensus cant miss prospect at 14 why would anyone (let alone 2 teams) want to trade up? Wouldn't mind the players though. Just dont see it happening

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing about trading down that is tricky, is that you better make sure you are picking great players in lower rounds.

I have seen the Steelers(Wallace,Brown,Sanders) do this, but I have never seen the Panthers do this multiple times.

Can't wait to see what Gettleman has up his sleeve. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it doesn't have to be Jordan, Mingo or Ansah would work. Point is, that with NO going to a 3-4, they will HAVE to get the key component for that scheme which is an OLB. Many teams behind them need the same cog.

My one and only mock had Pittsburgh moving in front of them since all of the Steelers LB's are old and some being cut.

I think if any of the three, Jordan, Mingo, or Ansah are on the board, we will have an opportunity to move down.

Heh I was just saying it'd be awesome to be able to trade down AND screw NO in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh I was just saying it'd be awesome to be able to trade down AND screw NO in the process.

No problem, I understood what you meant. Just went a little further with who else might precipitate a trade. I think NO having us in front of them should give them nightmares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Would be happy with Lomu or Iheanachor at 19. Fano is intriguing but I don't think he makes it.
    • II see it this way: We have to look at long-term needs and current depth.  We have filled some key spots with players on one-year contracts.  I firmly believe that they intend to pay Bryce some big bucks next year.  That means you cannot hope that your rookies in 2027 can fill the spots vacated by the veterans you could not afford to re-sign.   We need to consider the cap and the fact that the need to start a rookie is not viewed as a positive by coaches and general managers, but they value first contracts--so it is a delicate balance. I think they have to look at the cap by position--"Can we afford a $50m QB and a $100m OL?  That is half the cap, before you pay your WRs and RBs and TEs.  They need to start getting younger on the OL as well.   I am not suggesting that we draft OT in round 1, but we could and I would get it.  RT on a 1-year deal, they may have intel about Ickey (who was not the best LT, to be honest) and 32-year old Moton is on a bad wheel.   Now if you go by Morgan's history, you can almost tell what position we are going to address with the first pick by noting the positions he has not focused on in free agency.  DT, considering the lack of performance by those not named Derrick Brown and the loss of Robinson, is screaming to be addressed with a top player.  Wharton is not an early down DT (DE if you want to get technical) and our LBs need to be clean--they were not in 2025.  Look for a DT early. I also think we will address ILB (pass covering Will) on day 2.  The other day 2 pick will be an OT, in my view. Do not rule out CB.  We are thin there too, and Jackson is in his final year.  I am not sure that we love Smith-Wade.  Some crackhead on here talked about moving him to S----stay tuned.   Hopefully, a team wanting Ty Simpson will move up and offer us a pick or two to move back. DT WILB OT OC QB  (you heard it here 337th--but this pick could come sooner than you think.      
    • Bryce had some bad games, but he had some good ones as well (and this is coming from a Bryce skeptic). I think it's a little simplistic to put all the offensive woes on Bryce, you also should be looking at O-line play, receiver play, RB and TE play, and also coaching. There's no way when I look at the offense in it's totality am I ready to say that a so-so to bad offense was all on Bryce, and, I also can't say that we don't need to upgrade any position on offense, save Tetairoa McMillan (who also wasn't perfect) and maybe the starting guards and T-mo.
×
×
  • Create New...