If johnathan hankins is available after we pick in the 2nd, would you trade?

[thunderraiden]

Soo, I'm looking at some mocks and noticing that after we pick a lot of mocks have Hankins sitting til the end of the second. Any other year Hankins is a first round draft pick, but with any DT they take a year or two to develop. Let's channel some Hurney Magic on a prospect actually worth doing it with. Why not get a true NT with a non-stop motor this year and have him developed opposed to developing an LT or DT next year?

I am of the opinion we won't be drafting a DT in the first however. Our d-line is fine aside from NT. So my happy draft would be: J. Cyprien in first, best available WR not from USC in 2nd, and J. Hankins for our 2014 1st round pick. Only holes left are at CB and O-line after that and that is easily fixed with a little cap room.

[OneBadCat]

Allen 1st, Hankins 2nd.

[LinvilleGorge]

I'm absolutely against continuing to mortgage our future by trading away future higher picks to take guys we like who have slipped.

[rayzor]

if we're going to trade picks for anything other than moving backwards, I'd rather it be on someone with experience. i don't like mortgaging the future on unproven commodities. thats how we wind up with guys like armanti and everette brown.

sure, you might take guys like julio as a reason to trade up, but that was a dumb trade because they could have gotten something important with the picks they gave up....you know, like good defensive players that are younger than 30.

[thunderraiden]

if we're going to trade picks for anything other than moving backwards, I'd rather it be on someone with experience. i don't like mortgaging the future on unproven commodities.

By that logic, why use draft picks at all?

I do agree however, it isn't as cut as dry as I make it in OP. If one were to look at next year's DT prospects and decide that the second half of the draft there wouldn't be that many players that are better than Hankins now available then, then you feel better about the trade. This draft is just packed with DT talent, so much so one can fall to the second such as an NT like Hankins and be had for relatively cheap considering the team we would fill this year with are two biggest defensive needs filled, and a new WR. I wouldn't mind an OT in the second either instead of WR.

[rayzor]

By that logic, why use draft picks at all?

I've said several times before that aside from the first couple rounds or maybe the third, I'd rather use draft picks on proven experienced players with cheap/manageable contracts.

i have no problem with drafting players, esp. if all they cost is one pick. when you get into giving up multiple picks and limiting future options, i think that's when you get into trouble.

the draft is a gamble enough. why make it more of one? i like swing for the fences type picks, but i don't like the idea of bundling picks for one player.

[thunderraiden]

I've said several times before that aside from the first couple rounds or maybe the third, I'd rather use draft picks on proven experienced players with cheap/manageable contracts.

i have no problem with drafting players, esp. if all they cost is one pick. when you get into giving up multiple picks and limiting future options, i think that's when you get into trouble.

the draft is a gamble enough. why make it more of one? i like swing for the fences type picks, but i don't like the idea of bundling picks for one player.

Oh, no doubt, multiple picks become tricky, but it's turned Washington around, it has also pushed the Falcons into the leagues elite. I'm saying, Hankins is about the only player I would consider this with if he can be had for one pick, albeit a first, but he was a first round prospect the entire year until the depth of the DT class pushed him out. Not to mention, he has a non-stop motor, yes its gambling, but I wouldn't gamble with any player that doesn't have a non-stop motor and a desire to be great, something common with Julio Jones and RGIII.

[rayzor]

it just results in failure more than success from where i stand. just not a fan.

that said, if we don't trade backwards to pick up a third, i pretty much expect us to trade back up into the third somehow. as good of a draft as this is thru the first few rounds, it's hard to imagine us being without a third. i just hope its not a 2nd or earlier from next year.

[Herbert The Love Bug]

Gettlemen knows what hes doing. I'll not worry about it and trust him to give us the best possible draft

[Jackofalltrades]

I'd just take him in the 2nd if he's the BPA on our board.

Kalil and Kuchley are two examples of recently BPA picks.

[LinvilleGorge]

I'd just take him in the 2nd if he's the BPA on our board.

Exactly. I'd have zero problem with that. It would actually be ideal if the BPA on our board just so happened to coincide with a big need on our roster. A DT would fit the bill perfectly.

[BBQ&Beer]

I'd just take him in the 2nd if he's the BPA on our board.

Kalil and Kuchley are two examples of recently BPA picks.

^ This. If he's the player you want & he's there...

[Jackofalltrades]

I wouldn't care if we'd already taken a UT in the first, at the very least you've invested heavily in a area of need with some very good prospects. It would leave us with another hole to fill, but that's always going to be the case.

[thunderraiden]

Exactly. I'd have zero problem with that. It would actually be ideal if the BPA on our board just so happened to coincide with a big need on our roster. A DT would fit the bill perfectly.

My God youre right. Lmao im so tunnel vision on us getting a wr in the 2nd i didnt even think of the obvious.