Four possible Trade Partners

[Minnphin]

Dont trade with cleveland! They will turn around and take less then we would have and give either minny or tampa the spot! JUST SAY NO

Well we'll take the best deal available. If we perceive it to be the Cleveland deal and then they trade down with somebody big deal. Becaue the only way we would have done this is if the Cleveland deal was better than anything else we were offered.

 

[Jimmy James]

Well we'll take the best deal available. If we perceive it to be the Cleveland deal and then they trade down with somebody big deal. Becaue the only way we would have done this is if the Cleveland deal was better than anything else we were offered.

Well said. If Cleveland is stupid enough to take just Gardner and the #9 pick for the #2 they traded us a second rounder to move up and get, more power to them. We still got ours.

The thing we have to worry about is trading down with Cleveland with the understanding they take Edwards and then having them turn around and trade the pick to the likes of Tampa, meaning we lose out on the Ronnie Brown we wanted to pick with the #3. (obviously, the named players are just examples)

 

[FaninPatsyLand]

I think you're close to having the right definition, but you're not all the way there. Trading up often does happen in the situations you describe, but the truly confident GMs aren't afraid to move up *or* down when the situation demands it. See Andy Reid. It's not a matter of exceptions -- it's a matter of recognizing value and doing what works to realize that value.

I think you are right, successful coaches and GMs do indeed trade up. I remember the Patriots moved up several spots a couple of years ago to grab Daniel Graham the TE out of Colorado. And you also mentioned the Ravens traded up and took Kyle Boller.

However, the point that I believe you are missing is that when the Patriots moved up to grab Graham they won the Super Bowl the year before. And I believe that the Ravens were in the playoffs the year before they grabbed Boller in the Draft.

The point is, teams who are already successful trade up to fill a glaring need at a certain position, and feel that they are one player away. But for a team like the Browns who are rebuilding and have so many needs, trading up just doesn't seem logical.

 

[Jimmy James]

I don't think I buy that the Ravens were a Boller away or thought they were. I also don't think the Eagles thought they were an Andrews away last year when they went after him. I understand what you're saying about bad teams, but I think every good GM has to pursue value first and foremost no matter what the record is like.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

Well we'll take the best deal available. If we perceive it to be the Cleveland deal and then they trade down with somebody big deal. Becaue the only way we would have done this is if the Cleveland deal was better than anything else we were offered.

Damn Minnphin, I just noticed your mock. Mike Williams, Barnes and Barber are among my absolute favorite players in this draft. Ronald Fields I could deal with also. Now we just need to work on that Seminole travesty. Looks like you were afraid of a perfect scorecard. Swap Lefors for McPherson and we'll call it grand theft.

 

[Deus Ex Dolphin]

I like the Redskins #9, #25 and Rod Gardner myself. Followed closely by dealing with the Vikes for #7 and #18.

As for a trade with the Browns? I thought according to the value chart that their third rounder would be good enough to move up from #3 to #2? Isn't a second asking TOO much according to the chart? Without us sending back another late round pick at least?

In a perfect draft scenario? The 49ers take Rodgers, we trade down with the Browns (#2 and our fifth rounder) so they can grab Smith (for their #3 and second rounder) then get the Redskins to trade #9, #25, and Gardner for our #3.

We get Caddy at #9, then trade #25 with the Pack for their TWO second round picks. That gives us FOUR second round picks to get solid players at a number of spots. I'd look at DT, LB, Safety, OL and QB since we already have a solid #3 WR in Gardner and a HB in Caddy.

Why the Pack would make that trade I'm not sure. Maybe if they are torn between two players they want when they pick at #24?

I'm dreaming of course, but any trade(s) that get us some early round picks and let us move down from #2 would be welcome. :D

Only hours to go now...

 

[MikeO]

I wouldn't trade down with Washington. At #9 we might not get anybody we want. All 3 RB's might be gone. Mike Williams gives us nothing since he doesn't have the speed we need at WR. Alex Barron? Not really someone who lights a fire for me at least. I don't know, I wouldn't go down that far.

Trade with Cleve, TB , Minny. At 3,5,7 we will have a choice of what RB we want (only 1 off the board at most) and that gives us the most value.