TrinidadDolfan
1st Team All-Pro
I am salivating over Bailey, and he is the main reason I would trade down, although I am sure that his draft stock will rise after the Combine.
My ideal scenario is big receiver FA (Jennings or Walace), trade back to the 20's for an extra 2nd and a 4th (correct value using the draft value chart), and pick up Bailey in latter half of Rd. 1.
Therefore our position would be this:
Jennings/Wallace + Stedman Bailey + Bess (let Hartline walk)
After Rd. 1 is complete: We would have - Rd. 2, Rd. 2, Rd. 2, Rd. 3, Rd. 3, Rd. 4, Rd. 4
=> Jennings/Wallace + Stedman Bailey + 3x 2nd. round picks, 2x 3rd. round picks, 2 x 4th round picks
Now, this is just my opinion, and it is based on my feeling (right or wrong) that Stedman Bailey:
a) Is destined to be a star in this league
b) Has "deep ball" willingness and talent like no other receiver in this draft. And is exactly what we need to "stretch" the field and get away from our permanent "red-zone"-type offence
I am sure that this strategy will attract some champions but also some detractors who will inevitably state that:
a) We cannot trade down without a "dance-partner" - This is true in all cases, it takes 2 to tango. But that does not mean it is not possible or likely
b) I am "tired" of trading down, lets stay high and get some playmakers! - O.k, I am all for staying high and adding playmakers if I believe that the value is there. Bailey, in my opinion, is severly underrated, and I would actually choose him, straight-up, over any other receiver in this class. Forget YAC for a second, let's focus on the deep threat, that is what he is.
c) We need someone to protect Tannehill, a DE next to Wake, and we need a CB! - Granted and agreed. But, the fact is that any mediocre GM with the cap space we have, can adequately fill at least one of those 3 positions of need through FA. That leaves 2 holes to fill and 7 picks in Rd. 2-4 to do so. That leads me to believe that we could conceivably double-up on each position (that would take 4 picks) and leave 3 picks to address other areas in "eaarly" rounds, and still leave room for boom/bust rolls of the dice, BEFORE we even start picking in Rd. 5!. I am quite big on leaving room for boom/bust chances once major holes are filled. Say what you want about Jimmy Johnson, but I am a big fan of what he once said: "Why settle for mediocrity, when you can take a chance to be great?". Honeybadger anyone? Not sure, but I would take a long, hard look. You catch the drift...
There is my strategy and first-pass rebuttals to anticipated arguments against.
I welcome all thoughts and arguments for & against. CK, I would be very interested for you to chime in here, either for or against. Cheers everyone.....
My ideal scenario is big receiver FA (Jennings or Walace), trade back to the 20's for an extra 2nd and a 4th (correct value using the draft value chart), and pick up Bailey in latter half of Rd. 1.
Therefore our position would be this:
Jennings/Wallace + Stedman Bailey + Bess (let Hartline walk)
After Rd. 1 is complete: We would have - Rd. 2, Rd. 2, Rd. 2, Rd. 3, Rd. 3, Rd. 4, Rd. 4
=> Jennings/Wallace + Stedman Bailey + 3x 2nd. round picks, 2x 3rd. round picks, 2 x 4th round picks
Now, this is just my opinion, and it is based on my feeling (right or wrong) that Stedman Bailey:
a) Is destined to be a star in this league
b) Has "deep ball" willingness and talent like no other receiver in this draft. And is exactly what we need to "stretch" the field and get away from our permanent "red-zone"-type offence
I am sure that this strategy will attract some champions but also some detractors who will inevitably state that:
a) We cannot trade down without a "dance-partner" - This is true in all cases, it takes 2 to tango. But that does not mean it is not possible or likely
b) I am "tired" of trading down, lets stay high and get some playmakers! - O.k, I am all for staying high and adding playmakers if I believe that the value is there. Bailey, in my opinion, is severly underrated, and I would actually choose him, straight-up, over any other receiver in this class. Forget YAC for a second, let's focus on the deep threat, that is what he is.
c) We need someone to protect Tannehill, a DE next to Wake, and we need a CB! - Granted and agreed. But, the fact is that any mediocre GM with the cap space we have, can adequately fill at least one of those 3 positions of need through FA. That leaves 2 holes to fill and 7 picks in Rd. 2-4 to do so. That leads me to believe that we could conceivably double-up on each position (that would take 4 picks) and leave 3 picks to address other areas in "eaarly" rounds, and still leave room for boom/bust rolls of the dice, BEFORE we even start picking in Rd. 5!. I am quite big on leaving room for boom/bust chances once major holes are filled. Say what you want about Jimmy Johnson, but I am a big fan of what he once said: "Why settle for mediocrity, when you can take a chance to be great?". Honeybadger anyone? Not sure, but I would take a long, hard look. You catch the drift...
There is my strategy and first-pass rebuttals to anticipated arguments against.
I welcome all thoughts and arguments for & against. CK, I would be very interested for you to chime in here, either for or against. Cheers everyone.....
