Free agency leftover, trade down mock

Originally posted by mebemused:
I like trading down in this draft, especially to pick up Zeitler with a low second round pick.

But I wouldn't make the trade for a 4th and a 5th. Their 4th and 5th wouldn't be enough value in return, even though it balances on the trade chart.

#30 620
#41 490
130
I would want their 3rd round pick, #72 worth 230 pts. To partially balancing the 100 pts. difference, I would give them our 4th round pick,#125, worth 47. Of course the better trade would be the Vikings 2nd in 2012 and 2013.

But you want more picks for our Super Bowl run. And this draft is deep at a number of positions through the first 3 rounds. How would you draft with these picks?

We end up with:
Round 2 #41
Round 2 #61
Round 3 #72
Round 3 #92
Round 5 #165
Round 6 #197
Round 7 #237

That is just trading down out of the first and trading up out of the fourth. A 1st and a 4th is worth more than a 2nd and a 3rd

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Trade down? How about trading up for Cordy Glenn or Peter Zonz? Just don't think there's enough roster spots to add another 9 players. I'd be happy with 5:

- Starting caliber OG (Konz, Glenn or possibly DeCastro if he somehow-but-not-likely fell to the late teens)
- WR depth
- OLB depth
- FS/SS depth
- whatever depth (TE or DE, maybe RB)

Question is, what will they have to give up to move into the 15-20 range to get a Glenn or a DeCastro? What would you give up? A first, a second and a fourth?
Konz might only cost a third round pick to get into the mid 20's to get ahead of the Packers.

If they keep all their picks or trade down, they could be like the Niners of the 80's, two or three deep up and down the roster. That would be cool.

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by FredFlintstone:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Trade down? How about trading up for Cordy Glenn or Peter Zonz? Just don't think there's enough roster spots to add another 9 players. I'd be happy with 5:

- Starting caliber OG (Konz, Glenn or possibly DeCastro if he somehow-but-not-likely fell to the late teens)
- WR depth
- OLB depth
- FS/SS depth
- whatever depth (TE or DE, maybe RB)

how about no, seriously trading a 2nd or 3rd rd pick for another damn olineman in the 1st rd is f**king ridiculous. its amazing how people think you can only find good olinemen in the 1st rd when time and time again it has been proven you can find them in the later rds and have them as a successful piece to your oline for yrs with great coaching. look at the damn saints oline when they had nicks along with evans and bushrod were all later rd picks on top of that with the exception of nicks were small school picks.

It's called a difference of opinion. You prefer to take a chance on lower-ranked lineman and hope they turn in to pro-bowlers (or at least effective players), I prefer to take that risk with guys that rate a little higher; it's just me. Both ways have proved effective and there's no real right or wrong way. I say tomAtoe you say "f**k you, Ghost."

Btw, I never said you can ONLY find good lineman in the 1st (you just made that s**t up). Sure, you can get lucky and find people like Nicks, Evans and Bushrod in later rounds, but the safer bet is to use 1st round picks where you can get guys like Nick Mangold, Logan Mankins, Maurkice Pouncey, Mike Iupati, Alex Mack, etc. (oh look, I just named some good players too). In the absence of hard data around success rates for lineman picked in the first versus those picked later, my preference is for higher-ranked talent, especially when that higher-ranked talent also happens to be the only real need (starting position-wise) this team has.

But seriously dude, relax. We're just talking here...nobody is making life and death decisions on this forum.

LOL youre right dude my bad, just tired of using 1st rd pick on olinemen. just prefer to use a 1st rd pick on a playmaker. theres a reason baalke traded up for kilgore even if it was in the 5th rd, give kilgore competition by signing a fa guard and drafting 1 later

Still not sold on Gaurd in the first round...hoping a guy like Brooks is around when we pick in the second...

My dream ( it wont happen) draft is something like Fleener/ Brooks/ Turbin with our first three picks and then address defensive and WR depth the rest of the way.

I know that not going after WR and CB early isnt popular, but I just dont like the value of the players at those postions when we pick and I belive the roster this year is more than strong enough to go BPA.

Originally posted by m_brockalexander:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Trade down? How about trading up for Cordy Glenn or Peter Zonz? Just don't think there's enough roster spots to add another 9 players. I'd be happy with 5:

- Starting caliber OG (Konz, Glenn or possibly DeCastro if he somehow-but-not-likely fell to the late teens)
- WR depth
- OLB depth
- FS/SS depth
- whatever depth (TE or DE, maybe RB)

Question is, what will they have to give up to move into the 15-20 range to get a Glenn or a DeCastro? What would you give up? A first, a second and a fourth?
Konz might only cost a third round pick to get into the mid 20's to get ahead of the Packers.

If they keep all their picks or trade down, they could be like the Niners of the 80's, two or three deep up and down the roster. That would be cool.

I'd be totally fine with Konz. I'd even be fine with drafting an offensive weapon in the late first then moving up in the mid-second to grab the best guard available (Brooks, Silatolu or Osemele). So if we came away with a top WR or TE in the first and a top-tier guard in the 2nd, everything else would be gravy.

While trading down a year ago would have made a lot of sense I just don't see it being that way this year. There are not alot of holes to fill and roster space is limited. I see a trade up if anything.