uk9erfan Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 I am looking at our six picks in this years draft, combined with our continuing (but improving) lack of roster depth and quality, and wondering that if the right deal came along then maybe we should consider trading the second overall pick for more picks than we currently have. There seems to be a consensus of opinion that the edge rusher position (our foremost need) is well stocked this year. So we could likely pick up an edge rusher of potential great quality later in the first round. What would need to happen? Probably we would need the Giants to be willing to trade their first two picks at 6 and 17 for our 2nd overall. This seems very unlikely but may be possible if the Cards take Bosa first and the Giants want Murray badly enough. Or the Raiders trade their 4th overall and either their 24th or 27th overall for our 2nd overall? Seems unlikely but again if the Cards opt for Bosa with the first pick, then there are a few teams who might consider it worthwhile to trade for our 2nd overall. Personally I'd want a better package than two later first rounders, I'd want even more picks in the later rounds and some next year too maybe. Your thoughts ladies and gentlemen please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 You should always be open to trading. Largely depends on A) what your board looks like, B) How far you are moving, C) What's the compensation like? Not to mention a number of other factors. Would I be willing to move from 2 to 4 for one of the Raiders' late firsts or maybe chicago's first next year? Absolutely. Would I be willing to trade down from 2 to 10 for #10, Next year's #1 pick, and this year's second and some other sweetener? Meh....It's close. I think I'd do that if I could move back up from 10 to like 7 to get Burns / Sweat at a cheaper rate than I gave up to move down from 2 to 10, but at #10, there could be a legit real drop off in talent from the likes of who we can get at 2. Of course, someone like Ferrell could be there and a lot of people love him so they'd be happy with that just fine. There are a lot of variables that come into play with regards to trading the pick, much to complex to answer in a vacuum. Be open to it, then evaluate it when something comes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk9erfan Posted March 30, 2019 Author Share Posted March 30, 2019 Many thanks for your input Forge, always welcome and informative. Looking forward to others perspective on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fureys49ers Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 Dropping from 2 to 3 with the Bears netted us nothing close to two 1sts and that was for a QB, I believe it was two 3rds and a 4th, can’t see the Raiders adding in a late 1st on top of the 4th overall pick to move up 2 spots. If we stay in the top 10 after a trade down I’m thinking a 2nd this year and next depending on if it’s closer to 10 as opposed to 4 and maybe some mid to late round sweetness this year or next. Jets gave up three 2nds to move from 6 to 3, again for a QB and the trade value chart (take it for what it’s worth) showed them giving up 900 more points then the pick they were receiving was worth. Again though, that was so they could get their likely choice, or have a better selection of available QBs. Maybe the Giants, Jags, Broncos try and trade up and get their QB in Haskins or Murray if he doesn’t go number 1 but I don’t quite see it. Especially with rumors out there of Eli atleast attempting to start for another year along with Foles and Flacco’s acquisition by their teams. Maybe someone moves up to take their guy on the defensive side of the ball like QW or Bosa but I’m not sure that nets ya as much as past trades for a QB have gotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFLExpert49 Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 I would trade it to the Bucs for Mike Evans. They won't, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandomonium Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 basically to make it simple, I think we'd all be on board with this scenario. 1. the cards DON'T take Murray at 1 2. A really dumb coach/GM combo gives us a kings ransom for #2 ( like a Ditka-esque trade ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melbourne 9er Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 Ideal scenario for me would be if Arizona takes Bosa at #1 then we trade #2 with Oakland so that they can get Murray and we get #4, #35 and next year's 2nd. Then the Jets take Williams. We then trade #4 to the Giants so they can get Haskins and we get #6, #96 and next year's 2nd. Tampa Bay then pick Devin White. Therefore for the #2 we get 2x2020 2nds, #35 and #96 and our choice of Allen/Burns/Sweat/Ferrell. If the Jets take Allen then Williams is added to the mix. Then depending on how they are ranked by the FO we may be able to trade down again, especially if someone like Denver really wants Drew Lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fureys49ers Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 11 hours ago, Melbourne 9er said: Ideal scenario for me would be if Arizona takes Bosa at #1 then we trade #2 with Oakland so that they can get Murray and we get #4, #35 and next year's 2nd. Then the Jets take Williams. We then trade #4 to the Giants so they can get Haskins and we get #6, #96 and next year's 2nd. Tampa Bay then pick Devin White. Therefore for the #2 we get 2x2020 2nds, #35 and #96 and our choice of Allen/Burns/Sweat/Ferrell. If the Jets take Allen then Williams is added to the mix. Then depending on how they are ranked by the FO we may be able to trade down again, especially if someone like Denver really wants Drew Lock. This would be the sexiest day 1 draft ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 I think trading to the 6-8 range would be ideal. Don't think it's really possible if Murray goes #1 as teams will think they can wait until the Jets or Raiders pick to trade up for Haskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NcFinest9erFan Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 On 3/30/2019 at 2:50 PM, Forge said: You should always be open to trading. Largely depends on A) what your board looks like, B) How far you are moving, C) What's the compensation like? Not to mention a number of other factors. Would I be willing to move from 2 to 4 for one of the Raiders' late firsts or maybe chicago's first next year? Absolutely. Would I be willing to trade down from 2 to 10 for #10, Next year's #1 pick, and this year's second and some other sweetener? Meh....It's close. I think I'd do that if I could move back up from 10 to like 7 to get Burns / Sweat at a cheaper rate than I gave up to move down from 2 to 10, but at #10, there could be a legit real drop off in talent from the likes of who we can get at 2. Of course, someone like Ferrell could be there and a lot of people love him so they'd be happy with that just fine. There are a lot of variables that come into play with regards to trading the pick, much to complex to answer in a vacuum. Be open to it, then evaluate it when something comes in. Yeah in a trade down I would be fine with Burns. I'm iffy on Sweat but lynch said they wanted someone who had speed/power so Ferrell would fit that mold? or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldman9er Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 4 hours ago, NcFinest9erFan said: said they wanted someone who had speed/power so Ferrell would fit that mold? or no? Oh but yes yes and yes. He can bring the power. Just doesn't have quite the bend that Burns has. Ferrell will eat via bullying through or inside, while also being effective on hand warfare and counters to get outside. Some rushers get more outside respect (OT has to overcompensate more outside for the speed rushers, which gives them more leverage to get back inside.. OT and OG have to compensate for power rushers, which can give more leverage to get outside edge).. and some dudes just have a healthy mix of both short area speed and power. Let the trench battle chess match begin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NcFinest9erFan Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 15 minutes ago, oldman9er said: Oh but yes yes and yes. He can bring the power. Just doesn't have quite the bend that Burns has. Ferrell will eat via bullying through or inside, while also being effective on hand warfare and counters to get outside. Some rushers get more outside respect (OT has to overcompensate more outside for the speed rushers, which gives them more leverage to get back inside.. OT and OG have to compensate for power rushers, which can give more leverage to get outside edge).. and some dudes just have a healthy mix of both short area speed and power. Let the trench battle chess match begin! Oldman, all i see is D law when I watch Ferrell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldman9er Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 2 hours ago, NcFinest9erFan said: Oldman, all i see is D law when I watch Ferrell. dunno, maybe so.. I don't do player comparisons much. I'll take a look for that at some point, as I roll through the top guys... to see if I misjudged via intoxication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John232 Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 Ferrell is #4 edge behind Bosa, Burns and Allen. I think he's incredibly well rounded and still has room to grow. I personally feel he's the most underrated and least talked about edge prospect. Big fan of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.