Picking #3

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, Karnage84 said:

Personally, I don't think expect the Lions to trade out beyond #7. I'm with CWood and agree that the Dolphins would take Herbert at #7 if they were convinced he was their guy sans Tua. 

I see one of two scenarios happening with Detroit.  They stay at 3 and select their BPA (whether it be Tua or someone else) or they trade down into that 5-7 range allowing one of Miami, LA Chargers, or Carolina to move up to select Tua.  In order of likelihood, I think it'd be Carolina, Miami, and a distant 3rd the Chargers.  But I don't see the market happening for Herbert to move down a second time.

[CWood21]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Isn't that a strange approach though? Someone suggests something. Instead of asking for any sort of clarification, you make a few assumptions and label it "wildly off", despite the fact that they actually have the picks to make the value reasonable. Doesn't that seem sort of ridiculous to you?

Not really.  LIS, do you think the Patricia/Quinn are going to be interested in dropping down a tier (or two) for a late SRP and a future FRP that is projected to be in the mid-to-late range?  This goes back to my OP that fans are enamored with future FRPs because of what they could be.  Not what they're likely to be.  Trust me, I was in the same situation when the Saints traded their FRP to the Packers as part of the Marcus Davenport trade.  I was hopeful that a Drew Brees injury would lead to a high FRP, but the likelihood of that happening wasn't high.

[CWood21]

4 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

His suggestion was that the Dolphins would take Herbert at #5.

And again I ask, why do you think the Dolphins would potentially risk missing out on their franchise QB and not take him at 5?

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Just now, CWood21 said:

Not really.  LIS, do you think the Patricia/Quinn are going to be interested in dropping down a tier (or two) for a late SRP and a future FRP that is projected to be in the mid-to-late range?  This goes back to my OP that fans are enamored with future FRPs because of what they could be.  Not what they're likely to be.  Trust me, I was in the same situation when the Saints traded their FRP to the Packers as part of the Marcus Davenport trade.  I was hopeful that a Drew Brees injury would lead to a high FRP, but the likelihood of that happening wasn't high.

We're not at that point yet. I'm asking you how ridiculous you think it is to enter a conversation where a trade suggestion was made, to not ask for clarification nor do your own research, and label the value "wildly off". Doesn't that seem ridiculous to you?

[Karnage84]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

His suggestion was that the Dolphins would take Herbert at #5.

So we're looking at:

1 - Burrow

2 - Young

3 - Tua to (Car or LAC)

4 - Jeudy, Thomas or Okudah

5 - Herbert to Miami

6 - 

7 - 

If that's the case, you're not getting a plethora of picks to move up to #6 or #7. If we've already moved down and collected extra picks I don't see a reason to move down AGAIN with blue chip players still available on the board. I also can't see the Dolphins passing up on Herbert at #5 with another QB needy team sitting right there who would be read to take him for free. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

And again I ask, why do you think the Dolphins would potentially risk missing out on their franchise QB and not take him at 5?

I already answered this: they thought one of those defenders was significantly better, and believed that their only way of getting both that defender and Herbert would be to take the defender now and move up afterwards.

[Karnage84]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I see one of two scenarios happening with Detroit.  They stay at 3 and select their BPA (whether it be Tua or someone else) or they trade down into that 5-7 range allowing one of Miami, LA Chargers, or Carolina to move up to select Tua.  In order of likelihood, I think it'd be Carolina, Miami, and a distant 3rd the Chargers.  But I don't see the market happening for Herbert to move down a second time.

Agreed.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Just now, Karnage84 said:

If we've already moved down and collected extra picks I don't see a reason to move down AGAIN with blue chip players still available on the board.

Sitting at #7, and missing out on Brown, Okudah and Simmons, who else would you take there?

[CWood21]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

We're not at that point yet. I'm asking you how ridiculous you think it is to enter a conversation where a trade suggestion was made, to not ask for clarification nor do your own research, and label the value "wildly off". Doesn't that seem ridiculous to you?

Teams don't operate under the "we will take your worst pick of this round and the worst pick of that round."  It's always been about quality, not quantity.  And for a regime that is walking on super thin ice, they're not going to move down for picks they may or may not use.  I get the moving down to 5/6/7, I really do.  They get some potentially future assets, or even premium assets for this year.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

I never once said that it was likely the Lions trade down from #3, then trade down again from #7. It isn't likely. It is a draft discussion, in January, on a football discussion forum.

If the Lions moved down to #7 under the belief that either Brown, Okudah or Simmons would be available, and each of those players were taken, why wouldn't they at least entertain the idea?

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I never once said that it was likely the Lions trade down from #3, then trade down again from #7. It isn't likely. It is a draft discussion, in January, on a football discussion forum.

If the Lions moved down to #7 under the belief that either Brown, Okudah or Simmons would be available, and each of those players were taken, why wouldn't they at least entertain the idea?

So you want to discuss an extreme hypothetical?

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

And for a regime that is walking on super thin ice, they're not going to move down for picks they may or may not use.  I get the moving down to 5/6/7, I really do.  They get some potentially future assets, or even premium assets for this year.

This statement is extremely confusing to me. They're on "super thin ice", and they're "not going to move down for picks they may not use", but you "get" them moving down to 5-7 for "future assets". I'd love some clarification.

[CWood21]

6 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Sitting at #7, and missing out on Brown, Okudah and Simmons, who else would you take there?

So we're operating under the assumption that Tua goes 3rd, and Herbert is taken 5th or 6th.  You have choice of at least one of Simmons, Okudah, Brown, Wirfs, or Thomas.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Just now, CWood21 said:

So you want to discuss an extreme hypothetical?

If the Lions moved down to #7 under the belief that either Brown, Okudah or Simmons would be available, and each of those players were taken, and someone called with a trade with good value in return, would they listen?

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Just now, CWood21 said:

So we're operating under the assumption that Tua goes 3rd, and Herbert is taken 5th or 6th.  You have choice of at least one of Simmons, Okudah, Brown, Wirfs, or Thomas.

I have not been operating under the assumption, at any point, that Herbert is taken before #7.

You think the Lions should take Wirfs or Thomas at #7?