Nextyearfordaboyz Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said: I don't know how to feel about CBs anymore. It just seems like so many of them exists. I am starting to believe CBs will fall...because of the sheer volume of talent. But I am not opposed to trading up. We have a ton of picks. Maybe. In 2020, you had 8 CBs taken in the top 51. Then the class fell off a cliff, and you only had 3 taken over the next 60 picks. This year, the class bottom falls out after CB12. At the same pace as last year, I agree that you *might* have a chance to land someone at #75. But you are going to be white knuckling it. Definitely just go get the one you want, IMO. Edited April 21, 2021 by Nextyearfordaboyz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas_OutLaw7 Posted April 22, 2021 Author Share Posted April 22, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plan9misfit Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 9 hours ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said: Sparty is the major outlier here. I would’ve expected it to be Alabama, LSU, Georgia, or Oklahoma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas_OutLaw7 Posted April 22, 2021 Author Share Posted April 22, 2021 12 minutes ago, plan9misfit said: Sparty is the major outlier here. I would’ve expected it to be Alabama, LSU, Georgia, or Oklahoma. Alabama went through some realllllllyyyy bad years before saban. But agree with the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas_OutLaw7 Posted April 22, 2021 Author Share Posted April 22, 2021 Say Sewell and Pitts are gone but EVERYONE else we like at 10 exists. Does that make you more likely to trade down 5 (pats) - 10 (bears) spots? Or Do you take the guy you wanted all along and call it a day? (Assume the value you get is average to slightly above average for the trade) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizardHawk Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said: Say Sewell and Pitts are gone but EVERYONE else we like at 10 exists. Does that make you more likely to trade down 5 (pats) - 10 (bears) spots? Or Do you take the guy you wanted all along and call it a day? (Assume the value you get is average to slightly above average for the trade) I'm probably going to stand pat. I think Chase is too good to pass up. I'd also want better than slightly above average return to pass up a guy who is in the conversation of best WR prospect over the past 10-12 years. Edited April 22, 2021 by WizardHawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plan9misfit Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 27 minutes ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said: Alabama went through some realllllllyyyy bad years before saban. But agree with the rest. They had a stretch of about 4 years while they were on sanctions, but they weren’t any worse than what USC dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles suck Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 8 minutes ago, WizardHawk said: I'm probably going to stand pat. I think Chase is too good to pass up. I'd also want better than slightly above average return to pass up a guy who is in the conversation of best WR prospect over the past 10-12 years. This is how I feel about Waddle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plan9misfit Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said: Say Sewell and Pitts are gone but EVERYONE else we like at 10 exists. Does that make you more likely to trade down 5 (pats) - 10 (bears) spots? Or Do you take the guy you wanted all along and call it a day? (Assume the value you get is average to slightly above average for the trade) I’d want more than slightly above average compensation since I’d know that both New England and Chicago are moving up for a QB. You pay a premium for that. Plus, if I move down to 15, there’s still a very high probability that either Surtain or Horn will still be available. Edited April 22, 2021 by plan9misfit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nextyearfordaboyz Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said: Say Sewell and Pitts are gone but EVERYONE else we like at 10 exists. Does that make you more likely to trade down 5 (pats) - 10 (bears) spots? Or Do you take the guy you wanted all along and call it a day? (Assume the value you get is average to slightly above average for the trade) For reference, that probably means something like #15 & #46 from the Pats or #20, #52, #83 from Chicago. And Surtain, Horn, Slater, Waddle are still on the board? I would for sure take that offer from the Pats. You very likely will get one of those guys anyway, and #46 is an instant defensive starter. Edit: Caveat is that I definitely would try to squeeze out every drop of trade compensation possible (like others are saying). You probably could get even more in return. But I'd still bail even at the level above. Edited April 22, 2021 by Nextyearfordaboyz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plan9misfit Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said: For reference, that probably means something like #15 & #46 from the Pats or #20, #52, #83 from Chicago. And Surtain, Horn, Slater, Waddle are still on the board? I would for sure take that offer from the Pats. You very likely will get one of those guys anyway, and #46 is an instant defensive starter. Exactly. If we believe there is a probability that at least 2 of those players will still be available, then you make the trade. Having two relatively high second round picks also gives the team leverage in case we want to trade back into the first round for another player who may be falling. Edited April 22, 2021 by plan9misfit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas_OutLaw7 Posted April 22, 2021 Author Share Posted April 22, 2021 Yeah, I think realistically we would get more - but I didn't want that to cloud the exercise. I think I would also trade down since I am at the point where it is Sewell & Pitts...and then trade down for assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nextyearfordaboyz Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 8 minutes ago, plan9misfit said: They had a stretch of about 4 years while they were on sanctions, but they weren’t any worse than what USC dealt with. It happened not that long ago, relatively speaking. Definitely during the life of FootballsFuture. It was the biggest story the talking heads kept mentioning every time some Podunk school had someone drafted... "Well, there goes a player from Mount Union University, and we still have no players taken from Alabama." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizardHawk Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 9 minutes ago, plan9misfit said: I’d want more than slightly above average compensation since I’d know that both New England and Chicago are moving up for a QB. You pay a premium for that. Plus, if I move down to 15, there’s still a very high probability that either Surtain or Horn will still be available. If it pans out this way sure. But, I'm assuming that teams have already made their trade and all 5 QBs are off the board. Hard to imagine this scenario playing out any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plan9misfit Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 1 minute ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said: Yeah, I think realistically we would get more - but I didn't want that to cloud the exercise. I think I would also trade down since I am at the point where it is Sewell & Pitts...and then trade down for assets. Slater should get consideration as well. Not only does he have the potential to be a rock solid LT, he has a shot at being an all-world LG. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts