Dolphins trade 3rd overall pick to SF

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, Forge said:

One thing I wouldn't rule out with Atlanta is a *big* trade down, or multiple trade downs. If they are stuck at 4, I think the pick is Pitts.

Atlanta just really needs defensive help, and unfortunately for them, this is not the draft to need  that and have an early pick. So I could totally see them make a trade way down, or make a trade down with say Denver and then again with someone like Chicago or something. If I'm Atlanta, I'm really angling to get into that 15-20 range

The problem with trading down that far is that you're likely jumping down MULTIPLE tiers of players.  And there's a whole lot more variables that come into play.  It's a LOT easier to control the board with multiple small moves then one large jump.  IF Atlanta moves down to 8 with Carolina (who moves up for Mac Jones, Trey Lance, or Justin Fields), they're likely seeing Sewell to Cincinnati, Pitts/Chase to Miami, and a WR to Detroit.  And then they can re-evaluate their position there.  IF they think the board is going to dry up, they stay there or if they feel they can move down to a team like New England or WFT and still get their guy.

[49ersfan]

11 hours ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

Even with Tua as a question mark (I think he can be good), the Dolphins are going to be in great position with all that draft capital. 

If Tua flops but the rest of the team is talented enough to get them to a 9-7, 10-6 type record, then the Dolphins will be the team offering multiple 1st's for the top QB prospect or one of Wilson/Watson next offseason, IMO. 

Obviously having the chance at so many premium prospects is great, but its all dependent on the QB. Make or break year for Tua. It wasn't the best rookie year but having continuity in the Dolphins scheme & likely a top weapon like Chase or Pitts will be a big help for him 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

The problem with trading down that far is that you're likely jumping down MULTIPLE tiers of players.  And there's a whole lot more variables that come into play.  It's a LOT easier to control the board with multiple small moves then one large jump.  IF Atlanta moves down to 8 with Carolina (who moves up for Mac Jones, Trey Lance, or Justin Fields), they're likely seeing Sewell to Cincinnati, Pitts/Chase to Miami, and a WR to Detroit.  And then they can re-evaluate their position there.  IF they think the board is going to dry up, they stay there or if they feel they can move down to a team like New England or WFT and still get their guy.

If you want to go defense, you're not imo. I think one defensive player goes in the top 10 most likely. I do agree that accounting for all prospects you are. There's a vast difference between Pitts and Paye, for example. So it just depends if they want bpa, or need + additional assets. Given their cap, I wouldn't be surprised if they want more cheap labor and more cracks at it. 

[Forge]

9 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Agreed.....or the grab the next QB for post Ryan era??

It's a really interesting spot for them because if you have a shot at a franchise guy, you shouldn't waste it...but at the same time even if they take a QB, they are wasting one of the most valuable components of drafting a guy - having the rookie deal. I'd have to double check, but they have *heavy* dead money tied into Matt Ryan for the next three years regardless of whether or not they have him on the roster (he's uncuttable / untradeable this year, I'm pretty sure). Basically wasting 3 out of  years of the super cost controlled portion of the contract is rough. 

[.Buzz]

1 hour ago, FrantikRam said:

 

Which just illustrates how much fans get infatuated with rookies. And we don't know Stafford in this situation - I think he will be near MVP level and that's always better than a complete unknown. And even if it doesn't add up to you, it's just a fact that the Niners were interested in Stafford before the Rams traded for him.

I think it was a good move by the Niners for the future, but it likely takes them out of the NFCW hunt for the next year or two.

MVP level? What has Stafford done to think that will be the case in the past several years outside of hoping McVay works his magic?

The whole point is they gave more value in the totality of the deal imo for 3 than they offered (or apparently didn't)/the Lions got for Stafford. This has nothing to do with a fans perspective/our value on a rookie versus Stafford.

[Blue]

21 minutes ago, Forge said:

One thing I wouldn't rule out with Atlanta is a *big* trade down, or multiple trade downs. If they are stuck at 4, I think the pick is Pitts.

Atlanta just really needs defensive help, and unfortunately for them, this is not the draft to need  that and have an early pick. So I could totally see them make a trade way down, or make a trade down with say Denver and then again with someone like Chicago or something. If I'm Atlanta, I'm really angling to get into that 15-20 range

Atlanta is in an awkward position. I don't think QB is the right move for them given Ryan's play and contract situation. Receiver obviously doesn't make sense. Matthews is a good player but you could strengthen three line positions moving him to RT, McGary to guard, and Sewell at LT. Pitts would be a fantastic addition and this front office/coaching staff have zero ties to Hayden Hurst, who only has one year left on his rookie deal anyways, but TE at 4 is yuck. No defensive guys worth No. 4 overall unless they love Jaycee Horn or Patrick Surtain Jr.

[squire12]

4 minutes ago, Forge said:

It's a really interesting spot for them because if you have a shot at a franchise guy, you shouldn't waste it...but at the same time even if they take a QB, they are wasting one of the most valuable components of drafting a guy - having the rookie deal. I'd have to double check, but they have *heavy* dead money tied into Matt Ryan for the next three years regardless of whether or not they have him on the roster (he's uncuttable / untradeable this year, I'm pretty sure). Basically wasting 3 out of  years of the super cost controlled portion of the contract is rough. 

Certainly is interesting.   The ongoing debate of the importance of a QB, the bonus of the rookie deal.  

Build the rest of the roster then get your QB

Or

Get your QB and then build the roster 

 In either scenario, you need to hit on consecutive draft classes for key high quality starters.

[squire12]

1 minute ago, Blue said:

Atlanta is in an awkward position. I don't think QB is the right move for them given Ryan's play and contract situation. Receiver obviously doesn't make sense. Matthews is a good player but you could strengthen three line positions moving him to RT, McGary to guard, and Sewell at LT. Pitts would be a fantastic addition and this front office/coaching staff have zero ties to Hayden Hurst, who only has one year left on his rookie deal anyways, but TE at 4 is yuck. No defensive guys worth No. 4 overall unless they love Jaycee Horn or Patrick Surtain Jr.

Agreed.  Maybe ATL takes less value in a trade down for a later pick plus future assets to get a CB or EDGE vs QB. WR or TE

[DirtyDez]

Ryan isn’t Brady they need a QB to groom.  Perfect situation for Lance.  

[CWood21]

22 minutes ago, Forge said:

If you want to go defense, you're not imo. I think one defensive player goes in the top 10 most likely. I do agree that accounting for all prospects you are. There's a vast difference between Pitts and Paye, for example. So it just depends if they want bpa, or need + additional assets. Given their cap, I wouldn't be surprised if they want more cheap labor and more cracks at it. 

Plus, I think you're more likely going to end up with a haul by moving down incrementally rather than a wholesale free fall.  You move down to 8 or 9 for their SRP this year and a SRP next year, and Panthers/Broncos get their QBOTF.  You might even be able to squeeze more assets out if a QB is still available from a team like Minnesota, WFT, or New England.

[Forge]

Just now, CWood21 said:

Plus, I think you're more likely going to end up with a haul by moving down incrementally rather than a wholesale free fall.  You move down to 8 or 9 for their SRP this year and a SRP next year, and Panthers/Broncos get their QBOTF.  You might even be able to squeeze more assets out if a QB is still available from a team like Minnesota, WFT, or New England.

I really, really like the multiple trade down scenario for them, tbh. 

[El Ramster]

2 hours ago, Forge said:

Me too. I see it from Rams fans every time they play the niners 😛

Check the record. Still made the post season. Y’all have 1 good season under shanny lol. In 5 years lmao.

[49ersfan]

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

Certainly is interesting.   The ongoing debate of the importance of a QB, the bonus of the rookie deal.  

Build the rest of the roster then get your QB

Or

Get your QB and then build the roster 

 In either scenario, you need to hit on consecutive draft classes for key high quality starters.

The only issue is if you build your roster first, you'll likely have to pay a lot for a QB. 

We could have solved a lot of issues if we had just taken Mahomes in '17. Or, if we had not traded for Jimmy in Oct '17 & drafted Josh Allen in '18. Then we watched Mahomes burn us in the SB. And last year, even with a solid D, Allen was literally unstoppable against us.  Alas, we made that mistake & to rectify it we have to pay 3 1st's to try to. 

Ultimately, the trade for Jimmy wasn't bad. It was only a 2nd and he did help get us to a SB. But the time has come to move on & he may still get a decent return for us as he isn't really bad.

If you had to envision a team that encapsulates the "1 QB away" its probably the 49ers. We've got a good coaching staff. High end talent like Kittle, Aiyuik, Trent Williams, Bosa, & Warner. Solid starters like Mostert, Juice, Samuel, Tomlinson, Armstead, Greenlaw, Mosley, Verrett, K'Waun Williams, Ward, & Tartt. Good specialists at ST. 

Issue last year was the injuries & backup QB play. The trade hopefully fixes the QB play. We've gota get the injuries under control though. 

[Forge]

12 minutes ago, El Ramster said:

Check the record. Still made the post season. Y’all have 1 good season under shanny lol. In 5 years lmao.

I've checked the record, and yes, Shanny is 4-0 against little bro the last two years. Don't you worry though, little bro is getting better and one day he'll get there. Until then, I believe McVay looks a little like Dark Helmet against Shanny. 

(side note, I actually expect this to be more even now that you don't have Goff handing us games) 

[squire12]

4 minutes ago, 49ersfan said:

The only issue is if you build your roster first, you'll likely have to pay a lot for a QB. 

We could have solved a lot of issues if we had just taken Mahomes in '17. Or, if we had not traded for Jimmy in Oct '17 & drafted Josh Allen in '18. Then we watched Mahomes burn us in the SB. And last year, even with a solid D, Allen was literally unstoppable against us.  Alas, we made that mistake & to rectify it we have to pay 3 1st's to try to. 

Sure, but that feels like cherry picking the process.  Darnold, Rosen, even Baker doesn't really solve the QB problem.

 

4 minutes ago, 49ersfan said:

Ultimately, the trade for Jimmy wasn't bad. It was only a 2nd and he did help get us to a SB. But the time has come to move on & he may still get a decent return for us as he isn't really bad.

If you had to envision a team that encapsulates the "1 QB away" its probably the 49ers. We've got a good coaching staff. High end talent like Kittle, Aiyuik, Trent Williams, Bosa, & Warner. Solid starters like Mostert, Juice, Samuel, Tomlinson, Armstead, Greenlaw, Mosley, Verrett, K'Waun Williams, Ward, & Tartt. Good specialists at ST. 

Issue last year was the injuries & backup QB play. The trade hopefully fixes the QB play. We've gota get the injuries under control though. 

Like I said,  hit on multiple draft classes consecutively is a big key