2018 Mock 1st w/ Trades

[Forge]

3 hours ago, Jason_Bengal_Fl said:

I don't argue any of that.  But they won't take a guard that high or pay him huge money.  They don't value the position enough.  It's just the way they operate.

Unfortunate, because with the bevy of crazy good interior rushers in the NFL (and more coming every year), guard is becoming a premium position. I want the niners to take Nelson with their first rounder in the top 5 lol

[Forge]

Love the trade for the 49ers. I'm good with Fitzpatrick, though some in the forum don't love him. If his position is safety in the NFL, we aren't going to need him right now. I've mentioned him for the 49ers as a corner, and I think that he can play there, so I'd take it. Personally, I'd prefer Nelson, but either one is a legit top prospect in this draft. 

[FalconFan13]

9 hours ago, IrishHooligan00 said:

Rico Allen has done nothing this year, They could use someone of Derwins ability and physicality to pair up with Keanu. 

Rico has been great this year and this is coming from someone who wanted him replaced last year.  We have bigger needs than FS thats for sure and i can list them for you.

OG, DT/DE,  CB ,  and Power RB  (although i think we can get a power RB in the mid rounds or late 2nd if a elite one drops).

Also this is coming from a FSU fan who likes Derwin James ALOT  as a player.  James is a SS type player at the next level in our scheme and although he is crazy athletic im not highly impressed with his reading skills of a play in a deep set.  Plus with his size and strength plus closing speed putting him way back there would limit his production and be a bit of a waste of him for his better strengths he brings to the table. 

 

If we didn't have Neal already as our SS i would be jumping all over James as our new SS of the future in the 1st round but to be our new FS i don't see it happening and even more so trading up for him.   Our coaching staff is in live with Rico even if im not always a massive fan of him.  He is the leader of that secondary group and our coach's rave about him 24/7.  


If im the Falcons with already missing a 5th round pick in this draft i would stay put and take Payne at DT from Bama and think thats a steal of a pick as i think he could go much higher.

[INbengalfan]

I'm totally fine with trading back and taking nelson, but our biggest needs are LT and Center.  McGlinchey still being there at 18 would be very hard to pass up.  And I love Nelson...best lineman in the draft. 

Maybe we trade McCarron and use that pick plus the acquired picks in the trade down to package a deal to move back up for both.

[IrishHooligan00]

17 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Not a Browns' fan, but I'd imagine that the Browns would more likely take their QB of choice at 1 and then if Barkley starts to fall into that 4-7 range, they'd make the move up to grab him.  Should come significantly cheaper and still a pretty decent chance to get Barkley, and not paying that QB premium.

Highly unlikely that the Packers will take a RB early in the draft, let alone in the 1st round.  Aaron Jones played really well before hurting his MCL, and even Jamaal Williams (a 4th round pick last year) looked good in recent weeks.  And they still have Ty Montgomery as well.  I'd imagine the best way to categorize the Packers interest in RB would be as opportunistic.  They have bigger issues and holes to fill.  Not a huge need, but I could see them going with Derwin James if they commit to Josh Jones as that LB/S hybrid that they've used Morgan Burnett this year.

Wrong, If the browns don't take Barkley #1 SF will pick Barkley and not trade out as Hyde is a FA and isnt worth the $ to bring back. 

Ty Montgomery is not a RB and should convert back to WR

Aaron Jones had 2 games over 50 years rushing just 2. Not what you call playing really well. 

Jamaal Williams has played okay the last 3 weeks but hasn't rushed over 70 Yards 

None are #1 RBS, Guice would fill the need for a #1 RB and give rodgers another weapon while taking pressure off himself 

[The Gnat]

Hmmm... I like getting an offensive tackle for the Vikings. Don't love trading up, but I don't think Id complain if it was for an OT.

[IrishHooligan00]

16 hours ago, JetsandI said:

Lamar Jackson going to Jets?

 

I need to send FF site to North Korea. I may be only one that barks at Jets taking Jackson but come on, be creative.

 

Arden Key for Jets.

 

Lamar Jackson IMO is the best QB in the draft currently, Jets would be lucky to ****** em. 

[IrishHooligan00]

12 hours ago, freak_of_nature said:

I'd be more comfortable with Orlando Brown over Okorafor.

Brown is more Raw IMO, Okorafor gives them day 1 starter.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, IrishHooligan00 said:

Wrong, If the browns don't take Barkley #1 SF will pick Barkley and not trade out as Hyde is a FA and isnt worth the $ to bring back. 

Ty Montgomery is not a RB and should convert back to WR

Aaron Jones had 2 games over 50 years rushing just 2. Not what you call playing really well. 

Jamaal Williams has played okay the last 3 weeks but hasn't rushed over 70 Yards 

None are #1 RBS, Guice would fill the need for a #1 RB and give rodgers another weapon while taking pressure off himself 

Except for the fact that Barkley doesn't change the Browns' fortunes, and if they're still intent on taking a RB early they can move down from their other 1st round pick and take Guice.  I can't see any way that the Browns use multiple picks to move back up when their franchise isn't very good.  I don't think Barkley changes that, and I don't see them paying that kind of premium for a QB.

As for the Packers' RB, it's about the overall production.  In the 2 games where Aaron Jones has had at least 15 rushing attempts, he's averaging over 7 YPC and looked really good while doing it.  I'm not saying they're special, but their serviceable which is what the Packers need at RB.  They don't need a bell cow in the sense that they need a feature back.  It's a poor use of resources, especially considering that Aaron Rodgers doesn't really utilize his backs as a receivers as much as you'd think.  Instead, the Packers would be better off using their highest pick since 2009 on the defense which has been the problem for years.

[IrishHooligan00]

Just now, CWood21 said:

Except for the fact that Barkley doesn't change the Browns' fortunes, and if they're still intent on taking a RB early they can move down from their other 1st round pick and take Guice.  I can't see any way that the Browns use multiple picks to move back up when their franchise isn't very good.  I don't think Barkley changes that, and I don't see them paying that kind of premium for a QB.

As for the Packers' RB, it's about the overall production.  In the 2 games where Aaron Jones has had at least 15 rushing attempts, he's averaging over 7 YPC and looked really good while doing it.  I'm not saying they're special, but their serviceable which is what the Packers need at RB.  They don't need a bell cow in the sense that they need a feature back.  It's a poor use of resources, especially considering that Aaron Rodgers doesn't really utilize his backs as a receivers as much as you'd think.  Instead, the Packers would be better off using their highest pick since 2009 on the defense which has been the problem for years.

He only averaged 3.4  YPC Max one of those games. Guice 10X better.  

Sun 11/26

@   PIT

L 28-31

21

66

3.1

12

1

 

Sun 11/19

vs   BAL

L 0-23

18

57

3.2

8

0

 

 

Sun 11/12

@   CHI

W 23-16

20

67

3.4

7

0

[IrishHooligan00]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Except for the fact that Barkley doesn't change the Browns' fortunes, and if they're still intent on taking a RB early they can move down from their other 1st round pick and take Guice.  I can't see any way that the Browns use multiple picks to move back up when their franchise isn't very good.  I don't think Barkley changes that, and I don't see them paying that kind of premium for a QB.

As for the Packers' RB, it's about the overall production.  In the 2 games where Aaron Jones has had at least 15 rushing attempts, he's averaging over 7 YPC and looked really good while doing it.  I'm not saying they're special, but their serviceable which is what the Packers need at RB.  They don't need a bell cow in the sense that they need a feature back.  It's a poor use of resources, especially considering that Aaron Rodgers doesn't really utilize his backs as a receivers as much as you'd think.  Instead, the Packers would be better off using their highest pick since 2009 on the defense which has been the problem for years.

Barkley would change CLE sorry but he would. Being able to trade up for the top choice of a QB as well would be aggressive and smart for a team that NEEDS to. They missed how many years on QB's being able to get a top QB and the top RB in the draft while making other moves is just smart and aggressive at a time they need to be. 

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, IrishHooligan00 said:

He only averaged 3.4  YPC Max one of those games. Guice 10X better.

I'm not sure anyone is disagreeing with that statement.  It's just that adding Guice to the Packers' roster is a waste of resources.  They're better off using a mid-round (think 3rd-5th round pick) on a RB, and rolling with good (but not great) production at RB.  The Packers as long as Aaron Rodgers is the starting QB will not be a team who runs the ball a lot.  They're not taking the ball out of Aaron's hands.  So if they're not going to commit to being a running team, why would they use a 1st round pick on a RB?  It's just not a good use of resources, especially when they need probably two more pass rushers and another corner minimum.

[IrishHooligan00]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

I'm not sure anyone is disagreeing with that statement.  It's just that adding Guice to the Packers' roster is a waste of resources.  They're better off using a mid-round (think 3rd-5th round pick) on a RB, and rolling with good (but not great) production at RB.  The Packers as long as Aaron Rodgers is the starting QB will not be a team who runs the ball a lot.  They're not taking the ball out of Aaron's hands.  So if they're not going to commit to being a running team, why would they use a 1st round pick on a RB?  It's just not a good use of resources, especially when they need probably two more pass rushers and another corner minimum.

They need to start Running it and a lot of people will agree, how many games has Rodgers had to do everything and have all the pressure on him, you get him a RB that can help close out games and can change the game and then you'll terrify defenses. Overall it would be smart. Theres no RB's in late rounds worth it. you go with 1 of 3 RBs. Barkley/Guice or love. Its not wasting a resouce if it helps keep your QB healthy and helps him tear up defenses more. 

[IrishHooligan00]

5 minutes ago, IrishHooligan00 said:

Barkley would change CLE sorry but he would. Being able to trade up for the top choice of a QB as well would be aggressive and smart for a team that NEEDS to. They missed how many years on QB's being able to get a top QB and the top RB in the draft while making other moves is just smart and aggressive at a time they need to be. 

Also Cleveland does loose a RB in FA this year.

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, IrishHooligan00 said:

They need to start Running it and a lot of people will agree, how many games has Rodgers had to do everything and have all the pressure on him, you get him a RB that can help close out games and can change the game and then you'll terrify defenses. Overall it would be smart. Theres no RB's in late rounds worth it. you go with 1 of 3 RBs. Barkley/Guice or love. Its not wasting a resouce if it helps keep your QB healthy and helps him tear up defenses more. 

Except our offense isn't the reason why the Packers have struggled to win a Super Bowl.  It's been our defense.  Using a 1st round pick on a RB who'd be second fiddle in the Packers' offense is a poor use of resources.  And I'd be willing to bet a significant ton of money that the Packers won't take a RB in the 1st round.