Accumulating picks....if that is the name of the game....then let's review the merits

[spanky1]

Trade down with Cleveland and get their #7 and #38 (and whatever else they throw in to make us happy). We then trade our #33 to NE for their two 2nd rounders (# 56 and # 63). We would then have #'s 7, #38, #56, #63 and our 3rd rounder which is #64. I'd do this series of trade downs.....what say you all?

 

[SECTION 11]

Sure. Sounds like fun.

 

[Reddog]

I think the #33 spot is a key slot. Given how deep the draft is that is a R1 pick for R2 $. I would want a damn good deal for that slot.

 

[spanky1]

Sure. Sounds like fun.

Fun you say..........this is serious work.........swig, ahhh.....the pause that refreshes!

 

[buff17]

Would Cleveland really give up a secound rounder to move up a few spots? I dont think so, maybe a 3rd rounder.

If the Raiders were smart, they would attempt to trade down with the Browns, take Tim Couch and Northcutt off their hands. Get an impact player there. The only reason this would happen is the Browns wanna unload guys that cant afford.

 

[JeffGollin]

Try This Scenario on for Size

Cleveland wants Gallery. Giants either want Gallery or Manning. Other teams want one or the other player also. This sets the stage for some interesting moves (assuming that neither Gallery or Manning are off the board at #3):

A. Cards trade down to #4. Giants draft Manning at #3.

B. Cards trade down again to #7. Browns draft Gallery at #4.

C. Cards wind up with Cleveland's second round pick (#38] and the Giants' second round pick (#34).

This gives the Cards #7, #33, #34 and #38.

They have two options -

Use those four picks (plus #64)-

7. Roethlisberger, Roy Williams or Taylor
33. Strait, Tubbs, Jenkins or R. Woods
34. Strait, Tubbs, Jenkins or R. Woods
38. Colclaugh, Ware, Tubbs, Jenkins or R. Woods
64 Sopoaga, Olshansky, Carroll or Ratliff

Or package two of the three picks to trade up. (Assume the worst - we package #33 and #34 to trade up to #22 (Dallas). Use the three picks (plus #64) -

7. Roethlisberger, Roy Williams or Taylor
22. Clayton, Evans, Strait or Poole
38. Colclaugh, Ware, Tubbs, Jenkins or R. Woods
64 Sopoaga, Olshansky, Carroll or Ratliff

Personally, I think the talent level from #22 - #38 is relatively flat, and we'd be better off keeping the extra pick and not getting cute by trading up.

 

[SMAC]

With Fitzgerald's very good workout there is a chance that Manning and Fitzgerald could go 1-2. Oakland could always pull a fast one and take Roethlisberger as the QB of tomorrow and deviate from the Manning/Fitzgerald derby but it's highly probable that the first two picks will stay with the Chargers and the Raiders. That makes the Cardinal pick the pivotal choice of round one. The Giants and Browns want Gallery so Arizona can holdout for the best deal. Rarely do the Giants trade up or give up draft picks so the smart money says the Cardinals will dance with the Browns. Having Jeremy Green, Denny's eldest son in the Browns scouting department could be an influence in that direction. Here is what COULD occur:

Arizona trades #1 (third pick in draft) to Cleveland for #1 (seventh pick), #2 (37th pick), and 2005 sixth round choice. Arizona prepares itself for the possibility that one of these players will be available at number seven: Mike Williams, Ben Roethlisberger, Roy Williams, Sean Taylor or Tommie Harris. I think the order above are the players the Cardinals would covet at #7.

At #2 (33rd pick) the Cardinals may trade down with Baltimore. Baltimore wants one of the prime receivers and they will have to trade up from #51 in round two to get Michael Clayton, Rashuan Woods, Devery Henderson, Lee Evans, or Michael Jenkins. The Cards would receive the Ravens #2, #3, and lowest #5 in this trade down. Arizona would probably target a DT and CB in the second round. The names that make sense at DT would be Isaac Sopoaga-Hawaii, Igor Olshansky-Oregon, and Donnell Washington-Clemson. Corners that will be in play at #37 could be Matt Ware-UCLA, Ahmad Carroll-Arkansas, and Keith Smith-McNeese State.

If the above trades were to transpire the Cardinals draft would look like this:
#1 Best Player Available (choice from Cleveland)
#2a CB (choice from Cleveland)
#2b DT (choice from Baltimore)
#3a RB
#3b OT or OG
#4 Best Player that slips to Day 2 (fourth pick of round)
#5a CB (return ability)
#5b S (choice form Baltimore through Philadelphia)
#6a ILB
#6b Special Teams
#7 Developmental QB

 

[kerouac9]

C. Cards wind up with Cleveland's second round pick (#38] and the Giants' second round pick (#34).

Here's where the argument falls apart. There's no way, ever that Cleveland OR the Giants give up their second round picks to move up ONE SPOT. None at all. To move one spot, you MIGHT get thier third-rounders. MAYBE.

The last time that I remember any movement between teams at the top of the draft was the Falcons using their first-rounder (#5 overall), third-rounder (#67 overall), Tim Dwight, and 2002 second-rounder to move up FOUR SPOTS to #1 OVERALL, to pick Mike Vick, arguably the best prospect to come out (in terms of physical attributes, upside, uniqueness, etc.) in the past decade.

You guys are saying that teams will give up MORE to move up ONE SPOT for an offensive tackle or Ben Roethlisberger?

:wtf:

 

[Savage58]

Here's where the argument falls apart. There's no way, ever that Cleveland OR the Giants give up their second round picks to move up ONE SPOT. None at all. To move one spot, you MIGHT get thier third-rounders. MAYBE.

The last time that I remember any movement between teams at the top of the draft was the Falcons using their first-rounder (#5 overall), third-rounder (#67 overall), Tim Dwight, and 2002 second-rounder to move up FOUR SPOTS to #1 OVERALL, to pick Mike Vick, arguably the best prospect to come out (in terms of physical attributes, upside, uniqueness, etc.) in the past decade.

You guys are saying that teams will give up MORE to move up ONE SPOT for an offensive tackle or Ben Roethlisberger?

:wtf:

Don't forget the San Diego/Arizona trade in '98, we got a 2nd, next years 1st and 2 players.

It all depends on if a team falls in love with said player(Manning or Gallery) which I think is a real posibility, since they look to be great character guys along with their potential talents. Are the Browns smitten with Gallery, are the Giants smitten with Manning? It sure looks that way, we'll have to wait and see.

If Gallery is available at #3, that pick will become very intriguing to the Browns who REALLY need him, there is no other LOT worth taking in the first round even near his talent, that is what makes him so valuable IMO.

 

[kerouac9]

Don't forget the San Diego/Arizona trade in '98, we got a 2nd, next years 1st and 2 players.

That's true, but that that was a raping that I still don't think that Chargers have recovered from, and will never occur again.

 

[Stout]

That's true, but that that was a raping that I still don't think that Chargers have recovered from, and will never occur again.

Never say never. People said 'never again' after the Herschel Walker fiasco, yet the Wadsworth/Leaf draft trade thing happened anyway. Our war room should ask. All they can say is no.

 

[SMAC]

In the 1988 draft the Chiefs traded up from #3 to #2 spot in the first round with the Lions and gave Detroit their second round pick. The Chiefs selected Neil Smith that year. Teams will move up one spot to ensure drafting a player.

 

[kerouac9]

In the 1988 draft the Chiefs traded up from #3 to #2 spot in the first round with the Lions and gave Detroit their second round pick. The Chiefs selected Neil Smith that year. Teams will move up one spot to ensure drafting a player.

An example from sixteen years ago (an eternity in the NFL) doesn't have too much bearing to the current situation.

I understand what you're saying, and I think that teams do trade up one spot. I'm just saying that in today's NFL, I don't think that you're going to get a high second-round choice from a team that KNOWS that they're going to get a playmaker with the next pick (basically, within the top eight or nine of this draft).

 

[john h]

Trade down with Cleveland and get their #7 and #38 (and whatever else they throw in to make us happy). We then trade our #33 to NE for their two 2nd rounders (# 56 and # 63). We would then have #'s 7, #38, #56, #63 and our 3rd rounder which is #64. I'd do this series of trade downs.....what say you all?

Quality beats quantity--We have a history of screwing up trade downs.

 

[john h]

Don't forget the San Diego/Arizona trade in '98, we got a 2nd, next years 1st and 2 players.

It all depends on if a team falls in love with said player(Manning or Gallery) which I think is a real posibility, since they look to be great character guys along with their potential talents. Are the Browns smitten with Gallery, are the Giants smitten with Manning? It sure looks that way, we'll have to wait and see.

If Gallery is available at #3, that pick will become very intriguing to the Browns who REALLY need him, there is no other LOT worth taking in the first round even near his talent, that is what makes him so valuable IMO.

If a bunch of teams want to trade up with us to take Ben or Manning should that not be a message to us? Do we know something they do not or are we just plain smarter. Looking at our record we do not seem to be very smart so I see who these guys want to trade up and take and then take that guy myself.

 

[SECTION 11]

I see who these guys want to trade up and take and then take that guy myself.

Draft a player based on other teams wanting him? That makes no sense.

 

[john h]

Draft a player based on other teams wanting him? That makes no sense.

This was said with tongue in cheek--

 

[SECTION 11]

This was said with tongue in cheek--

Gotchya.

 

[TigToad]

two words...

Ricky Williams

 

[CardsRep03]

They just announced no trade ups or downs this year. Everyone stays put and dances with who brung 'ya.