PeterNorth09 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Either Young or Cutler will be there at #4. There are a number of nfl teams in this draft that need a franchise qb. Let's get one of these teams to trade up with us: 6. Oakland Raiders (Collins is probably gone) 9. Detroit Lions (Harrington sucks) 10. Arizona Cardinals (No freaking doubt they're looking for a young qb, they trade up with us and sign either Edgerrin James or Jamal Lewis) 16. Miami Dolphins The more day one picks the better. If D'Brick is so great, there will also be teams knocking on our door to trade up for him too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smizzy Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 For once...I agree with you. Option 1 should be looking to trade down and acquire an extra pick somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan122 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Trading down is ok, but not with Miami . IMO, u dont trade draft picks with a division rival . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I agree we should trade down biatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeniorFlaJet Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Trading down is ok, but not with Miami . IMO, u dont trade draft picks with a division rival . Not only that, but I wouldn't go below 10 with a team to trade down with. If we stay at 4 there will be a top player falling to us and there will be a team from 5-10 that will want him so that we still can get a high pick plus maybe their 2 or 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Alot will change from now until the weekend of the draft. I wouldnt trade down past #6 either. At 6 we could get either Brick or Mario, 1 of the 2 will most likely still be there should the raiders trade up for a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Straw Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Trading down past seven would be silly. However, if Cutler and Leinart are gone, I'm selling that pick to the highest bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Jet Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I certainly can understand and somewhat agree with the trading down to get more picks logic, however, I would love to draft D'Brick. You are only as good as your lines, as they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNorth09 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 You are only as good as your lines, as they say. Wasn't it Steve Howe who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNorth09 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 Trading down past seven would be silly. Not unless you're getting another 2nd round pick. That's another quality player who can start right away. I'd rather have a pick in the top 12 of the first round and two 2nd rd picks than just sit on #4 and do nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 It also could depend on what we can get for Abraham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Jet Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Wasn't it Steve Howe who said that? Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gun Of Bavaria Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I say we trade for bitches. Mainly lesbian cheerleaders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Jet Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Not unless you're getting another 2nd round pick. That's another quality player who can start right away. I'd rather have a pick in the top 12 of the first round and two 2nd rd picks than just sit on #4 and do nothing. We wouldn't be doing nothing, we'd be getting D'Brick. Seriously, why are you so against drafting O-Line in the first round? I know you've mentioned the depth at that position, but out of curiosity, do you have other reasons? What would you, Peter North, like to see happen with the Jets pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greensince69 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I have no problem with drafting Oline in the first round, just not at 4. If things fall righght and we could trade sown witht the niners and then trade down again we could parlay the 4 into a first and 2 more 2's. Add a second one for abe and we could go into the draft with 2 0nes and 3 twos. THat is a lot of value in this draft and could easily turn into an OT an OG a RB a DE and a WR. Add Kudla in the 3rd and I will be a happy man with the draft. THat is also without any compensetory picks. Add the fact that we dont have to pay the 20 mill premiem for the 4th pick and we get 5 potential starters who will be young smart and nasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I have no problem with drafting Oline in the first round, just not at 4. If things fall righght and we could trade sown witht the niners and then trade down again we could parlay the 4 into a first and 2 more 2's. Add a second one for abe and we could go into the draft with 2 0nes and 3 twos. THat is a lot of value in this draft and could easily turn into an OT an OG a RB a DE and a WR. Add Kudla in the 3rd and I will be a happy man with the draft. THat is also without any compensetory picks. Add the fact that we dont have to pay the 20 mill premiem for the 4th pick and we get 5 potential starters who will be young smart and nasty DING-DING-DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!! Trading down from 4 to 7 requires "the chart" compensation (to us) of a mid-3rd round pick. If that's all we're going to get, stay at #4 and draft the QB you really wanted & don't try to be too clever a la Bradway/Tuna. By #7, it is likely that the following players will be gone, in no particular order: Bush-Leinart-Cutler-Brick-Mario. And the guy we're "really" targeting at #7 (whoever that is) could be gone at #6 so it could easily backfire & we're still on the hook for a $15M SB for a player we don't really covet AT THAT SPOT. If we're going to trade down, get another "sure" starter like a high 2nd-rounder (or a #1 in 2007) or don't bother at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 trading down sucks - remember the draft of 1997. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 trading down sucks - remember the draft of 1997. enough with the 1997 draft. No one receives so little for trading down twice anymore. Tuna traded down from #1 to #6 and again to #8 & the highest compensation we got was a late 3rd + an early 4th. The way things are done today, AS YOU WELL KNOW, is they more strictly adhere to the draft chart (as a MINIMUM compensation for the team trading down). Trading down from 1 to 6 should have netted the #6 team's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th in addition to a 1st the following year (the value of another 2nd rounder this year). Trading down again from 6 to 8 should have netted a mid-3rd rounder or higher. I think we got a 5th rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 im not concerned about compensation - im concerned about having the chance to select franchise caliber players and passing on that chance for "depth" 1 great player is less expensive than 12 busts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffyD Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 trading down sucks - remember the draft of 1997. we got hosed bigtime. I like the idea behind trading down, who wouldn't since you get more picks in the first day, but I think we should take the bap on our draftboard and use the other first rounder we get for Abe to fill another slot. Seriously, if they really want Cutler at 4 take his ass! Remember the Gints with Eli and Big Ben . . . they liked Big Ben but not at 4 because it was too high! So they packaged S. merriman (#12 the following year) and several other picks to avoid "reaching" for big ben and went after Eli (the QB who runs backwards while he throws). I'm really just saying trading down sounds great if you get REALLY good value and the player you like will still be there but it seems to rarely work (except for the chargers who seem to have pulled this off twice and succeeded?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verde Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Of course Peter North wants to go down! LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 im not concerned about compensation - im concerned about having the chance to select franchise caliber players and passing on that chance for "depth" 1 great player is less expensive than 12 busts. Two things: (1) I agree if it is a known that the player at #4 is going to be great. The only one I can think of that's a "sure thing" is Brick. Cutler has all the upside in the world, but then so did Ryan Leaf. (Remember? Who should be #1 - the more polished player, Manning, or the guy with the bigger arm, Leaf?). You are taking the position that it is a known that Cutler is a HOF QB before his first minicamp. So if the choice is (for example) Tom Brady or the #10 pick in the first & second rounds, then I agree with you. But that is not the option here. (2) I don't know how you end up with "12 busts" by getting (for example) the #10 pick in the first & second rounds instead of the #4 pick in round one. You are using misleading exaggeration to make a point. There IS no right & wrong in April unless we get hosed on a trade-down. Only time will tell if it was right or not. What if Cutler turns out to be Ryan Leaf II or Kerry Collins II (with a $25M SB), and we passed up on Marcus McNeill & Max Jean-Giles? It is as likely to happen as Cutler turning into Dan Marino. More likely, in fact, according to history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greensince69 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I am just not sold on Cutler as the next Elway and as good as dbrick is I think you can get a lil brick later on in the first round. If you can get a couple of teams competing for the 4 th pick and can get a second for moving to 6 then get another 2nd for moving to 12 you can still eg an elite ot. You can fill more needs with more picks and statistically if you get 5 players in the first 2 rounds and 2 are busts you still have 3 starters. If you get 2 in the first 2 rounds and one is a bust, you have one starter. If the number 4 is a bust it is a very expensive bust. We need to hit a lot of singles this year not the home run. THe object here is to build a good solid foundation and fill a lot of needs, not get one franchise superstar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jets rooter Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I have been saying that for weeks now.trade down and take a future star in lendale white and receive extra picks.if they really want to draft a q.b. they can draft omar davis who is rated highly in the second round.he might turn out to be better then those q.b.s. picked before him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.