Jump to content

What would you give for the number 2 pick?


CoachTsurfing

Recommended Posts

Knowing several NFL teams are collectively drooling over the talents of receiver Calvin Johnson, the Detroit Lions have let it be known their No. 2 overall draft pick is up for trade.

I read this from the denverpost.com It appears the Broncs turned down some offers for the Lions 1st round pick. What would you give in terms of picks and players and if we did get it who would you select.

I personally am not sure how much I would surrender, but if I had the pick I would go either Jamarcus or Calvin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing several NFL teams are collectively drooling over the talents of receiver Calvin Johnson, the Detroit Lions have let it be known their No. 2 overall draft pick is up for trade.

I read this from the denverpost.com It appears the Broncs turned down some offers for the Lions 1st round pick. What would you give in terms of picks and players and if we did get it who would you select.

I personally am not sure how much I would surrender, but if I had the pick I would go either Jamarcus or Calvin.

If I could get the #2 for BoomBoom, Madmike and ecurb, I would do it and try not to get arrested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Broncos | Team reportedly tried to acquire No. 2 pick in draft

Sat, 17 Mar 2007 07:08:21 -0700

Mike Klis, of the Denver Post, reports the Detroit Lions have held preliminary discussions with the Denver Broncos regarding the No. 2 overall pick in the NFL Draft in the last month, league sources have confirmed. According to sources, the Lions asked for multiple draft picks that included the Broncos' No. 21 selection. The Broncos considered the asking price too high and trade discussions have stopped. The team, however, has been trying to deal their No. 21 overall pick.

No thanks. F-Matt millen. Let him blow this pick too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing several NFL teams are collectively drooling over the talents of receiver Calvin Johnson, the Detroit Lions have let it be known their No. 2 overall draft pick is up for trade.

I have the Lions in the JN mock, and I have no doubt I would trade it if the rules allowed. But since I cant do that, i am working on the pick as we speak.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And start Clemens? Russell won't be there at 2 and Quinn is going to be a bust. Trading Chad for the no 2 pick is a bad idea.

how can you determine brady will be a bust, thats a really bold statement to make. did u give him a physical to see if he's missing a left nut. my post was as a joke but now i wanna do it if it will make u have a heart attack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how can you determine brady will be a bust, thats a really bold statement to make. did u give him a physical to see if he's missing a left nut. my post was as a joke but now i wanna do it if it will make u have a heart attack

I'm not the only one who thinks Quinn is VERY overrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1: We don't have the ammunition to get up to #2 anymore. Chart-wise, it would take all of this year's picks and all of next year's picks and we'd still be short. Presumably we're talking about a player with a LOT of value like Vilma or Rhodes + our first + a 2nd. That doesn't add up to the #2 pick (2600 pts) unless with #25 (720) and #59 (310), Detroit values Vilma or Rhodes at 1570 pts (~pick #6 overall). Fat chance.

#2: I wouldn't trade up to #2 unless we were going to trade down again. The #2 pick is going to get a $60M contract with $25M+ guaranteed and/or up front. There's no one at #2 that we so badly need that shouldn't be available a few picks later. Players like Anderson and Adams are not expected to be top-2 picks. Not with two QB's who (many think) are franchise QB's, the best WR prospect anyone can remember, and a franchise HB. One of Anderson/Adams is as likely as not to be there at #10. Ngata could have easily gone to us at #4 last year & was expected to go to Buffalo at #8 at the very latest. Baltimore snagged him at #12.

Even if it were doable to trade to #2 (which it isn't unless Detroit is willing to take much less for the pick), I'd drop down & pick up a motherload of picks rather than keep it. #2 to #4 on paper should reap #36 and #68. Then again from #4 should reap #10, #42, and #170.

So would I give up Vilma or even Rhodes to:

move up from #25 to #10 AND

move up from #59 to #36 AND

get #42 AND

get #68 AND

get #170?

Without batting an eye. There's not a player on our whole roster worth all that. (If we already had all that, would you make this trade in reverse to acquire Jonathan Vilma for the 3-4 or Kerry Rhodes? Yeah, sure you would. Then every Jets fan in the country would hunt you down).

Could it happen? Only on a messageboard.

The problem is that trading down is easier said than done usually. We weren't able to trade down last year with a #4 pick that required a LOT less compensation than trading down from #2 would. Look at what a tough time Detroit's having. Point is, if Detroit is willing to take so much less from us to move up to #2, why would someone else give us a blockbuster that they wouldn't give to Detroit? They wouldn't.

It can make for interesting discussion, but just accept that we pick at #25 and will likely stay there. Even if we did move up, we're probably not going to until after the draft is underway. And given Tannenbaum's desire to build a whole team through the draft and not just snag a single high-profile prospect (which at $60M is not cheaper in the draft than in FA and would also cost two high picks plus an established player), if we DID move up it wouldn't be more than a couple of slots at the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1: We don't have the ammunition to get up to #2 anymore. Chart-wise, it would take all of this year's picks and all of next year's picks and we'd still be short. Presumably we're talking about a player with a LOT of value like Vilma or Rhodes + our first + a 2nd. That doesn't add up to the #2 pick (2600 pts) unless with #25 (720) and #59 (310), Detroit values Vilma or Rhodes at 1570 pts (~pick #6 overall). Fat chance.

#2: I wouldn't trade up to #2 unless we were going to trade down again. The #2 pick is going to get a $60M contract with $25M+ guaranteed and/or up front. There's no one at #2 that we so badly need that shouldn't be available a few picks later. Players like Anderson and Adams are not expected to be top-2 picks. Not with two QB's who (many think) are franchise QB's, the best WR prospect anyone can remember, and a franchise HB. One of Anderson/Adams is as likely as not to be there at #10. Ngata could have easily gone to us at #4 last year & was expected to go to Buffalo at #8 at the very latest. Baltimore snagged him at #12.

Even if it were doable to trade to #2 (which it isn't unless Detroit is willing to take much less for the pick), I'd drop down & pick up a motherload of picks rather than keep it. #2 to #4 on paper should reap #36 and #68. Then again from #4 should reap #10, #42, and #170.

So would I give up Vilma or even Rhodes to:

move up from #25 to #10 AND

move up from #59 to #36 AND

get #42 AND

get #68 AND

get #170?

Without batting an eye. There's not a player on our whole roster worth all that. (If we already had all that, would you make this trade in reverse to acquire Jonathan Vilma for the 3-4 or Kerry Rhodes? Yeah, sure you would. Then every Jets fan in the country would hunt you down).

Could it happen? Only on a messageboard.

The problem is that trading down is easier said than done usually. We weren't able to trade down last year with a #4 pick that required a LOT less compensation than trading down from #2 would. Look at what a tough time Detroit's having. Point is, if Detroit is willing to take so much less from us to move up to #2, why would someone else give us a blockbuster that they wouldn't give to Detroit? They wouldn't.

It can make for interesting discussion, but just accept that we pick at #25 and will likely stay there. Even if we did move up, we're probably not going to until after the draft is underway. And given Tannenbaum's desire to build a whole team through the draft and not just snag a single high-profile prospect (which at $60M is not cheaper in the draft than in FA and would also cost two high picks plus an established player), if we DID move up it wouldn't be more than a couple of slots at the most.

sounds like chart value needs an update to reflect the changing market then. with so many more teams adopting the patroit model (role players suited for a system that is more important and cost-effective than a few superstars) moving down is more and more attractive, thus, high draft picks have relative less value compared to multiple lower picks than a few years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds like chart value needs an update to reflect the changing market then. with so many more teams adopting the patroit model (role players suited for a system that is more important and cost-effective than a few superstars) moving down is more and more attractive, thus, high draft picks have relative less value compared to multiple lower picks than a few years ago.

The chart is ridiculously outdated. It was created before the salary cap or free agency.

The reason it's so tough to move down from a top 2-3 pick isn't just because of the "chart" compensation. The team who moves up not only has to give up an insane amount of picks to move up, but they also have to give that rookie - ROOKIE - a $60M contract with $25-$30M up front. There are 5x pro-bowlers who never sniff at contracts like that. It's a bad move for a franchise.

Here's the other thing: a team with cap issues who picks REALLY high can't afford to pay that player (and the rest of their rookies) and still make more than a pimple-sized move in free-agency. It's like once you're in that situation, you're going to be there for a couple of years. Look how long it took San Fran to dig themselves out. And along the way they had to give Alex Smith & Vernon Davis $75M in addition to bust picks of their own (hey, it happens) like Rashaun Woods. Meanwhile the "big-time" FA's they would acquire were Antonio Bryant & the like, while being unable to hold onto Julian Peterson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...