First round trade down scenario's

[red]

i saw something interesting today while looking at mock's

our draft might very well depend on Mark Sanchez. if he drops to us, our phone lines will probably light up like a christmas tree.

there really only 2 franchise type qb's in this draft. stafford, and sanchez. then nothing. and theres a lot of teams in need of a qb

san fran could use a franchise qb, and they pick one spot behind us. odds are pretty good that they could jump on sanchez if he is there.

however, there's a lot of tems in the late teens that would love to jump up ahead of san fran and take that qb.

17. jets
18. bears
19. bucs
20. lions
22. the queens

the jets would have to give up there second along with 17 to move up to #9. how funny would that be? we get even more picks because of the favre trade

bears would have to give up a second and maybe a 4th or 5th rounder

bucs would have to give up a second, and 4th and a 5th

the queens would have to give up the 1,2,3 and 4th rounders to move up

and we could pick up a first rounder next year from any of those team. which would be nice

just something to think about leading up to the draft

[Waldo]

I think that Stafford is the bigger wildcard. Unlike Ryan, Stafford and Sanchez have only been starters a year or two, Ryan was a long time starter and a graduated senior on draft day. Having so much experience, Ryan was less risky than Stafford or Sanchez. Ryan also signed a contract that gives him top 5 QB money, from the #3 spot. That is ridiculous. If Stafford/Sanchez were to be taken int he top 5, Ryan's contract will be the starting point and the $$ will go up. I don't see any team willing to take that risk with a QB with as limited of college experience as Stafford or Sanchez have.

Both are going to fall. #10 is the first spot where one is likely to be picked if trades are not allowed. But they are. Whoever wants the top QB is going to pay TT a lot of picks to move up to #9 to get him, as there will be many, many suitors, knowing that if they don't make the trade with GB, he is good as gone at #10.

[KYPack]

So would a #1 at 17 and a #2 be worth it?

I was thinking this was the year we should load up and get a difference maker kid, but I dunno if there really is one at #9.

The other question is our direction. I kinda think they want one of the 3 blue chip tackles or the corner from OSU. I don't think either one will be there at 17.

That is a very interesting question.

[Waldo]

So would a #1 at 17 and a #2 be worth it?

I was thinking this was the year we should load up and get a difference maker kid, but I dunno if there really is one at #9.

The other question is our direction. I kinda think they want one of the 3 blue chip tackles or the corner from OSU. I don't think either one will be there at 17.

That is a very interesting question.

I don't think they'll be there at 9 either.

My bet:
OT's Smith, Smith, Monroe, Oher are gone (#1, 2, 6, 7)
LB Curry is gone (#3)
WR Crabtree is gone (#4)
CB Jenkins is gone (#5)
DT Raji is gone. (#8)

Sitting at our pick is first choice of QB's, and first choice of DE/OLB's.

The #7 pick (the Raiders) is the only wildcard pick, but they've got a young expensive QB, lots of young backs, there is not WR with that high of value after Crabtree. The rest of the picks seem pretty obvious.

If Al doesn't take an OT and instead grabs a DE, it could cause Jax (#8) to take the OT and cause Raji to fall to #9 (if Al doesn't take him at #7).

I don't think that we'd pass on Raji, even if we got a good deal in trade for one of the QB's.

[packrat]

SF may have to trade with us to get its QB--we still get whoever we would have picked at 9 and another draft choice. Ah, the benefits of S's taking the wrong QB a few short years ago.

[rbaloha1]

Assuming Sanchez has a great combine and Pro Day teams may be looking to move up. (IMO Stafford and Sanchez are nowhere close to Ryan or Flacco. However some owners probably think so. Fine with me since the Packers can draft better players in whatever slot they end up in.)

While the draft is lacking in superstar talent there is good depth.

A trade down is a viable option.

[texaspackerbacker]

So would a #1 at 17 and a #2 be worth it?

I was thinking this was the year we should load up and get a difference maker kid, but I dunno if there really is one at #9.

The other question is our direction. I kinda think they want one of the 3 blue chip tackles or the corner from OSU. I don't think either one will be there at 17.

That is a very interesting question.

I don't think they'll be there at 9 either.

My bet:
OT's Smith, Smith, Monroe, Oher are gone (#1, 2, 6, 7)
LB Curry is gone (#3)
WR Crabtree is gone (#4)
CB Jenkins is gone (#5)
DT Raji is gone. (#8)

Sitting at our pick is first choice of QB's, and first choice of DE/OLB's.

The #7 pick (the Raiders) is the only wildcard pick, but they've got a young expensive QB, lots of young backs, there is not WR with that high of value after Crabtree. The rest of the picks seem pretty obvious.

If Al doesn't take an OT and instead grabs a DE, it could cause Jax (#8) to take the OT and cause Raji to fall to #9 (if Al doesn't take him at #7).

I don't think that we'd pass on Raji, even if we got a good deal in trade for one of the QB's.

If it goes down like this--and it's very reasonable that it could, I'd be all for trading down. It's a helluva lot better than taking Orakpo or Maybin, or several others that have been mentioned.

If we did trade down, I'd like to get Vontae Davis, who just might be better even than Jenkins.

[sheepshead]

Any reasonable scenario that gets us out of the first round I am in favor of.

[bobblehead]

I'm too lazy to research, but I'm willing to bet that not many drafts in the last 20 years got to number 8 before a DLineman was picked.

[Joemailman]

DE's usually go early, but only once in the last 5 years has a DT been picked in the top 8:

2008 Dorsey (5)
2007 Okoye (10)
2006 Ngata (12)
2005 Johnson (16)
2004 Harris (14)


In other news, Garcia is done in TB. http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=518391 They could definitely be a team looking to trade up to get Stafford or Sanchez.

[bobblehead]

DE's usually go early, but only once in the last 5 years has a DT been picked in the top 8:

2008 Dorsey (5)
2007 Okoye (10)
2006 Ngata (12)
2005 Johnson (16)
2004 Harris (14)


In other news, Garcia is done in TB. http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=518391 They could definitely be a team looking to trade up to get Stafford or Sanchez.

If that is the case I would guess we have a really good shot at Raji, but I still think we take one of the big 3 Left Tackles if one is there.

[Waldo]

What if we take Stafford/Sanchez?

It is unthinkable, but.........

Possible, and if they were there they would be BPA.

[Lurker64]

What if we take Stafford/Sanchez?

It is unthinkable, but.........

Possible, and if they were there they would be BPA.

I think the "obviously, you don't need 11 QBs" is the standard stated exception to the "Best Player Available" theory. I would be shocked, saddened, and angry if we took either of the QBs and didn't trade them away for picks or players during the draft.

[3irty1]

What if we take Stafford/Sanchez?

It is unthinkable, but.........

Possible, and if they were there they would be BPA.

What if we took Sanchez in order to trade him to SF and move down one spot. What kind of ransom could that get us?

[KYPack]

What if we take Stafford/Sanchez?

It is unthinkable, but.........

Possible, and if they were there they would be BPA.

What if we took Sanchez in order to trade him to SF and move down one spot. What kind of ransom could that get us?

Would we take Sanchez and trade Brohm to SF/

I know Frisco wouldn't take him, but I'm still shaky about those two kids as back-ups.

There will be draft day fireworks, I just don't know if we'll get to watch 'em.

[Joemailman]

Picking Sanchez wouldn't get the Packers much since everybody knows the Pack doesn't need a QB. Making a move like this only makes sense if there is some plausibility to the idea that the Packers have the option of keeping him or trading him. Since everyone knows the Packers don't need a starting QB, Sanchez' value would drop as soon as the Packers pick him.

[sheepshead]

Picking Sanchez wouldn't get the Packers much since everybody knows the Pack doesn't need a QB. Making a move like this only makes sense if there is some plausibility to the idea that the Packers have the option of keeping him or trading him. Since everyone knows the Packers don't need a starting QB, Sanchez' value would drop as soon as the Packers pick him.

Ask Partial who he would pick.