If we trade down...
by ciarannh on Mar 17, 2009 6:47 AM PDT
65 comments
A recent fan post suggested that we are destined to take either Michael Crabtree or Aaron Curry at 4, but both moves would seem illogical. Peterson was traded to relieve the amount of cap room paid to LB's, so I doubt Timmay wants to inherit an even larger contract on the strong side, and the signing of TJ and return of Burleson negates the need for a wideout (unless we cut ties with Branch). I'm not sure if we have the cap space to enjoy the luxury of signing Sanchez or Stafford (whichever the lions pass on!) and grooming him under Hass for a year or two. With the little we have to spend, surely someone getting paid such a large amount would be expected to contribute? That leaves us with a tackle, which if we stay at four, I have to think we'll draft. However, finally getting to my point, if we do manage to find a trade partner in the middle of the board, I'm curious as to who you guys would want? With issues at wideout and DT seemingly resolved, should we go for a back like Beanie Wells, grab Malcolm Jenkins and covert him to FS, pick up the likes of Michael Oher and stick him at guard etc. I'd love to pick up Jenkins, if we could pick up a 3rd rounder and still grab the best DB on the board we'd be off to a great start
A place to bury strangers.
0 recs |
65 comments
Email
Print
Comments
As far as offensive players go,
I’d take Beanie Wells over everybody except Jason Smith, Monroe, and Crabtree (not in that order), but I don’t like him enough to take him at 4. If we could trade into the middle of the board, I’d be all for picking him and taking Chung or Duke Rob in the 2nd.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 17, 2009 7:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Beanie Wells? Really?
Moreno is a much better back.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2009 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moreno's more elusive and has better breakaway speed
which is more effective when there are holes to get through. But Beanie is a more punishing bruiser of a back who I feel can succeed even when an O-line isn’t dominant. The only caveat with Beanie is that Moreno is far superior catching passes out of the backfield.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 17, 2009 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First of all, I disagree with your assessment of Wells vs. Moreno
The one knock on Moreno is lack of breakaway speed. Small, quick, elusive and at the same time not afraid to take on tacklers. Very tough. Those describe Moreno. Wells is bigger, but also has better open field speed. With quality running backs available in later rounds, I wouldn’t be in favor of spending a 1st round pick on any of them. We’re effectively stuck with Jones and Ducket for now, and are really looking for a complementary back to replace MoMo, and backup Jones. Plenty of backs like Coffee will be available later.
In round 1 I’d rather we further beefed up the O or D line with the likes of Mack, Unger or Beatty on O-line, or Hood on D-line, but I suspect if we do trade down, it will be a DB like Jenkins, Butler or Smith.
by diehard82 on Mar 17, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing about Beanie is that even though he's a bruiser back,
he’s fragile. That does not equate success in the NFL.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, but people had concerns about
Adrian Peterson’s durability as well. RBs have a short shelf life anyways, so after his first 5 years, we’ll just not resign him. Or get him for a few seasons and trade him for a Champ Bailey-type.
That being said, I don’t really want to waste a high pick on a RB.
by LantermanC on Mar 17, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ridiculous trades like Portis/Bailey don't happen anymore.
Peterson was lucky enough to be drafted by an extreme run-blocking o-line, and he still gets dinged up from time to time.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frank Gore wasn't/isn't fast
and he still had productive years behind a god-awful SF O-line. Same goes for Brandon Jacobs of two years ago – granted he was playing in a limited role behind Tiki, but he was still very efffective.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 17, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frank Gore isn't fast?
Maybe not in timed speed, but he is absurdly quick and agile for a stubby person like him, which is why he’s even able to make it out of the backfield behind that line.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He ran a 4.66.
Wells might not have breakaway speed, but he’s got exceptionally quick feet and a good burst out of the backfield. That should certainly help him compensate.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 17, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
He stubs his toe and cries. He’s also a Suckeye.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At this point, wouldn't it be a surprise if TR doesn't trade down?
I’m excited to see what it brings. Tampa’s pick at 19, so they can grab Sanchez/Stafford? \Wonder where Josh Freeman grades on the Hawks’ board…
by lemonverbena on Mar 17, 2009 8:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd want something close to the trade chart value...
If not close, then throw in future picks to compensate. (I love future picks. I plan on being a fan long after the current FO and players are gone.)
But I’m really liking getting Monroe, Smith, or Crabtree at #4. If those three are gone, then I take Curry and try to trade him to someone lower— although I think if Curry was available, we would get a decent offer while on the clock.
by Kryten on Mar 17, 2009 9:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For example:
If Curry was available, that means KC passed on him. We might offer him to KC for their 3rd this year (09#67=255 pts) and their 1st and 2nd next year (unknown pts). It’s quite a risk considering they might have the twentieth next year and we wouldn’t be getting anything near equal value. But it’s also possible they end up with a top 10 pick.
The break-even point would be slot #14 next year. If they finished at #14, the points for a 1st and 2nd would be 1100+440, making our total take 1790. Actually, when you take back future picks they are valued a bit lower, but KC no longer has a 2nd rounder this year, so when dealing with them, most of the value would be from the future.
This is just one scenario. Other teams make more sense since they have more picks to play with…
by Kryten on Mar 17, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the trade value chart is bogus.
total bogus. i would be shocked to find that teams really use it anymore.
for example, if we wanted to move up from #4 to #1 it would take EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR DRAFT PICKS, plus a second or third rounder next year.
another example: if the 15th pick wanted to move up to our 4th it would take EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR PICKS.
the trade value chart dramatically over values top 5 picks, and criminally undervalues late first/second/third round picks.
by cro-mag! on Mar 17, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair,
I believe that trade value chart that everyone references was made in the 90’s when the top 10 picks didn’t get salaries of pro bowlers.
Which is why, in my mind, If someone offers me anything to go from 4 to 10 (say a 4th rounder), I’d take it. I’d gladly take a 4th rounder to go from paying Eugene Monro $45 million to paying Malcom Jenkins $20 million (correct me if my numbers are off).
by LantermanC on Mar 17, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Each team has its own chart...
and they don’t share with the public or other teams. So I was using the chart most often listed on the main sports sites (WalterFootball and ESPN, etc).
I really don’t care which chart is used as long as it isn’t the one used by Bavasi.
by Kryten on Mar 17, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So incredibly agreed on moving down.
We don’t really “need” but we “could use” any of Jenkins, the OT’s, Stafford/Sanchez, Crabtree, maybe Brown. I’d be in favour of – if we can’t trade down – literally sitting there and not picking, Minnesota style. The difference in salary is just too huge between #4 and #10.
I’m not saying that’s going to happen, imagine the backlash if we sit for a few picks and then someone like Stafford gets drafted at #5 and turns out to be Favre 2.0..
But it’s pretty obvious that TR is going to do everything he can to garner us another #3 or #4 somehow.
by djafrot on Mar 17, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I seem to remember
Tim Ruskell last year being asked about the DVC, and didn’t make it gospel, but indicated it’s still very actively in use. Something along the lines of, being a conversation starter for serious discussions, something everyone can agree on as a starting point.
The value of the picks swapped for us to trade up to get John Carlson last year was 520 (for the spot in which we took Carlson) for 510 (for the two picks that ended up being Ray Rice and Tom Zbikowski).
So I would say it’s not terribly bogus, and it seems to remain in active use.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd trade down with the Eagles for their two firsts and their third
Then take Knowshon and Duke or Laurinaitis (to play weakside), then Chung in the second.
by SPENCEMAN on Mar 17, 2009 9:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Actually instead of Duke or Laurinaitis
I think I’d rather have Hakeem Nicks
by SPENCEMAN on Mar 17, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just talked to a friend recently about Nicks.
She said that they were in the same summer school class and he tried to cheat off her test. But not slyly, just straight up asked her if he could copy her answers. I thought that was funny.
If he weren’t injured as often as he is, I’d love to have Percy Harvin with a late 1st rounder. I just remember seeing him in the bowl game (maybe it was the Alabama game) and thinking he was the best athlete on the field. He’d be like a Reggie Bush light, and I think would be a great playmaker. After all, we don’t really need a RB, and we don’t really need a WR, but we have a slight need for both. Harvin would fill both, though his being injured would probably be something Ruskell tries to avoid considering the past year.
by LantermanC on Mar 17, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's awesome.
Percy Harvin, please no. He has twigs for legs and makes Branch look like Ironman.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Psh! Throwing around a beach ball does not make him a strong man!
by Ezzra on Mar 17, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holy bajesus he's got huge arms.
What an athletic specimen.
by LantermanC on Mar 17, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was referring to that exact picture.
Look at his legs.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean his knees?
I know you have a grudge against many of the prospects in the draft, but please don’t allow your personal opinions to be passed off as fact.
by abender20 on Mar 17, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I'm dismayed this has gone on this long, he actually has pretty calves and his thighs are beastly.
Enough already.
by abender20 on Mar 17, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jesus. Pretty thick calves. I need to go home.
by abender20 on Mar 17, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, his calves are large.
But aren’t they a bit disproportionate to the rest of his legs?
I’m genuinely curious because he’s had a lot of ankle injuries, although I agree this is a petty thing to bicker over.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of these pics even show his ankles
That makes it pretty hard to compare calves to ankles
by Ezzra on Mar 17, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*Laughs Hysterically*
… to the point where i am sooo glad i invested in the Mac keyboard protector. I just sprayed coffee all over the dang thing.
What has a message board come to where we are scouring google images for pictures of Percy Harvin’s “pretty calves” and ankle shots as evidence?
It’s just too much… it was worth the laugh though. The argument may be irrelevant as this guy is supposed to have been pretty good….
by iverson2169 on Mar 17, 2009 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm confused who we're looking at.
One of the pictures shows #8 and the other shows #1. Did he change numbers?
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 17, 2009 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He wore #1 his freshman year, then changed to 8
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2009 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're not that tiny.
I don’t think calf size has much to do with cutting, speed, or acceleration.
by LantermanC on Mar 17, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, no one legs taper to the knee. You have no view of the thickness of his thighs or calves.
by abender20 on Mar 17, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably not
But they could have something do with his frequent injuries.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to harp on a single point, but...
I would do that as well, except we’d be adding two extra bodies, and we’re already predicted to get as many as 4 7th rounders— so it makes sense to push some of our return to next year. So I’d take either their two firsts and a 2nd next year, or their first and second this year and their 2010 1st…
As it is we already may end up with 11 draftees!! That’s a lot of new people to find room for.
by Kryten on Mar 17, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Laurinaitis as WLB?
He is slow. One of the Pre-reqs for WLB is speed. Maybe a William Moore as WLB. Cato June was a safety before becoming WLB.
by Built2Spill on Mar 17, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about a OLB?
All 3 of the USC LBs are ranked about in the middle, so why not replace JP with a good LB that has gone thru a school that is NFL ready?
We also need a C very badly, and in the mid (16) to 25th is where we can expect the first Center to go. We want MAck, we need to get him around here. I don’t think either of these are a stretch, but, we sure need the positions.
Clay Matthews, or Alex Mack would be my choices.
Recently, I saw a mock with Donald Brown ahead of Moreno and wells. Wonder how practical that can be.
Sorry, about yesterday, John. I thot you were pairing the DTs off and knew we didn’t have Green anymore.
by BUSTINHEADS on Mar 17, 2009 9:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't know alot about Cushing
But I think he’s more of a Strongside Linebacker, and Maualuga is an ILB, preferably in a 3-4. We could go Clay Matthews, but I hate him.
by SPENCEMAN on Mar 17, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's white.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
But something about him pisses me off.
by SPENCEMAN on Mar 17, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel the same way about Bobby Carpenter
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Mar 17, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he reminds me a lot of Bobby Carpenter.
Except with some talent.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rey played MLB in college
Matthews is probably better suited for a 3-4 as an outside guy who can line up like a DE from time to time.
You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.
by bluemax on Mar 17, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would love for some Mack and Cheese. Cal has been good to us.
Mebane, Forsett. Also around the league Aaron Rodgers, Nnamdi Asomugha, Marshwan Lynch (on the field), etc.
by Built2Spill on Mar 17, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Mack and Cheese Alex Mack's nick name?
Or is there another player on Cal who’s nickname is Cheese?
by LantermanC on Mar 17, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Pennington and Gonzo!
What, we aren’t talking about decade old drafts?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious
Ruskell has carefully filled the gaping holes with free agency. He has said for years that he likes to do this before the draft so he is free to draft the BPA instead of based upon need. Why then are so many fans still trying to figure out what the biggest need is for the team? And why are so many thinking he should trade right back down to where the Seahawks have been picking for years, in order to get more quantity of players instead of quality?
by BWillyWinky on Mar 17, 2009 12:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
you answered a bit of your own question
The very fact that Ruskell has filled so many of our needs is WHY we can’t seem to figure out what the biggest need is. Quite simply, there is no “biggest need”. There are a lot of “nice to haves”, though.
I do understand your questioning the move to trade down to get more players instead of necessarily better, but we need to factor in a couple of things that affect each other: cost and value. The #4 pick is expensive as all hell, and the quality of players to be picked at that spot this year don’t appear to warrant that money.
Ruskell is fully willing to pay big bucks for big players, see: Housh.
by djafrot on Mar 17, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The price is what does it for me.
Sure I’d love Monroe or Crabtree, but what if either guy gets injured? That’s $5-10 million dollars wasted. Whereas it would take both Jenkins and Duke Robinson (assuming we traded with Philly), and that’s more unlikely. It’s more of a spread the risk thing in my mind.
by LantermanC on Mar 17, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jenkins is going to drop to 21?
I doubt that half the league is going to see his “slow” 40 as catastrophic.
by djafrot on Mar 17, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is no player worthy of 4th overall
or at least that is the perception. So if the drop off from 4th pick to the Eagles picks is not that great, and you can get two players graded similar to the player you would take at 4th, both together for about the same amount of money as the 4th pick, then it is a good time to jump on that trade.
by germpod on Mar 17, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think his point was
If Ruskell made free agents moves to enable drafting BPA, why are we considering need at all now, when we discuss the qualities of each prospect?
Which is a fair point, except for BPA in a true pure sense is probably rare, and with Ruskell’s seeming — and IMO best — approach of trying to win now, without mortgaging the future, seeing the age of some of our best, integral talent, on offense, reasonably considering current team needs is OK by me.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2009 1:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
