Does a trade down make sense now?

[whiteshoes 192]

After restructuring mr2, why would we not trade down. It seems this year is a gauge of where we are with talent and talent we can infuse. We all have our favorites, but if we could pull surtain or farley, then get williams or etienne, and bounce back with roche, washington basham and others we all speak on, why stay at 4 to get someone that sits for 2 years?

[804_Falconfan 314]

Would love a trade down to pick up the guys you mentioned. I also can see them staying at #4 and picking up a QB if they think one has the talent to be a star to take over after Ryan. It all just depends on how they value the top QBs. 

[Sipifalcon 2,025]

I see qb at 4 but hey who knows. 🤷🏿‍♂️

[kiwifalcon 19,891]

We can’t trade down if someone doesn’t approach us.

Trade down is an opportunity teams in our spot have to let that opportunity come to us we can’t just say to the world who wants to trade up,cmon give us all your picks.

[Herr Doktor 10,301]

It made sense before.  Restructuring MR2 changes nothing.  He was always going to be here two seasons.  Taking a QB at 4, if their intent, is also still on the table.  

[Sidecar Falcon 8,436]

Trading down is a viable option. Just like drafting a QB, drafting an LT, etc are viable options. It’s been a long time since I’ve been this excited about a draft. 

[nomak 4,872]

It's always made sence...

[PriMeTiiMe 8,630]

It's the most likely scenario at this point. Even if Lawrence, Fields and Wilson go 1-3. That leaves a team wanting an OT that could trade up or the last high end QB. Or maybe they want to secure the WR of their choice. So many options.

Ideal scenario we move down to 8-12 and draft Surtain, Pitts, Slater or Parsons.

[ya_boi_j 69,423]

Is there a locked in buyer?

[WhenFalconsWin 28,064]

Even more so now. 

[Clark Kent™ 4,589]

I think a trade back is optimal, but I could also see us staying at 4 if we don't have suitors. Maybe there is a scenario we do trade a guy like McGary and take Sewell at #4 to play RT. I'd like to see who we would take if we stay at #4 and not take a QB. 

[k-train 9,183]

2 hours ago, Herr Doktor said:

It made sense before.  Restructuring MR2 changes nothing.  He was always going to be here two seasons.  Taking a QB at 4, if their intent, is also still on the table.  

100% this

[thanat0s 6,117]

Once we put aside the obvious fact that it's silly for a team trying to win to take a QB at 4 rather than an immediate impact player, we're still left with the fact that, not only are we paying our current HOF calbur QB tens of millions of dollars, but we'd be paying his backup another 8 per year to sit on his tail for who knows how long?

There are literally no plausible arguments for taking a QB at 4, or even in round one after a trade down. That is only viable if Matt and Julio are traded between now and draft day, and they simply blow it all up and hope they field a winner in the next 3 years. If not, we'll be searching for the next future ex-coach. 

Whether we sit at 4, or trade back, it's almost a guarantee that we'll take OL, CB, or Pitts, depending on where we land. 

 

 

[FalconFanSince1970 24,868]

4 hours ago, kiwifalcon said:

We can’t trade down if someone doesn’t approach us.

Trade down is an opportunity teams in our spot have to let that opportunity come to us we can’t just say to the world who wants to trade up,cmon give us all your picks.

Bingo. TATF thinks there’s a magical trade down button we can push. I’ve even seen multiple trade down mocks on this board. Jeez.

[mattyicefalcon 4,598]

1 hour ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Even more so now. 

I would be flabbergasted if they didn't trade down and add more depth on RB and Defense.

[Sidecar Falcon 8,436]

4 hours ago, Herr Doktor said:

It made sense before.  Restructuring MR2 changes nothing.  He was always going to be here two seasons.  Taking a QB at 4, if their intent, is also still on the table.  

Exactly. 

[Beast-N-Da-Sheetz 4,212]

It makes even more sense now. I wanted Fields at 4 but I don't know now. Jones is my secondary option but he'll probably be gone before the second round so maybe we would have to get him in the first in a trade back I don't know...

[falcons007 25,999]

3 hours ago, ya_boi_j said:

Is there a locked in buyer?

I will let you know after I get response on Craigslist.

[Monolith2001 5,179]

Trading down always made sense.  No QB we drafted would have played in 2021 (barring injury to Matt).  Defensive class does not appear to be worthy of a #4 pick and we really don't "need" a receiver (OR pass catching TE).  You can make a case for the two highly-rated Tackles but we're most likely moving them to play Guard.

[flrybranch 122]

I have no idea whether TF will trade down or not. But, drafting a QB at 4 is as viable an idea today as it was last week.

Anyone saying we will or will not take a QB at 4 is just flat talking out of their ***. 

Personally I think trading down for more picks is the best idea. MR2 has another 4-5 years of good football to play which is  century in the NFL.

But I fully realize TF/AS may feel MR2 has less time and want a QB of the future.

Whatever they do, I fully support.

[Run 'n' Shoot 865]

Yes gotdammit!

[ATLSlobberKnockers 8,763]

10 hours ago, kiwifalcon said:

We can’t trade down if someone doesn’t approach us.

Trade down is an opportunity teams in our spot have to let that opportunity come to us we can’t just say to the world who wants to trade up,cmon give us all your picks.

there will be calls. There are 2 wr and a t.e. that a team needing weapons could go all in for.  

[Ezekiel 25:17 17,983]

9 hours ago, Herr Doktor said:

It made sense before.  Restructuring MR2 changes nothing.  He was always going to be here two seasons.  Taking a QB at 4, if their intent, is also still on the table.  

Was just about to say, it has ALWAYS made sense! 

But like you said, you need a partner that is willing to pay for It to happen. Just wanting it doesn’t mean it can happen.
 

[CraigSmackDaddy 2,138]

6 hours ago, Clark Kent™ said:

I think a trade back is optimal, but I could also see us staying at 4 if we don't have suitors. Maybe there is a scenario we do trade a guy like McGary and take Sewell at #4 to play RT. I'd like to see who we would take if we stay at #4 and not take a QB. 

I’d keep McGary and still take Sewell if he’s on the board and we can’t trade back. We’ve seen what happens when an OL goes down.  If Matthews or McGary/Sewell were to go down we’d have someone to plug in and hopefully move right along.  I know we have more glaring needs but I’d still take the best player left at 4 that’s not a QB.  

[NorthGaBoy 1,613]

We have more holes on this team than we can fill via our current draft positions.  Fontenot is talking up taking a QB at 4.  Yes, of course we are trading down, if we can.  Why else would we put bait in the water?  If Fontenot was going for a QB at 4, he would not be talking about that.  The only way we take a QB at 4 in 2021 is if there is no attractive offer to trade down.  The only thing this has to do with anyone's restructure is we are trying to create the cap to get those holes plugged.