Jump to content

Does a trade down make sense now?


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...