Cowboys could give up 3rd and 4th round picks to move up for Patrick Peterson

[JBS]

This entire notion hinges on one big assumption: Peterson drops to #6

I simply don't think six teams will bypass him.

6 teams don't have to pass on him, 5 teams do..and if we can get lucky and strike a deal with AZ at a cheap cost, it might only need to be 4 teams..

What if Zona is willing to drop from 5 to 9 for a 3rd? Sounds unlikely but crazier things have happened

 

[sago1]

No way should we pay anything like is what is being proposed to draft Peterson. We have DL, S, OL, and CB needs as well as adding some quality depth. It simply comes down to their value. Yes, Peterson may be a great CB but he will only be of value in the passing game. While a DL will be involved in every defensive play.

 

[realtick]

6 teams don't have to pass on him, 5 teams do..and if we can get lucky and strike a deal with AZ at a cheap cost, it might only need to be 4 teams..

What if Zona is willing to drop from 5 to 9 for a 3rd? Sounds unlikely but crazier things have happened

If you were trying to take him at #6, it would mean six teams have passed on him. You have to include the team you're planning on trading with too. So in effect, Cleveland would have to say no thanks to Peterson.

 

[DeaconMoss]

I would love to have peterson if all its going to cost is swap of 1st and this years 5th and next years 3rd. But I don't see Peterson falling to 6 and if so I wouldn't think they would pass on him. They could have Haden and peterson and t.j. ward in that secondary and would be great for years.

I do not want to stay at 9. Either trade up for PAeterson but don't give up the entire draft to do it. OR trade back a few times and get a mid-late 1st round pick and then package a few picks to move into the late 1st.

you can get Carmi and Harris by doing that.

Not crazy about ur pet cats but trade down is a lock unless there are some real bonehead moves in front of us

 

[Gaede]

If they believe that Peterson is the next Ed Reed or Charles Woodson, definitely, go for it. We learned with Dez last year that getting one elite player really does make a difference when compared to getting two solid guys.

Personally, I'm undecided on Peterson--and even more scared of the fact that Campo would be the one coaching him

 

[DeaconMoss]

Don't get it twisted. PP is no top 5 pick. Nor is he worth moving up to get.

 

[DeaconMoss]

There are about 5 teams that have been consistently picking in the bottom 10 for the last decade and they r still contenders nxt yr. Again why do u wanna move up? Recoup picks and trade down is the best move 90% of time

 

[TheSport78]

Don't get it twisted. PP is no top 5 pick. Nor is he worth moving up to get.

If he turns out to be Charles Woodson or Ed Reed, he's not worth moving up for?

 

[DFWJC]

If he turns out to be Charles Woodson or Ed Reed, he's not worth moving up for?

If you knew that for sure , then yes.
But who's to say the 2-3 picks you give up to get him could have been Pro Bowlers and he turns out to be only average.

Unlikely, but it's pretty key to remember that there are plenty of unknowns.

 

[AbeBeta]

considering how poorly we usually draft, I'd prefer we get up as high as we can -- you have less opportunity to miss there.

 

[AdamJT13]

Based on actual trades made since 1992 and not just hypothetical values, our first- and third-round picks are exactly equal to the No. 6 overall pick.

The question is whether Cleveland would want to make the trade.

 

[Cover 2]

There are about 5 teams that have been consistently picking in the bottom 10 for the last decade and they r still contenders nxt yr. Again why do u wanna move up? Recoup picks and trade down is the best move 90% of time

Janoris Jenkins stayed in school. He won't be coming out this year.

 

[AbeBeta]

There are about 5 teams that have been consistently picking in the bottom 10 for the last decade and they r still contenders nxt yr. Again why do u wanna move up? Recoup picks and trade down is the best move 90% of time

Do you have any evidence for your trade down claim? I think historically it is pretty clear that you have a far better shot at a good pick earlier.

Bad teams screw stuff up, yes. But do you honestly think a team like the Lions would be better off without Calvin Johnson, Matthew Stafford, and N. Suh?

A team with the talent level that we have should look to add an impact player -- not futz around with getting more and more picks. We don't need another trade back party like we had in 2009

 

[dbair1967]

Looked up the draft value chart, and when it comes to trading up for Patrick Peterson, here's what it would take if PP fell to the #6 overall spot (Cleveland)

#9 overall (DAL) is worth 1,350 points

to trade to #6 overall, it would take, obviously, our 1st rounder (1,350 points) a 3rd rounder (225 points) and a 4th rounder (84 points) to get to 1,659 points, where the #6 overall spot is worth 1,650 points.

So it would take our 3rd and 4th rounder to move from 9 to 6, and if PP falls that far, I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger.


Would you pull the trigger? I would.

No, not at all.

 

[BIGDen]

No. There is talent to be had in the first, and we have holes in the team to fill. Don't trade away the house for one player.

I would on the other hand, trade my 2nd, 4th, and 5th to move back into the 1st round. (which could produce around the 31st pick in the draft)

If Peterson wasn't available, we could land Tyron Smith at #9, and maybe Pouncy around #31.

Granted this doesn't help us on the DL, but it would make major difference on our aging OL.

(Free, Kosier, Gurode, Pouncy, Smith) Eject Colombo and make BIGG a backup or cut him for cash if that is possible.


You could trade back in the first (NE) and do the 2nd round trade up and have 3 picks in the first round grabbing OL and DL help.

Amen. I really don't like the idea of trading with our 1st pick up in this draft.

 

[DFWJC]

Do you have any evidence for your trade down claim? I think historically it is pretty clear that you have a far better shot at a good pick earlier.

Bad teams screw stuff up, yes. But do you honestly think a team like the Lions would be better off without Calvin Johnson, Matthew Stafford, and N. Suh?

A team with the talent level that we have should look to add an impact player -- not futz around with getting more and more picks. We don't need another trade back party like we had in 2009

2009 was a disaster, no doubt. We were getting way too cute during that draft.

On the other hand, trading down a little in the 1st round and getting an extra 2nd or 3rd while keeping your 1st is a lot different.

Unless the prospect is a sure thing like the three players you mentioned (I don't think PP is that), I too would prefer to not sell the farm for one guy. And , btw, the Lions did not sell the farm to get any of those guys....they just stayed put a took them.

After the 2009 debacle, I can certainly see why you feel the way you do. That was painful.

 

[TheCount]

I'm starting to believe we are better off staying put, there could be some good players available in the 3rd.

 

[YosemiteSam]

I'm starting to believe we are better off staying put, there could be some good players available in the 3rd.

I think trading up would be as bad of a decision has trading back all those times in 2009.

 

[Cowboys2008]

Absolutely!!!!!!!

And if the price is really too high, then we could just trade back in the 2nd round to recoup one of those later round pics.

Though honestly I would consider taking that 2nd round pick and packaging a few more later round picks, either from this year or next year, to move back into the 1st round for OL.

We can gain depth through a few key free agent signings, let's use the draft this year to score a couple of prime targets who will also beable to start for us immediately. We need a draft like the Packers had a few years back when they scored Raji and long hair in the first round.

 

[YosemiteSam]

If he turns out to be Charles Woodson or Ed Reed, he's not worth moving up for?

Can you guarantee he ends up being an Ed Reed? Then you are gambling big time that he will. The odds in him being that good of a player in his career are slim. He just has the physical tools to be a great player. The question is does he have the brains to be that good. Thats what puts the Ed Reeds, Charles Woodsons, Ray Lewis' over the top. They have the physical tools AND the brains to use them.

Peterson hasn't shown anything thus far that he has the brains to be that good. (of course, that doesn't mean he doesn't have them)