Trading up

beware_d-ware said:
Just watched Derrick Brown for grins, and man, he is ridiculous.



1:11, 1:36, 2:22... he just blows guys away with his strength. LSU starts double-teaming him on pretty much every snap after that, and they even triple-team him a few times when Auburn goes to a 3 man line (check out 5:38).

Pro comparisons are kind of tough... but the first guy who comes to mind is maybe Vince Wilfork playing 20 pounds lighter, in how Brown just eats up double teams and tanks through single blockers. Maybe Akiem Hicks for the Bears? He's a 330 pound behemoth who crushes run games and gets a couple sacks collapsing pockets.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of Shaun Rodgers DT Lions...unstoppable strength was a disruptive force for years
 
darthseinfeld said:
For me. I get on the phone if Simmons or Brown fall out of the top 10. Id also consider moving up a few slots for Kinlaw if I didn't think he was going to make it to 17
Click to expand...

Probably Simmons and Brown for me as well.

Wouldn’t give up our 2nd, only the 3rd.
 
dallas72 said:
Smh...troll...gonna pay Dak 150+ mil...and u wanna draft a friggin QB
Click to expand...
Would be interesting if you franchise tag Dak and trade him for a 1st round pick and some other picks, and trade up with a ton of cap flexibility to shape your roster and have financial freedom for 5 years. Not sure I'd draft Tua there but I would definitely consider trading Dak for a multitude of reason.

With that being said it's not going to happen.
 
How much is it going to cost me? I would not give up a 2nd round pick unless I get a potential impact player in return. I will assume Kinlaw's knees are okay and if so, I would trade up for him even if it cost me a 2nd or 3rd round pick. I am confident he can be an impact DT for years, if he is healthy.
 
Flamma said:
To me this is the obvious choice. This is why I say Dak is pricing himself for Dallas to look at other options. What is the downside to trading up for Tua as opposed to paying Dak 35 Mil a year? I'd take my chances on the cheaper route.
Click to expand...
The downside is that you are wrong and set your franchise back a decade for no reason.
 
Future said:
The downside is that you are wrong and set your franchise back a decade for no reason.
Click to expand...

My mindset is that we break even if wrong. Remember, if I'd be willing to trade up for that player, I already think we'd be set back by giving our current qb a huge contact. So if I'm wrong, yeah we lose the picks. But not strapped with a huge contract either.
 
Flamma said:
My mindset is that we break even if wrong. Remember, if I'd be willing to trade up for that player, I already think we'd be set back by giving our current qb a huge contact. So if I'm wrong, yeah we lose the picks. But not strapped with a huge contract either.
Click to expand...
No, you don't break even. You go from a team that has the talent to win the Super Bowl right now to a team with no quarterback, no chance at contending, and a bunch of cap space you can't use b/c you don't have a quarterback.
 
Future said:
No, you don't break even. You go from a team that has the talent to win the Super Bowl right now to a team with no quarterback, no chance at contending, and a bunch of cap space you can't use b/c you don't have a quarterback.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if Tua is a bust. But I think it is highly probable he will be of equal talent or better. That's what I meant by breaking even. Dak doesn't set the bar too high so I'll more or less be right with that assessment.
 
Flamma said:
Yeah, if Tua is a bust. But I think it is highly probable he will be of equal talent or better. That's what I meant by breaking even. Dak doesn't set the bar too high so I'll more or less be right with that assessment.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight. You want to trade most of your draft capital this year and next year to get Tua, and think that gives you a better chance of winning now and long term?

That is absurd.
 
Future said:
So let me get this straight. You want to trade most of your draft capital this year and next year to get Tua, and think that gives you a better chance of winning now and long term?

That is absurd.
Click to expand...

Him or Herbert. I honestly don't think we'll be any worse off. What will we be, 8-8? Again, it's not like the rookie QB is going to have a hard act to follow. Do you honestly think Tua or Herbert is going to be a downgrade over Dak? I'm thinking there is a better chance it's an upgrade. It will also be another 4 year rookie contract.
 
Flamma said:
Him or Herbert. I honestly don't think we'll be any worse off. What will we be, 8-8? Again, it's not like the rookie QB is going to have a hard act to follow. Do you honestly think Tua or Herbert is going to be a downgrade over Dak? I'm thinking there is a better chance it's an upgrade. It will also be another 4 year rookie contract.
Click to expand...
Maybe they could both be as good as Dak eventually, but they won't be in 2020. The amount of draft capital you'd have to give up means you're not going to be able to do much to elevate the rest of the talent, and then in year 4 we're basically in the same position.

Using just players being drafted this year, let's say it costs 2 firsts, 2 seconds and a third to move up to #6 (conservatively). You'd trade Dak, Chaisson, McKinney, Reagor, Gallimore, and, say, Pride, for Tua?

It just makes absolutely no sense to do that.
 
Future said:
Maybe they could both be as good as Dak eventually, but they won't be in 2020. The amount of draft capital you'd have to give up means you're not going to be able to do much to elevate the rest of the talent, and then in year 4 we're basically in the same position.

Using just players being drafted this year, let's say it costs 2 firsts, 2 seconds and a third to move up to #6 (conservatively). You'd trade Dak, Chaisson, McKinney, Reagor, Gallimore, and, say, Pride, for Tua?

It just makes absolutely no sense to do that.
Click to expand...

Stop for a second. You do agree with me that much of the problem was coaching? I'm just asking. Because if that's not playing a role then I don't want anything to do with Dak. I think a lot of it has to do with coaching and is why Tony Romo, and QB I thought was very good (not elite) fail miserably.

I will not be upset if Dak gets paid. I think under new management he may do very well. But I am also not taking other options off of the table. I'm going to support what the Cowboys eventually decide 100%. One way or the other.
 
Flamma said:
Stop for a second. You do agree with me that much of the problem was coaching? I'm just asking. Because if that's not playing a role then I don't want anything to do with Dak. I think a lot of it has to do with coaching and is why Tony Romo, and QB I thought was very good (not elite) fail miserably.

I will not be upset if Dak gets paid. I think under new management he may do very well. But I am also not taking other options off of the table. I'm going to support what the Cowboys eventually decide 100%. One way or the other.
Click to expand...
Yes I think the biggest problem was coaching lol.

But that's why it doesn't make sense to me to trade up to draft a QB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 1 more.
Total: 12,638 (members: 101, guests: 12,537)
Robots: 993

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,012
Messages
14,506,508
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top