Why don't we just...

[rash]

trade up in the draft and try to get a few quality players (essentially getting rid of at least our 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks) and then just have faith in the undrafted rookie free agents we sign. Our UDFA have been just as successful as our late round picks anyway...so why not?


I know I made A TOTAL 180 FLIP on this one, but I think all we really NEED is a RT right now. Screw the rest of the picks, I'd rather get the RT right and none of the rest than the opposite.
With that being said, why not trade up for Patrick Peterson. Lets say it takes a 1st, 3rd, and even 4th. If he is the best player in the draft, why put a price on him? We get the best player in the draft, and then we use our 2nd round pick to draft a RT. Maybe we can ship all the rest of our draft picks to move up a few more slots and ensure we get the guy we want (maybe its Benjamin Ijalana or whoever).

We got 2 players out of the draft. BUT, at least they are 2 guys we are confident in. Any 2nd day picks are even more of a question mark; and we can just sign a bunch that are undrafted (who by the way will have a chip on their shoulder and give it their all to this club). I think by increasing our UDFA pool, we have an increased chance of getting guys that bleed the colors of the uniform and don't give up on plays (Mike Jenkins).



OK having said all that, I must ask if we can even go through with this due to the lockout :laugh1:. Can teams sign undrafted players as of now?

If no, I guess you can scratch what I've proposed

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think we need more then just a RT and Patrick Peterson but the main reason, at least as I see it, is that you must have someone to trade with. I'm not at all sure that we will have that. Peterson could go early. It has been widely speculated that if he reaches 6, we would trade up for him. He may not get to 6.

 

[JBS]

If all we got out of this draft was a stud Cb and a stud RT then I would be more than happy..

I think it's more feasible to take a RT at 9 and trade up for a cb in the late first than vice versa..

I was actually thinking about your scenario yeaterday..if we moved up and got Peterson, I think it is highly likely we get screwed and miss out on the OTs..I would be furious if that happened

 

[sureletsrace]

Something I've never understood about the draft is exactly this. The success rate of finding starters in the draft obviously exponentially declines as the rounds go deeper.

Everyone gets so happy when 2-3 awesome players are got out of one draft. You could seemingly drop your high-round picks and just pick in rounds 1-3. If you can get just 2 starters per year, your team would always be in contention. The average starter spends probably 9-13 years in the NFL. 22 starting positions, 2 picks per year...That'd be 11 years. Your team could feasibly never require 'rebuilding' years.

With that being said, nothing is a sure thing and it really would suck if you only got 3-4 picks in a draft and they all ended up busting. You'd be eaten alive from fans/media.

 

[TheCount]

I'd be okay with that if we had the cash to be aggressive in FA, but we don't.

 

[Gaede]

I really don't think Peterson is the player that will put us over the edge. I think without addressing certain fundamental positions--DE, DT, OG, OT--we're doomed to mediocrity. Using all we got to go up and get Peterson just means we're less able to strengthen the weak spots on the team. He'd have to be really really good to justify the move.

 

[DFWJC]

The thing is, the 5th,6th and 7 picks don't allow you to move up much at all. They hold more value just keeping them (or at least one of them) vs what you get in return.

I'm all for your idea of quality over quantity though. No more 2009s please.

 

[jday]

trade up in the draft and try to get a few quality players (essentially getting rid of at least our 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks) and then just have faith in the undrafted rookie free agents we sign. Our UDFA have been just as successful as our late round picks anyway...so why not?


I know I made A TOTAL 180 FLIP on this one, but I think all we really NEED is a RT right now. Screw the rest of the picks, I'd rather get the RT right and none of the rest than the opposite.
With that being said, why not trade up for Patrick Peterson. Lets say it takes a 1st, 3rd, and even 4th. If he is the best player in the draft, why put a price on him? We get the best player in the draft, and then we use our 2nd round pick to draft a RT. Maybe we can ship all the rest of our draft picks to move up a few more slots and ensure we get the guy we want (maybe its Benjamin Ijalana or whoever).

We got 2 players out of the draft. BUT, at least they are 2 guys we are confident in. Any 2nd day picks are even more of a question mark; and we can just sign a bunch that are undrafted (who by the way will have a chip on their shoulder and give it their all to this club). I think by increasing our UDFA pool, we have an increased chance of getting guys that bleed the colors of the uniform and don't give up on plays (Mike Jenkins).



OK having said all that, I must ask if we can even go through with this due to the lockout :laugh1:. Can teams sign undrafted players as of now?

If no, I guess you can scratch what I've proposed

The lack of willing trade partners would be my first guess...

 

[respectdatstar]

With our luck, we'd find a trading partner but they would turn those picks into Tom Brady and Marques Colston.

 

[Wolf2k5]

With our luck, we'd find a trading partne but they would turn those picks into Tom Brady and Marques Colston.

I think that would hurt the most.....

 

[ABQcowboyJR]

Dynasty's are built in the later rounds. There are good players to be had in rounds 3 threw 5.