Would you make this trade w/ the Rams?

[Floatyworm]

Trade down from 1/4.....they give up 1/15...and both of their 2nds.... 2/43 and 2/45.

On paper we are getting the better end of the deal...but you are also risking not getting a QB. Is it worth the risk?

Comments?

 

[robjay04]

Yes, 3 second round picks could come in handy.

I still have my doubts the team will take a QB at 4 anyways.

 

[p_tubbs]

I would but I'm certain the Rams would not.

 

[Killerinstinct]

Definitely.

 

[Stash]

I would but I'm certain the Rams would not.

This guy stole my answer.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

Not sure you would give up a chance to pick one of the top 3 QB. Really depends on if Kelly is sold on Kap being his QB in San Fran. Cleveland will prob take a QB, and then the only other team that might take a QB in round 1 before 15 is Philly. Unless of course LA picks a QB at 4, which would suck for us in this scenario. I hope we do trade back and I think we will, but realistically i expect it to be to 8 or 9. So while I favor a trade down, I am not sure I would go that far down, unless the team assured us they are not taking a QB with the move up.

 

[Floatyworm]

Yes, 3 second round picks could come in handy.

I still have my doubts the team will take a QB at 4 anyways.

But in this scenerio....I think you are basically saying good bye to drafting a QB.

1/2. Cleveland- Goff
1/4. Rams.-Wentz/Lynch
1/13. Philadelphia- Lynch/Wentz

I hear a lot of people make this deal in a heartbeat.....but I'm not so sure this is the right move.

 

[Nightman]

It all depends on Goff to me. If he is there I draft him, if not I would take that deal.

I would then take Wentz at 15 and would try to see if I could come back up and get Elliott around 20.

Basically trade 4 for 15 and 20 and it would be a lot cheaper on the first 4 years and also on the fifth year option.

 

[stilltheguru88]

Id do it without question.

 

[IAmLegend]

I would but I'm certain the Rams would not.

 

[tyke1doe]

Trade down from 1/4.....they give up 1/15...and both of their 2nds.... 2/43 and 2/45.

On paper we are getting the better end of the deal...but you are also risking not getting a QB. Is it worth the risk?

Comments?

In a heart beat.

If I viewed Wentz, Goff, Lynch in the category of Elway, Luck or Peyton, no.

But I don't. So I roll the dice because I'm not going to need either of them in 2016 anyway.
Wentz or Lynch (or whichever two quarterbacks are left), you can always deal back up.

However, if the Rams are willing to get up that high to get one of the three, then they must really value that quarterback. I'd ask for a first-round pick in 2017 too.

 

[AzorAhai]

I'm not trading that far down without getting a future 1st out of the deal and another 2nd this year. It's that simple to me. You don't trade out of this shallow blue chip pool, and miss out on a QB or a blue chip player without getting overpaid to do it.

 

[Stash]

It all depends on Goff to me. If he is there I draft him, if not I would take that deal.

I would then take Wentz at 15 and would try to see if I could come back up and get Elliott around 20.

Basically trade 4 for 15 and 20 and it would be a lot cheaper on the first 4 years and also on the fifth year option.

A nice dream...

 

[sureletsrace]

Yes. Absolutely yes.

 

[sureletsrace]

I'm not trading that far down without getting a future 1st out of the deal and another 2nd this year. It's that simple to me. You don't trade out of this shallow blue chip pool, and miss out on a QB or a blue chip player without getting overpaid to do it.

We would be getting overpaid, and we would be getting 2 more 2nd round picks, which is the sweet spot in this draft IMO.

 

[Nightman]

I'm not trading that far down without getting a future 1st out of the deal and another 2nd this year. It's that simple to me. You don't trade out of this shallow blue chip pool, and miss out on a QB or a blue chip player without getting overpaid to do it.

But if the blue chips are gone, why pay full retail for someone you can get 10 spots later for a lot cheaper AND get 2 more starters.

This has the makings of one of the least amount of consensus drafts I have seen in a while. You could ask 10 different gurus and get 10 different top 5s.

 

[AzorAhai]

We would be getting overpaid, and we would be getting 2 more 2nd round picks, which is the sweet spot in this draft IMO.

Thats not nearly enough of an overpay to get 4 if I'm in charge. 2 extra 2nd Rd picks isn't enough to really even tempt me. The excess value is equivalent to 170 points which isn't nearly enough for me. If they want it, give me a future 1st or kick rocks.

 

[AzorAhai]

But if the blue chips are gone, why pay full retail for someone you can get 10 spots later for a lot cheaper AND get 2 more starters.

This has the makings of one of the least amount of consensus drafts I have seen in a while. You could ask 10 different gurus and get 10 different top 5s.

We're picking at 4. The blue chip talents won't be gone in any scenario. And if they are, why in the world would the Rams trade those 2 2nd Rd picks?

 

[Doc50]

It all depends on Goff to me. If he is there I draft him, if not I would take that deal.

I would then take Wentz at 15 and would try to see if I could come back up and get Elliott around 20.

Basically trade 4 for 15 and 20 and it would be a lot cheaper on the first 4 years and also on the fifth year option.

If Wentz is our guy after the Sr Bowl, we can't trade to #15 -- he probably won't be there. As usual, you need to have reasonable certainty of the other teams' picks, and this is one of the most uncertain years in recent memory. Maybe the fog will lift by draft day, after the combine and other scouting work.

So, speculation is always interesting, but we're a bit premature.

 

[egn22]

Quicker than a tick in a New York minute