Would you trade next years 1st to the Rams?

[Galian Beast]

For their two of the rams second round draft picks (they have 3 of them).

The Patriots have 2. Ravens have 2. Broncos have 2.

Or maybe a 2nd next year, and some of our picks this year. I don't know. Point is I think we could certainly have trade partners after all assuming we're willing to trade some of next years picks.

 

[Woods]

As much as I would like to recoup the 2nd round pick, I am more inclined to stay put right now for two reasons,

1. I think we can still get a very good player with our 3rd rounder. For example, perhaps a player like Broyles, P Blake, maybe Winn or Wolfe (if we're really lucky).

2. I think also Round 3 and at least the 1st half of Round 4 is a "sweet spot" in this Draft. There seems to be some really good talent around there.

Just my opinion though . . . .

 

[nathanlt]

For their two of the rams second round draft picks (they have 3 of them).

The Patriots have 2. Ravens have 2. Broncos have 2.

Or maybe a 2nd next year, and some of our picks this year. I don't know. Point is I think we could certainly have trade partners after all assuming we're willing to trade some of next years picks.

Reverse the question, would you give away Dallas 2 2nd rounders in the top half that round, for a next years #1???

Of course not! The Rams are in prime position. Now for Dallas, the only reason to forfeit next years pick is to shore up a big need, either Konz due to the improved offensive lines in the NFC East, or DT Ta'amu, because Ratliff has never been a true 3-4 NT, and wears down at the end of the season every year.

Besides those 2 positions, there would be no reason.

 

[CowboyChris]

For their two of the rams second round draft picks (they have 3 of them).

The Patriots have 2. Ravens have 2. Broncos have 2.

Or maybe a 2nd next year, and some of our picks this year. I don't know. Point is I think we could certainly have trade partners after all assuming we're willing to trade some of next years picks.

i doubt the Rams would do that, but it would give them 3 1st rounders next year.

 

[DFWJC]

A 2013 1st round pick is genrally considered the same value as a 2012 second round pick--assuming they are in the gernal range of each other (i.e. both middle or both early in the round).

But no, I never want to trade a future 1st rounder away unless, of course, we see a way to get one back from someone else.

 

[The Realist]

i doubt the Rams would do that, but it would give them 3 1st rounders next year.

Seems to me teams do that almost every year. Give up a future 1 for top of 2 pick in current year.

I would prefer to keep next year picks. With the the new CBA it's easier to move up to top 10.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

The old rule of thumb was a first next year is worth a second this year.

So our first certainly should bring us a first rounder and of course New England LOVES trading seconds for next year firsts so I think it is a very possible option.

I think it comes in to play if it is one of the BPA falls. I like Konz, but how much better is he than Blake, Brewster and a few other centers, especially considering Konz' medical history?

It's more likely to happen in my opinion if a guy that was considered a lock first rounder or early second rounder drops down into the middle of the second. Fleener comes to mind, as does Gleen, Still, Worthy and a couple of the OT's.

 

[YosemiteSam]

For their two of the rams second round draft picks (they have 3 of them).

The Patriots have 2. Ravens have 2. Broncos have 2.

Or maybe a 2nd next year, and some of our picks this year. I don't know. Point is I think we could certainly have trade partners after all assuming we're willing to trade some of next years picks.

They are rebuilding now. They won't do it. They will need those picks this year and odds just got much better that the Cowboys will have a late 1st round pick next year. Besides, we would be fleecing them again if they took that trade.