Your Trade-up Candidate

[darthseinfeld]

The "no trade up" isn't for every draft. We needed another weapon for Romo, so moving up to get Dez was understandable.
But we just lost a boatload of players particularly from our secondary. We need more picks not less.

I wouldn't trade up for any player because I don't see any of these players as generational players. And let's assume by some odd occurrence Myles Garrett drops. Wouldn't you wonder why he was dropping and why other teams who normally would want a "generational" pass rusher are not taking him?

If they are confident that a guy like Barnett is a future 12 sack guy, and they don't feel the guys they could get at 28 are 10 sack guys, its worth a 3rd rounder to me. Reason being a 12 sack is going to make it so much easier for your DB's to play their position. Do we need DB's. Absolutely, but you have your second and you can get a contributor and future starter there. And there will still be talent at DB deep into the third.

I understand the need for DB's. But you can into a draft with a gun to your head. You need to be able to jump on opportunities if the opportunity arises.

 

[darthseinfeld]

The "no trade up" isn't for every draft. We needed another weapon for Romo, so moving up to get Dez was understandable.
But we just lost a boatload of players particularly from our secondary. We need more picks not less.

I wouldn't trade up for any player because I don't see any of these players as generational players. And let's assume by some odd occurrence Myles Garrett drops. Wouldn't you wonder why he was dropping and why other teams who normally would want a "generational" pass rusher are not taking him?

There was a very large dissenting section of the fanbase that thought it was foolish to trade up for Bryant when we had just locked up Austin coming of an 80 catch 1,300. We needed OL at the time. The value of Bryant was too good to pass up.

 

[darthseinfeld]

The "no trade up" isn't for every draft. We needed another weapon for Romo, so moving up to get Dez was understandable.
But we just lost a boatload of players particularly from our secondary. We need more picks not less.

I wouldn't trade up for any player because I don't see any of these players as generational players. And let's assume by some odd occurrence Myles Garrett drops. Wouldn't you wonder why he was dropping and why other teams who normally would want a "generational" pass rusher are not taking him?

IMO if a player falls to where you only surrender a 3rd to get that are confident will elevate your defense and the others on it, you make that move. That player makes filling the rest of the defense out so much easier in the long.

Thats the difference to the Dez trade up and the Mo trade up. Dez Bryant was a player capable elevating an offense and making those around him better. The Mo trade up was just making a trade because you could. Mo and CB's in general are often elevated by the players around them. You just have to have that player there that will make that impact.

I know, 3 straight relpies. Im not trolling you, really im not

 

[thunderpimp91]

The number of players I would trade up for is equal to the number of Lombardi trophies in Philly.

As much as i'd love to land a Garrett or Hooker, it's just unrealistic to make that big of a jump up. And as much as I'd love to see us take a DE at 28 i'd rather end up with Cordrea Tankersley and the rest of our picks than trade up for a guy like Taco Charlton.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

The "no trade up" isn't for every draft. We needed another weapon for Romo, so moving up to get Dez was understandable.
But we just lost a boatload of players particularly from our secondary. We need more picks not less.

I wouldn't trade up for any player because I don't see any of these players as generational players. And let's assume by some odd occurrence Myles Garrett drops. Wouldn't you wonder why he was dropping and why other teams who normally would want a "generational" pass rusher are not taking him?

How about this scenario. In my hypothetical for Barnett (i.e. trade up if he's at 23-24) it would likely cost a 3rd rounder to move up. Given the fact we are likely to accrue 3-4 extra compensatory picks next year, would you be willing to make the move up to grab Barnett if we just flopped 1st rounders and gave them a 2nd rounder next year?

 

[Bigdog]

How about this scenario. In my hypothetical for Barnett (i.e. trade up if he's at 23-24) it would likely cost a 3rd rounder to move up. Given the fact we are likely to accrue 3-4 extra compensatory picks next year, would you be willing to make the move up to grab Barnett if we just flopped 1st rounders and gave them a 2nd rounder next year?

I would do that trade but I don't think a lot of teams would since we will picking 32 next year which would 64 pick in the 2nd rd next year.

 

[Gaede]

The "no trade up" isn't for every draft. We needed another weapon for Romo, so moving up to get Dez was understandable.
But we just lost a boatload of players particularly from our secondary. We need more picks not less.

I wouldn't trade up for any player because I don't see any of these players as generational players. And let's assume by some odd occurrence Myles Garrett drops. Wouldn't you wonder why he was dropping and why other teams who normally would want a "generational" pass rusher are not taking him?

I don't agree. If you have a chance to get a playmaker--Barnett for instance--you take it. 1 playmaker can make the entire team better. If you have to sacrifice an extra pick for a playmaker, do it.

 

[tyke1doe]

There was a very large dissenting section of the fanbase that thought it was foolish to trade up for Bryant when we had just locked up Austin coming of an 80 catch 1,300. We needed OL at the time. The value of Bryant was too good to pass up.

I don't recall that dispute. But I'll take your word for it.

 

[tyke1doe]

How about this scenario. In my hypothetical for Barnett (i.e. trade up if he's at 23-24) it would likely cost a 3rd rounder to move up. Given the fact we are likely to accrue 3-4 extra compensatory picks next year, would you be willing to make the move up to grab Barnett if we just flopped 1st rounders and gave them a 2nd rounder next year?

I don't know. I really don't like giving away future picks. Besides, I don't know if Barnett is a generational player. I could be wrong, though. I'm just leery about giving up picks with so much to replenish this year.

 

[koolaid]

Personally I wouldn't mind a trade up to snag Malik Hooker. I haven't watched a ton of draft coverage so i'm not sure where he is slotted to go, but I watch college football religiously (especially big 10) and the Hooker is an absolute stud DB. Play making ability that cannot be taught.

 

[rambo2]

I'll go...if Barnett dropped to 23-24, I'd make the move up in the 1st round.

They can't afford to trade up. They need to trade down.

 

[Kaiser]

Dallas trades a 2108 4th Rounder (we have plenty of comp picks) for 2017 5th and selects Michigan OT Erik Magnuson.

 

[AzorAhai]

Dallas trades a 2108 4th Rounder (we have plenty of comp picks) for 2017 5th and selects Michigan OT Erik Magnuson.

They are making out like bandits in that trade. That's equivalent to a pick in the 101st Rd this year.

 

[9darter]

I don't recall that dispute.

This. People loved the trade.

 

[Floatyworm]

I'm moving up for Malik Hooker

I'd start making calls at pick 15

I'd be shocked if he fell out of the top 10

 

[DasTex]

Barnett, around pick 20 but it would need to be a pick next year if possible. Too many wholes to fill this year

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

Barnett all the way, if he slides past 15.