I like this scenario, except, I would rather keep 2 back to back picks early in the 2nd rd rather than trade those away for one midline 1st rounder

 

Who would you pick back to back? I like Ryan Kelly Center and Noah Spence DE/OLB. 

 

I still like the idea of getting one of the top edge rushers in Floyd because by the 2nd round the top rushers will be gone. If we were to make a splash like that we are ready to compete with a full roster and with depth. 

---

I don't think a rookie is going to make the difference in wins. Do you think our first rounder is going to make the difference in 5-11 and 9-7?

Probably not, but it is not out of the realm of possibility, either.

 

Houston/Tennessee under Jeff Fisher had just about always languished around .500 until 1999.

 

They drafted a guy named Jevon Kearse, who was the defensive catalyst the team lacked.  He had 14.5 sacks, 8 forced fumbles, and a TD.  The year before, the Tacks leading sacker was LB Lonnie Marts with 4.  http://www.pro-football-reference.com/te...i/1998.htm

 

I am not prepared to say that he alone was the difference between 8-8 and 13-3 for Tennessee, but to say he wasn't a factor at all isn't accurate either.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

The problem with Trade Down for Vernon Hargreaves III is you have no guarantee that he'll be there if you trade down.  If you want a player you take him while you can you don't gamble that he'll be there....

---

1.Ramsey

2.Jack

3.Bosa

4.VH3

5.Lawson

So pretty much one of ramsey/jack/bosa/vh3 will be there

---

Dave likes to tip his hand. One position we haven't even touched in FA is LB..... He's hoping for Jack.

---

Trade Down: then take Reggie Ragland (the best MLB in the draft). He is the closest thing to a sure thing in the draft

 

I'm a big Ragland guy, but his weight fluctuations (heavy at Senior bowl, good at combine, heavy at pro day again) is starting to scare me. For a guy who's main question is athleticism and being able to play in space, I don't want a guy who can't keep his weight down.

---

I'm a big Ragland guy, but his weight fluctuations (heavy at Senior bowl, good at combine, heavy at pro day again) is starting to scare me. For a guy who's main question is athleticism and being able to play in space, I don't want a guy who can't keep his weight down.

Ragland is the old times LB.... Jack is the future.

---

<div>
<a class="" href='https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer'>Albert Breer<span>Verified account</span>‏<span style="color:rgb(177,187,195);">@AlbertBreer</span></a>
</div>

<p class="" style="font-size:26px;">Per sources, Clemson DE Shaq Lawson's shoulder was flagged at the combine, and he's on the list to go back to Indy for the medical recheck.

<p class="" style="font-size:26px;"> 

<p class="" style="font-size:26px;">For anyone wanting Lawson.....

---

Ragland is the old times LB.... Jack is the future.

 

Yeah, and under the scenario presented in this thread Jack is not available so....

---

Whatever the pick is Dave said on the radio he's got 5 guys he knows he would pick so whoever is there it's someone he's comfortable with.

---

Wentz

---

Probably not, but it is not out of the realm of possibility, either.


Houston/Tennessee under Jeff Fisher had just about always languished around .500 until 1999.


They drafted a guy named Jevon Kearse, who was the defensive catalyst the team lacked. He had 14.5 sacks, 8 forced fumbles, and a TD. The year before, the Tacks leading sacker was LB Lonnie Marts with 4. <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/oti/1998.htm'>http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/oti/1998.htm</a>


I am not prepared to say that he alone was the difference between 8-8 and 13-3 for Tennessee, but to say he wasn't a factor at all isn't accurate either.

And that's why I'd be bold enough to take the best QB in the draft. It's a spite move that has zero immediate impact. I understand. But it would be BPA and possibly land us a slew of future draft picks.

---

In that nightmare scenario you take Wentz and make other teams cry. Just my 2 cents.

---

Yeah I'd definitely hope to trade down and draft Lawson,Spence or Ragland!

---

And that's why I'd be bold enough to take the best QB in the draft. It's a spite move that has zero immediate impact. I understand. But it would be BPA and possibly land us a slew of future draft picks.

If it were such a great strategy, more teams would do that.

 

But it never happens.

 

Ever.

 

 

Is it possible it could land us a slew of future picks?  Sure.

 

But it is also possible it won't. 

 

It's also possible whatever picks the team could get in return won't be anywhere near what the value of that #5 overall pick.

 

What if no other team viewed the best QB in the draft as having first round value?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

If it were such a great strategy, more teams would do that.


But it never happens.


Ever.



Is it possible it could land us a slew of future picks? Sure.


But it is also possible it won't.


It's also possible whatever picks the team could get in return won't be anywhere near what the value of that #5 overall pick.


What if no other team viewed the best QB in the draft as having first round value?

Phillip Rivers was drafted by the Chargers even though they had Drew Brees.


Boy don't they hate that.

---

Phillip Rivers was drafted by the Chargers even though they had Drew Brees.


Boy don't they hate that.

 

Rivers was drafted by the Chargers to *replace* Drew Brees.

 

Brees left the Chargers as a free agent.

---

If it were such a great strategy, more teams would do that.


But it never happens.


Ever.



Is it possible it could land us a slew of future picks? Sure.


But it is also possible it won't.


It's also possible whatever picks the team could get in return won't be anywhere near what the value of that #5 overall pick.


What if no other team viewed the best QB in the draft as having first round value?

'Ever' you say? Lol

---

I think it's a good move to take a QB. Sit him on the bench and the difference in wins and losses won't matter much.


Even if we get Bosa he's not the difference in 10-6 and 8-8. He's not on a Kearse level. Period.


8-8 the staff sticks around anyways... And we will have a lot less holes to fill. So it's not suicide to draft another QB.


Look at what the Pats got out of Mallett. What could the packers have got out of Rodgers if they wanted to trade him?


Who knows but the Chargers did it with Rivers. They could've kept Brees and traded Rivers.


I think you're overboard about having to have another body on D. A ROOKIE is NOT going to have that big of impact. Especially with THIS team under a first year DC. Just being realistic.

---

I think it's a good move to take a QB. Sit him on the bench and the difference in wins and losses won't matter much.


Even if we get Bosa he's not the difference in 10-6 and 8-8. He's not on a Kearse level. Period.


8-8 the staff sticks around anyways... And we will have a lot less holes to fill. So it's not suicide to draft another QB.


Look at what the Pats got out of Mallett. What could the packers have got out of Rodgers if they wanted to trade him?


Who knows but the Chargers did it with Rivers. They could've kept Brees and traded Rivers.


I think you're overboard about having to have another body on D. A ROOKIE is NOT going to have that big of impact. Especially with THIS team under a first year DC. Just being realistic.

The issue isn't drafting another QB. In fact I'm a fan of us taking a developmental QB. What's being discussed is drafting another QB in the top 5. That would be a huge gamble and a big waste if it doesn't pay off.


Draft a guy like Hogan, Jones, or Prescott in the middle rounds and try to develop them. At worst you have a young backup to fill in in case Bortles goes down, and at best he develops to where you can trade him for another pick. That's how we got Fred Taylor :thumbsup:

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."