(12-01-2021, 11:06 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:

(12-01-2021, 03:39 AM)Bullseye Wrote: So then you would be fine with a trade down like the Raiders did in 2013, where they went down from 3 to 11, getting only a 2nd round pick in return?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2013/story...de-tracker

I recall the Raiders getting bashed by some for getting so little in return for such a move.  I can't imagine Baalke would fare any better, even though most of this board have clamored for the team to trade back for years.

---

So then you would be fine with a trade down like the Raiders did in 2013, where they went down from 3 to 11, getting only a 2nd round pick in return?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2013/story...de-tracker

I recall the Raiders getting bashed by some for getting so little in return for such a move.  I can't imagine Baalke would fare any better, even though most of this board have clamored for the team to trade back for years.

Honestly, yes. I don't take much stock in the NFL trade value chart. If we got a 2nd round pick to move to #11, that's another potential starter we could add to our lineup and I wouldn't have to reach for a player at #3 that I don't believe warrants such a high selection. Would I try to get more? Of course, but if it didn't happen, I take the deal and move forward. Honestly, if I stay at #3, I'm probably gonna be taking from the same group of players I would be picking from had I gone to #11 anyway. I just don't see any elite players other than Hutchinson and Thibodeaux that don't have red flags like a history of injuries. I refuse to select a player that high who is coming off a season ending injury or who has a history of not being able to stay on the field.

FYI, Rich Eisen had us picking 2nd in the draft order as of yesterday.

Of the teams picking below us that need a QB, the Eagles (possibly), the Giants (possibly), Atlanta, Carolina, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Denver and Washington (19th IIRC) are all on the list.   I think 19 is too far down to move in one trade.  If we somehow traded back 2-3 times and wound up at 19, I might be okay with that, but to move back that far, we'd better end up with a ton of day two picks when all is said and done.

Question:  As I recall, your aversion to Neal stems from doubt that he can play LT in the NFL, even though he just gave up his one sack of the year this past weekend.  Buut we're actualy better at LT with Robinson than we are at RT with Taylor.  Neal has experience playing some RT, and he has the build for it.  If you were sold he could play RT at a high level, would you consider him at 3?

To me, the urgency we felt to upgrade the OL remains, and that makes me more open to Neal as a possibility.

---