Thread: Trading Up To 10?

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

Only sacked 5 times in 5 games with a different OL pretty much each week. I'd say we are off to a good start protecting him.

Yeah but that came at the cost of 600 yards in holding calls by our dumb as a box of rocks LT.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

I guess the thought process is there is a difference between Jeudy/Lamb...and then all the rest.

Sure, maybe its the same with the tackles that are projected to go early as well.

Originally Posted by chazoe60

Yeah but that came at the cost of 600 yards in holding calls by our dumb as a box of rocks LT.

ONE holding penalty for Bolles in the 5 games Lock started.

Originally Posted by Northman

Sure, maybe its the same with the tackles that are projected to go early as well.

Absolutely. But the talent level between the first 4 OL and the next 4 is a lot closer than the talent level between the top 2 receivers and the next dozen or so.

Either way...it's a guessing game until next week

I would love for the Broncos to trade up if Isaiah Simmons falls. This defense would be absolutely balling with him at ILB next to Alexander Johnson, and able to cover Kelce. What the Steelers defense did last year after adding Devin Bush in the draft, then adding Minkah Fitzpatrick showed what a difference one or two players can make. I certainly do not want him on the Raiders, so if it came to that, I would want the Broncos to be on the phone to jump to 8 or 9.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

I could see the argument for the Jets going either way, but SF was just in the Super Bowl. I have to think they are more interested in upgrading from Samuel and Bourne, etc. than drafting a tackle that will sit at least a year.

That’s coming from the point f view that the 9ers won’t be drafting this high for a long time and they should strike while they can, this is exactly what Shanatan said when he drafted Clady; saying “you don’t get this kind of T late in round 1”.

God I miss Clady.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

Absolutely. But the talent level between the first 4 OL and the next 4 is a lot closer than the talent level between the top 2 receivers and the next dozen or so.

Either way...it's a guessing game until next week

Agreed.

And I dont see Denver drafting an OT just to let him sit.

Denver is higher on the OTs they have then most are, and had the 11th ranked Oline last year.

Lock, with mobility and decision making makes the line a LOT better.


And Bolles, while he held some.....doesnt let defenders get free cracks on our QB. Do you take a holding call or let someone hit your QB? He played far better with Lock.


So I dont see Denver trading up for an OT, as Elway has stated in past drafts, he wants a STARTER, an impact player with that first pick if possible.

That to me would shed alot of light at who Denver actually targets.


(Given, an OT like Wirfs could go guard but Im thinking Denver is after Ruiz too)


Players that would probably start right away?


Ruggs, Jeudy, Lamb, Mims, Jefferson


CJ Henderson, Okuda


Simmons

Brown, Kinlaw?


Okuda, Brown and Simmons arent likely.


So Id say the only person they would target at 10 would be whatever WR they have ranked number 1......which Id think is Ruggs.


Oline would mean either pulling a starter to bench or drafting an OT to bench. I dont see it.

If we look at the draft pick trade value chart (there are many of them - I'm using the CBS Sports one - https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/...ft-day-action/), the #15 pick is worth 281 points. The #10 pick is worth 342 points. The best way for Denver to balance the trade (I like the idea of including Royce Freeman but others teams may see no value in him), is to agree to include our #83 pick (middle of the three third-rounders - 46 points) and our #118 pick (4th round - 19 points)

If you add 281, 19 and 46, you get 346 points vs 342 for the #10 pick belonging to the Browns.

If you are thinking of trading down, Minnesota's two number 1s (#22 and #25) are tempting but the Vikes would be foolish to do it, according to the trade chart. The #15 choice, once again is 281 points. The #22 (217) and #25 (201) add up to 418 points - a 137 point disparity, equivalent of the 39th overall pick (early second). A fairer trade would be trading down to #25 (201) and adding their second-rounder (#58 - 86 points) which adds to 281 vs 287.

When I've mocked at #15, I find the top OTs and WRs are gone and my choice is between Javon Kinlaw and 2nd-tier WRs, CBs and OTs. While I don't normally endorse a trade-up, a deal with the Browns for #10, giving up #15, #83 and #118 makes the most sense to me. We can either get one of the top 2 WRs in the draft (Lamb or Jeudy) or a top-tier LT. We would still have our second and two 3rds as well.

One guy I have misgivings about is every draftnik's darling, Mr. Becton, of Louisville. Carrying almost 370 lbs, he's enormous and a DE will need a cab ride to run around him but he just needs one good chop block on those knees and he'll be too slow at LT. He'd be a fantastic RT for whenever we're ready to replace Juwanna Mann but, long term, I don't think he should be left on an island at LT, even though he is an island.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

Absolutely. But the talent level between the first 4 OL and the next 4 is a lot closer than the talent level between the top 2 receivers and the next dozen or so.

Either way...it's a guessing game until next week

I actually disagree with this. IMO, huge dropoff after the top 4 OTs. After 5 and 6, I have minimal interest in any of them. I could get behind about a dozen WR in this draft. Lamb is a bad boy. I'm not convinced that Mims, Jefferson, etc can't be equally productive in the NFL.

Look at Elway's history.

Who did we draft when trading up?

Now what about his record trading back?

Originally Posted by SmilinAssasSin27

I actually disagree with this. IMO, huge dropoff after the top 4 OTs. After 5 and 6, I have minimal interest in any of them. I could get behind about a dozen WR in this draft. Lamb is a bad boy. I'm not convinced that Mims, Jefferson, etc can't be equally productive in the NFL.

Yea, i posted a thread where a guy on CBS broke down what each WR brings in different scenarios. Im not sure that the separation is as much with the WR's as it is with the OT's.

Incidentally, you don't want to pull this deal until the Browns are on the clock. If you do, the Jets and/or the Raiders might trade up to get the guy we want. Agree to the deal in principle and say "If Lamb or Jeudy are there at 10, we agree to the deal we've discussed" but don't announce it until the Brownies are on the clock.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

Incidentally, you don't want to pull this deal until the Browns are on the clock. If you do, the Jets and/or the Raiders might trade up to get the guy we want. Agree to the deal in principle and say "If Lamb or Jeudy are there at 10, we agree to the deal we've discussed" but don't announce it until the Brownies are on the clock.

Could be a smoke screen to get other teams to panic.

If its for Simmons great, if its to take ruggs at 10 cause of the jets rumors at 11 I'm gonna be pissed.....