More picks..... Vs. ..... "Better" picks

[Deano1818]

Every year, teams move spots to get what they think will be better picks, or choose to get more picks, later.

There are no guarantees in life. The player that you HAVE to have may be a dud.

With that said, and knowing that we have quite a few players on this team that are developmental in nature, while knowing that you can only have a finite number on the roster.......

There seems to be decent talent in early to mid round 2 , looking at the recent mocks

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the later picks were traded to move down some spots in round 2 for our second pick.......

[DougDew]

Other than the OL, I don't see where there are a lot of developmental guys on the roster. Perhaps Hughes and Kerr, but the defense jettisoned Purifoy, Ajax, Gordy, Sergio, and maybe McNary. Brazill is gone, as is Rodgers. Tipton is upgradeable.

I wouldn't be upset If grigs traded dwon twice and ended up with 6 picks between 45 and 128. I think they would all have a chance to contribute this year and some start next year.

[Yoshinator]

IMO, the best option is trade down into the early-mid 2nd and grab a 2nd and 3rd round pick for our 1st. Grigson is solid in the 2nd and 3rd rounds as his track record shows. He seems to not panic, find value, and isn't tempted by some project with potential like a Werner. I believe he could definitely hit on 3 of those 4 picks in the 2nd and 3rd should he trade down out of the 1st. Nice, deep draft, and it's something that should at least be considered. Hopefully there will be a chance to get it done should the right player not be available for us in round 1.

[Tracy Denton]

I would rather have quality than quantity, that said, I would rather trade up than trade down, however, it depends on how the draft shakes out and who is left.

[esmort]

I'll preface this with "depends on who's there", but I am generally in favor of trading down and using more of a "fishing with a net method" as I think it gives us more chances of hitting on a very good to star player; as well as giving us potentially more good players in total to replace some of our "jags".

[C0LT5]

I'll preface this with "depends on who's there", but I am generally in favor of trading down and using more of a "fishing with a net method" as I think it gives us more chances of hitting on a very good to star player; as well as giving us potentially more good players in total to replace some of our "jags".

 

I'm with you. The Pats do this, well at least most of the time. The Ravens "fish with a net" with their compensatory picks. If it was an exact science then it would be another story.

[RealityIsLuck]

More picks. The "better the pick" is based on how well the player preforms, the better you scout the better idea you get of a player, and who will be a good (/better player), the more opportunities you have to players the better, their skill is based on them. Not their draft position.

[Defjamz26]

IMO, the best option is trade down into the early-mid 2nd and grab a 2nd and 3rd round pick for our 1st. Grigson is solid in the 2nd and 3rd rounds as his track record shows. He seems to not panic, find value, and isn't tempted by some project with potential like a Werner. I believe he could definitely hit on 3 of those 4 picks in the 2nd and 3rd should he trade down out of the 1st. Nice, deep draft, and it's something that should at least be considered. Hopefully there will be a chance to get it done should the right player not be available for us in round 1.

That first depends on who is there. If Eddie Goldman our Landon Collins is there, don't expect Grigs to trade back.

2nd, you'd have to wonder who would be there that another team would move up for. There won't be a QB work taking in the 1st after the big 2. Maybe a team who wants Gurleyv or Gordon. The Lions would be an option there.