If we draft in the range of

[12isthenew18]

10-18 should we trade up. I'd be all for it because we don't want average and the only way we'll get a true playmaker is in the top 7. This was we could aim at Laremy Tunsil, Jaylon Smith, Jalen Ramsey, Vernon Hargraeves or someone who will become a face of the franchise that isn't VD, TY and Luck. Thoughts? Unless Robert N. falls like to 14 and we have that pick

[SteelCityColt]

6 minutes ago, 12isthenew18 said:

10-18 should we trade up. I'd be all for it because we don't want average and the only way we'll get a true playmaker is in the top 7. This was we could aim at Laremy Tunsil, Jaylon Smith, Jalen Ramsey, Vernon Hargraeves or someone who will become a face of the franchise that isn't VD, TY and Luck. Thoughts? Unless Robert N. falls like to 14 and we have that pick

 

While there's nothing wrong with trading up for the right player this statement is plainly false. 

[BProland85]

I'd be all for trading up a few spots for Smith, Ramsey, or Hargreaves if they won't last past the top 10. I'm guessing we'll pick around 12 or 13. 

[Jonathan24]

Grigs will draft WR Lequon Treadwell so it doesnt matter.

[ProblChld32]

55 minutes ago, 12isthenew18 said:

10-18 should we trade up. I'd be all for it because we don't want average and the only way we'll get a true playmaker is in the top 7. This was we could aim at Laremy Tunsil, Jaylon Smith, Jalen Ramsey, Vernon Hargraeves or someone who will become a face of the franchise that isn't VD, TY and Luck. Thoughts? Unless Robert N. falls like to 14 and we have that pick

 

Id, prefer not to but if the pick is worth it i say pull the trigger

[ColtStronger]

48 minutes ago, Jonathan24 said:

Grigs will draft WR Lequon Treadwell so it doesnt matter.

I think we should draft a QB with our top pick, because we all know Grigson likes to waste 1st round picks, so when Andrew gets injured next year, due to Grigson "still thinking we have the right guys in place, they just need to stay healthy", this guy can come in and hopefully finish out the job that Andrew couldn't do, because of his health issues! 

 

It's perfect Grigson logic

[ColtStronger]

Personally, if we are between 10-15 I think that is a good area to trade up, BUT you normally have to give up ALOT (ie 2nd or 3rd), which in return will hurt us.  So if we trade up, I would rather do it in the 2nd round (giving away 3rd or 4th) to get a guy that slipped through the cracks of the first round.  That way we can get a better bang for our buck.  I've never been a big fan of picking 10-20.  There is more room for a swing and a miss, not to say it happens a lot, but I've seen it happen too often for my liking!  As my belief just about all #1 picks should be an immediate need or impact player (make contributions from game 1).

[Jonathan24]

1 hour ago, ColtStronger said:

I think we should draft a QB with our top pick, because we all know Grigson likes to waste 1st round picks, so when Andrew gets injured next year, due to Grigson "still thinking we have the right guys in place, they just need to stay healthy", this guy can come in and hopefully finish out the job that Andrew couldn't do, because of his health issues! 

 

It's perfect Grigson logic

 

nahhh he will trade our first for rg3

[OffensivelyPC]

I would be all for trading up.  Depending on where we're at, we could move up roughly 6-7 spots if we gave up this year's first and second.  Of course, the right guy has to be there and we have to be pretty darn sure about the guy we'd trade up for.  I wouldn't do it for a CB/FS prospect.  With the way this year's draft class seems to be shaping, it would in all likelihood have to be for an pass rusher, preferably an edge rusher.  MAYBE an ILB prospect (Jaylon Smith, perhaps Myles Jack depending on where he falls on draft boards and probably no one else).  I doubt I'd really do it for any other position of need.

[jet1968]

I think they need to get the best offensive lineman they can get if it is trading up, trading down, or staying where they end up.

Oh, and hire a real expert on lineman scouting!

[twfish]

You should post this in the draft section..

[ColtStronger]

1 hour ago, Jonathan24 said:

 

nahhh he will trade our first for rg3

Even better!  We have #1 from 2012, we had #3 (which turned out to be a bust), now let's go for #2 that is nothing more than a #2 lol.  Hey, it's gotta work eventually, right?

[rockywoj]

I would likely not trade up, sacrificing high picks this and or next year for a guy that's still just a question mark.  I figure the teams still needs too many good players to be possibly sacrificing impact players that could be still had in the 2nd and or 3rd rounds.

[DougDew]

Pick 10 to 18 should provide an impactful player at a position of need. 

 

I would be more willing to trade into the first round if another impactful player dropped..  We have enough depth players, so we don't need picks 5 through 7

[SteelCityColt]

39 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

I would likely not trade up, sacrificing high picks this and or next year for a guy that's still just a question mark.  I figure the teams still needs too many good players to be possibly sacrificing impact players that could be still had in the 2nd and or 3rd rounds.

 

This is the flip side to the argument. No matter how good a team is at scouting the draft is something of a gamble. Every pick is a dice roll. Better scouting leads to a better % chance of a win per pick. The other way to increase your number of "wins" is to of course have more rolls.

 

What the Pats do very well, and more recently what the likes of the Vikings have done is to trade down when they don't feel their is value in the players available to stockpile picks to be used for trading up when the situation demands or having the ability to take more chances on players.