Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Trade Up and Trade Down Options
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
I looked at draft pick trades involving 1st round picks from 2012-2015 and looked at the premium or discounts team got for trading up in the draft. A premium is the amount above what the draft trade value chart would indicate is a fair trade. A discount is the amount below what the draft day trade value chart would indicate is a fair trade.

Refer to this chart

http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

I focused only on pick for pick trades and ignored the player for pick trades. (BTW T. Richardson was worth the 26th pick in the first round if you're curious)

Of the 16 trades, 10 of them had a discount, 6 a premium. That's good news of you are the trader upper.

Also, of the 16 trades, there were really only four outliers, where the discount or premium seemed way off:

The Rams fleecing of Washington on the RG 3 deal - WAS gave up the equivalent of the 7th pick of the draft above fair value!!

The Browns fleecing of the Bills in getting what amounted to an extra low 1st rounder for S. Watkins

OAK getting way below market value from MIA on their move up to get D. Jordan. OAK s/h gotten another 2nd rounder

MIN accepting below market value from CLE for their move up from #4 to #3. They s/h gotten another 2nd rounder.

For all of the other 12 deals, the 4 premiums and 8 discounts were all in the 4th-6th round value range, one way or the other. Also, including those outliers, there was no more likelihood of a premium or discount depending on what draft spot you were trading into. #2 had a premium, #3 had 2 discounts, #4 had a premium, #5 had a discount etc.

So based upon this information, it is reasonable to conclude that our cost to trade up should approximate draft trade chart value, give or take a 4th or 6th round pick.

So, being at the #8 spot, here are the point cost paid or received for a trade up or trade down and roughly how that could look given our current and future picks. Since there hasn't been a trade up to #1, I am ignoring that option:

#8 trade up to:

#2 = 1200 points = a future 1st round pick + one of our 3rd's this year
#3 = 800 points = a future 2nd round pick + both of our 3rd's this year
#4 = 400 points = a future 2nd round pick OR both of our 3rd's this year
#5 = 300 points = one of our 3rd's plus our 4th this year
#6 = 200 points = one of our 3rd's this year
#7 = 100 points = our 4th this year

#8 trade down to:

#10 = 100 points = we get a 4th roughly the 100th pick
#11 = 150 points = we get a low 3rd, roughly the 88th pick
#12 = 200 points = we get a mid 3rd roughly the 78th pick (we'd have 77, 78, 79th picks!!)
#13 = 250 points = we get a high 3rd, roughly the 68th pick
#14 = 300 points = we get a low 2nd, roughly the 60th pick
#15 = 350 points = we get a low 2nd roughly the 55th pick
#16 = 400 points = we get a mid 2nd, roughly the 50th pick

What is your tolerance for a trade up or trade down?

I'm thinking if we stay at 8, based on mocks and what not, it looks like Treadwell will definitely be there. Also, I think 3 of these 5 will be there:

Ramsey
Buckner
Stanley
Hargreaves
Elliott

If we drop to #16, I think that 4 of these 7 will be there

Treadwell
Robinson
Lawson
Ragland
Nkemdiche
Conklin
Alexander (CB)

So, are there three from the first list that you love and would be happy we get at #8?

Are there 4 that you like a lot out of the list of 7 and you would be happy with either of them + the mid 2nd round pick? mid 2nds should start eventually and maybe even will start sometime in year 1.

Are there any ones you MUST have, QB's included that you are OK to move up and get?

If I want either QB, I move up to #3 to get him. If I only like Wentz, I go up to #2 to get him, although not likely that CLE will give it up. Other than a QB move up, I'm OK staying at #8.

My problem with going down the #16 and getting a mid 2nd is that I only like 3 of the 7, Treadwell, Conklin, Alexander. I can see Philly luck kicking in and us getting the shaft like we did a few years ago and watch my three go off the board before we pick.

Trade up to get a QB, stay at 8 if we don't want a QB, or roll the dice to trade down. All options are doable.
Joegrane
Thank you for your research.

I'm also okay with trading down to around 22 where that team's 2nd and 3rd round picks would be roughly appropriate compensation.

Their top five picks might then be...

1. CB (Apple, Alexander, Jackson?). Might they like Paxton Lynch there?

2. QB or RB

3. QB or RB, Mike LB, OG or trade two of the 3rd rounders for a low 2nd.

I don't expect them to trade up above #6.

I don't expect Cleveland to pick a QB. I bet they think they can make RG III into a franchise QB who will fit with their coach and fan base. They'll take the extra picks to add talent around him. Three years from now I bet people will think they made an okay decision even though I'm not a RG III fan.




QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 27 2016, 09:36 PM) *
...

Are there any ones you MUST have, QB's included that you are OK to move up and get?

If I want either QB, I move up to #3 to get him. If I only like Wentz, I go up to #2 to get him, although not likely that CLE will give it up. Other than a QB move up, I'm OK staying at #8.

My problem with going down the #16 and getting a mid 2nd is that I only like 3 of the 7, Treadwell, Conklin, Alexander. I can see Philly luck kicking in and us getting the shaft like we did a few years ago and watch my three go off the board before we pick.

Trade up to get a QB, stay at 8 if we don't want a QB, or roll the dice to trade down. All options are doable.
Joegrane
Mike, did you notice teams paying a premium to trade up for particular positions--QB, CB, OT, pass rush, etc

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 27 2016, 09:36 PM) *
I looked at draft pick trades involving 1st round picks from 2012-2015 and looked at the premium or discounts team got for trading up in the draft. A premium is the amount above what the draft trade value chart would indicate is a fair trade. A discount is the amount below what the draft day trade value chart would indicate is a fair trade.
...

Of the 16 trades, 10 of them had a discount, 6 a premium. That's good news of you are the trader upper.

Also, of the 16 trades, there were really only four outliers, where the discount or premium seemed way off:

The Rams fleecing of Washington on the RG 3 deal - WAS gave up the equivalent of the 7th pick of the draft above fair value!!

...
Zero
I don't want to trade up, the cost is too great for a team starting over with so many needs. I think the rumors are bait. I don't think the Eagles are interested in giving up any more currency.

I've bought into the "transcendent 8" theme Howie gives but it may be play action. We can miss on a transcendent almost as easily as we could at 15, the more likely trade down landing if there's a QB there when we're on the clock. Assuming they could get either 43 or 45 from the Rams in exchange for 8, the move down would make some sense if you believe that quantity helps lower the risk of missing.

That said, if either of Jack, Ramsey, Buckner, Stanley or Hargreaves are there at 8 I'm not moving unless some sucker bowls me over with a stupid-rich deal. I bet if either Goff or Wentz are there at 8 that deal might materialize and we move, we've invested too much in QB already and if we're serious about winning now that pick at 8 should contribute this year.
Eyrie
Personal preference is not to trade up due to the cost.

All depends on who is there at #8, but I want to drop back to #12-#16 to gain a second (using our fifth as a sweetener) and then I'd take Conklin. That would largely set our OL for the next few years, with the only question being when to replace Peters with Johnson and move Conklin from LG to RT. A good OL will help Bradford as a QB and get more from our WRs.

I then use the second on a WR and our thirds and fourth for a DT, LB and developmental QB. That's not all the holes filled, but it is a solid base for future seasons.

As ever with draft scenarios, the above is subject to a willing trade partner and most of the picks working out. We're not going to see a repeat of 2002's haul of Sheppard, Brown, Lewis and Westbrook any time soon.
Zero
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Mar 28 2016, 06:38 AM) *
Personal preference is not to trade up due to the cost.

All depends on who is there at #8, but I want to drop back to #12-#16 to gain a second (using our fifth as a sweetener) and then I'd take Conklin. That would largely set our OL for the next few years, with the only question being when to replace Peters with Johnson and move Conklin from LG to RT. A good OL will help Bradford as a QB and get more from our WRs.

I then use the second on a WR and our thirds and fourth for a DT, LB and developmental QB. That's not all the holes filled, but it is a solid base for future seasons.

As ever with draft scenarios, the above is subject to a willing trade partner and most of the picks working out. We're not going to see a repeat of 2002's haul of Sheppard, Brown, Lewis and Westbrook any time soon.

With what they've done in FA and where they're spending $ I don't see them drafting a WR or QB high. QB maybe with one of the two #3's assuming there's no other shenanigans. Their biggest needs post-FA are OL, LB and RB.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Zero @ Mar 28 2016, 11:53 AM) *
With what they've done in FA and where they're spending $ I don't see them drafting a WR or QB high. QB maybe with one of the two #3's assuming there's no other shenanigans. Their biggest needs post-FA are OL, LB and RB.

No quibble from me over the needs at OL or LB.

But I blame Mikeynumbers for the need at WR. When I replied to his challenge to grade our starters (and you've still to do likewise!) I found we had one solid starter (Matthews), one marginal starter (Randle) and two upgrades required (Agholor, Huff). I expect Agholor to improve in his second year, but am not willing to rely on that given the lack of depth so another WR is higher on my list of needs than I'd previously thought.

I think we can get by at RB even if Mathews struggles with injuries, or could pick up a veteran to spell him and Sproles.
mcnabbulous
We simply have to gamble that Agholor will take the next step this season. We've invested too much in the position to give up on him and put significant resources into it again this year. If he looks lost again, we address it next year.

He has everything we could want in a prospect from a physical perspective. Changing systems isn't ideal for his development, but it is what it is.
Joegrane
I'd prefer to give the WRs one more year to show what they can do, especially with the new coaches. At least there is plenty of depth.

The situation at RB makes me really nervous considering the combination of age and injury history. I don't want to have to rely on a rookie to protect SamB considering his injury history. I'd also like the rookie to learn from two former Pro Bowl RBs.

QUOTE (Eyrie @ Mar 28 2016, 10:28 AM) *
No quibble from me over the needs at OL or LB.

But I blame Mikeynumbers for the need at WR. When I replied to his challenge to grade our starters (and you've still to do likewise!) I found we had one solid starter (Matthews), one marginal starter (Randle) and two upgrades required (Agholor, Huff). I expect Agholor to improve in his second year, but am not willing to rely on that given the lack of depth so another WR is higher on my list of needs than I'd previously thought.

I think we can get by at RB even if Mathews struggles with injuries, or could pick up a veteran to spell him and Sproles.

Joegrane
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Mar 28 2016, 03:28 PM) *
I'd prefer to give the WRs one more year to show what they can do, especially with the new coaches. At least there is plenty of depth.

The situation at RB makes me nervous considering the combination of age and injury history. I imagine this is Sproles' last year. I don't want to have to rely on a 2017 rookie to protect SamB on 3rd down considering Sam's injury history. I don't want to have to rely on Matthew's questionable hands very often on 3rd down. I'd also like a 2016 rookie to learn from two former Pro Bowl RBs.

nephillymike
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Mar 27 2016, 10:58 PM) *
Mike, did you notice teams paying a premium to trade up for particular positions--QB, CB, OT, pass rush, etc



No rhyme or reason:

The 6 premiums = QB, WR, WR, DE, QB, FS - 3 of the premiums were negligible.

No pattern to the discounts either.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Mar 28 2016, 10:28 AM) *
No quibble from me over the needs at OL or LB.

But I blame Mikeynumbers for the need at WR. When I replied to his challenge to grade our starters (and you've still to do likewise!) I found we had one solid starter (Matthews), one marginal starter (Randle) and two upgrades required (Agholor, Huff). I expect Agholor to improve in his second year, but am not willing to rely on that given the lack of depth so another WR is higher on my list of needs than I'd previously thought.

I think we can get by at RB even if Mathews struggles with injuries, or could pick up a veteran to spell him and Sproles.


Still waiting for the Yardley, PA wards to report (no pun intended). Normally the Edinburgh wards come in later but so far, nothing from Z.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 28 2016, 10:43 AM) *
We simply have to gamble that Agholor will take the next step this season. We've invested too much in the position to give up on him and put significant resources into it again this year. If he looks lost again, we address it next year.

He has everything we could want in a prospect from a physical perspective. Changing systems isn't ideal for his development, but it is what it is.



Invested too much??

Our "top" five WR's, including Randle, eat up 5.8M of cap or 3.7% of the total $156M cap we've spent.

That is no where near enough investment in what by all accounts at the end of last year was the weakest unit on our team and the reason why Bradford struggled, according to most.

Some how, the three returning WR's improved dramatically in the off season and the mid tier FA signees, who were not asked back on their teams despite the low salary and a need at WR, are combined supposed to be good enough to warrant my patience.

I'm OK with wanting to upgrade our 12th ranked OL as I think there are spots needing improvement and age concerns, but for damn sure we need to upgrade our 31st ranked WR corps.

I don't draft one, I draft TWO!! Hows about them apples??
mcnabbulous
You're talking about dollars. I'm talking about draft picks. Sure we aren't spending a lot of money, because these guys are all on their first contracts.

You will be sorely disappointed in the production of yet another rookie WR, because those guys historically struggle.

Give our young guys a chance to prove themselves. Invest our premium draft choices elsewhere.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 28 2016, 07:40 PM) *
You're talking about dollars. I'm talking about draft picks. Sure we aren't spending a lot of money, because these guys are all on their first contracts.

You will be sorely disappointed in the production of yet another rookie WR, because those guys historically struggle.

Give our young guys a chance to prove themselves. Invest our premium draft choices elsewhere.



Now, I like Algholar's work ethic. I was happy to have him in the 2nd round. Seems like a good kid.

But what if his 2nd year is like Huff's second year?

You know my preference was to get the guy Jones or another upper tier FA, but we didn't.

That being the case, give me a WR or two in the draft. Maybe instead of being Huff or Algholar, he produces like Matthews did. If he does, then we're better than we are now.

I know I'm the lone voice in the wilderness. I have no idea why.
mcnabbulous
Agholor was a first rounder. Matthews a second. Huff a third. We need to assume Agholor will progress like a first rounder should from year 1 to 2.

If he doesn't, we are need to address it, but this year is a loss either way.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Mar 28 2016, 08:42 PM) *
Agholor was a first rounder. Matthews a second. Huff a third. We need to assume Agholor will progress like a first rounder should from year 1 to 2.

If he doesn't, we are need to address it, but this year is a loss either way.



I know Agholar was a 1st rounder. I was happy to draft him in the 2nd!! They reached a tad.

Doesn't mean he won't pan out, but the way he runs routes, it's a concern at this point.

We'll see. It will be nice if he plays well, but I wouldn't bank my team's success on it. Gimme another and if Agholar comes through, then we have depth or can trade Chip his boy for a 4th!!
Joegrane
Based on the numbers on paper I can't argue with you. However, do you really want to greatly improve the WRs in a QB contract year?

By improving the O Line you help the running game. That also helps the passing game, time of possession, etc. The O Line also protects the QB.

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 28 2016, 07:09 PM) *
...

I'm OK with wanting to upgrade our 12th ranked OL as I think there are spots needing improvement and age concerns, but for damn sure we need to upgrade our 31st ranked WR corps.

I don't draft one, I draft TWO!! Hows about them apples??

Pila
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 28 2016, 02:36 AM) *
I looked at draft pick trades involving 1st round picks from 2012-2015 and looked at the premium or discounts team got for trading up in the draft. A premium is the amount above what the draft trade value chart would indicate is a fair trade. A discount is the amount below what the draft day trade value chart would indicate is a fair trade.

Refer to this chart

http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

I focused only on pick for pick trades and ignored the player for pick trades. (BTW T. Richardson was worth the 26th pick in the first round if you're curious)

Of the 16 trades, 10 of them had a discount, 6 a premium. That's good news of you are the trader upper.

Also, of the 16 trades, there were really only four outliers, where the discount or premium seemed way off:

The Rams fleecing of Washington on the RG 3 deal - WAS gave up the equivalent of the 7th pick of the draft above fair value!!

The Browns fleecing of the Bills in getting what amounted to an extra low 1st rounder for S. Watkins

OAK getting way below market value from MIA on their move up to get D. Jordan. OAK s/h gotten another 2nd rounder

MIN accepting below market value from CLE for their move up from #4 to #3. They s/h gotten another 2nd rounder.

For all of the other 12 deals, the 4 premiums and 8 discounts were all in the 4th-6th round value range, one way or the other. Also, including those outliers, there was no more likelihood of a premium or discount depending on what draft spot you were trading into. #2 had a premium, #3 had 2 discounts, #4 had a premium, #5 had a discount etc.

So based upon this information, it is reasonable to conclude that our cost to trade up should approximate draft trade chart value, give or take a 4th or 6th round pick.

So, being at the #8 spot, here are the point cost paid or received for a trade up or trade down and roughly how that could look given our current and future picks. Since there hasn't been a trade up to #1, I am ignoring that option:

#8 trade up to:

#2 = 1200 points = a future 1st round pick + one of our 3rd's this year
#3 = 800 points = a future 2nd round pick + both of our 3rd's this year
#4 = 400 points = a future 2nd round pick OR both of our 3rd's this year
#5 = 300 points = one of our 3rd's plus our 4th this year
#6 = 200 points = one of our 3rd's this year
#7 = 100 points = our 4th this year

#8 trade down to:

#10 = 100 points = we get a 4th roughly the 100th pick
#11 = 150 points = we get a low 3rd, roughly the 88th pick
#12 = 200 points = we get a mid 3rd roughly the 78th pick (we'd have 77, 78, 79th picks!!)
#13 = 250 points = we get a high 3rd, roughly the 68th pick
#14 = 300 points = we get a low 2nd, roughly the 60th pick
#15 = 350 points = we get a low 2nd roughly the 55th pick
#16 = 400 points = we get a mid 2nd, roughly the 50th pick

What is your tolerance for a trade up or trade down?

I'm thinking if we stay at 8, based on mocks and what not, it looks like Treadwell will definitely be there. Also, I think 3 of these 5 will be there:

Ramsey
Buckner
Stanley
Hargreaves
Elliott

If we drop to #16, I think that 4 of these 7 will be there

Treadwell
Robinson
Lawson
Ragland
Nkemdiche
Conklin
Alexander (CB)

So, are there three from the first list that you love and would be happy we get at #8?

Are there 4 that you like a lot out of the list of 7 and you would be happy with either of them + the mid 2nd round pick? mid 2nds should start eventually and maybe even will start sometime in year 1.

Are there any ones you MUST have, QB's included that you are OK to move up and get?

If I want either QB, I move up to #3 to get him. If I only like Wentz, I go up to #2 to get him, although not likely that CLE will give it up. Other than a QB move up, I'm OK staying at #8.

My problem with going down the #16 and getting a mid 2nd is that I only like 3 of the 7, Treadwell, Conklin, Alexander. I can see Philly luck kicking in and us getting the shaft like we did a few years ago and watch my three go off the board before we pick.

Trade up to get a QB, stay at 8 if we don't want a QB, or roll the dice to trade down. All options are doable.


This is one of your incredibly valuable contributions to this board that we all take for granted. I've teased you about it in the past, but it was really subtle appreciation.

Obrigado.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Pila @ Mar 29 2016, 12:01 PM) *
This is one of your incredibly valuable contributions to this board that we all take for granted. I've teased you about it in the past, but it was really subtle appreciation.

Obrigado.


You're welcome.

I was surprised at how little it cost to move up if we choose to do so. (Relative to what we've been hearing the cost would be)

No matter what we do, it will be fun to discuss the options.
Dreagon
You guys should trade up to get Bosa (just so our idiot of a general manager doesn't get him sad.gif )
nephillymike
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Apr 2 2016, 10:37 AM) *
You guys should trade up to get Bosa (just so our idiot of a general manager doesn't get him sad.gif )



Why, do you not want Bosa?
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 29 2016, 08:15 PM) *
You're welcome.

I was surprised at how little it cost to move up if we choose to do so. (Relative to what we've been hearing the cost would be)

No matter what we do, it will be fun to discuss the options.


I am curious...I sae an article that detailed trading up and it seemed the only ones that were not costly where those that moved up into the later part of the first round...those that moved up into the top 10 were costly....it was funny that the author penned it as not expensive because one of the trades was for 2 picks and3 players but because none of the players becoming pro bowlers it was cheap as if they knew at the time...

nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 2 2016, 11:15 AM) *
I am curious...I sae an article that detailed trading up and it seemed the only ones that were not costly where those that moved up into the later part of the first round...those that moved up into the top 10 were costly....it was funny that the author penned it as not expensive because one of the trades was for 2 picks and3 players but because none of the players becoming pro bowlers it was cheap as if they knew at the time...


How do they define expensive?

I am just comparing it to what the draft trade chart says the cost should be, so from that standpoint there were more discounts than premiums.

However, there are revised trade value charts that are based on how the players have actually performed in the league when drafted at X spots to determine the relative value of the picks. Based on hindsight using performance, it is a fact that the draft trade chart significantly over values the higher picks relative to the rest of the picks. I can try to find those articles again. The clear take away, is that it makes sense to trade down the overwhelming majority of the time. My little snapshot in another post of picks 8, 13 and 20, shows that in only 2 of the 12 years was the 8 pick worth more than the other trade down options to 13 or to 20.

Howie is VERY good at getting discounts when we trade up and premiums when we trade down. He does things like trading a 4th one year for a 3rd the next. He did real well going up to get Cox, and did so at below draft market value. He got a premium for the drop down from 22 to 26 with the trade with CLE for Manziel, which is exactly what I was hoping for, but then to turn around and draft the 83rd best player in the draft (by NEPM board), and it tuns out that that guy isn't even late 3rd round good, then the great board maneuvering is worthless.

Howie did an excellent job at maneuvering and I am confident he'll do the same this draft day. However, in the end, you need to pick the right guys and he's been sub par at that the last five years. Keeping fingers crossed that our scouting dept is as ready as you say they are. devil03.gif
Joegrane
Maneuver for whom--Marcus Smith : (

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 2 2016, 11:54 AM) *
...

Howie is VERY good at getting discounts when we trade up and premiums when we trade down. He does things like trading a 4th one year for a 3rd the next. He did real well going up to get Cox, and did so at below draft market value. He got a premium for the drop down from 22 to 26 with the trade with CLE for Manziel, which is exactly what I was hoping for, but then to turn around and draft the 83rd best player in the draft (by NEPM board), and it tuns out that that guy isn't even late 3rd round good, then the great board maneuvering is worthless.

Howie did an excellent job at maneuvering and I am confident he'll do the same this draft day. However, in the end, you need to pick the right guys and he's been sub par at that the last five years. Keeping fingers crossed that our scouting dept is as ready as you say they are. devil03.gif

Dreagon
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 2 2016, 10:10 AM) *
Why, do you not want Bosa?


We've already got one young pothead DE on suspension, I don't see the need to give him a party friend.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Apr 2 2016, 01:17 PM) *
We've already got one young pothead DE on suspension, I don't see the need to give him a party friend.



I haven't looked into Bosa, didn't know that was his rap.

FIRE UP!!
Eagle2720
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Apr 2 2016, 02:17 PM) *
We've already got one young pothead DE on suspension, I don't see the need to give him a party friend.


I believe he's overrated too, kinda like Clowney coming out. Don't see him as being amazing like everyone thinks, he'll be a solid sack guy but I don't see him breaking double digit sacks multiple times in his career, maybe only one or two if that.
Dreagon
QUOTE (Eagle2720 @ Apr 2 2016, 01:23 PM) *
I believe he's overrated too, kinda like Clowney coming out. Don't see him as being amazing like everyone thinks, he'll be a solid sack guy but I don't see him breaking double digit sacks multiple times in his career, maybe only one or two if that.


Exactly. I'm not saying the guy isn't good, but I haven't seen anything that says he's as elite as some people make him out to be. Just off the top of my head, if I were going defense I would take Jalen Ramsey, Myles Jack, or Deforest Buckner before Bosa. And with a 36 year old and ever more brittle Romo leading our team, I damn sure would take Wentz or Goff before Bosa. Heck I might even consider Tunsil or Ezekial before him.
mcnabbulous
Bosa is really solid. Not sure he will be put huge sack numbers, but he is a big time disruptive force.

I'd be really happy with him at #8
Joegrane
Really, you would not trade out of that spot? I assume there will be interest in him and therefore good trade value.

DLine is probably the team's strongest area and they already have two starting-caliber DE's signed long term. They currently have two other guys in place for a very solid-looking rotation.

The new 4-3 system might finally give M Smith an opportunity to be a solid guy in their rotation.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 2 2016, 03:53 PM) *
Bosa is really solid. Not sure he will be put huge sack numbers, but he is a big time disruptive force.

I'd be really happy with him at #8

mcnabbulous
I wouldn't speculate on what type of trade offer is there, but I think Bosa is a top-2 or 3 player in this draft. I'd probably take him at 8 if he was available.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.