akshaz Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Sorry guys. But, I'm tired of Angelo's history of trading down in attempt to stockpile 7th round picks who don't make the team or never make an impact. Can we get a real guy, please? What's wrong with trading UP every now and then to get a legitimate impact player? It takes absolutely no courage to trade down. I heard we'll possibly go as low as 42. Really??? Just in time to ensure all top-tier O-linemen are gone. Ditto for DL and CB. But hey, we may be able to get another 3rd level, 5'8 WR! What a joke! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fudgeripple2000 Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Sorry guys. But, I'm tired of Angelo's history of trading down in attempt to stockpile 7th round picks who don't make the team or never make an impact. Can we get a real guy, please? What's wrong with trading UP every now and then to get a legitimate impact player? It takes absolutely no courage to trade down. I heard we'll possibly go as low as 42. Really??? Just in time to ensure all top-tier O-linemen are gone. Ditto for DL and CB. But hey, we may be able to get another 3rd level, 5'8 WR! What a joke! Trading down makes good sense financially as well as good football sense. In 2006 we had the 26th pick and we traded it to the bills for 42 and 73. They took John McCargo, DT North Carolina State and we got D. Manning and Dusty. I have never heard of McCargo and last I checked Manning has scored a few points for the bears. They not only made a good football decision but made a good financial decision. If I am an owner and I have two GM candidates I will take smart over courageous. Now in that year with the 29th pick the Jets took Mangold. Now if the teams ahead of the bears are being "courageous" and taking quarterbacks that should be taken in rounds 2-4, in round one, then some good linemen could fall to us. Remember though there are not that many "can't miss" OL prospects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I really have to agree. To me, it just appears he's chickensh&t of picking wrong. So, best get a ton of low guys using the shotgun theory that one will pan out... I'll hold judgement until we actually see what transpires. But, I am fearful of historical shenanigans of being scared of picking in the first round. I won't mind a drop down to like 1st in the 2nd, or similar...as there isn't too much difference and we could get another decent pick. But, a significant drop down would irritate the piss out of me. At least at the moment. Sorry guys. But, I'm tired of Angelo's history of trading down in attempt to stockpile 7th round picks who don't make the team or never make an impact. Can we get a real guy, please? What's wrong with trading UP every now and then to get a legitimate impact player? It takes absolutely no courage to trade down. I heard we'll possibly go as low as 42. Really??? Just in time to ensure all top-tier O-linemen are gone. Ditto for DL and CB. But hey, we may be able to get another 3rd level, 5'8 WR! What a joke! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 ripple, Just becasue Buffalo flubbed the pick doesn't mean we would have.. (At least in theory...) We could have got Kiwanuka, Mangold (as you mentioned), Justice or Latui for instance... That's a 16 position drop...I don't like it. It takes us out of some serious candidates. And when you're picking that low in the 1st...we're not talking about the same financial beating you'd take picking in the top ten. So, the financial sense of it really doesn't hold that much weight. If we traded out of the top ten and got postion 26 and another later...now that's good financial sense... http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?season=2006 Trading down makes good sense financially as well as good football sense. In 2006 we had the 26th pick and we traded it to the bills for 42 and 73. They took John McCargo, DT North Carolina State and we got D. Manning and Dusty. I have never heard of McCargo and last I checked Manning has scored a few points for the bears. They not only made a good football decision but made a good financial decision. If I am an owner and I have two GM candidates I will take smart over courageous. Now in that year with the 29th pick the Jets took Mangold. Now if the teams ahead of the bears are being "courageous" and taking quarterbacks that should be taken in rounds 2-4, in round one, then some good linemen could fall to us. Remember though there are not that many "can't miss" OL prospects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akshaz Posted April 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I'm actually one of the few guys that can appreciate Daniel Manning if allowed to stay at nickel. But, he's definitely not reason enough to justify trading out of the first round. Especially when you factor Dusty into the mix. I liked him too BTW. He just didn't get it done. Neither are proper justification to not take a shot at a Tier 1 player, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 At nickel, I think you can sell many of us on him! On an island, he's a liability... Agreed...just pick w/ our pick JA! I'm actually one of the few guys that can appreciate Daniel Manning if allowed to stay at nickel. But, he's definitely not reason enough to justify trading out of the first round. Especially when you factor Dusty into the mix. I liked him too BTW. He just didn't get it done. Neither are proper justification to not take a shot at a Tier 1 player, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fudgeripple2000 Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 At nickel, I think you can sell many of us on him! On an island, he's a liability... Agreed...just pick w/ our pick JA! So you're saying pick the pick regardless? If all the best o-linemen gone do you take a chance on a lineman whose close equivalent can be had in the second. Or do you then move on to the next priority and select D-line. Say, a team that bases their draft strategy with emphasis on the emotion and less on the analytical comes to JA and gives him a deal equal to the 2006 one. You wouldn't take it if your top two candidates in your top two priorities are gone? I still think that you keep the options open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I'm basically saying that trading down has very rarely yielded an significant advantage from just picking at your alotted spot. If there are nothing but garbage slot OL's...then no, don't pick one. Hopefully there will be some other need that we can fill, like DT. Something tells me there will be someone on the O or D line that we can pick at 29 that is reasonable... So you're saying pick the pick regardless? If all the best o-linemen gone do you take a chance on a lineman whose close equivalent can be had in the second. Or do you then move on to the next priority and select D-line. Say, a team that bases their draft strategy with emphasis on the emotion and less on the analytical comes to JA and gives him a deal equal to the 2006 one. You wouldn't take it if your top two candidates in your top two priorities are gone? I still think that you keep the options open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I'm basically saying that trading down has very rarely yielded an significant advantage from just picking at your alotted spot. If there are nothing but garbage slot OL's...then no, don't pick one. Hopefully there will be some other need that we can fill, like DT. Something tells me there will be someone on the O or D line that we can pick at 29 that is reasonable... One thing everyone is forgetting in this argument is that the trade down allowed us to take Devin Hester. IMO, there's no way we take him in the 2nd round if we hadn't been able to pick up the extra pick. I maintain that if one of the top tier guys falls to us: Pouncey, Camrini, Solder, or Luiget falls to us, we jump all over it. If those 4 are gone, I'd be happy to trade down to #42 if it means picking up an extra 3rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 If you think trading down is a good idea, just where we traded out of and could have got and then the results of those picks. It doesnt look very pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 If you think trading down is a good idea, just where we traded out of and could have got and then the results of those picks. It doesnt look very pretty. Look at it this way: What were our needs and who would we have drafted? We weren't drafting Nick Mangold when we had Kreutz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akshaz Posted April 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 The Lions just got Nick Fairley and we'll trade down???? We need to get the best interior lineman on the board at 29! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.