View Full Version : Moving down for a 2nd

04-19-2005, 04:42 AM
I am curious if we moved down in the first and picked up an extra second if any of you would object to this or not.

From what I've seen most of the mocks want us to take Barron. I think my only fear is we are drafting the 2nd coming of tony mandarich. He just doesn't seem to have the NASTYtude you need on the OL. I've also seen the other two LT that are slated in the first round rated just as high. Jamaal Brown I've seen rated higher on some boards or even going defensive with Fabian Washington CB or Travis Johnson DT.

If We traded down for him and picked up a extra second....

There are three players I really like in the 2nd. Hampton's Jerome Mathis, Michigan's David Baas, ND's Justin Tuck

04-19-2005, 05:32 AM
If we did move down, it would have to be for a player we liked not high enough to be drafted at 13. If we did, it would mean we could draft players to fill these spots: WR, LB, C, CB, DT.

Not in that order, but it means 5 players in the first 3 rounds that could fight for a starting position with in the next two seasons.

I would rather shoot for winning on five guys than four in the first 3 rounds. But, If CC and DC want a certain player, who knows, we could go up and lose on two to three extra picks.

04-19-2005, 09:10 AM
It seems to me that there are hardly any sure things in this draft. The late first to early third round guys seem to be lumped together and there could be a lot of gems found there. I'm of the feeling that we need as many 1st day picks as possible since we need depth and upgrading at all positions. Also, since we traded away half our draft last year I wouldn't be for doing the same this year.

The Preacher
04-19-2005, 09:10 AM
I think a lot of folks around here would be pretty happy if say the eagles gave us their first two picks for #13. Then we could take Baas and Reggie Brown. That would dramatically improve the O looking out a couple of years and seems less risky than a tweener we may or may not need so much depending on Peek. We could then go D at #47 possibly a quality CB that fell because of the depth at the position. Address the D again in both 3rd round picks with DL and ILB before addressing O-line again in 4th and 5th. This would be an ideal scenario if you ask me it just may be tough finding a trading partner. Hopefully Williamson's hype intrigues someone to pull the trigger on such a trade if he falls to us.

04-19-2005, 01:20 PM
I'm not sure I could see us passing on Williamson quite honestly if he's there. I think a trade down could occur if its a position that we could move down and still get the same quality. Of course I very little understand CC and DC's approach to the draft. We stayed put at 10 last year when we could have moved up though i'm quite happy with Dunta they made a big issue about moving up....only to move back up into the first round again for babin?