Trade Prediction, No Mock

[jwazzie]

Bears move to #11

Chiefs move down to #19 and also receive #50


Book it!....ok, don't this will probably haunt me.

[buddha]

Who do the Bears take there?

[jwazzie]

I think they go after DeCastro or Kechley (if he is there). Like I said, just my predicition, but the bears are a team that seems always desperate to get a player they think that will get them over the edge

[buddha]

The Bears aren't shy about drafting OL early. I like that about them. The best teams were built around that terrific defense and dominant OL.

[milkman]

The Bears aren't shy about drafting OL early. I like that about them. The best teams were built around that terrific defense and dominant OL.

You mean like the SB Champion Giants?

How about that great O-Line that lead the Pack to the SB last year?

And, of course, that Steeler SB team had an awsome O-Line.

[buddha]

You mean like the SB Champion Giants?

How about that great O-Line that lead the Pack to the SB last year?

And, of course, that Steeler SB team had an awsome O-Line.

Which Steeler team are you referring to? The Webster years? Yes...they had great offensive lines. They controlled the clock. They imposed their will consistently.

Yes, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could just pick up the next Manning or Rogers? :thumb: Unfortunately, that guy isn't out there by pick #3.

So let's just keep carping at every other possibility. :banghead:

[Micjones]

Who do we take at 19?

[milkman]

Which Steeler team are you referring to? The Webster years? Yes...they had great offensive lines. They controlled the clock. They imposed their will consistently.

Yes, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could just pick up the next Manning or Rogers? :thumb: Unfortunately, that guy isn't out there by pick #3.

So let's just keep carping at every other possibility. :banghead:

You bring some really solid points to the table on every other discuusion in this forum, so I know that you are smarter that to think I'm talking about the 70's Steelers.

This is not anywhere close to the same league now that it was in the 70s.

This is QB driven league, and teams with mediocre O-Lines have won 3 or 4 of the last 4 or 5 SBs.

I would argue that the Pats O-Line over the last 10 years has been overrated because of Tom Brady, as well, and that they haven't been nearly as good as most seem to think, as illustrated by the fact that they haven't been able to run ball consistently and effectively for almost the entire time that Brady has been the QB, and further illustrated by the number of sacks they allowed when Cassel was behind center for them in '08.

Who do we take at 19?

Dvaid DeCastro.

[whoman69]

You bring some really solid points to the table on every other discuusion in this forum, so I know that you are smarter that to think I'm talking about the 70's Steelers.

This is not anywhere close to the same league now that it was in the 70s.

This is QB driven league, and teams with mediocre O-Lines have won 3 or 4 of the last 4 or 5 SBs.

I would argue that the Pats O-Line over the last 10 years has been overrated because of Tom Brady, as well, and that they haven't been nearly as good as most seem to think, as illustrated by the fact that they haven't been able to run ball consistently and effectively for almost the entire time that Brady has been the QB, and further illustrated by the number of sacks they allowed when Cassel was behind center for them in '08.



Dvaid DeCastro.

Cassel has taken sacks everywhere. We cut our sack total in half when he was gone last year.

[Coogs]

If the Bears hadn't traded for the league's blacksheep WR from Miami, via way of Denver, I could have seen this trade as a real possibility if Floyd would have been on the board at 11. But now that they have Marshall, I'm not sure who their target might be to trade more picks in this years draft.

[Brock]

The Bears aren't shy about drafting OL early. I like that about them. The best teams were built around that terrific defense and dominant OL.

The best teams are built around a QB. You can give Cassel probowlers at every OL position and it doesn't make him any better.

[RealSNR]

I think they go after DeCastro or Kechley (if he is there). Like I said, just my predicition, but the bears are a team that seems always desperate to get a player they think that will get them over the edgeDumb. By staying pat at 19 they can get that elite "trench" guy and still save picks. DeCastro, Konz, and Jonathan Martin will all be available at 19 most likely. On the defensive line, Coples, Poe, and Still will likely be around. Hell, lots of people think they'll go Kendall Wright or Stephen Hill.

They've got options out the wazoo by sticking around at 19. Trading up would be retarded.

[Micjones]

Dvaid DeCastro.

That'd be INCREDIBLE value at 19.
I find it hard to believe he'll still be there though.

[buddha]

The best teams are built around a QB. You can give Cassel probowlers at every OL position and it doesn't make him any better.

Bullshit! I'm not a Cassel fan in the least, but that is just wrong on every level. You put a Pro Bowl line in front of KC's existing backfield and it makes EVERYTHING better, especially the defense. Just ask them!

It is a passing league Milkman (to address the earlier post). I understand that as well as you do. If you have an elite QB, you are one of teams who can contend for the Super Bowl. No question about that. I just don't believe that Tannehill is going to be one of those guys, and I don't want the Chiefs to gamble when there are terrific players sitting there at that pick who could improve the team.

[redshirt32]

http://www.gbnreport.com/picksbyteam.html

hmmm trade first we need to look at the board to see who has the most picks or should i say most picks first and second round.

Cleavland is loaded possible they try to improve on there second first round pick

Bengals possible they try to improve there second first round pick

Pats hmm they only trade with oakland LMAO i could see them trading one pick out of first round

were not gona gain a second rd pick trading down unless some crazy ass team reaches and that dosent happen to the chiefs.

Possible to trade down with eagles or dallas with the 11 pick for a 3rd at best
I dont see many teams moving more than 4 to 7 spots up and i dont see us getting a second round pick in any way we are not that fortunate.

I could see a couple trades if the chiefs wanted more picks in the 3rd round by trading twice in the first once at 11th for the 14/15 spot and again 14/15 for 21/22pck

I could live with picking up a 3rd and dropping to 14 or 15

[Brock]

Bullshit! I'm not a Cassel fan in the least, but that is just wrong on every level. You put a Pro Bowl line in front of KC's existing backfield and it makes EVERYTHING better, especially the defense. Just ask them!

No, it won't make Cassel better. Cassel takes sacks if he has all the time in the world. How many times was Orton sacked again?

[milkman]

Bullshit! I'm not a Cassel fan in the least, but that is just wrong on every level. You put a Pro Bowl line in front of KC's existing backfield and it makes EVERYTHING better, especially the defense. Just ask them!

It is a passing league Milkman (to address the earlier post). I understand that as well as you do. If you have an elite QB, you are one of teams who can contend for the Super Bowl. No question about that. I just don't believe that Tannehill is going to be one of those guys, and I don't want the Chiefs to gamble when there are terrific players sitting there at that pick who could improve the team.

I just don't believe that you can compete for the SB with a medicre, or worse, QB, even with the best O-Line in the NFL in front of him.

I also believe that you can improve the line just as much with guys like Zeitler or Osemele in the second round, or leaving Hudson at guard, with guys like David Molk or Ben Jones at center.

[RealSNR]

Bullshit! I'm not a Cassel fan in the least, but that is just wrong on every level. You put a Pro Bowl line in front of KC's existing backfield and it makes EVERYTHING better, especially the defense. Just ask them!
It doesn't make our playoff win drought any better. We'd lose the big games the same fucking way we've been losing them ever since Joe Montana retired.

[Frosty]

I don't want the Chiefs to gamble when there are terrific players sitting there at that pick who could improve the team.

The Chiefs are going to have to gamble at some point or be forever mired in mediocrity. It is unlikely that they will have the #1 pick any time soon (and the right QB has to be there in any case). They are going to have to gamble with guys like Tannehill that have potential but also have warts. Having the best guard or ILB in the NFL isn't going to win you SBs.

I think they need to keep taking QB's until they find one. I hope they aren't hanging their hat on winning the lottery (Brady) or it will be a looong time before we get one.

[Brock]

I don't want the Chiefs to gamble when there are terrific players sitting there at that pick who could improve the team.

This is why the Chiefs are the Chiefs.

[Frosty]

This is why the Chiefs are the Chiefs.

It's just too darn risky to take a QB high.

[The Franchise]

If the Bills pass on Barron.....you might see someone try and trade ahead of Dallas to take him.

[RippedmyFlesh]

According to the "value chart" our first 3rd and 5th to JAX to get Tannehill ahead of Miami.
I would do it. We don't need 3 players we need 1 a qb.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

[ForeverChiefs58]

Rich Cimini
@RichCimini

At NFL event today, Trent Richardson said #Jets called him Sunday to verify correct contact info just in case they trade up for him. Hmm.



Richardson could go as early as No. 4 to the Cleveland Browns, so getting to Richardson would be extremely costly for the Jets, who currently pick 16th.

But one thing to keep in mind: The Jets are adamant about going back to the "ground and pound" attack this season. A fine idea in theory, but they don't appear to have a running back on their roster capable of being the offense's focal point. (Sorry, Shonn Greene.)

General manager Mike Tannenbaum has never been shy on draft day. He has traded up in the first round three times during his tenure with the Jets. Could a fourth instance be on the way?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82896d37/article/why-did-jets-check-trent-richardsons-contact-info

[Saccopoo]

[QUOTE=ForeverChiefs58;8567034But one thing to keep in mind: The Jets are adamant about going back to the "ground and pound" attack this season. A fine idea in theory, but they don't appear to have a running back on their roster capable of being the offense's focal point. [/QUOTE]

http://slow33.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/tebow4.jpg

[buddha]

The Chiefs are going to have to gamble at some point or be forever mired in mediocrity. It is unlikely that they will have the #1 pick any time soon (and the right QB has to be there in any case). They are going to have to gamble with guys like Tannehill that have potential but also have warts. Having the best guard or ILB in the NFL isn't going to win you SBs.

I think they need to keep taking QB's until they find one. I hope they aren't hanging their hat on winning the lottery (Brady) or it will be a looong time before we get one.

If Tannehill becomes that golden QB that wins Super Bowls...great. Do whatever it takes to get him now. You don't just keep taking QBs in the draft hoping one of them will work out. At least you don't do that if your career is riding on it.

Baltimore won a Super Bowl with Dilfer at QB. It can be done. There are other examples of average QBs winning Super Bowls, just not many of them recently. We've been in a period of dominant franchise QBs. However, that's not the exclusive recipe for Super Bowl success.

[milkman]

If Tannehill becomes that golden QB that wins Super Bowls...great. Do whatever it takes to get him now. You don't just keep taking QBs in the draft hoping one of them will work out. At least you don't do that if your career is riding on it.

Baltimore won a Super Bowl with Dilfer at QB. It can be done. There are other examples of average QBs winning Super Bowls, just not many of them recently. We've been in a period of dominant franchise QBs. However, that's not the exclusive recipe for Super Bowl success.

The problem is that with the evolution of rules that favor offense, primarily the passing game, the days of winning SBs with mediocre QBs and superior defense are a thing of the past.

And even before those rules changes, those were rare cases with Dilfer and Brad Johnson, and teams like those Ravens and Bucs, that could have been dynastic, were limited to single SB wins by their mediocre QB play.