Underperforming? At what point?

He had 10.5 sacks as a rookie. He had 71 tackles and 7.5 sacks last year. He got hurt in 2020 had 2 sacks in the first 4 games, tried to come back after missing 2 games for 4 games then landed on injured reserve. So taking the injured year out he's been anything but underperforming.

Just because a guy doesn't get 15 sacks doesn't make him shit.

And how would they be heavy at the position? Who else do they have that's worth a shit at DE? Arden Key and K'Lavon Chaisson are rotational players.

I'm not really sure where to find this kind of search, but according to Nate Taylor, the last teams to trade multiple first round picks in the same draft class to move up were the Jets and the Saints in 2003.

With the first rounders acquired, they selected Dewyane Robertson and Jonathan Sullivan respectively.

Man, if that doesn't demonstrate how much of a crapshoot this exercise is, I don't know what would. Those are both catastrophic outcomes. And fellas, it just isn't that unlikely to happen at all.

Do you guys remember that draft at all? DTs had become hot shit (remember the ill-fated Ryan Sims pick the year prior? Henderson, Bryant, Haynseworth all went in the first that year; Gerard Warren, Damione Lewis, Marcus Stroud, Ryan Pickett, Casey Hampton in the first the year prior).

And suddenly in 2003 we had league circles convincing themselves that coincidentally, 2003 would be the best DT class in years. Jimmy Kennedy, Kevin Williams, Dewayne Robertson, Jonathan Sullivan, William Joseph, Ty Warren - all potential franchise altering DT talents. And suddenly the Jets and Saints convince themselves that they need to move up so they can take the cream of the crop.

One of 'em lived up to the hype - Kevin Williams at 9. Warren was good at 13 (the pick that the Jets traded away along with 22 to move up to 4). And the rest? Various degrees of gigantic busts. Aubrayo Franklin went in the 5th and was the third best DT to come out of that draft.

But the Saints and Jets had a similar mindset to what we're seeing with this 'we have to trade up to get our guy!!!' crowd. They were unwilling to be patient and let the board come to them. They thought they had this whole draft thing figured out and it was some sort of exact science.

It wasn't. It isn't. They were wrong as ****. The Saints even gave up back to back picks at 17 and 18 (where the Cardinals took Calvin Pace who was again one of the better players from that draft).

It's just a real real REAL bad idea. Trade up to 21 using a 3rd? I can get behind that; it's a reasonable risk/reward. But when you decide you're going to give up 2 firsts just to move up another dozen spots or so? Aw hell no.

This is still the same front office that drafted Breeland Speaks, Mecole Hardman and CEH with their first pick in a 3 year stretch. They're a very smart front office and have a better chance of being right than most - but still a pretty decent chance of being wrong. So no, that's not a worthwhile trade-off. It's just way too many eggs in a single basket.

I never thought there was a chance of trading both 1st rounders to move up. I could see them trading up with one of their 1sts and a 2nd/3rd/etc. I also think it's very possible for them to trade up with one pick to the early 20s and back with the other 1st rounder to recoup some of the earlier trade.

The time it happened before that was Washington trading 12 and 24 to go to 3 in 2000 to pick Chris Samuels who turned out to be a 6-time Pro Bowl LT, so there's at least one example of it actually working out.

I'm pretty sure the next nearest that it happened was in 1992 when Washington, again, traded 6 and 28 to go to 4 for Desmond Howard who was a phenomenal return man but never turned out to be a very good WR.

So yeah, probably not the "greatest" idea in the world. I think the Saints will be involved in one of them again this year to move up for Pickett but who knows for sure.

I don't expect Veach to be one to do it. I'd expect a move up with 29 and maybe a 2nd rounder but both 1st seems very unlikely. He'd have to be pretty enamored with an ER in the top 10 to pull something like that.

You're trading all that to go up and pick the 3rd best DE or the best WR in a class of WR's that are all bunched together.

No thanks.

Like, the idea that Jermaine Johnson could clearly never be Jonathan Sullivan is just incorrect.

Jonathan Sullivan is EXACTLY what happens when teams do this sort of thing. When they go from 'we like this guy to he slides' to 'we HAVE to have this guy' over the span of 2 months with zero games played.

And Jonathan Sullivan was a 325 lb dude running the 40 in 5 flat a time that just did not happen. There were more reasons to believe he'd be a star than there are reasons for Jermaine Johnson.

Look at the guy's 2002 season -- 74 tackles, 18.5 tackles for loss, 29 QB pressures, first team All SEC. He was a HORSE. And he just sucked.

Trade two firsts to go up for the Oregon DE if he falls? Maybe. Probably not.

As much as you guys hate it, I'd think youd all agree it would be a much better idea to trade one of those firsts and pay an established DE than trade both to go up and take a WR.

Say, 29 50 and 104 gets you to 14?

Exactly.

Stay put.

No.

Don't trade at all. It's just asking for a Frank Clark situation.

I'm less convinced that Jermaine Johnson will eat himself out of the league. Everything is not equivalent.

Yup.

The worst thing the Frank Clark trade did was establish where we value him BEFORE we sat down for contract discussions.

You give up first for someone looking at FA and that agent has you over a barrel.

Whereas with OBJ we gave up a small enough amount that we could even let him walk for a comp pick and done just fine in that deal.

That just isn’t going to be the case in the deals O.Simpy is suggesting.

By God, I think he’s got it!!

And he lost it…

One of the most aggressive GM's in the league and you guys think he's gonna sit tight and draft.

Cute.