1. Hi Guest, Registrations are now open. See you on the inside.
    Dismiss Notice

We should trade out of the 1st Rd.

Discussion in 'The Bill Nunn Draft Room' started by StillHERNation, Mar 16, 2017.

  1. StillHERNation

    StillHERNation Well-Known Member

    122
    2
    Feb 7, 2017
    This is the trade I was thinking of.

    Trade our 1st, 3rdA and 3rdB, for the Browns 2ndA, 2ndB and 4th.

    The Browns have multiple draft picks in almost every round for the next 2yrs.

    That'll make our draft order look like this.

    Rd2a #33
    Rd2b #52
    Rd2c #62
    Rd4a #135
    Rd4b #142
    Rd5 #173
    Rd6 #213
    Rd7 #248

    What yall think?

    Btw.. for those of you who ONLY read the title.. he said trade up to get back into the 2nd Rd.

    http://steelerswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/16/should-the-steelers-trade-up-in-the-2017-nfl-draft/
     
  2. steelersrock151

    steelersrock151 Well-Known Member

    914
    65
    Nov 18, 2011
    You have 4 teams in the first six picks that need a qb but probably won't pick one in the first round. On the off chance that there isn't someone at 30 that really could make a difference, The first one that offered a 2nd and 3rd should get it. If Cleveland or SF offers a 2nd a fourth, consider it carefully.

    But judging by the way we hand in our first round picks, there won't be time to call.
     
  3. StillHERNation

    StillHERNation Well-Known Member

    122
    2
    Feb 7, 2017
    I chose Cleveland because they have 2 and 3 pick in almost every Rd for the next 2yrs. It makes more since to use them for their 2 2nd Rd picks, because they have 3.
     
  4. turtle

    turtle

    6,643
    803
    Jan 14, 2015
    Not sure why the Browns would trade with us for two reasons - why give a conference opponent more picks and why jump ahead two spots. Atlanta and New England aren't going to be going after QBs in the first.
     
  5. mac daddyo

    mac daddyo Well-Known Member

    18,695
    1,082
    Oct 22, 2011
    nfl network had trubisky being picked after we took mike williams at 30 and tj watt at 31. would we grab trubisky at 30 if he fell there? i couldn't see us pass watt but if this played out and watt was gone would you grab trubisky at 30? :cool:
     
  6. steelersrock151

    steelersrock151 Well-Known Member

    914
    65
    Nov 18, 2011
    The answer to that question is they would trade with us to prevent San Francisco, the Bears, the Jets, or the Bills from trading with us, or Atlanta, or New Orleans, or from New Orleans picking their qb of the future.
     
  7. turtle

    turtle

    6,643
    803
    Jan 14, 2015
    I thought of that scenario, but I still don't see it going down that way. I think they would prefer to trade with another team. Your conference opponent just went to the AFC championship and you want to give them more ammunition? OK, I've talked myself out of it, I hope the Browns do it. It would be to our benefit:lolol:
     
  8. steelersrock151

    steelersrock151 Well-Known Member

    914
    65
    Nov 18, 2011
    Honestly, having the 1st pick on day two and the first pick on day 4 are two great picks. Gives teams over night to figure out which guy they have to have, and try to make a trade.
     
  9. SGSteeler

    SGSteeler Well-Known Member

    2,603
    191
    Sep 9, 2013
    Ah yes, the annual "trade out of the first and acquire more picks" thread.... I'm not throwing shade at you stillHER, I just think it's funny haha

    The Steelers won't trade out of the first. They have never really shown an interest in trading their first round pick (unless of course it is to trade up).

    You made a good argument, I just don't see the Steelers making that move. Our first round pick is the most valuable asset we have and the Steelers treat it as such. It would have to be a big over pay for us to consider moving it
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Jball

    Jball Well-Known Member

    777
    51
    Jan 1, 2012
    If you want to trade out of the first, one thing you've got going is the Saints at 32. If one of those QB's fall, they're in business. So, you'll prob have a couple trade partners.

    Unless they go with Atlanta of course.

    I would bet my bag that NE would be trading that pick if they didn't already.
     
  11. Jball

    Jball Well-Known Member

    777
    51
    Jan 1, 2012
    That 5th year makes a big difference I think.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. funkysteelersfan

    funkysteelersfan Well-Known Member

    294
    12
    Nov 1, 2011
    But the end of the first is a god place to be if you're looking to trade down. Some teams like getting back into the bottom of the first round because the rookie contract at pick #30 isn't a ton of money and if the player pans out they can use the 5th year option to add an extra year of team control.
     
  13. Da Stellars

    Da Stellars Well-Known Member

    4,514
    216
    Oct 22, 2011
    Not a lot of holes on the team, if anything they should trade up and get the pass rusher they want.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. Steel_Elvis

    Steel_Elvis Staff Member Mod Team

    8,075
    898
    Nov 4, 2011
    I agree. There are a lot of pass rushers with potential, but I'm not seeing too many that I think would be an immediate upgrade to our pass rush. I'd give a pretty strong trade package to get "the" guy - if "the" guy actually exists. Problem is that the only guy that I am fully sold on, who is not injured, is Garrett, and no trade package will get him. I'm pretty sold on McKinley, but his injury would need to be fully investigated and factored into the determination of when he could be expected to impact. I also like Barnett's pass rush, but question base scheme fit.

    Lots more film review to know for sure.
     
  15. AskQuestionsLater

    AskQuestionsLater Writing Team

    9,501
    998
    Apr 21, 2016


    Indeed for Barrett. Seems to me a better fit of a 4-3 DE than a 3-4 OLB.


    As for the rest of the class, it just reminds me of the quarterback class of 2012; outside of one or maybe two, the rest is just banking on potential and are not ready ...


    .... Speaking of that one, should the Browns colossally fail to build around Myles Garrett in the same vein the Colts have with Andrew Luck, the there really is no hope for them.
     
  16. steelersrock151

    steelersrock151 Well-Known Member

    914
    65
    Nov 18, 2011
    Barnett, Solomen, Charlton, and Harris all seem more like DE's than OLBs, and besides Garrett they're some of the top ranked edge rushers. Reddick, Williams, Cunningham, and McKinley are all more OLB than DE, although Reddick and Cunningham might find their best fits at ILB. Lawson, Watt, and the others seem like very late first to late second round selections. We'll have to see who's still there.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. mac daddyo

    mac daddyo Well-Known Member

    18,695
    1,082
    Oct 22, 2011
    i don't see reddick as an OLB in our system at all. he's a shazier, timmons to us. thats just not his game to rush the passer every down. watt, rivers, carroll, lawson, willis seem like our type of guys. some will need some learning time which we can give them. i'm not certain a 1st round guy is needed if we are willing to teach a couple of these guys. :cool:
     
  18. Blitz

    Blitz Well-Known Member

    811
    124
    Apr 18, 2016
    **** yeah I would. Lol.
     
  19. thesteeldeal

    thesteeldeal Well-Known Member

    10,348
    1,156
    Oct 18, 2011
    Trading?.....more like training whoever is making the selection to see how fast they can get the pick in this year....someone is looking to set the franchise record this year:smiley1:
     
    • Hilarious Hilarious x 1
  20. Wardismvp

    Wardismvp Well-Known Member

    8,034
    320
    Oct 26, 2011
    I couldn't run to podium fast enough.
     
  21. mac daddyo

    mac daddyo Well-Known Member

    18,695
    1,082
    Oct 22, 2011
    i gotta agree.:smiley1::cool:
     
  22. Steel_Elvis

    Steel_Elvis Staff Member Mod Team

    8,075
    898
    Nov 4, 2011
    In my view, taking a QB in the first round is waving the white flag of surrender and saying that we are no longer trying to win the Super Bowl now.
     
  23. Diamond

    Diamond Well-Known Member

    5,211
    398
    May 26, 2012
    Washington Post:

    There’s also the fact that Trubisky only was a starter for one year in Chapel Hill, as he was unable to beat out Marquise Williams for the job in 2015. Yahoo’s Eric Edholm points out that Williams couldn’t land a role in the NFL after college, and so the fact that Trubisky couldn’t win the job over a non-NFL talent could give teams pause.

    [NFL mock draft: This class has no surefire QB, but 3 may go in first 12 picks]

    “For all of Trubisky’s talent, the fact that he was unable to earn a starting role until this, his third full season with the Tar Heels, is a bit disconcerting,” CBS Sports draft analyst Rob Rang told the Mercury-News last month.

    Nevertheless, Trubisky received a first-round grade from the NFL advisory board, and most mock drafts have Trubisky going pretty high in the draft to a quarterback-needy team, chief among them the Browns (who have the No. 1 and No. 12 picks and already have scouted the Ohio native), 49ers (N0. 2), Bears (No. 3), Jets (No. 6) or perhaps the Cardinals (No. 13). His main competition seems to be Clemson’s Deshaun Watson — watch out if he leads the Tigers past Alabama in Monday’s national championship game — and Notre Dame’s DeShone Kizer. It’s a pretty short quarterback list this year, which is perhaps the biggest reason Trubisky’s name is right up there despite all the questions about his game.

    “It’s not a great year to be drafting early and needing a quarterback,” ESPN’s Todd McShay said last month. “There’s some depth, but I don’t see any elite prospects among those I’ve reviewed so far. No QB in this class is worth the number one pick.”
     
  24. NY STEELERFAN

    NY STEELERFAN Well-Known Member

    6,752
    909
    Dec 10, 2012
    We go thru this every year and a ton of us would love to trade back, I am one of them guys. I think this draft is so loaded especially between rounds 2-4. If we could move back 3-6 spots would it really be that bad if we gained 2 more picks? Last year SF traded the #28 pick and their 7th rounder #249 to KC for their 2nd #37, 4th #105 & 6th #178. Not sure I like that they moved back to far out of the 1st and only got a 4th and 6th and only gained 1 extra pick out of the deal. If SF or Chicago want to jump back into the 1st I would do out 1st for their 2nd, 3rd and 6th. If I couldn't do that then I want to pick at #30, if I am trading back and out of the 1st it better be worth my wild. jmo
     
  25. turtle

    turtle

    6,643
    803
    Jan 14, 2015
    I wanted to trade back as well, hence the list below in the sig, but that was predicated on them getting a starter level OLB in FA. Now I'm not so sure, they kinda of pigeon-holed themselves into taking a OLB in rnd 1 or 2. The players who I think would be available in rnd 2 don't inspire a lot of confidence. Derek Rivers or Ryan Anderson maybe. I haven't seen any tape on those guys yet, and that's why I'm not confident.

    If we trade back with San Fran or Jax, (they both have a lot of picks), the value chart is only 70 points or so. That equates to a mid 4th rounder. I would think they would throw in more to be able to get that 1st round pick and the 5th year option which has value for teams. If we only moved back 4 or 5 spots and gained a high 4th rounder and a 7th I would do that. Lynch may want to make a splash as the new GM in San Fran. Plus they have signed everyone under the sun in FA, so they may be willing to wheel and deal with their surplus of picks to specifically target guys they want.
     

Share This Page

Welcome to the ultimate resource for Steelers fans. Sign Up Here!