Would you trade down to #30?

Mike Mayock and John Clayton are both saying they expect the 49ers to trade up for a WR, most likely targeting Brandin Cooks or Odell Beckham Jr. they need speed at the position. If Gilbert and Evans are gone at #15 I would consider it, probably receive a extra 2nd or 3rd in return. Ozzie Newsome said the Ravens have gotten calls about trading down from #17, I was wondering if Colbert has gotten any calls about #15. If you traded to #30 you probably won't have a shot at Fuller though.

 

you lost me ... how do we TRADE UP and receive an extra 2nd or 3rd?

HINES

 

The draft value chart seems to indicate we could trade back from 15 to 30 and then also pick up the 49ers #56 and #77. That would give us #30, #46, #56, #77 and #97. I would LOVE this. So much value in rounds 2 and 3 and we have such a void going from #46 to #97 as it currently stands.

 

It says "...both saying they expect the 49ers to trade up for a WR..."


It doesnt say the Steelers trade up.

--------------------

Anyways....I'd consider it...depending on the deal and whos available and such. Thats a ways to trade back but it could be worth it for an additional 2nd and 3rd. I think the early to mid 20s could be nice...but hmmm....def interesting

 

definetely

 

If Gilbert, Dennard, Evans and Ebron are all off the board then yes, i'd definitely consider it.

 

Ozzie will deal, he has supreme confidence
in his abilities to judge talent. Steelers,
not so much.

 

I'm not so sure. Depends on which studs we are looking at and how the draft rolls out. I like the idea of a top 15 pick, as you stand a better chance finding a stud, where as picking 30 plus another 2nd rounder just leads to more mediocre talent that we already have.

 

The only way I wouldn't is if Watkins, Mathews, Clowney, or Mack were still there at 15. Since all should be top 8 picks no matter what I would even consider doing it before the daft even started.

 

I've even thought about Washington and moving out of the first. Washington doesn't have a first.

grabbing their 2nd pick of the round in 2 and 3 and maybe swapping 4th's. that would give us pick two (34) of rd.2 and pick 46 of rd. two. then we get pick two of rd.3 (66) and ours at (97) in rd. 3. in rd.4 we would move to their 2nd pick of the rd. and give them ours at 15th. any thoughts on this?

 

I would have no problem trading back like this. I might even consider trading back into the 3rd with next year's pick in order to increase our talent pool.

 

Unless the deal was just too good to pass,no. I would rather have quality than quantity.

 

..yes but the value between 15 and 30 is not big then with additional picks you regain ours 3rd round and maybe you can trade up somewhere if somebody good slip .. the crop of this draft is in the 2nd and 3rd rounds

 

I believe there are three corners who would contribute greatly next year in the first, Dennard, Gilbert, and Fuller. None of them will be available at 30. Ebron won't be available at 30. At 30 you take a crap shoot as to whether your pick is a difference maker (see Z. Hood, C. Heyword). At 15, you almost have to try to take a washout. So no, two extra picks aside, I would not trade that far, even in a deep draft. If two of the top three corners are on the board, I would consider a trade to 18, 19, 20, 21. No further.

 

Ever wonder if "the deepest" draft talk that seems to happen every year, it just talk? Let's see some results, anyone ever do an analysis of the draft years (all teams) showing hits & misses for the 250+ picks a year, say 3-5 years after the draft year? I'd be surprised if you could notice any significant "deepest draft" years from year to year. I'm not saying just looking at "studs", but I'd think there has to be some analyst out there that has examined draft pick longevity and success by year. Anyone?

 

there are a lot more safeties than that in this one steel.