Trading Up to #13 with #27 & #31 for Mississippi State DT Fletcher Cox

[State]

If Fletcher Cox is available when Arizona is on the clock at #13, we should easily entice them with our two firsts. I hear they are actively looking to move down. They need desperately offensive line help, which they'll certainly find at the end of the first round.

Do you think it's a good trade? I think it would be great for both franchises. Cox is head and shoulders better than Worthy and esp. lackadaisical Still, both of whom would likely be options when we pick.

 

[Sciz]

re: Trading Up to #13 with #27 & #31 for Mississippi State DT Fletcher Cox

Not a fan unless the Pats stick with the 4-3. I don't want Cox 2-gapping.

 

[Snake Eyes]

re: Trading Up to #13 with #27 & #31 for Mississippi State DT Fletcher Cox

They can use those 1st round picks on Cox but they can also trade them back, will Cox have more impact than Amini Silatolu + Shea McClellin + Josh Chapman + Nate Potter + Dale Moss, etc?

 

[patsfaninpa]

re: Trading Up to #13 with #27 & #31 for Mississippi State DT Fletcher Cox

Not a fan unless the Pats stick with the 4-3. I don't want Cox 2-gapping.

I don't think there is a defensive player in the draft worth two firsts. And, I'm including Claiborne in that group. None of them are sure-shot pro-bowl types. None of the top DL can be considered a sure thing in a 3-4. Wouldn't mind moving up some to get him. But, not both firsts.

 

[ATippett56]

re: Trading Up to #13 with #27 & #31 for Mississippi State DT Fletcher Cox

If Fletcher Cox is available when Arizona is on the clock at #13, we should easily entice them with our two firsts. I hear they are actively looking to move down. They need desperately offensive line help, which they'll certainly find at the end of the first round.

Do you think it's a good trade? I think it would be great for both franchises. Cox is head and shoulders better than Worthy and esp. lackadaisical Still, both of whom would likely be options when we pick.

Are you pimping your binkies this month or what?

 

[Off The Grid]

re: Trading Up to #13 with #27 & #31 for Mississippi State DT Fletcher Cox

If Fletcher Cox is available when Arizona is on the clock at #13, we should easily entice them with our two firsts. I hear they are actively looking to move down. They need desperately offensive line help, which they'll certainly find at the end of the first round.

Do you think it's a good trade? I think it would be great for both franchises. Cox is head and shoulders better than Worthy and esp. lackadaisical Still, both of whom would likely be options when we pick.

Brother State, I think this is a GOD awful idea, and the next notion you present that I agree with will be the first one!! But I SALUTE you for busting out all these ideas, and getting the creative juices flowing!! :rocker:

 

[State]

re: Trading Up to #13 with #27 & #31 for Mississippi State DT Fletcher Cox

I'm sorry. I guess I am. But Blame Ochmed Jones. He got me excited about this guy. Then I started watching video. I'd rather trade out of the first if the only legitimate front seven guy left is Devon Still.

Watching Cox go against the big boys of Alabama was eye-opening.

I just think he's worth it.

 

[stevedogc]

re: Trading Up to #13 with #27 & #31 for Mississippi State DT Fletcher Cox

I can't see why anyone would want to spend 2 first round picks on a guy most think still needs time to develop. Everything I have read on this guy said he is raw and needs time to develop but has a ton of potential and athleticism. To me, that is another way of saying bust potential. Especially if you spend 2 firsts on him. Now I could be way off and he could turn into a probowler, but there seems be some questions about the type of player he could be. I mean, its not like he was very productive in college. If he (brockers or Poe as well) slip to the late teens or around 20, Id consider trading 27 and 63 or 94 on him. But not both firsts. To much risk.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

re: Trading Up to #13 with #27 & #31 for Mississippi State DT Fletcher Cox

Like I said in the other thread about Ingram and Brockers....

We've only gotten 4 good players out of 15 draft picks that we've had in the 2nd and 3rd combined since 2006.

I would have no problem trading away 2nd and 3rd rounders.


I mean, the Jets essentially just lost a 2nd rounder to move up 11 spots for Darrelle Revis.

In hindsight, it was a great trade for them. They got the best CB in the league and only lost a 2nd rounder.

 

[patsfaninpa]

re: Trading Up to #13 with #27 & #31 for Mississippi State DT Fletcher Cox

I mean, the Jets essentially just lost a 2nd rounder to move up 11 spots for Darrelle Revis.

In hindsight, it was a great trade for them. They got the best CB in the league and only lost a 2nd rounder.

You can't cherry pick one trade and say it's good to trade up. Fletcher Cox is a raw prospect. Not a sure thing at all. If we were trading up for Suh or even Patrick Peterson last year. I would do it. For F. Cox, I'm not sure he's a can't miss. I remember a trade where the Jets traded all the way up to number 3 overall to get a sure thing. Dwayne Robertson. How did that one work out for them?

 

[manxman2601]

re: Trading Up to #13 with #27 & #31 for Mississippi State DT Fletcher Cox

If I'm a 4-3 team, I wouldn't hesitate to draft Cox in the top 10. He's going to be special (and I don't think there's much of a bust factor there with him either). When I mock, I have him either going to the Rams @6 or Jags @7. I'm a little more concerned about him in a base 3-4 and don't think we'd pick an interior rusher in the first round. I think I read that BB has never drafted a DT under 300 lb's so he's borderline for the Pats right there. However, outside of Claiborne, he's one of the top 4 defensive talents from a Patriots perspective in the draft (Barron, Kirkpatrick and Brockers being the others). So I wouldn't be disappointed if this is how it would go down.

 

[supafly]

re: Trading Up to #13 with #27 & #31 for Mississippi State DT Fletcher Cox

It seems as though Belichick has grown accustomed to stockpiling more picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, as he likely feels as though there is a greater chance of hitting on some homeruns with more physical picks.

In the 2 yr span from 2009-2011, I believe that we had #24 actual draft picks, while the NYJ didn't even have #24 in a 5 yr span. That would lead to the argument that having more picks likely equals a greater chance of hitting on someone.

Of course there will be losses and picks wasted too in this process, but Belichick has also been playing with 'house money' too, since most of the picks that were lost were not actually even ours to begin with.

This leads me to believe that...NO--he would not trade up for too many players, if anyone at all. At least not in the 'rebuilding phase' that took place in the last few yrs. Whether that is over or not is anyone's guess, and only Bill Belichick knows the answer to that.