Flipping our usual draft and trade 1st round (trade #27, not #31)

[Ochmed Jones]

As this draft gets closer and closer to unfolding, we hear lots of rumors about teams wanting to trade down (Vikings for instance) and some teams wanting to go up (Philly for instance) but regardless of who moves where, the chances are a player or player(s) will probably still be on the board at #27, that most draftniks had with a top 20 or 15 grade.

So wouldn't it make more sense for BB leverage #27 in a trade (hopefully for a 2012 2nd and a 2013 1st) and then use the pick aT #31?

So if a player like Copples or Keuchly or someone or similar quality tumbles to #27, does anybody else see BB reversing his usual playbook in the first round?

I see him doing this because I can not see BB being locked into any one player when picking so low in the first round. My guess is he will have a couple of different players targeted and because of this, he can always come back at #31 and take whichever one is left on the board at that time while using #27 for a max return.

 

[Leemo]

It all depends who is there when we pick. BB's draft board won't look like the ones we see on the internet. He'll know who he rates and who he doesn't. If no one he sees as 'worth the pick' are there when we pick, we'll move down. That is the most likely scenario. But IO think this may be the year BB uses both 1st rounders BUT again it just depends who is around.

 

[Blackluck]

Sound logic, and yes 27 is more tradable than 31 if the goal is a 1 next year. Not to mention, both Baltimore and GB pick right after 27 - and those two teams trade down a lot as well (ergo less market for the 31.)

I don't think we can really pigeonhole BB into anything. I recall last year everyone said J.J. Watt* would not be picked because of his agent, Tom Condon. But this year we signed Brandon Lloyd, whose agent is - Tom Condon.

*We didn't get Watt not because of his agent, the Texans (smartly) got him early, and we (also smartly IMO) wanted Solder. Look at this years LT prospects. Glad we're not looking for one this year

 

[State]

That won't happen if Brokers or Andre Branch is available at 27. Maybe Worthy.

 

[SamBamsFan]

That won't happen if Brokers or Andre Branch is available at 27. Maybe Worthy.

I would be surprised if Branch, and Worthy were not available @27. Brockers will go earlier IMO.

 

[Spergon Wynn]

27 will definitely be more trade-able than 31, which is getting a little too close to the second (in terms of value). The scenario I see right now is that 27 gets traded and then 31 is up in the air. I can easily imagine both picks being traded and the Patriots having their first pick in the beginning of the second. I know I'd be completely fine with it but I'm sure a lot out there would have problems . . .

 

[Ochmed Jones]

27 will definitely be more trade-able than 31, which is getting a little too close to the second (in terms of value). The scenario I see right now is that 27 gets traded and then 31 is up in the air. I can easily imagine both picks being traded and the Patriots having their first pick in the beginning of the second. I know I'd be completely fine with it but I'm sure a lot out there would have problems . . .

I can see a situation where BB dumps both first rounders, especially if Tanneyhill falls. For the life of me, I can not see why anybody would take Tanneyhill in the top 25. Are they looking at the same tape that I am? I would rather have Cousins than Tanneyhill, because I do not have Weedon on my board. Although Weedon did beat Griffin and Luck this year.