If Tannehill is gone I think we trade down with Cincinnati for the 17th and 21st. If they want to move up.

It takes two to tangle, and as you even said "if they wanna move up". The bigger question, if Tannehill is gone (or Sherman "Flynns" him), what are some names that could fall to us that teams would want to move up to get?

no way we get 2 1st round picks for trading down 9 spots. However I would jump on that if offered.

That would be ideal trade down and adquire more picks in next years draft in order to move up to the first slot in 2013.

Because i have a feeling matt moore is going to luck out and win a couple of games there.

I Nominate The Real Deal Tannehill For President.....The Next MONTANA-ELWAY-MARINO-AIKMAN- YOUNG-UNITAS Clone( in no particular order )

I heard rumors that New England is wanting to trade their #1's (27 & 31) to move uP into the top 10.

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

Follow me on Twitter @aqua_and_orange

#27 and #31 is not enough to get into the top 10. I wouldn't want to move down that far anyway---not that there's a chance in hell we do a deal with the pats

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I heard rumors that New England is wanting to
> trade their #1's (27 & 31) to move uP into the top
> 10.

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

Not gonna happen. They may be able to get into the top 20, but that's about it.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> #27 and #31 is not enough to get into the top 10.
> I wouldn't want to move down that far anyway---not
> that there's a chance in hell we do a deal with
> the pats


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I never said that was all they wanted to include in a trade.

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

Follow me on Twitter @aqua_and_orange

would you take their 2 #1's and a second?

I would consider that, we could load up with 2 firsts, 2 seconds & 2 thirds and sound player selection.One player isn't helping us
We reached for Pouncey last year

Imagine this in the first 4

Fleener
Tannehill or Weeden
Jefferey, Sanu or kendall Wright
Bruce irvin or Vinny Curry
Bobby massie Or Brandon Mosley or Zebrie Sanders
Harrison Smith or George lloka
Chris Givens, Ryan Broyles, Tommy Streeter

Fills a lot of holes

jlyell13 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> would you take their 2 #1's and a second?


definetely yes. shouldnt think about it twice. There wont be noone at # 8 worth getting when we pick.

But i doubt they will give a second as well.

I Nominate The Real Deal Tannehill For President.....The Next MONTANA-ELWAY-MARINO-AIKMAN- YOUNG-UNITAS Clone( in no particular order )

Not sure if they would but the Pats do a lot of unexpected things in drafts and according to the draft point chart that is about what they would have to give. Not sure they feel there is someone at 8 they really want Floyd? Kirkpatrick? Upshaw? Perry?

#8 1400

27 680
31 600
62 284






[www.sportznutz.com]

We went from #12 to #28 a few years ago and only got a #2 and Tim Dobbins, PLUS we had to give up our 4th & 6th rnd picks. What makes you guys think we're gonna get a kings ransom this year??

[miamiherald.typepad.com]

Dolphaholic,

Here is the problem. For some reason, people around here still think that a chart that Jimmy Johnson created almost 25 years ago still plays into todays trades.

I have told them over and over and over, the chart went out nearly a decade ago. Nobody uses it.

Traded today are represented solely by "supply and demand".

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

Follow me on Twitter @aqua_and_orange

Agreed, "IF" New England is willing to give us their two firsts, and a second, to move up to number eight then we should jump on that immediately.

I'd even do it for thier two firsts and a third....this year.

I am not sure this is correct. I still hear of this referenced by analysts. It really is all dependent on player valuation

New England has historically traded down and picked up additional picks, but if they are after a Michael Floyd or Dre Kirkpatrick, you never know. Stranger things have happened.

Ken, given the fact that the Pats picks are so low, I would only be willing to do that if I felt that BOTH 1) I could still get Weeden with their first pick and 2) there were an abundance of "can't miss" players to be drafted at either OL, WR, or DE [OLB].



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2012 03:21PM by ChyrenB.

Chyren, I ageee and I would only do it on your conditions. However, on your second point I would change it from "abundance of can't miss players" to "abundance of players we really like". The can't miss guys will be gone after the top 6 or 7 picks. Also, I don't want to trade down if a "can't miss" guy falls to us at 8. We need those impact type of players.

Who is the one "Can't miss" guy that will be there at 8? We need a bunch of players like the Rams, not just one.

Tannehill smells like Matt Cassell. Limited college playing time, and we think he is the franchise QB? Name me one college QB with one year of experience that became a franchise QB? Kurt Warner might be the only one. Is he the next Kurt Warner, Matt Cassell, or Matt Moore?

My definition of "can't miss" in this context is not the same as for QB. Remember I said OL, WR, or Pass rusher. What I mean is if the draft is heavy with guys who are rated A at those positions that would mean that you could get at least one of them at 22 or 24 (or whatever the Hell choices the Pats have) and draft Weeden too.

So suppose you have three or more guys at each of those positions, there is bound to be one left for someone drafting in the 20's of the first round. That makes trading down feasible.

We HAVE TO GET, in the first round, JUST HAVE TO GET, an upgrade at one of those positions AND if we can, Weeden.

We cannot afford. in my opinion, to give up everything (or pass up a chance to get TWO first round picks) just for Tannehill.

Hell, no! Not Tannehill.

Andrew Luck? Yes.

RGIII? Yes.

Tannehill? No. That would be just like us surrendering the opportunity to take OL, WR. or Pass rusher in the first round in exchange for Matt Flynn.

But to tell the truth, there were plenty of people on this board willing to do that before Flynn signed.