KC looking to trade up into top 10.

[ECHornet]

22 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Man I was screaming for Fields last year and when he was there at 8 and passed I was crushed.  Don't get me wrong I love Horn, you just don't see many teams that draft a QB in the top 10 turn it around quickly.  The Lions with Okudah, Jags with Ramsey, the Cards way back when they drafted Peterson.  A shutdown CB is more of a "luxury" position IMO.  We should have Fields, no Sam extension (honestly no Sam trade, but that happened first), the $18.5 million extra cap space and in prime position to grab a LT to complete our OL for Fields...

You’re still wishing for that after Fields’s rookie campaign? I’ll pass until he shows he’s actually a better QB than Darnold. They were pretty comparable (trash) last year. 

[ForJimmy]

5 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

You’re still wishing for that after Fields’s rookie campaign? I’ll pass until he shows he’s actually a better QB than Darnold. They were pretty comparable (trash) last year. 

Absolutely!  He had Nagy and was in and out of the lineup because of Dalton with a bad OL and still flashed some potential.  Rookie years are hard to judge anyway, see any rookie from that class not name Mac Jones (who really didn't have to do much in his offense).  Yeah I would take Fields in a heartbeat now.  Darnold was a 4th year Pro on his second team and still looked like ass.  

[JawnyBlaze]

I’d take this, draft Howell and BPA with the other first. Preferably a LT, but any position that has a significantly better prospect. Worst case scenario Christenson gets to prove one way or the other he can play LT for a full season. 

[trueblade]

18 minutes ago, travisura said:

Did the math and unless I was using the wrong chart, it seems that their 29, 30, and 50 are just over our 1600 point value for pick 6.

It's going to depend on the chart.

That's my issue with Tepper's "negative points" statement. Unless there is one universal chart everyone agrees to use (and there isn't), teams might come to you with a deal they think is positive or equal points (based on THEIR chart), but it calculates to negative points on YOUR chart. Don't just dismiss it out of hand, counter offer. That said, if you can't agree on the value of the assets (the chart), I guess its going to be hard to come to a deal both sides feel is equitable.

[LinvilleGorge]

18 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

You’re still wishing for that after Fields’s rookie campaign? I’ll pass until he shows he’s actually a better QB than Darnold. They were pretty comparable (trash) last year. 

I'll water to judge Fields until he's in a non-Nagy offense. The one constant in his offense was poor QB play, no matter who was on the field. At some point, it ain't the players. The Bears' brass finally woke up and swallowed that bitter pill.

 

 

 

[LinvilleGorge]

1 hour ago, Jon Snow said:

But throwing that much at a rookie wr that has a good chance of being  a bust doesn't seem like a sound choice. They could trade all that for a young proven wr and it would make more sense. 

That young proven WR is a lot closer to a big contract and Mahomes is a huge cap suck. If they wanted to pay a guy they would've just payed Hill.

[Basbear]

31 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

KC’s picks are so late, it’s going to take a lot to jump in the top 10. Similar to the Niners jumping to 3 last year…

 

Yea i need more than that. About my fav moment form the draft late year was Tepper- " DONT CALL US WITH NEGATIVE POINTS!!!!" While Finnesser and Rhule were in full war room mode. 1-6th is a prime spot. 

[tecc86]

1 minute ago, Basbear said:

 

Yea i need more than that. About my fav moment form the draft late year was Tepper- " DONT CALL US WITH NEGATIVE POINTS!!!!" While Finnesser and Rhule were in full war room mode. 1-6th is a prime spot. 

You might want to re-read your chart

[cookinbrak]

So, trading #6 to NO for 2 top 20 picks is a bad idea, but this is a good idea?

[tecc86]

1 minute ago, cookinbrak said:

So, trading #6 to NO for 2 top 20 picks is a bad idea, but this is a good idea?

The NO trade would be fine if it wasnt NO

The KC trade is fine, people here just think the #6 pick is worth as much as a top 2 pick for some reason

[Basbear]

1 minute ago, tecc86 said:

You might want to re-read your chart

I need more points. top 6 jump form 29 is a whole different deal. Many teams only give 16 players 1st round grades. Im not getting a first rounder in talent if you are drafting 29th. Plus all the work the scouts put in and now the plan is totally different? Nah I need more.. as busta says- "gimmie some moar!"

[DaveThePanther2008]

1 minute ago, Basbear said:

I need more points. top 6 jump form 29 is a whole different deal. Many teams only give 16 players 1st round grades. Im not getting a first rounder in talent if you are drafting 29th. Plus all the work the scouts put in and now the plan is totally different? Nah I need more.. as busta says- "gimmie some moar!"

Yes this is true.  I've heard only about 15 or 16 of these guys rate as a 1st round talent. 

[Basbear]

3 minutes ago, tecc86 said:

The NO trade would be fine if it wasnt NO

The KC trade is fine, people here just think the #6 pick is worth as much as a top 2 pick for some reason

I would take iants two 1st for the 6th, try to squeeze a couple late rounders...but i would do it for 2 in the mid. 

[Snake]

1 hour ago, rayzor said:

i'd like to ensure we draft a top LT, but this would be very hard to pass up. 

Yeah they would need to give up both 1st and next years 1st and 2nd imo to crack the top 10. Otherwise you're just hurting your team.