Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bucs should trade down

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Bucs should trade down

    The ideal situation would be to trade Miami our #19 (875) for #44 and #56 (800 combined), which are the 12th and 24th picks of the 2nd round. I'd even be willing to throw in Alex Smith.

  • #2
    Originally posted by TRJ997 View Post
    The ideal situation would be to trade Miami our #19 (875) for #44 and #56 (800 combined), which are the 12th and 24th picks of the 2nd round. I'd even be willing to throw in Alex Smith.
    Really? I had Tampa pegged as one of my four most likely teams to trade up.


    Denver Broncos - For potential 3-4 NT BJ Raji, probably the most critical component of the 3-4 defense. One the Broncos lack.

    The New York Jets - Because the Jets have been trading up a lot over the past few drafts and if there is someone they want, they will trade up for him.

    The Tampa Bay Buccaneers - To ensure the Jets don't draft Mark Sanchez if he falls out of the top 10.

    The New York Giants - Because they may need a replacement for Plaxico Burress and there are a lot of teams in front of them who need wide receivers too.

    Comment


    • #3
      If Sanchez falls past SF, I am all for trading up. Who knows what we have in Luke Mccown.

      If not, how about trading back and taking Ron Brace for Bates' defense. (I am not sure where his value lies)

      But what will it take to trade up over NYJ and CHI?
      save Freeman

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah I don't want to trade down at all. If a top QB falls we are in a nice position to land him. We might have to give up our 3rd to move up to 10-12 but I think it would be worth it.

        Even if we can't get a top 2 QB we can still get Josh Freeman or a whole host of CB, LB, DE, DT etc.

        Comment


        • #5
          You never trade down until its your turn to pick. You can have a deal in place in case the players you want don't fall to you.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Crickett View Post
            Really? I had Tampa pegged as one of my four most likely teams to trade up.
            A trade up seems unlikely now that we gave our 2nd rounder for Winslow. We could package our 3rd rounder and move up to 15 or 16 should Sanchez slip, but we can't get to 10-12 and there isn't anyone else worth trading up for. Assuming we don't make anymore splash signings, that would leave us with little amunition to fill our glaring holes at DT, CB, LB, and DE.

            The team wouldn't trade down until draft day, so they could make a decision once we see what happens with Sanchez, but I don't think he's going to slip that far.

            Originally posted by 24cadillac24 View Post
            Even if we can't get a top 2 QB we can still get Josh Freeman or a whole host of CB, LB, DE, DT etc.
            With our host of needs, wouldn't it be a good idea to pick up another 2nd rounder? There isn't that much difference between the talent at 19 and the talent at 44, especially if we are talking about Josh Freeman. There's also the contract savings by getting out of the 1st round, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Glazers pushed for a trade down.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'd rather trade up for Sanchez.

              sig by BoneKrusher

              Comment


              • #8
                I thought the general consensus was to stay away from trading up or even taking Sanchez since he seems too likely to bust?



                "Frosties are corn flakes for people who can't face reality"

                Comment


                • #9
                  The external factors (experience, class) indicate a potential bust factor, but on ability alone I think he's a pretty safe pick.

                  If we can't get Sanchez we MUST trade down. Then we can draft a corner, address our pass rush, draft a WR and possibly get a LB.

                  sig by BoneKrusher

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    He did look very good in his limited action, better than Stafford I think. It is his extreme lack of action that worries me. I don't think he is ready to be a starting QB. If we do get him McCown/Johnson should start for his first season.

                    At 19 I couldn't pass him up and I think he is a good value. In the teens Your never going to be getting a QB that looks really good and has limited risk, alot of drafts you won't have 1 of those peroid. In the NFL unless you have a dominat defense you need a QB to win, gotta take risks when it is a good spot to do it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sanchez is far more ready to start than Josh Johnson. The Josh Johnson I saw in the pre-season was years away from contributing, but he's worth keeping along for his potential.

                      Sanchez showed the complete package against PSU. Playing for USC prepared him well for the NFL and he's ahead of the curve despite having only 1 year of starting experience.

                      sig by BoneKrusher

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by etk View Post
                        Sanchez is far more ready to start than Josh Johnson. The Josh Johnson I saw in the pre-season was years away from contributing, but he's worth keeping along for his potential.

                        Sanchez showed the complete package against PSU. Playing for USC prepared him well for the NFL and he's ahead of the curve despite having only 1 year of starting experience.
                        The whole idea of Josh Johnson as a starter really annoys me. I hate when people argue that we don't need a QB because we have Josh Johnson. (Mainly pewter report and buccaneers.com board but the idea floats around)

                        Not only is Josh Johnson not ready to start, he was and is a huge project and was thought to be best suited for an offense which is no longer employed by our team. He certainly has plenty of potential and is worthy of a spot, but to think he is ready for much more than that at the moment is just stupid.

                        Sanchez has a lot of good things going for him despite limited experience. I would be happy to have him as Luke McCown's back up in 2009.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 24cadillac24 View Post
                          The whole idea of Josh Johnson as a starter really annoys me. I hate when people argue that we don't need a QB because we have Josh Johnson. (Mainly pewter report and buccaneers.com board but the idea floats around)

                          Not only is Josh Johnson not ready to start, he was and is a huge project and was thought to be best suited for an offense which is no longer employed by our team. He certainly has plenty of potential and is worthy of a spot, but to think he is ready for much more than that at the moment is just stupid.

                          Sanchez has a lot of good things going for him despite limited experience. I would be happy to have him as Luke McCown's back up in 2009.
                          Yeah....umm...I'm gonna have to go ahead and sort of...disagree with you there.

                          We're still running a WCO. BC recruited a similar QB in Dominique Davis for their offense. If anything I think Johnson is a better fit for the new offense. It's less rigid and he should have longer drops.

                          sig by BoneKrusher

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by etk View Post
                            Yeah....umm...I'm gonna have to go ahead and sort of...disagree with you there.

                            We're still running a WCO. BC recruited a similar QB in Dominique Davis for their offense. If anything I think Johnson is a better fit for the new offense. It's less rigid and he should have longer drops.
                            Absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing.

                            I just think JJ was better suited to what Chucky wanted. I was shocked that Gruden actually drafted a rookie QB for once. Once the pre-season gets under way we'll really be able to work out what sort of QB is tailor made for our offense.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 24cadillac24 View Post
                              Absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing.

                              I just think JJ was better suited to what Chucky wanted. I was shocked that Gruden actually drafted a rookie QB for once. Once the pre-season gets under way we'll really be able to work out what sort of QB is tailor made for our offense.
                              lol it probably looks like I was being rude, but I was copying a line from Office Space. I had it in the back of mind.

                              sig by BoneKrusher

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information