- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,806
- Reaction score
- 4,306
- Points
- 318
- Alma Mater
I’d pass on that.
 }})
The 2026 Draft Thread - 1st Round - 7th overall
- Thread starter Canadian Hog
- Start date
BayouBrave86
The 1st Round Pick
I was stoked about Sean. Was lukewarm on Landry and then he went full David Boston lol.
Styles/Downs/Love..one of these 3 and we hit a HR. Mansoor would be solid too and solidify our CB pairing for the next decade.
Styles/Downs/Love..one of these 3 and we hit a HR. Mansoor would be solid too and solidify our CB pairing for the next decade.
BayouBrave86
The 1st Round Pick
A lot of people during that draft wanted Kellen Winslow on ES. Man what a disaster that guy was.
ES1974
The 1st Round Pick
Yeah, most on here would. I get that.
Skinfanjon
The UDFA
According to the trade value chart, 16 and 33 would be worth 1580 points and 7 is worth 1500. Pick 44 is worth 460 points.
It’s at least equitable if not generous.
I’m not trading with the Jets though unless they cough up one of those 27 1st’s.
clskinsfan
The Starter
I would guess Styles or Reese. They are begging to replace Micah.
RexTomb
The 1st Round Pick
I think even if they offer the first, if Love is on the board, you decline the offer and stay put.
Anselmheifer
The Starter
I don’t think trade chart value is the issue. It’s passing on blue chip talent to add 16 and 33 in a draft where scouts have repeatedly said that there are 11 or 12 legitimate 1st round talents.
I wouldn’t trade out of a blue chip anyway, but I think you can throw out the draft value chart for the top 10 picks this year.
ES1974
The 1st Round Pick
I’d question the volume of ‘blue chip’ players to be honest.
The more the discussion goes, some people are filtering guys out left right and centre, whilst others may be convincing themselves players would be ‘alright’ at #7.
I think the talk that the majority of the top 7 would like to bail out is telling.
Discobob
The Free Agent Vet
Of course it all depends on who is available on the clock at 7, but I'd probably be down with that. I know there is a vocal "No trade downs" contingent here, but I'm not one of them. I think most of that is born out of poor player evaluations in our past decisions... not the trades themselves.
While not enamored with some of our drafts, I'm chosing to trust our FO for the time being. If they think there is a group of players that stretch to 16 that are close in value, picking up two 2nds would be great.
I'd say that the likelihood of getting a blue chip player at 7 vs 16, 33, and 44 would favor the three picks.
clskinsfan
The Starter
My issue is that I am not really impressed with Peters' drafts so far at all. That could make this go either way for me. Stay at 7 and have a chance to get a real franchise changing player. Or get the extra picks and have a better chance of hitting on at least one of them. This draft is pretty lousy overall. I have been saying it for months. I think you are just as likely to bust int he top ten in this draft as you are in the second round. I would probably take that trade and along with it the extra chances to find at least one good player from a VERY weak draft class.
ES1974
The 1st Round Pick
Perhaps a lack of trust in the FO decision making is influencing the must stay at #7 line. I could see that.
Let’s get out of here with a pick at #7 that you almost can’t flunk on……
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 15,891
- Reaction score
- 9,225
- Points
- 1,093
- Location
- W Palm Beach & Helsinki
One in the hand is better than two (or three) in the bush.
Discobob
The Free Agent Vet
Those are all very reasonable thoughts. I agree that this front office has not "wowed"... but their misses have been accentuated by the fact that our roster was a dumpster fire. I suspect they have probably performed somewhere in the league average range.
I also agree that it's likely that 1/2 the top 10 busts. Reece could go #2 and be another Isaiah Simmons. Everytime someone evaluates a poor trade back scenario, they always use hindsight to judge who we could have drafted... the fact is that they probably have no clue who we would have drafted if the team had stayed put.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,806
- Reaction score
- 4,306
- Points
- 318
- Alma Mater
Yes, a lot of people here have noted our historical ineptitude at capitalizing on trade backs and Peters relatively weak draft classes.
That 100% plays a factor.
Also… we don’t have elite talent.
Take a high end guy and move on. Don’t get cute. Just stick, pick and go.
If we trade back a slot and know we’re going to get our guy? Fine.
2 slots? Riskier and I am more off put and mostly against.
3 slots? Nope.
4 slots? Go Nats.
I would not trade down if it meant passing on any of Tate, Love or Downs. Love and Downs are blue chip, Tate is the best at a premium position of need.
Styles is IMO by far the best MLB in the draft, so maybe he falls in the above category as well (edit)
If all 3 are gone, I am not sure that the gap between who would be there at 7 as opposed to 12 or 16 is that much of a gap.
Styles is IMO by far the best MLB in the draft, so maybe he falls in the above category as well (edit)
If all 3 are gone, I am not sure that the gap between who would be there at 7 as opposed to 12 or 16 is that much of a gap.
ES1974
The 1st Round Pick
I’m also taking elite talent if it’s there at #7.
Is there really that much elite talent this year. That currently seems very debatable.
Interesting all the same.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,806
- Reaction score
- 4,306
- Points
- 318
- Alma Mater
Love, Styles, Downs, Delane are all elite level talent that have a shot at being available.
Tate is the next level but his value to us would be extremely valuable at 7.
What’s left if we drop to 16 may not be.
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 10, Members: 0, Guests: 10)
You haven't joined any rooms.