Trading back into the 1st is not my favorite scenario. If we don't trade down and if we pass on a QB with our 1st pick, we might as well draft a QB with our 2nd rounder. No sense trading back into the first and lose draft picks for it.

That assumes that a QB is there at #34.

Both options leave a very REAL chance that we end up with NOTHING.

The reason I and a few others are so against not taking a QB at 1 is taht it takes it out of your hands whether you get your guy. If they like Wilson alot and want him in the second thats fine, but you are taking a risk of not getting your top rated QB and might end up having shit at a position you already have a huge crater at.


I'm tired of not having our choice in our hands during the draft.

I've seen people talking about trading down but not up from the 2nd to a mid first.

Exactly!

THIS.

Even though I'm just messing with you, it has been discussed many, many times.

Trading down, will net us a bunch of extra picks. Trading back up into the mid 1st will COST us a bunch of extra picks. Apples and dingleberries.

WE AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO TRADE DOWN. MOVE ON FROM THAT.

In recent mocks, Wilson and either Barkley/Glennon are there in round 2.

I'm a Wilson homer, so I wouldn't mind if we took a good player at 1 and Wilson at 2 if we really thought Wilson was the best.

Our pick is untradeable.

If Wilson is available to AZ, I can't see them passing on him. Or NY for that matter. ****, even Buffalo.

What player? What do we need that bad?

Joeckel or Star + Wilson? **** no. The only combo that would make sense is Milliner + Wilson and then you're risking being able to get Wilson at all.

Take Wilson #1, there will be 2 or 3 CBs that are almost as good as Milliner that we could nab at #34.

Well....since Alex Smith will be our starter next year, I am pretty sure you can say goodbye to Geno.

Cassel will most likely be cut. Who are you wanting NOW.

This sucks.

Changing mine to Dysert in the 3rd.