I'd do it for Michael Crabtree and no one else.

 

I was about to say the same thing. :up:

 

only for crabtree or curry

 

I agree with Crabtree or Curry.

 

I hate to speak in absolutes, but here goes anyway:

NO ONE will trade into a top 3 pick unless and until there is a reasonable rookie pay scale. Teams currently see a top-3 pick as a burden, and not an opportunity. Aint no way KC trades out of that pick. The guaranteed money is too big for a top 3 pick.

 

I think the Chiefs will get offers from teams hoping to jump ahead of Seattle for Mark Sanchez. In that respect, I don't think it is worth it for us to try to outbid one of those teams. However, if the deal was reasonable, I would do it for Curry, Crabtree, or Raji. I haven't paid much attention to Orakpo, but I know that we showed more interest than I felt was appropriate considering he was well out of our reach. I just concluded that we were doing due diligence in case a Merling-situation were to occur on Saturday.

 

I agree as well. Question is, if you had your choice...which one would you go after? :headscratch:

And, I agree with you too GARDENHEAD. I really think the economics of the top 5-10 rookie contracts would make a deal like this almost impossible to achieve.

 

Note that the uncapped year is a "possible" uncapped year. We'll see what happens with the collective bargaining.

 

gimme curry or crabtree......and yes

 

I'd trade up for a 1 and 2, but not a 1 , 2, and 3. And yes, only for Crabtree or Curry.

 

I wouldn't trade up for anyone but Jason Smith, Eugene Monroe and Aaron Curry. And that would be hard to do.

 

True, they did scout Orakpo. I just like him more as a 4-3 end.

 

There is no way we are trading up from 25 to 3. It is impossible. Aint gonna happen. Find me the last time any team traded up from the 20s to the top 5 in one jump, then get back to me.
The #3 pick is worth 2200 points.
#25 = 720
#44 = 460
#56 = 340
#87 = 155
#108 = 78
Our 5 best picks = 1753 points
The #5 pick = 1700
Do you really think there is a scintilla of chance that Parcells and Ireland want to give away 5 picks for one, when their bread and butter is the ability to hit on the lower picks?
We need more than one player. I'd love to have Curry of all the top players, but not at the expense of 5 picks. Even IF one of the teams in the top 5 would agree to it.

 

The idea of anyone willing to give up 5 picks to take Crabtree especially, perplexes me. WR at the top of the draft is one of the biggest boom/bust positions. He's a nice prospect, but there is as much chance he is the next Peter Warrick as he is the next Larry Fitzgerald.

 

Do you think that chart is still relevant given the size of the contracts of the top 10 picks, and how much of your cap gets locked up if the pick is a whiff? #3 would still be tuff to get to for us, but I don't know that the value chart holds true for the top 10 anymore.

 

Considering how well we draft, no way trading up for someone who has never played OLB. If we traded up that high, the player better have an immediate impact... which leaves Curry and Crabtree.

The Chiefs said they would basically whore their 1st pick away w/o regard to the trade value chart, so I'd do it if it for Curry if meant our 1st, 2b, and a 4th next year. LOL.

 

Eww on Crabtree.

Curry is the only player worth taking there maybe Raji.

 

Heavily scouting can also mean that you're not sure about the player.... as in a double take of sorts.

 

The draft chart is worthless these days. Besides, it was only a "rule of thumb" kinda thing devised by Jimmy Johnson.

 

I wouldn't call it worthless. Sure, it is not a hard and fast rule, but it is still a basic guideline.
If a trade is made ahead of time, then teams are more likely to stick closer to the chart.
When a team is on the clock and another team really wants to make a move up to get a certain player that they really covet, they are likely to pay more than the chart suggests.

 

By the way, who are we trading up for exactly?

 

In actuality probably no one. In Padre's speculation, please refer to post #1 of this thread. :up:

 

Orakpo or Curry?

Damn.................I'd do it sure, so long as I get the draft picks from the Chiefs to move up, I ain't paying for that. :lol:

 

Due diligence??? :confused2:

 

Quote:

I'd like to present a slightly different slant on this report. But, let me preface this by saying I haven't read about any this firsthand. Just responding to this thread.

I just saw on NFLN that there are rumors floating around that teams may be trying to move up in front of Seattle to pick Sanchez. Washington and NY Jets are the two that were reported. So, my question is...are the Chiefs really "desperate to trade out" as is being reported? Or, are they just trying to take advantage of what might be an opportunity to get out of the three hole and pick up more picks?

 

Both.

Pioli wants more picks. He's always worked that way. They don't want to pay the third overall pick big money from what I understand. They are not looking to invest highly in a player that they are not completely comfortable with. The aforementioned Tyson Jackson is likely there target and he's one of the safest players in the draft; he has to be up there. What they can do attempt to do is pass up on him at three and move to say eight and snatch him up there. One other thing to note is that reportedly Cleveland has interest in selecting Jackson at five. If the Chiefs move out of there despite Cleveland's interests, its because they probably want Connor Barwin - that I'm sure of. Because of that interest in Barwin, they will be able to swing a deal with a team like Denver or New York to acquire multiple extra draft choices and get a guy they want.

 

Because there's a possibility that Orakpo takes a fall. If Orakpo slips in the twelve to fifteen range, they could think about moving up for him and getting him to play strong-side linebacker. He would be the replacement for Joey Porter in the future as he can play weak-side rusher as well. He'd best fit on the weak-side in my opinion because he can't open his hips very well due to stiffness from excessive muscle mass IMO.

Its also part of due diligence. They spoke with Mark Sanchez earlier this off-season. They know anything is possible and at that time, Sanchez was a guy that could go early or take a real tumble ala Brady Quinn.

 

i think we're all overlooking the fact that we can't afford to pay the #3 pick.

 

Don''t see a draft day trade into the top five with the unknown element of how big the contract would be... especially since that's the main disincentive for teams currently stuck picking in the top five.

If the regime had to make that trade, they'd want to have had discussions with their target player's agent to ensure they'd be comfortable with the ballpark figures for a deal. Otherwise it gets messy... you overpay or there's a holdout.

Once you have already picked a guy, you have lost most of your leverage, of course.

Anyways, we have too many needs to go after a stud at the cost of several draft picks.

 

I'm not really in love with any particular player enough to move far up the tree. If we needed a QB that badly that's about it.

 

is crabtree's stock falling?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DcJljoniMA&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - PFTV 4/22/09: Where Will Michael Crabtree Land?[/ame]