PDA

View Full Version : What if Colbert was able to successfully trade up for Unger?



RuthlessBurgher
04-28-2009, 03:58 PM
Max Unger was taken by Seattle with the 49th pick in the second round (which is worth 410 points on the trade value chart). If you add up our picks at 2.64 (270 pts.), 3.96 (116 pts.), and 5.168 (24.2 pts.) that adds up to 410.2 points. Even trade.

So what might the rest of our draft have looked like if we were able to pull off such a trade which addressed both lines on day one with Hood at 32 and Unger at 49?

Well, in the actual draft, after addressing both lines with Hood and Urbik, Colbert next turned his attention to a speedy WR with return skills in Mike Wallace. Since we wouldn't have any 3rd round picks in this scenario, we would have to wait until the end of round 4. Who was available there? Johnny Knox from Abilene Christian, who just happens to be a speedy WR with return skills. How about that.

After getting his deep-threat wideout, he turned his attention to corner the real draft. Since our next pick in this scenario is the 5th round comp pick, he would likely take Joe Burnett there, just like in the actual draft.

And in the 6th, I'd imagine he would stand by his Sonny Harris pick, even though many of us preferred Myron Pryor instead.

It gets interesting in the 7th. In the actual draft, we took Shipley with the Mahan pick from Tampa. He probably wouldn't take Shipley when he already has Unger (if he projects Unger to center...however, if he thinks Unger is better suited to guard or right tackle long term, then A.Q. would still be a possibility). If not Shipley, then you can look to the guy taken immediately after Shipley in the actual draft, CB Mike Mickens from Cincinnati (who, like Shipley, was projected to go much earlier). If he was willing to take two corners in the actual draft in Lewis and Burnett, he could go with two corners in this hypothetical draft with Burnett and Mickens. If not that, the pick immediately after Mickens in the actual draft was Nebraska OT Lydon Murtha, who was an impressive speciman at the combine that many folks here liked. Tough call.

With the last pick, they could address the big back position with Liberty RB Rashad Jennings, since they were not able to get Summers earlier after trading away their fifth rounder in the Unger deal and used the untradeable comp on Burnett instead of Summers.

Would you have been as happy with a draft like this?

1. Ziggy Hood
2. Max Unger
4. Johnny Knox
5. Joe Burnett
6. Sonny Harris
7. Shipley/Mickens/Murtha (take your pick)
7. Rashad Jennings

Mel Blount's G
04-28-2009, 04:27 PM
Maybe but here's my thing: That big corner Lewis looks good. Imagine him becoming an Ike that can actually catch? That may make him all-pro material (a reach, I know). If wallace gives us a threa as a KR, putting any amount of fear into an oppositions kick off, that would be huge! The Tank looks real good. If he gets all the 3rd and 4th and ones that we missed last year, halleuijah! Not to mention the potential for him as a kreider-like FB as well as a 3rd down receiving threat. Urbik looks real good. I'm picturing a Kemo but smarter, who makes the right read on blitzes. Shipley's moot if unger's as good as advertised. Harris is an unknwn factor to me; if he has a deebo-like work ethic he could be a stud in a few years otherwise he's an orien or roye or etc.... But if Unger were to not only start immediately but give us a Joe Thomas-like rookie performance at center OR guard, well then....

In sum, it's all a bunch of if's and what's. If guys realize full potential in our draft as is, I think it would have the edge on a draft w/ unger even if he were to live up to the hype. IMO

Sugar
04-28-2009, 06:09 PM
No Frank the Tank= :nono

Snatch98
04-28-2009, 07:09 PM
I personally would prefer the draft we have rather than the proposed scenario. I think Mike Wallace is going to be more than just a KR but rather the slot/stretch the field presence with better hands than Nate. I also love the Summers pick and you can't deny the size of Lewis. It's also pretty cool that both he and Wallace are best friends.

RuthlessBurgher
04-29-2009, 03:31 PM
No Frank the Tank= :nono

Okay, if you absolutely have to have Summers, then I could change this:

1. Ziggy Hood
2. Max Unger
4. Johnny Knox
5. Joe Burnett
6. Sonny Harris
7. Shipley/Mickens/Murtha (take your pick)
7. Rashad Jennings

To this:

1. Ziggy Hood
2. Max Unger
4. Johnny Knox
5. Frank Summers
6. Sonny Harris
7. Mike Mickens
7. Trevor Canfield

Does that make you feel better now? :P

RuthlessBurgher
04-29-2009, 03:43 PM
Another possibility:

What if we were able to trade up to get Michael Oher, one of the top 4 tackles in the draft that was considered to be potentially elite by many draft pundits?

I said that if Oher slipped down into the 20's, I would be interested in trading up. Our division rivals in Baltimore did just that, trading up to get him at pick #23.

The last time we had pick #32 after Super Bowl XL, we traded up from #32 to #25 to take Santonio Holmes, so the precedent was certainly there.

In order to complete that trade, we sent our 1st, 3rd, and 4th round picks to the New York Giants. To get up a couple spots higher than that, we would likely have to give up a bit more to the trade-happy Pats, let's say our 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 6th.

Four picks for one seems like a lot to give up, but when you start out with nine picks because of a 5th round comp and an extra 7th rounder from Tampa from the Mahan trade, you would still have 6 picks overall after the trade, only one less than you would have in a typical draft class.

If we made such a trade for Oher, who could we have drafted with the remaining picks? How about this:

1. OT Michael Oher
2. DE Jarron Gilbert
5. CB Joe Burnett
5. RB Frank Summers
7. OC A.Q. Shipley
7. WR Quan Cosby

You still address the trenches on both sides of the ball with your first two picks. You still are able to replace BMac, Russell, and Nate. You still get players with returnability in Burnett and Cosby. Although we are able to get a second o-lineman late here and not a second d-lineman, you could have put a top priority on getting another d-line prospect among the available UDFA's such as Zach Potter, Will Johnson, Everette Pendescleaux, or Chris Baker.

I think this could be my favorite potential draft scenario of all, based upon how difficult it is to come across potentially elite tackle prospects where we usually pick in the draft (and particular since both of our starting tackles have contracts that will expire after this season). I think all 6 guys would have a really good shot to make the 53 man roster In the actual draft, I think maybe 7 out of the 9 picks have a shot at making the final roster, with at least 2 of them being placed on the practice squad, so in the grade scheme of things, it would not be all that different.

What do you folks think?

steelers43
04-29-2009, 04:16 PM
No Frank the Tank= :nono


I'd have liked that draft better and wouldn't have been surprised if Tank was still there in the 6th or 7th. I see Unger as a tackle, not a center, so I'd have taken Shipley also.

steelers43
04-29-2009, 04:17 PM
Thing is though, you have to have someone willing to take the deal and move down. We apparently did NOT.

Mel Blount's G
04-29-2009, 04:22 PM
Now THAT does have a certain allure to it....mainly the potential of a franchise player at LT. Still, one need consider:

Gilbert is no Hood imo. I know you're big on Gilbert Ruth but I'm getting a gut feeling that in 1-2 years Hood will be a STUD at our DE. I mean, he will not only be what A. Smith is now (a rock of dependability at his role in our 3-4) but he will also will bring even more talent, even an actual pass rushing threat from a 3-4 lineman ala' Richard Seymour. I'm not sure Gilbert has "it" that I feel Hood does. I mean, consider this was "the guy" in this draft for our d-line coach. That speaks volumes.

Also, that 2nd CB, Lewis, may end up being a significant need if (of course assuming he pans out to be a decent pro) several factors we're to become reality:
- he is groomed to play safety and can replace carter and/or clark if clark can't be resigned. A Carnell Lake type? (No, let's pretend I didn't really say it but just briefly thought it)
- Townshend isn't resigned and leaves==>void
- Gay falters to be a productive starter, despite most of our predictions that he will be fine==>void


But then if Oher ends up as the next Orlando Pace, these above considerations are secondary and absolutely hell yes trading up for him woulda been a move for the ages.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
04-29-2009, 05:08 PM
In order to complete that trade, we sent our 1st, 3rd, and 4th round picks to the New York Giants. To get up a couple spots higher than that, we would likely have to give up a bit more to the trade-happy Pats, let's say our 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 6th.

The problem with your argument is that we would never be able to get to 20 that cheaply. Think about it....it cost us a third and a fourth to move up 7 spots. You think that for the next five spots we would only pay an extra sixth?? The last five spots should be more expensive than the first seven, so it should cost us at least a second. More likely we'd be looking at a 2nd, 4th, and 5th at least.

So, we would have Oher in the first, then not pick again until the 3rd, then our 5th comp. pick, then two in the 7th.

Oracle
04-29-2009, 06:43 PM
ruthless-

i was thinking the same thing. Remember it's actually: Oher + Gilbert + probably 4 million in actual cap savings (from Starks release) which could be used for a quality free agent + Starks' comp pick.

- vs. -

Hood + Urbik + Wallace + Lewis.

On paper i probably still take the Oher scenario. Even at 1.32 + 3.32 + 4.32 + 6.32

But it's tricky because if Oher turns out to be a tad slow of foot on the left side at the nfl level, then the deal sucks ass. Oher would have to be a sure thing and i don't know the FO could say that. Plus, each of the first four players we selected this year probably sees the field in 2009 and may start by 2010. That's a lot of holes filled, which also saves us free agent money in two years.

Eddie Spaghetti
04-29-2009, 06:50 PM
this doesn't make alot of sense.

starks $$ is guaranteed anyways.

trade pryor for harris in the 6th and i would be dancing in the streets.

RuthlessBurgher
04-29-2009, 07:37 PM
In order to complete that trade, we sent our 1st, 3rd, and 4th round picks to the New York Giants. To get up a couple spots higher than that, we would likely have to give up a bit more to the trade-happy Pats, let's say our 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 6th.

The problem with your argument is that we would never be able to get to 20 that cheaply. Think about it....it cost us a third and a fourth to move up 7 spots. You think that for the next five spots we would only pay an extra sixth?? The last five spots should be more expensive than the first seven, so it should cost us at least a second. More likely we'd be looking at a 2nd, 4th, and 5th at least.

So, we would have Oher in the first, then not pick again until the 3rd, then our 5th comp. pick, then two in the 7th.

My suggested package was not to move up to #20. It was to move up to #23.

If Detroit wanted to trade down from #20, they could have. But they didn't. They took the best TE in the draft in Pettigrew. So that wasn't do-able.

Philly had pick #21, but they weren't trading down...they were trading up to get Maclin at #19. So then Cleveland had #21. After already trading down three times (from 5 to 17 with the Jets, then 17 to 19 with Tampa, then 19 to 21 with Philly), they weren't going to trade down a fourth time, and if they did, it surely wouldn't be to help us. So that wasn't do-able.

If Minnesota wanted to trade down from #22, they could have. But they didn't. They took Harvin. So that wasn't do-able.

The first team in the 20's willing to trade down in the 20's was New England. They accepted an offer from Baltimore, which gave them 1.26 and 5.162.

According to the draft trade value chart, 1.23 is worth 760 points, while 1.26 and 5.162 is worth 726.6 points (700 + 26.6). My package of 1.32, 3.96, 4.132, and 6.205 is worth 755.4 points (590 + 116 + 40 + 9.4).

It would be one thing if New England only wanted to move two 3 spots in the first in order to get their guy (somebody they didn't think would last all the way to #32), but then New England goes ahead and trades with the Packers, moving them all the way back to pick #41 and out of the first round entirely.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
04-30-2009, 08:39 AM
In order to complete that trade, we sent our 1st, 3rd, and 4th round picks to the New York Giants. To get up a couple spots higher than that, we would likely have to give up a bit more to the trade-happy Pats, let's say our 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 6th.

The problem with your argument is that we would never be able to get to 20 that cheaply. Think about it....it cost us a third and a fourth to move up 7 spots. You think that for the next five spots we would only pay an extra sixth?? The last five spots should be more expensive than the first seven, so it should cost us at least a second. More likely we'd be looking at a 2nd, 4th, and 5th at least.

So, we would have Oher in the first, then not pick again until the 3rd, then our 5th comp. pick, then two in the 7th.

My suggested package was not to move up to #20. It was to move up to #23.

If Detroit wanted to trade down from #20, they could have. But they didn't. They took the best TE in the draft in Pettigrew. So that wasn't do-able.

Philly had pick #21, but they weren't trading down...they were trading up to get Maclin at #19. So then Cleveland had #21. After already trading down three times (from 5 to 17 with the Jets, then 17 to 19 with Tampa, then 19 to 21 with Philly), they weren't going to trade down a fourth time, and if they did, it surely wouldn't be to help us. So that wasn't do-able.

If Minnesota wanted to trade down from #22, they could have. But they didn't. They took Harvin. So that wasn't do-able.

The first team in the 20's willing to trade down in the 20's was New England. They accepted an offer from Baltimore, which gave them 1.26 and 5.162.

According to the draft trade value chart, 1.23 is worth 760 points, while 1.26 and 5.162 is worth 726.6 points (700 + 26.6). My package of 1.32, 3.96, 4.132, and 6.205 is worth 755.4 points (590 + 116 + 40 + 9.4).

It would be one thing if New England only wanted to move two 3 spots in the first in order to get their guy (somebody they didn't think would last all the way to #32), but then New England goes ahead and trades with the Packers, moving them all the way back to pick #41 and out of the first round entirely.

Got you. I was thinking that you wanted to jump ahead of 23 to beat Baltimore to the punch.