Folks like Massie & Zeitler but 24 is too high & 56 is too low. How about this trade?

[RuthlessBurgher]

The Rams are likely to take WR Justin Blackmon at #6, and their next biggest need is probably to get at least one dominant DT type between DE's Chris Long and Robert Quinn. They cut their two starting DT's Fred Robbins and Justin Bannon this offseason, and signed Kendall Langford from Miami (who will likely start at one DT spot) and Trevor Laws from Philadelphia (who will likely be a rotational backup type). If someone like Michael Brockers were still on the board at #24, St. Louis might want to move ahead of the Broncos at #25, since they also have a huge need at DT.

Typically, rebuilding teams like the Rams aren't looking to trade up and lose precious picks in the process, but they happen to have two 2nd round picks this year (their own and Washington's as a part of the RG3 trade), and this particular deal will not result in them having less picks...they will still have the same number of picks overall.

The Rams give us both of their 2nd round picks (#33 and #39) in exchange for our 1st and 2nd round picks (#24 and #56).

According to the trade value chart:
2.33 = 580 pts.
2.39 = 510 pts.
Total = 1090 pts.

1.24 = 740 pts.
2.56 = 340 pts.
Total = 1080 pts.

If we had two early 2nd round picks like this, we could theoretically get both Massie and Zeitler, and still have all of the rest of our 8 picks in rounds 3-7 to address our other needs (we could still go after a Mike Martin or Josh Chapman to fill our hole at NT in round 3, or maybe go for a dynamic option at RB like Isaiah Pead to pair with Redman instead, etc.).

Having an OL like this: Massie-Zeitler-Pouncey-Colon-Gilbert would be a strength overall, I would think, instead of a weakness.

I know that there are folks on this board who are against taking OL early this year (never mind two of them) and others who will applaud it in terms of eliminating a major weakness that has plagued this team for year. In general, though, what do you think about the idea of this trade overall (even if you didn't to use the picks on a couple of o-linemen like Massie and Zeitler in particular). Would you rather have a couple of early 2nd rounders instead of having a late first and a late second as usual?

[Flasteel]

I think you obviously have to wait until you see who falls to 24, but if our top rated players are off the board or if we covet a player we feel we can pick up at 33, I would be all over this trade. Good job of thinking outside the box and backing it up with the value chart Ruthless. That said, I doubt I would burn both picks on the o-line.

[Sugar]

Even though I'm against taking an OL first (unless he's BPA), I'm impressed by the homework you've done here.

[Oviedo]

If Zeitler is the player you like best, why the machinations? It's not like you get penalized for taking the player you want when you can get them. You don't get picks taken away.

Never understood the logic that you are willing to lose a player you want unless you trade back.

[insanesteelersfan]

I want a Dodge Neon, but I'm not gonna pay 50,000 dollars for it. Same goes for Zeitler. He is okay, a decent Guard. But you don't select him at 24. But bottom line, I highly doubt he is on the steelers Radar. I think Brandon Brooks is, and he is way better then Zeitler is.

[Mister Pittsburgh]

I think it all works out in the end money/draft slot wise. If the Steelers felt Zeitler could play a great LOG for the next decade & potentially do it at a pro bowl level, but at least play solidly, then I wouldn't cry if they dropped the 24th pick on him.

Alan Faneca was picked 26th overall.

[RuthlessBurgher]

If Zeitler is the player you like best, why the machinations? It's not like you get penalized for taking the player you want when you can get them. You don't get picks taken away.

Never understood the logic that you are willing to lose a player you want unless you trade back.

Well, for me, Zeitler is not the player that I like best. In my mock, I'm hoping for Jonathan Martin to fall to 24 and Alshon Jeffery to fall to 56, but in reality, I highly doubt that either happens. If Martin didn't fall to 24 (I'm assuming that DeCastro and Glenn are off the board as well), and I was able to pull off this deal with the Rams, what I would likely do is try to land Jeffery and Massie in the 2nd, and then hope that Brandon Brooks falls to me in the 3rd. Even though Brooks may not be able to start as soon as Zeitler might, I think Brooks has a higher ceiling (and admittedly, a lower floor as well) than Zeitler. I'd be happy to be able to (eventually) field an OL of Massie-Brooks-Pouncey-Colon-Gilbert, while also getting a big target who will fight for balls in the red zone (which is where we tend to experience most of our problems on offense).

[phillyesq]

If Zeitler is the player you like best, why the machinations? It's not like you get penalized for taking the player you want when you can get them. You don't get picks taken away.

Never understood the logic that you are willing to lose a player you want unless you trade back.

It's all about value. The Steelers wanted Hampton a few years ago, but were able to trade down and acquire extra picks as well as the guy they wanted. If you can get extra picks and the guy you want (or one guy from among a group) then that is the only prudent course.

[phillyesq]

The Rams are likely to take WR Justin Blackmon at #6, and their next biggest need is probably to get at least one dominant DT type between DE's Chris Long and Robert Quinn. They cut their two starting DT's Fred Robbins and Justin Bannon this offseason, and signed Kendall Langford from Miami (who will likely start at one DT spot) and Trevor Laws from Philadelphia (who will likely be a rotational backup type). If someone like Michael Brockers were still on the board at #24, St. Louis might want to move ahead of the Broncos at #25, since they also have a huge need at DT.

Typically, rebuilding teams like the Rams aren't looking to trade up and lose precious picks in the process, but they happen to have two 2nd round picks this year (their own and Washington's as a part of the RG3 trade), and this particular deal will not result in them having less picks...they will still have the same number of picks overall.

The Rams give us both of their 2nd round picks (#33 and #39) in exchange for our 1st and 2nd round picks (#24 and #56).

According to the trade value chart:
2.33 = 580 pts.
2.39 = 510 pts.
Total = 1090 pts.

1.24 = 740 pts.
2.56 = 340 pts.
Total = 1080 pts.

If we had two early 2nd round picks like this, we could theoretically get both Massie and Zeitler, and still have all of the rest of our 8 picks in rounds 3-7 to address our other needs (we could still go after a Mike Martin or Josh Chapman to fill our hole at NT in round 3, or maybe go for a dynamic option at RB like Isaiah Pead to pair with Redman instead, etc.).

Having an OL like this: Massie-Zeitler-Pouncey-Colon-Gilbert would be a strength overall, I would think, instead of a weakness.

I know that there are folks on this board who are against taking OL early this year (never mind two of them) and others who will applaud it in terms of eliminating a major weakness that has plagued this team for year. In general, though, what do you think about the idea of this trade overall (even if you didn't to use the picks on a couple of o-linemen like Massie and Zeitler in particular). Would you rather have a couple of early 2nd rounders instead of having a late first and a late second as usual?

Ruthless, I like this idea. Another thought is potentially trading down with the NY Giants. They are a team that will be looking for a linebacker, and moving up to our spot puts them in front of the Pats* and Ravens, among others.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Ruthless, I like this idea. Another thought is potentially trading down with the NY Giants. They are a team that will be looking for a linebacker, and moving up to our spot puts them in front of the Pats* and Ravens, among others.

Interesting...that would be almost exactly like a reverse Santonio trade (one pick off)...that year we were #32 and the Giants were at #25, and this year the Giants are at #32 and we are at #24.

[Steelersrock151]

Ruthless, I like this idea. Another thought is potentially trading down with the NY Giants. They are a team that will be looking for a linebacker, and moving up to our spot puts them in front of the Pats* and Ravens, among others.

Other reasons to like this trade scenario: A) we get their first, third, and probably either a third or 4th next year. B) the 32nd pick in the draft, along with the 33rd, have additional value for trades down. People who can't believe someone fell to day 2, or want to get their guy before the mad rush at 33 on day 2, will be willing to trade up to jump them. Clevaland wants Weeden, afraid the competition for him will be too steep on Friday, may offer a 2nd and 4th for our first and fifth. Would give us pick 37, 56, 86, 96, 101, and 120.

[Oviedo]

It's all about value. The Steelers wanted Hampton a few years ago, but were able to trade down and acquire extra picks as well as the guy they wanted. If you can get extra picks and the guy you want (or one guy from among a group) then that is the only prudent course.

That's my point, what is the "value?" You don't get dollars or extra picks. You have to find a trade partner which is extremely problematic. Why lose a player being a slave to arbitrary ratings that vary between dozens of pundits?

Value would seem to me to be getting a player who fills a weakness on your roster.

[MeetJoeGreene]

If we could do that and also swap Mendenhall for Jackson in the same trade, I would be all over it.

[phillyesq]

That's my point, what is the "value?" You don't get dollars or extra picks. You have to find a trade partner which is extremely problematic. Why lose a player being a slave to arbitrary ratings that vary between dozens of pundits?

Value would seem to me to be getting a player who fills a weakness on your roster.

The value placed by pundits is not really relevant to the consideration. The only thing that matters is the value placed on the players by the Steelers FO. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Steelers value 20 players as first rounders and see another group of 12 players who they value equally. If the first group is gone at 24, and they are assured of getting somebody that they want in the next group, they should absolutely trade down to add additional picks (assuming, of course, that they find a partner). Even if there are 4 players on the board that they value equally at 24, why not move back 3 spots and add another mid-round pick?

There are certainly variables involved and a need to find a trading partner. And if there is one guy at 24 you can't live without, absolutely, take him. But, if there are a range of guys that the Steelers value equally, and they have a trading partner, trading down makes sense and maximizes the value you receive in the draft.

[Slapstick]

The value placed by pundits is not really relevant to the consideration. The only thing that matters is the value placed on the players by the Steelers FO. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Steelers value 20 players as first rounders and see another group of 12 players who they value equally. If the first group is gone at 24, and they are assured of getting somebody that they want in the next group, they should absolutely trade down to add additional picks (assuming, of course, that they find a partner). Even if there are 4 players on the board that they value equally at 24, why not move back 3 spots and add another mid-round pick?

There are certainly variables involved and a need to find a trading partner. And if there is one guy at 24 you can't live without, absolutely, take him. But, if there are a range of guys that the Steelers value equally, and they have a trading partner, trading down makes sense and maximizes the value you receive in the draft.

This.

The draft is not really about filling holes as much as improving and ensuring the long term health and competitiveness of the football team...

The way that GMs do this is to draft for value...if you can fill a need while drafting for value, then great...the long term health and competitiveness of a team is eroded by overdrafting to fill needs...

Also, I agree with not giving a crap about draft pundits...set up your board with the best information available to you about your team and stick to that board...