Trading up just sounds like the worst idea ever. They have a very good chance and being the first team to take a QB with the third pick so why trade up?
I don't think there will be 2 QBs off the board before us. It would really surprise me if that happened.
So at worse, IF we wanted a QB with the first pick, we would have 2nd choice of QBs. Then you have to consider that whoever might pick a QB before us actually wanting him with the 2nd (could definitely be the case) and that they want the same one as us. Again, could be, but less likely since there is really no consensus QB.
I think we have a decent chance at the QB we want if we stay at 3. I still like the #2 position because we ould almost for sure get our gy, but we don;t have it and I think it's too much to give up to do that, especially given no consensus QB.
Still... if Pace feels like he has a guy he REALLY wants and thinks he won;t be there later, I'd be ok with moving up. I wouldn't like it, but for me it's more important that he get a franchise QB this year than be thrifty with our picks. I think fixing the QB this year is job one.
It's a little hard to compute that if no QB in this draft is even worth the #3 pick why we would expend draft capital to trade UP when in a draft this strong and deep it would be smarter to trade DOWN unless by virtue of some miracle Garrett doesn't get taken #1 overall. Even then what would SF be offered for their pick vs what we could reasonably offer them? The difference between #2 and #3 is only 400 points but I suspect it will take more than we can afford to offer to swap picks if competition for Garrett heats up and it will if Cleveland passes and SF is willing to trade #2.
For our purposes Garrett would be the ideal guy to take but if we can't draft him, and it's likely we can't, then I really don't care all that much what Pace does. IMHO the needs are great enough that he could stick a list of his top 70 players on a wall, throw darts, and come up with players in rounds 1-3 who can help at any number of positions. Those are all guys I would hope could compete for starting spots this year which to me leaves a QB pick for round four where we have two picks if we haven't used on up on a trade.
If Pace decides he'll need to draft his QB after #3 but before round four then that would also seem to indicate a trade down for more picks he can use to bargain with also makes sense. It's that or bite the bullet and take the QB at #3 knowing full well he's spent it on a guy who won't play now. My thoughts remain the same. I believe Fox is gone after 2017 so why draft a QB high on his watch? I'd kick the can down the road and deal with it again after hiring a new HC and OC who might actually be able to develop a young passer.
This also gives us time to evaluate Connor Shaw as a possible starter or top backup and for one more year we go it with Glennon, Sanchez (ugh), and Shaw. A top QB pick would probably get Shaw bumped off the roster because Fox won't like having two rookies as his backups.
Trading up would be costly (because no team is going to swap spots for a 5th Rd pick) and disappointing because in the end it is all educated guesses. Thank the heavens the Chicago Bulls didn't have the #1 pick the year MJ was drafted.
Well, Hakeem the Dream would be useful too, with Pip, who knows...
This the dumbest idea I have heard this year, sorry no deal
Yeah every time I read something that talks about trading up from #3 I keep asking to where and for what? If Garrett is the prize hog in this draft the only way we'd be sure to get him is in a trade with Cleveland and why would they pass on taking him in exchange for our #3 and 2nd and 3rd round picks when they already have extra picks including two number ones? Even swapping one spot with SF could take our #2 and SF could easily be offered a more attractive collection of picks by someone else. I guess I don't see any viability in it even if we wanted to.
