What about trading our 6th rd'er Samuels and Gardner for a top 4 pick???

[AkaD]

:wtg: I say do it. We would not only solidify our line, but we'd also solidify our defensive backfield in one swoop if we get Taylor with the 5th pick. Comments???

Lates.

[SkinsRback04]

I like it but SD or Oakland are the targets. If SD and the #1 the deal is good as they need a lot of ready talent on that team. Not saying they would do it, but the deal looks good, if a little light considering we'd have two picks in the top 5. SD would surcharge just for that alone.

If Oakland at #2 then Al could use Samuels right off the top and a fast receiver but that leaves out Gardner. :laugh: I doubt he would pass up a Williams/Fitzgerald choice. But you never know.

[Art]

I guess I wonder what the point of this would be? Again, the only reason we'd even consider trading Samuels for Gallery is because there's something behind the scenes we don't know. There's no way we'd have to give up substantially more than Samuels for any of the picks ahead of us.

To me, you already have a left tackle, so why not keep him? I'd actually like to keep the roster we have largely in tact at this point and simply focus on landing one more impact player at No. 5 or moving down slightly and calling it an offseason .

[SkinsRback04]

That is what is most likely going to happen anyway Art. If we hear something definitive about Samuels restructuring for this year then this trade talk will cease. But that may run up to draft day and beyond.

You know we have to have a scheme in place just in case Gallery is there at #5. Impossible? Well you have to be prepared for anything. What do we do if that happens? Pass...or have in place trade options to Cleveland, etc. ready to go.

[AkaD]

Originally posted by Art

I guess I wonder what the point of this would be? Again, the only reason we'd even consider trading Samuels for Gallery is because there's something behind the scenes we don't know. There's no way we'd have to give up substantially more than Samuels for any of the picks ahead of us.

To me, you already have a left tackle, so why not keep him? I'd actually like to keep the roster we have largely in tact at this point and simply focus on landing one more impact player at No. 5 or moving down slightly and calling it an offseason .

Huh??? For a 1st rounder in the top 4??? I'm sure you would. The only way any team with such a high pick would trade it, would be if they were offered more than what the pick they gave up was expected to do. Do you really think any team doesn't expect a top 4 pick (or even a top 10) to start immediately and start well??? No way man. I disagree with you on that one man, sorry.

Lates.

[Art]

AkaD,

In fact, I know teams don't expect their top pick in the top five to start immediately and start well. Every year we see these sorts of players on the bench for a while. Hell, the TOP pick in the last draft didn't take a snap all year, did he? Now, outside of the QB position, sure, you do see guys starting more frequently. The point is any team inclined to take Gallery ahead of us, would likely take Samuels in a straight trade. Little more than that would be necessary to complete a deal with that team.

[AkaD]

I know what you're saying, but I figured you would assume I didn't mean a QB.

[CLiNT0N P0RTiS]

How about we just keep Samuels and Gardner and get Taylor with our 5th pick. Simple as that.

[Kosher Ham]

Samuels and Gardner plus a pick ?

Let me get this right. A pro bowl LT, A solid #2 WR that would be a #1 on a team like B'More and a late pick ?

Sounds like a little too much to me.