#3 draft pick

**JMUpurkfool** · 12-20-2015, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by GaTechRavens

That's....that's just ridiculous.

Really because JJ Watt was taken 15th IIRC. Bosa is a great player but I don't know if he has the pass rush upside (16+ sacks) that you want in a Top 5 pick.

**JonAB** · 12-20-2015, 10:15 PM

11th. And that is completely irrelevant. Bosa is a better looking prospect than JJ was coming out. Doesn't mean he's going to be JJ Watt and even half of him. Bosa is a top 5 pick in every single draft.

**JonAB** · 12-20-2015, 10:37 PM

I should point out that if Watt had followed a similar college path I think he would have been the top pick in the draft. The biggest reason he went under drafted is because of inexperience at the position.

And Watt isn't the comparison for Bosa. It's Michael Strahan or Jared Allen.

**JMUpurkfool** · 12-20-2015, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by JonAB

11th. And that is completely irrelevant. Bosa is a better looking prospect than JJ was coming out. Doesn't mean he's going to be JJ Watt and even half of him. Bosa is a top 5 pick in every single draft.

You maybe right. You're certainly adamant. I haven't watched a ton of these 2016 prospects but it will be fun to talk about over the coming months.

**Greg** · 12-20-2015, 10:52 PM

The Clowns will be ahead of us so that is like a free move up in every round because you know we don't want whoever they pick.

**I Touchdown There** · 12-20-2015, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

The Clowns will be ahead of us so that is like a free move up in every round because you know we don't want whoever they pick.

LOL so true

**Greg** · 12-20-2015, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by I Touchdown There

LOL so true

It also works as a filter on our board in case a Clown worthy pick is on it.

**JonAB** · 12-20-2015, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by JMUpurkfool

You maybe right. You're certainly adamant. I haven't watched a ton of these 2016 prospects but it will be fun to talk about over the coming months.

I'll concede that Bosa is not a 'generational' prospect but there are not many of those. I'd say in the past 10 drafts the only truly 'generational' prospects have been Andrew Luck and Jadaveon Clowney. And if you want to lower the barometer of the term you could add Ndamakong Suh. That's not to say there haven't been generational players obviously, but I'd say those three, and specifically the former two, are worthy of the term 'generational'. And of course Clowney ended up with a major knee problem and is likely to have a short career.

**GreatWhiteNorthRaven** · 12-20-2015, 11:39 PM

I know this is the unpopular opinion, but if we end up top 3 I'm all for a trade down to a QB hungry team.

If we could pick up a 1st in 2017 plus keep a pick in the top 10-15 we could acquire some solid talent over the next 2 years.

**JonAB** · 12-20-2015, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteNorthRaven

I know this is the unpopular opinion, but if we end up top 3 I'm all for a trade down to a QB hungry team.

If we could pick up a 1st in 2017 plus keep a pick in the top 10-15 we could acquire some solid talent over the next 2 years.

I don't hate it or love it. Depends how much QB's float up the draft board. If it looks like 2 QB's will go in the top 6 then I don't mind trading down to 7-9 spot. Don't particularly want to go down further than that. I think this team needs high quality talent. I think there's a decent amount of depth at most positions and we already have a lot of picks.

**GreatWhiteNorthRaven** · 12-20-2015, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by JonAB

I don't hate it or love it. Depends how much QB's float up the draft board. If it looks like 2 QB's will go in the top 6 then I don't mind trading down to 7-9 spot. Don't particularly want to go down further than that. I think this team needs high quality talent. I think there's a decent amount of depth at most positions and we already have a lot of picks.

I agree. I mean it all depends on the outcome.

Even trading down just 2-3 spots can pick you up an extra 2nd.

I posted this in the draft thread:

2014: Cle trades #4 overall to Buffalo for #9 + 1st and 4th in 2015
2014: Min trades #8 to Cleveland for #9 + 145th
2013: Oak trades #3 to Miami for #12 + 42nd
2013: Buf trades #'s 8 and 71 to St Louis for 16, 46, 78 and 222nd
2012: St Louis trades #2 to Was for first round picks in 2012 (#6), 2013 and 2014, plus 2012 2nd round pick (#39)
2012: Minnesota trades #3 to Cle for #4, 118, 139 and 211
2012: Tampa Bay trades #5 to Jacksonville for 7th and 101
2011: Cleveland trades #6 to Atlanta (JULIO) for 27th, 59th, 124th + 1st and 4th in 2012.

In 2012 Oak traded #3 for #12 and #42.

So in that scenario

Say we traded our #3 for 12 and 42, exact same. We'd haev picks 12, 35-38 (from our original 2nd) plus 42.

3 picks in the top 50 means we can get some solid players. Then you're addressing OLB, WR and CB with top 50 talent. Plus having comps we could use a 4th to move around.

I don't know, it obviously depends on the value, but I don't think i'd be opposed.

**JonAB** · 12-20-2015, 11:52 PM

Ya. If we traded down I'd like to see us use our other picks to trade our second back into the first then, or something like that. I'm wanting Quality in this draft. Thankfully it's pretty deep defensively so it's one of those drafts where you could net two very good starters on D if you somehow got two picks in the first.