Now, what if Bradford tweaks his elbow just prior to Pro Day and everyone thinks it’s really his shoulder. This could mean he slides to the second round. Meanwhile, the Rams take Suh and Detroit takes Okung….:)

as there are no QBs worth taking in the 1st round.

of what I’m talking about. This article pretty much mirrors my thinking.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/36544-is-drafting-an-offensive-lineman-in-the-first-round-overrated

Now, to add to it, it lists Gallery and Mike Williams as busts. While I wouldn’t dispute that, I will say that at least Gallery has still become a viable contributor, and there’s a chance Williams will too. Which shows that taking a first round graded O lineman would seem safer than taking a receiver (Charles Rogers, Mike Williams), a defensive end (Vernon Gholston), a runningback (Cedrick Benson), or even a quarterback (Alex Smith, Jamarcus Russell, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Akili Smith, Tim Couch, Heath Shuler…ugh, and can’t go on. But you get my point) I just think that, since there is no doubt we NEED major upgrades along the O-line, the chance to land 2 starters there, after neglecting the position for so long, would be the best way to optimize the #4 pick.

but if the available talent doesn’t match/meet team needs why stay there if you can get “relative value” for the pick position. Berry may well be #4 player in the draft, or McCoy, or Suh but does this team need them based on the actual team needs that exist. Now I am working under the assumption that you believe the teams needs to be as follows in order based on my perception of need, yours may be different:

OL/ILB/OL/CB/RB/QB/S

if the top talent at OL is gone (I think most everyone is in agreement that it is Okung) and there is not a player that is rated as having anything regarding an equivalent value being available at that pick, why not trade down? Granted, you have to have a team that wants/needs the talent that is available at that time but with the dearth of solid DT’s and “playmaking” Safeties, that may not be as tough as thought. Who knows, another team in even more need of a QB could become enamoured with Claussen.

If the guy that they really want is there at 4, then take him naturally, if they suspect he would also be available at 6 or 8 or 11 and you have someone who wants up, then why not give yourself the opportunity to add another quality player. It is a draft, there are no guarantees. You cite (jamesumd, that is) that only 55% of his round three picks have stuck. Well if we have no round three pick and do not get one via a trade down, then there’s a 0% percent chance of getting a quality player at that position (depending upon Jarmon’s recovery). How much of a risk are they taking by selecting the next best available “cornerstone” lineman at 11 versus being at 4? I’m all for taking quality players but your arguement seems to be advocating the Matt Millen school of drafting, not sure that’s where this club needs to go.

Again, it all depends on the “vibe.” If we use this year as an example, I’d say that should Okung, Suh, and maybe Bradford be gone, and we want Trent Williams or Bulaga, we explore trading down. Mainly because Bulaga and Williams are similar prospects, and by now we are pretty sure that at least one of them will be there when we pick. Then, like I said, if we can pick up a 3rd rounder and land a possible starting caliber guard, or secondary help (like Myron Rolle or Owusu-Ansah) or, hell, even one of the quarterbacks, I think we improve our team a lot more than if we took, say, Eric Berry.

seeing as how we do not need to draft a QB in this year’s draft.