Quarterbacks, Trade Ups and the 2016 NFL Draft

[Sizzlebshu]

To the latter, probably because those guys aren't franchise QB? Manziel may not be a bad option and may even be a Cowboy but even if they get him, would you automatically trust the franchise you a guy who seems to have a problem with alcohol abuse.

I actually agree. I think a CB is highly likely. Ramsey and Hargreaves both make a lot of sense.

Over kellen moore, matt cassel, and brandon weeden...

Yea gimmie manziel. More upaide, better backup, more booze!!!

[Sizzlebshu]

After what happened with Gabbert, the Jaguars intention was to sit Bortles for his entire rookie season. It didn't happen that way, but the intent was there.

I'd venture the Cowboys may want to do the same, except they have a real starter in place and this has worked out for Philip Rivers and Aaron Rodgers development before

That assumes therenis a real starter in the draft.

For the sake of argument lets say there is. You still have to be willing to overlook the severe lack of depth and needs at other roster positions and be willing to sacrifice improving the team during a closing championship window.

Financially itd be hard on an already constraines cowboys cap. In terms of the future, its foing to hurt this rostee Nd likely meams the loss of talented players.

On top of that we saw this situation unfold with stronger prospects before.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Sizzlebshu

[ArsenalRaven666]

Sizzlebshu

You try to belittle others but I have used the chart figures that you use and proved you to be wrong.

You say no teams would be willing to give up much to move on up and then say I am understating what we could achieve in a draft haul.  Pick one side of the fence mate

[Sizzlebshu]

Sizzlebshu

You try to belittle others but I have used the chart figures that you use and proved you to be wrong.

You say no teams would be willing to give up much to move on up and then say I am understating what we could achieve in a draft haul. Pick one side of the fence mate

I belittle ideas

[Sizzlebshu]

The value chart is relatively. Nowhere will you see any team move down 7-10 spots in the first for just a 2nd (especially when you're essentially trading up into the top 5). Why? The difference in prospect is massive (usually). 2013 was an exception and even then it was viewed as a horrid move.  

Edited January 10, 2016 by Sizzlebshu

[ravensnick]

If I were a QB needy team not in the top 5, I'd be heavily studying Carson Wentz from NDSU. He looked very good against Jacksonville State, who almost beat Auburn. He is getting some early second round buzz, but I could see a Flacco-esque move up the draft boards for him I love Golf (legit top 5 talent) and I'm liking Wentz. Lynch has very high upside, but also a huge downside as well. Very, very risk reward. Lynch would be best served going to a team like Philly that has a decent OL and some weapons, if Philly can get the right coach. Hackenburg could become a pretty good starter if he gets under a guy like O'Brien or Gase, or he could be a career backup without the right mentor. I don't like Cook or Jones at all. They are nothing more than backups. Jake Rudock from Michigan is my sleeper and I could see him having a successful career if the piece fall together correctly. 

[ArsenalRaven666]

The value chart is relatively. Nowhere will you see any team move down 7-10 spots in the first for just a 2nd (especially when you're essentially trading up into the top 5). Why? The difference in prospect is massive (usually). 2013 was an exception and even then it was viewed as a horrid move.  

You have said it would cost more to more from 15 to 6 then it did for the Redskins to trade up from 6-2 for RG3 which is just wrong.  The cost is reletive to what is availiable at 6th, if Goff is there teams will want to jump the 49ers, if Bosa is there there will be other teams wanting to jump each other or even move up to make sure they land him.

 

So go ride your unicorn over the rainbow

[BmoreBird22]

That assumes therenis a real starter in the draft.

For the sake of argument lets say there is. You still have to be willing to overlook the severe lack of depth and needs at other roster positions and be willing to sacrifice improving the team during a closing championship window.

Financially itd be hard on an already constraines cowboys cap. In terms of the future, its foing to hurt this rostee Nd likely meams the loss of talented players.

On top of that we saw this situation unfold with stronger prospects before.

I'm willing to bet that Goff becomes a very good starter if he's allowed to sit for a year. 

 

Do you think the Jaguars, who are almost always picking in the top 5, were really a team with depth and without flaws? Uh, no. However, let's suppose the Cowboys take some much needed depth players and ignore the need for a quarterback. They then make the playoffs, only to fall short of the Super Bowl. They then pick in the late 20's. But, oh, crap, Tony Romo injured his back in the playoffs, again, and he's deciding he doesn't want to be beat up and play at 38. Who are they gonna draft at, let's say, 28 that's gonna be likely to start year one? Damn, now they're right back where they started.

 

A team is going to lose talented players no matter what happens. That's part of the salary cap. You can't afford to keep everyone.

[Sizzlebshu]

If I were a QB needy team not in the top 5, I'd be heavily studying Carson Wentz from NDSU. He looked very good against Jacksonville State, who almost beat Auburn. He is getting some early second round buzz, but I could see a Flacco-esque move up the draft boards for him I love Golf (legit top 5 talent) and I'm liking Wentz. Lynch has very high upside, but also a huge downside as well. Very, very risk reward. Lynch would be best served going to a team like Philly that has a decent OL and some weapons, if Philly can get the right coach. Hackenburg could become a pretty good starter if he gets under a guy like O'Brien or Gase, or he could be a career backup without the right mentor. I don't like Cook or Jones at all. They are nothing more than backups. Jake Rudock from Michigan is my sleeper and I could see him having a successful career if the piece fall together correctly.

No questioms about goff's arm?

[Sizzlebshu]

I'm willing to bet that Goff becomes a very good starter if he's allowed to sit for a year.

Do you think the Jaguars, who are almost always picking in the top 5, were really a team with depth and without flaws? Uh, no. However, let's suppose the Cowboys take some much needed depth players and ignore the need for a quarterback. They then make the playoffs, only to fall short of the Super Bowl. They then pick in the late 20's. But, oh, crap, Tony Romo injured his back in the playoffs, again, and he's deciding he doesn't want to be beat up and play at 38. Who are they gonna draft at, let's say, 28 that's gonna be likely to start year one? Damn, now they're right back where they started.

A team is going to lose talented players no matter what happens. That's part of the salary cap. You can't afford to keep everyone.

Depth was the wrong choice of word. They have needs rather.

Jags had something the cowboys dont, a ton of money

[Sizzlebshu]

I also dont think the jags are the best example given their record

[baltimorefan328]

Trade down 7 spots to 13 for only a couple of 3rd round picks?  No thanks.  I'll take my chances on potentially getting an elite player at 6 than getting more roster fodder (B. Williams and Gillmore being the only impact 3rd rounders in more recent history).

I, like most Ravens fans, think very highly of Ozzie and the front office and although some recent picks haven't worked out as well as the Ravens would have liked, the front office is still getting talent.  But I agree with the bolded part 100%.  I am all for trading picks and acquiring more, but this Ravens team doesn't exactly need a large quantity, but rather quality picks to get them back to contending. There are some clear holes, but I'd much rather the Ravens take their shots to get 4-7 above average to high quality young contributors at the #6 spot in each round rather than trading around and drafting 12 players all over the board and playing a numbers game

[Wildabeast88]

Dallas doesnt need a qb. They have romo. You dont take a backup qb at 4th overall especially when you are in cap hell and have needs at multiplw positions. If they want a backup there are later rounds and free agency for that.

Also if you think there are flaws in my reasoning, how about explaining why and where

interesting thought to watch about Dallas they will need a starter and soon see 2 broken collarbones as well as Romo is getting older but my point is Dallas is coaching the Senior Bowl were QB Carson Wentz is playing he has been compared to a guy we know Joe Flacco he's a big guy 6'6 240 lbs big arm and a 4times FBS champ at North Dakota St I could see Dallas falling for this guy opening up a spot for someone to fall just. Theory it may not happen but it's possible

[RavensFanMania]

Actually, Philly is in need of a QB as well.  Bradford had a one  year deal and they have a new coach who may not want to resign Bradford.

[Sizzlebshu]

Actually, Philly is in need of a QB as well. Bradford had a one year deal and they have a new coach who may not want to resign Bradford.

Technically they could tag bradford. I suspect they will bring him back. Philly doesnt have the draft assets to go for a qb

[RavensFanMania]

I don't know why the Eagles are being talked more about as trade partners at 13. They have a new coach and Bradford is a Free Agent. The new coach is probably going to want to pick his own QB. They have two 3rd round picks this year. A trade down to 13 for those picks is more than fair. 

 

 

Trade down 7 spots to 13 for only a couple of 3rd round picks?  No thanks.  I'll take my chances on potentially getting an elite player at 6 than getting more roster fodder (B. Williams and Gillmore being the only impact 3rd rounders in more recent history).

 

 

Agree, I wouldn't trade down 7 spots for two 3rds.  It would be fair for a 2nd and a 3rd but the Eagles have no 2nd in this years draft. 

[ravensnick]

No questioms about goff's arm?

It's not perfect, but he has been very proficient and accurate against many good teams with little to no supporting cast. He's legit in my eyes.  

[thieverycorporation]

I, like most Ravens fans, think very highly of Ozzie and the front office and although some recent picks haven't worked out as well as the Ravens would have liked, the front office is still getting talent.  But I agree with the bolded part 100%.  I am all for trading picks and acquiring more, but this Ravens team doesn't exactly need a large quantity, but rather quality picks to get them back to contending. There are some clear holes, but I'd much rather the Ravens take their shots to get 4-7 above average to high quality young contributors at the #6 spot in each round rather than trading around and drafting 12 players all over the board and playing a numbers game

This post and idea is spot on and seemingly falls on deaf ears in terms of the draft. It's probably never heard. But honestly, I'd love for them to do just that. I and many others have asked it to be the methodology used. But the argument would probably be we don' knowt that type of draft actually pans out. But I'll put like this to use Ozzie's words "If we're strategic enough", they can get it done. Certainly standing pat on a player you have higher hopes of getting should preclude someone from getting within sniffing distance, I.E. Cowboys etc. If they have the smallest amount of doubt they need to go ahead and use that draft capital. I think sometimes the Ravens forget about trading picks in the draft. The patriots seemingly move all around the board to get who they want. And a lot of times it seems like they (Ravens) settle for scraps. I'll take 6 diamonds out of the ruff as opposed to 5and 4 more. Organizations still have undrafted, post june cuts, camp cuts and even the supplemental to acquire depth and the like.

Edited January 11, 2016 by thieverycorporation

[thieverycorporation]

Agree, I wouldn't trade down 7 spots for two 3rds.  It would be fair for a 2nd and a 3rd but the Eagles have no 2nd in this years draft. 

Would trade down to them for 2 thirds this year and a 2nd next year ?

[Sizzlebshu]

Would trade down to them for 2 thirds this year and a 2nd next year ?

So 3 thirds essentially? I mean the issue with this is who you are getting. If your board has players that are very similar in rank its fine. If you have few elite guys and then a huge drop off it is bad because the extra picks are not as valuable

Edited January 11, 2016 by Sizzlebshu

[thieverycorporation]

So 3 thirds essentially? I mean the issue with this is who you are getting. If youre board has players that are vwry similar in rank its fine. If you have few wlite guys and then a huge drop off it is bad because the extra picks are not as valuable

But the picks you acquire are tradable to teams that may covet an extra one and thru strategy you can realistically still go bpa and maneuver. it's true of your statement but it can be manipulated to bolster your opportunities to acquire those on your big board. I'm sure there are a couple of teams that may see greater value in that specific slot as opposed to us using it ourselves.

Edited January 11, 2016 by thieverycorporation

[Sizzlebshu]

But the picks you acquire are tradable to teams that may covet an extra one and thru strategy you can realistically still go bpa and maneuver. it's true of your statement but it can be manipulated to bolster your opportunities to acquire those on your big board. I'm sure there are a couple of teams that may see greater value in that specific slot as opposed to us using it ourselves.

Yes, but the prospects you can take with those picks aren't as good (unless you have them similarly ranked). You could trade a first in 2012 for the entirety of someone's 2013 draft (picking this because it was a pretty terrible draft in general), but if all the picks are crap, then you still lose value. Picks are only worth as much as the prospects you can get with them. 

[RavensFanMania]

Would trade down to them for 2 thirds this year and a 2nd next year ?

I'd consider this but probably be more willing to take the #6 pick and move forward. 

 

A 2nd round pick next year is worth a mid 3rd round pick this year due.  The pick is devalued one year when it is in the future.    The point value is probably in favor of the ravens, but I'm not sure I'd do that unless I was targeting a couple players they were seriously interested in at pick #13. 

[Daft Classic]

After that playoff performance by Hoyer, I think Houston reached a new level of desperation at QB. If they don't get RGIII in FA (And even if they do), I think they definitely look at a franchise QB in this draft. They have a lot of the pieces in place to be a contender, but they just need a competent QB

[January J]

After that playoff performance by Hoyer, I think Houston reached a new level of desperation at QB. If they don't get RGIII in FA (And even if they do), I think they definitely look at a franchise QB in this draft. They have a lot of the pieces in place to be a contender, but they just need a competent QB

they are too far down though. Too make that jump they would have to mortgage almost their entire draft. And I don't want us to move down that far and miss out on our first shot at a top 10 prospect in years. Dropping 1-7 spots is one thing, but imo they are just too far down the board.

[thieverycorporation]

I really want to avoid turning this into the puppy dog, rainbows, unicorns and daffodils thread so I'm just gonna shoot these down.

 

Rams want to move up 10 spots. For reference, it cost Washington 3 1sts and a 1 2nd to move up from 6 to 2. Given that, use the trade chart to figure out how much it would cost to move up from 15 to 6. Hint: it's a lot more. The pick and consequently the player you can get at that pick is worth more than what you're asking for.

 

Again exorbitant price that the franchise likely won't pay. 

 

Evidence of this: They didn't want to move up for Mariota last year and that would have cost less theoretically. 

 

So let me get this straight. The eagles want to move on for nothing (in terms of compensation). Essentially losing Bradford, Foles, and a 2nd rounder in this draft for nothing. You then think they are going to trade their 1st round pick and 2 3rd rounders for a QB essentially mortgaging the value of their entire draft for a rookie QB that is not an Andrew Luck type prospect in terms of certainty. You think they would do it for a prospect that isn't even close. 

Check out SBNation's article on my proposed trade. It agrees with my assessment. It was addressed today. So I continue to see merit in such a move. Of course it's just speculation. But the general consensus has to be that the Eagles may want to move on from Bradford and get younger and build thru the draft.

[Clmraven]

they are too far down though. Too make that jump they would have to mortgage almost their entire draft. And I don't want us to move down that far and miss out on our first shot at a top 10 prospect in years. Dropping 1-7 spots is one thing, but imo they are just too far down the board.

If Houston already made the playoffs with their sorry excuse for quarterbacks, then I think they can afford to mortgage the future a little, I think O'brian is buying time doing well without a decent QB but he knows he can't go far without a QB, if they gave up 2 1st and a 2nd they'd still be in good shape to add a few more good players around their new QB. And if all goes well their new QB will tank and the Texans go 2-14 and we have the number one overall pick in 2017.

[Sizzlebshu]

Check out SBNation's article on my proposed trade. It agrees with my assessment. It was addressed today. So I continue to see merit in such a move. Of course it's just speculation. But the general consensus has to be that the Eagles may want to move on from Bradford and get younger and build thru the draft.

Link

Eagles have too many holes too essentially trade their entire draft. They fired kelly because they thought he gutted a good roster, so ids any reason why they would continue to compound the mess when they went to such great extents to stop the bleeding

[Sizzlebshu]

If Houston already made the playoffs with their sorry excuse for quarterbacks, then I think they can afford to mortgage the future a little, I think O'brian is buying time doing well without a decent QB but he knows he can't go far without a QB, if they gave up 2 1st and a 2nd they'd still be in good shape to add a few more good players around their new QB. And if all goes well their new QB will tank and the Texans go 2-14 and we have the number one overall pick in 2017.

Cue the rainbows

[jboy19]

I just don't think there is a QB that teams would trade into the top 10 for. The more people look at Lynch, the less they like him. Goff is basically Teddy Bridgewater who fell for arbitrary reasons combined with a lack of arm strength. Wentz faces FCS stigma and injury questions. Hackenburg and Cook both have serious accuracy issues, the kind that don't just get better in the NFL.