So he's going to hold out and miss out on 16M? Don't think so. He won't be happy about it but he'd do it because he wants the big payday and has no leverage.

Not miss out on 16 mil.  Just let the staff know that he won't play RT.  So there for, if we want Little at LT and Cam's not willing to play RT, we just won't tag him and go find and upgrade at RT elsewhere like Trent Brown maybe.  If we don't tag Cam,  he will likely get a decent multi year deal elsewhere to play LT not RT. I'd be willing to bet Cam doesn't want to play RT when he's always played LT

He can play RT or he can miss out on 16M. I would tell him today to start training at RT because he is getting tagged and we are playing him at RT because Little outplayed him and earned the LT spot. He'll be upset, we all agree with that, but he doesn't have much leverage so we'll come to one of those one year deals where he gets the franchise tag amount and we agree not to tag him again, that's happened several times recently.

---

One of the worst things that could happen to the Jaguars is that a similar fate befall Trevor Lawrence because we didn't give him adequate protection.

I have absolutely never said not to give Trevor adequate protection, I just don't believe we have to spend #1 overall to do that. That's an extremely valuable and rare asset to have to improve a team, and using it to improve merely 1/5 of a chain is not wise IMO.

Tagging Cam and moving him to RT, signing 1 starting caliber IOL in FA, and then drafting 1 starting caliber IOL at 33 65 or 70 will give Trevor adequate protection.

But taking Neal at #1 has at least the promise of giving TL better than merely "adequate" protection.

As for Neal being 1/5 in the OL, that would be the case no matter what position you drafted.  3-4 OLB?  You are going to be 1/4.  4-3 DE?  1/5.  Receiver?  1/3-6.  Corner?  You will be 1/4-7.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I have absolutely never said not to give Trevor adequate protection, I just don't believe we have to spend #1 overall to do that. That's an extremely valuable and rare asset to have to improve a team, and using it to improve merely 1/5 of a chain is not wise IMO.

Tagging Cam and moving him to RT, signing 1 starting caliber IOL in FA, and then drafting 1 starting caliber IOL at 33 65 or 70 will give Trevor adequate protection.

You keep saying that but he might not want to play RT. He's played LT his whole career and college and likely High School, Sercy was talking about it the other day, Cam might not be willing to move to RT and it wouldn't surprise me especially being last year was his best year along with his rookie year.  Just like Orlando Brown won't play RT.

If he gets franchised, he doesn't have a choice. You either play RT or you don't get paid. Period. I'm not giving him the LT spot. He has to earn it in camp by beating out Little.

---

I have absolutely never said not to give Trevor adequate protection, I just don't believe we have to spend #1 overall to do that. That's an extremely valuable and rare asset to have to improve a team, and using it to improve merely 1/5 of a chain is not wise IMO.

Tagging Cam and moving him to RT, signing 1 starting caliber IOL in FA, and then drafting 1 starting caliber IOL at 33 65 or 70 will give Trevor adequate protection.

But taking Neal at #1 has at least the promise of giving TL better than merely "adequate" protection.

As for Neal being 1/5 in the OL, that would be the case no matter what position you drafted.  3-4 OLB?  You are going to be 1/4.  4-3 DE?  1/5.  Receiver?  1/3-6.  Corner?  You will be 1/4-7.

You and I differ on this. That is not a given. Neal could come in and be a disaster like Luke Joekel.

---

You keep saying that but he might not want to play RT. He's played LT his whole career and college and likely High School, Sercy was talking about it the other day, Cam might not be willing to move to RT and it wouldn't surprise me especially being last year was his best year along with his rookie year.  Just like Orlando Brown won't play RT.

If he gets franchised, he doesn't have a choice. You either play RT or you don't get paid. Period. I'm not giving him the LT spot. He has to earn it in camp by beating out Little.

---

But taking Neal at #1 has at least the promise of giving TL better than merely "adequate" protection.

As for Neal being 1/5 in the OL, that would be the case no matter what position you drafted.  3-4 OLB?  You are going to be 1/4.  4-3 DE?  1/5.  Receiver?  1/3-6.  Corner?  You will be 1/4-7.

You and I differ on this. That is not a given. Neal could come in and be a disaster like Luke Joekel.

Of course that's always a possibility. 

Every team's history is replete with can't miss prospects that did exactly that.

You are old enough to remember Tony Mandarich.

Go back to the1998 draft.  Could you have convinced the Chargers that Ryan Leaf was going to fail?  There was extensive debate between who was the better QB prospect between Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf.  Could anyone tell the Cardinals fans  that Andre Wadsworth was not the second coming of Bruce Smith?

The hundreds at the town center who applauded the selection of Justin Blackmon in 2012 also couldn't be convinced at the time that Blackmon would wash out of the league within 2 years.

But here's the thing.  Just because you have an earlier draft miss doesn't mean you never invest another high pick at the position.

Should Our misses with Gabbert and Bortles precluded us from drafting TL?

Should Derrick Harvey's and Dante Fowler's status as busts stop us from considering KT or Hutchinson at 1?

Make your best evaluation of his talent, ability, and character and the rest of the guys on the board, then make your best guess and make the pick and hope for the best.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

You keep saying that but he might not want to play RT. He's played LT his whole career and college and likely High School, Sercy was talking about it the other day, Cam might not be willing to move to RT and it wouldn't surprise me especially being last year was his best year along with his rookie year.  Just like Orlando Brown won't play RT.

If he gets franchised, he doesn't have a choice. You either play RT or you don't get paid. Period. I'm not giving him the LT spot. He has to earn it in camp by beating out Little.

---

But taking Neal at #1 has at least the promise of giving TL better than merely "adequate" protection.

As for Neal being 1/5 in the OL, that would be the case no matter what position you drafted.  3-4 OLB?  You are going to be 1/4.  4-3 DE?  1/5.  Receiver?  1/3-6.  Corner?  You will be 1/4-7.

You and I differ on this. That is not a given. Neal could come in and be a disaster like Luke Joekel.

Oh he has a choice, the team will talk to him before tagging him and if Pederson likes Little I'm sure he will ask Cam about playing LT and if Cam tells Pederson that he doesn't want to play LT it wouldn't be very smart of Pederson to tag Cam and get a distraction right off the bat for his new team because he wants to tag an average tackle that doesn't want to play RT.  That would be foolish

---

If he gets franchised, he doesn't have a choice. You either play RT or you don't get paid. Period. I'm not giving him the LT spot. He has to earn it in camp by beating out Little.

---

You and I differ on this. That is not a given. Neal could come in and be a disaster like Luke Joekel.

Of course that's always a possibility. 

Every team's history is replete with can't miss prospects that did exactly that.

You are old enough to remember Tony Mandarich.

Go back to the1998 draft.  Could you have convinced the Chargers that Ryan Leaf was going to fail?  There was extensive debate between who was the better QB prospect between Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf.  Could anyone tell the Cardinals fans  that Andre Wadsworth was not the second coming of Bruce Smith?

The hundreds at the town center who applauded the selection of Justin Blackmon in 2012 also couldn't be convinced at the time that Blackmon would wash out of the league within 2 years.

But here's the thing.  Just because you have an earlier draft miss doesn't mean you never invest another high pick at the position.

Should Our misses with Gabbert and Bortles precluded us from drafting TL?

Should Derrick Harvey's and Dante Fowler's status as busts stop us from considering KT or Hutchinson at 1?

Make your best evaluation of his talent, ability, and character and the rest of the guys on the board, then make your best guess and make the pick and hope for the best.

Wow! That's a "blast from the past." I haven't heard the name Tony Mandarich in a very long time. LOL.

I totally agree 1000%. I used Joekel as an example, because even though I was definitely not a fan of his when we drafted him, there were fans who were absolutely convinced he was gonna be the next Tony Boselli. I loathed Texas A&M OT's because they all had one thing in common. They had good feet, but they lacked functional strength and got dominated by bull rushers. Ever since Joekel failed, many people on the board have gotten "gun shy" when it comes to possibly drafting an OT in round 1. For years, I have been begging us to use a first round pick on a LT and we never have. It's just this particular draft when I don't wanna do it. The quality isn't there. This is just a bad OT class. 

I would be ecstatic if there was a Trent Williams or Tyron Smith type LT in this draft. I would easily take that OT #1 overall, but in this draft I see no one better than a Jonah Williams type LT and that type of LT isn't even close to being worthy of a #1 pick. I just don't think after extensive hours of watching Neal play in games, that he is any better than an average RT. It's just what I see. On top of that, his weight issues are a big red flag, imo. In my evaluation, my aversion to taking an OT #1 overall has nothing to do with using that pick on that position. It has everything to do with my low opinion of this particular OT class in general. Had we not desperately needed a QB last year, I would've drafted Penei Sewell #1 overall.

---

Agreed, Neal is a beast.  Hutch is who I want but I wouldn't mind it at all if we took Neal

Hutch concerns me because he's only had the one year of production and I wonder just how much upside he has.

I think Thibideaux has more upside, but I could also see him flaming out here if things go sideways.

If Pederson and company don't feel Neal is worth the #1, I'd rather see us trade out of the first pick and gain another 2nd or 3rd rounder.

---

Fix the O-Line!

Of course that's always a possibility. 

Every team's history is replete with can't miss prospects that did exactly that.

You are old enough to remember Tony Mandarich.

Go back to the1998 draft.  Could you have convinced the Chargers that Ryan Leaf was going to fail?  There was extensive debate between who was the better QB prospect between Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf.  Could anyone tell the Cardinals fans  that Andre Wadsworth was not the second coming of Bruce Smith?

The hundreds at the town center who applauded the selection of Justin Blackmon in 2012 also couldn't be convinced at the time that Blackmon would wash out of the league within 2 years.

But here's the thing.  Just because you have an earlier draft miss doesn't mean you never invest another high pick at the position.

Should Our misses with Gabbert and Bortles precluded us from drafting TL?

Should Derrick Harvey's and Dante Fowler's status as busts stop us from considering KT or Hutchinson at 1?

Make your best evaluation of his talent, ability, and character and the rest of the guys on the board, then make your best guess and make the pick and hope for the best.

Wow! That's a "blast from the past." I haven't heard the name Tony Mandarich in a very long time. LOL.

I totally agree 1000%. I used Joekel as an example, because even though I was definitely not a fan of his when we drafted him, there were fans who were absolutely convinced he was gonna be the next Tony Boselli. I loathed Texas A&M OT's because they all had one thing in common. They had good feet, but they lacked functional strength and got dominated by bull rushers. Ever since Joekel failed, many people on the board have gotten "gun shy" when it comes to possibly drafting an OT in round 1. For years, I have been begging us to use a first round pick on a LT and we never have. It's just this particular draft when I don't wanna do it. The quality isn't there. This is just a bad OT class. 

I would be ecstatic if there was a Trent Williams or Tyron Smith type LT in this draft. I would easily take that OT #1 overall, but in this draft I see no one better than a Jonah Williams type LT and that type of LT isn't even close to being worthy of a #1 pick. I just don't think after extensive hours of watching Neal play in games, that he is any better than an average RT. It's just what I see. On top of that, his weight issues are a big red flag, imo. In my evaluation, my aversion to taking an OT #1 overall has nothing to do with using that pick on that position. It has everything to do with my low opinion of this particular OT class in general. Had we not desperately needed a QB last year, I would've drafted Penei Sewell #1 overall.

That's fair and accurate.

For months you have been quite vocal about this year's class of tackles.  It's entirely possible you are right.

It's also possible you are wrong.

That's the beauty of pre draft speculation on message boards.

I just hope that whatever the Jaguars' decision turns out to be, THEY get it right. 

I think Baalke- yes Baalke- may have gotten the Walker Little pick right.  If he did, and gets this draft right that could help put Trevor Lawrence into the elite category we all feel like he's capable of reaching.  This in turn brings the Jaguars and their fans out of the depths of football hell and closer to respectability and ultimately to dominance.

Getting it right could mean implementing Upper's (?) strategy of moving Little to LT and signing a vet in free agency to upgrade Jawaan Taylor at RT, then drafting one of the edge rushers.  Getting it right could mean signing Robinson to another franchise deal, putting Little in at RT, and maybe drafting a T much later.

Getting it right could mean trading back and collecting more picks.

Just get it right, dammit!

---

Hutch concerns me because he's only had the one year of production and I wonder just how much upside he has.

I think Thibideaux has more upside, but I could also see him flaming out here if things go sideways.

If Pederson and company don't feel Neal is worth the #1, I'd rather see us trade out of the first pick and gain another 2nd or 3rd rounder.

Agreed.

My initial preference is to trade back a few spots-maybe to 4, 5, 7, 8. or 9.

If we trade back to 4 or 5, I would happy if we did that and still wound up with Neal.  But if we traded back further and missed out on Neal and still wound up with a viable T prospect and upgrading WR, I'd be fine with that too.

But if we can't trade back and are forced to stay at #1, my preference at the moment is to take Neal.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Wow! That's a "blast from the past." I haven't heard the name Tony Mandarich in a very long time. LOL.

I totally agree 1000%. I used Joekel as an example, because even though I was definitely not a fan of his when we drafted him, there were fans who were absolutely convinced he was gonna be the next Tony Boselli. I loathed Texas A&M OT's because they all had one thing in common. They had good feet, but they lacked functional strength and got dominated by bull rushers. Ever since Joekel failed, many people on the board have gotten "gun shy" when it comes to possibly drafting an OT in round 1. For years, I have been begging us to use a first round pick on a LT and we never have. It's just this particular draft when I don't wanna do it. The quality isn't there. This is just a bad OT class. 

I would be ecstatic if there was a Trent Williams or Tyron Smith type LT in this draft. I would easily take that OT #1 overall, but in this draft I see no one better than a Jonah Williams type LT and that type of LT isn't even close to being worthy of a #1 pick. I just don't think after extensive hours of watching Neal play in games, that he is any better than an average RT. It's just what I see. On top of that, his weight issues are a big red flag, imo. In my evaluation, my aversion to taking an OT #1 overall has nothing to do with using that pick on that position. It has everything to do with my low opinion of this particular OT class in general. Had we not desperately needed a QB last year, I would've drafted Penei Sewell #1 overall.

That's fair and accurate.

For months you have been quite vocal about this year's class of tackles.  It's entirely possible you are right.

It's also possible you are wrong.

That's the beauty of pre draft speculation on message boards.

I just hope that whatever the Jaguars' decision turns out to be, THEY get it right. 

I think Baalke- yes Baalke- may have gotten the Walker Little pick right.  If he did, and gets this draft right that could help put Trevor Lawrence into the elite category we all feel like he's capable of reaching.  This in turn brings the Jaguars and their fans out of the depths of football hell and closer to respectability and ultimately to dominance.

Getting it right could mean implementing Upper's (?) strategy of moving Little to LT and signing a vet in free agency to upgrade Jawaan Taylor at RT, then drafting one of the edge rushers.  Getting it right could mean signing Robinson to another franchise deal, putting Little in at RT, and maybe drafting a T much later.

Getting it right could mean trading back and collecting more picks.

Just get it right, dammit!

---

If Pederson and company don't feel Neal is worth the #1, I'd rather see us trade out of the first pick and gain another 2nd or 3rd rounder.

Agreed.

My initial preference is to trade back a few spots-maybe to 4, 5, 7, 8. or 9.

If we trade back to 4 or 5, I would happy if we did that and still wound up with Neal.  But if we traded back further and missed out on Neal and still wound up with a viable T prospect and upgrading WR, I'd be fine with that too.

But if we can't trade back and are forced to stay at #1, my preference at the moment is to take Neal.

I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. Off the top of my head, I whiffed on my evaluations of Mason Rudolph and D'Onta Foreman, so anything is possible. Nobody hits on all their evaluations. 

Whether or not I'm right or wrong, like you, I just want the team to get our picks right. I'm sick of drafting guys that turn out to be nothing. I just wanna start winning. As far as Walker Little, I don't know if he is good or bad. I didn't even have a chance to evaluate him, because before he was drafted, he played so sparsely that I had nothing consistent to go on. I was hoping I would get to evaluate him last season, but again, the sample size isn't big enough to make an accurate evaluation. With that said, I would start him in 2022, be it LT or RT. It just depends on if he could beat out Robinson. We drafted Little to be a starter, so that would start this season. He is bought and paid for, so let's see what we have and go from there. 

The only problem with just giving Little the LT position and signing a veteran RT is that we are assuming Little can be a good LT and we are assuming we could find a better alternative to Little or Robinson at RT. I still doubt any good OT with any other options would choose to come to this team, no matter how much money is offered. We are a very long way from even being a .500 team. 

I would definitely not be opposed to trading back and accumulating more picks. I just don't see any other team willing to trade up to #1 given the state of the players in this draft. Maybe we could find teams to trade that #33 pick to, but I have a feeling that #1 pick is gonna be something we are stuck with given that this QB class is extremely underwhelming. Kenny Pickett is the top QB in this class and he really struggled in bad weather situations during the Senior Bowl. It was a constant source of debate during that week.

---

I would definitely not be opposed to trading back and accumulating more picks. I just don't see any other team willing to trade up to #1 given the state of the players in this draft. Maybe we could find teams to trade that #33 pick to, but I have a feeling that #1 pick is gonna be something we are stuck with given that this QB class is extremely underwhelming. Kenny Pickett is the top QB in this class and he really struggled in bad weather situations during the Senior Bowl. It was a constant source of debate during that week.

One of these QB needy teams is going to get nervous and go gaga over Pickett, Corral, or Willis.  Let's see the combine and free agency shake out.  We may well get a trade partner.

---

Fix the O-Line!

I would definitely not be opposed to trading back and accumulating more picks. I just don't see any other team willing to trade up to #1 given the state of the players in this draft. Maybe we could find teams to trade that #33 pick to, but I have a feeling that #1 pick is gonna be something we are stuck with given that this QB class is extremely underwhelming. Kenny Pickett is the top QB in this class and he really struggled in bad weather situations during the Senior Bowl. It was a constant source of debate during that week.

One of these QB needy teams is going to get nervous and go gaga over Pickett, Corral, or Willis.  Let's see the combine and free agency shake out.  We may well get a trade partner.

We can trade down if we offer the pick for the right price.  Obviously, almost any team would prefer the #1 pick to, say, the #9 pick.  So what is it worth, to move up from a later spot?  Obviously, not as much as in other years, but it is worth something.  

So, we have to find a team thinks the #1 pick is worth more than we think it's worth.  That's the equation.  Find a team who would prefer the #1 pick to, for example, the #9 and #41 picks.  And then, if we would prefer to have the #9 and #41 picks, we have a trade.

But, of course, we cannot expect to get as much in the trade as in previous years when there was a hot QB at the top of the draft.  But if we are willing to accept the fact that the #1 overall pick is not worth as much this year, then we can surely get a trade going.

I'm not saying we should do it.  I'm just saying, obviously, a trade is possible.

---

I would definitely not be opposed to trading back and accumulating more picks. I just don't see any other team willing to trade up to #1 given the state of the players in this draft. Maybe we could find teams to trade that #33 pick to, but I have a feeling that #1 pick is gonna be something we are stuck with given that this QB class is extremely underwhelming. Kenny Pickett is the top QB in this class and he really struggled in bad weather situations during the Senior Bowl. It was a constant source of debate during that week.

One of these QB needy teams is going to get nervous and go gaga over Pickett, Corral, or Willis.  Let's see the combine and free agency shake out.  We may well get a trade partner.

I would love that but I just don’t think this is the year a team trades up to #1.

I was listening to a podcast the other day and they said they have never had their top QB ranked outside their top 10 overall players. This year, the top QB is ranked 20 (Sam Howell). And that the top ranked QB in this class would have been #6 last year behind Lawrence, Wilson, Fields, Lance, Mac…..

It’s just a super underwhelming class. Not to say it’s impossible for a trade up to happen this year but I think it’s extremely unlikely. Hope it happens though.

---

One of these QB needy teams is going to get nervous and go gaga over Pickett, Corral, or Willis.  Let's see the combine and free agency shake out.  We may well get a trade partner.

I would love that but I just don’t think this is the year a team trades up to #1.

I was listening to a podcast the other day and they said they have never had their top QB ranked outside their top 10 overall players. This year, the top QB is ranked 20 (Sam Howell). And that the top ranked QB in this class would have been #6 last year behind Lawrence, Wilson, Fields, Lance, Mac…..

It’s just a super underwhelming class. Not to say it’s impossible for a trade up to happen this year but I think it’s extremely unlikely. Hope it happens though.

Look at it this way.   If we offered the Falcons our #1 overall pick for their #8 overall pick, straight up, would they take it?   Yes.  If we offered the Falcons our #1 overall pick for their #8, 40, 58, 72, and 110 picks, would they take that?  No.  So the deal is somewhere in between.

---

I would definitely not be opposed to trading back and accumulating more picks. I just don't see any other team willing to trade up to #1 given the state of the players in this draft. Maybe we could find teams to trade that #33 pick to, but I have a feeling that #1 pick is gonna be something we are stuck with given that this QB class is extremely underwhelming. Kenny Pickett is the top QB in this class and he really struggled in bad weather situations during the Senior Bowl. It was a constant source of debate during that week.

One of these QB needy teams is going to get nervous and go gaga over Pickett, Corral, or Willis.  Let's see the combine and free agency shake out.  We may well get a trade partner.

If you believe that, I think you're gonna be very disappointed.

---

One of these QB needy teams is going to get nervous and go gaga over Pickett, Corral, or Willis.  Let's see the combine and free agency shake out.  We may well get a trade partner.

We can trade down if we offer the pick for the right price.  Obviously, almost any team would prefer the #1 pick to, say, the #9 pick.  So what is it worth, to move up from a later spot?  Obviously, not as much as in other years, but it is worth something.  

So, we have to find a team thinks the #1 pick is worth more than we think it's worth.  That's the equation.  Find a team who would prefer the #1 pick to, for example, the #9 and #41 picks.  And then, if we would prefer to have the #9 and #41 picks, we have a trade.

But, of course, we cannot expect to get as much in the trade as in previous years when there was a hot QB at the top of the draft.  But if we are willing to accept the fact that the #1 overall pick is not worth as much this year, then we can surely get a trade going.

I'm not saying we should do it.  I'm just saying, obviously, a trade is possible.

No way! I'm not giving this pick away. If I'm moving down that far, I want the #9 pick, the #43 pick and their first round pick in 2023. IMO, we'd be taking a huge risk by trading down that far anyway. Even though there may not be an elite level player like Penei Sewell in this draft, I still believe there are 3 really good players (Hutchinson, Thibodeaux and Gardner.) After those 3, I believe the dropoff in talent level is pretty sharp. If I'm taking a chance that all of those guys might be gone when we pick, I want significant compensation.

---

I would definitely not be opposed to trading back and accumulating more picks. I just don't see any other team willing to trade up to #1 given the state of the players in this draft. Maybe we could find teams to trade that #33 pick to, but I have a feeling that #1 pick is gonna be something we are stuck with given that this QB class is extremely underwhelming. Kenny Pickett is the top QB in this class and he really struggled in bad weather situations during the Senior Bowl. It was a constant source of debate during that week.

One of these QB needy teams is going to get nervous and go gaga over Pickett, Corral, or Willis.  Let's see the combine and free agency shake out.  We may well get a trade partner.

What is working against this dynamic is the relative glut of viable to great veteran signal callers that may be available via trade or free agency.

Traditionally, guys like Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, possibly DeShaun Watson, Garoppolo, and now possibly Kyler Murray would never hit the open market or trade market.  Now these guys and Wentz and maybe Cousin might be available. 

Before, teams like Carolina, the Giants, Denver, Washington and Pittsburgh would have little to no recourse but to wait for the draft and then compete againt teams higher up in the draft order to get their guy or wait until next year.  But with all of these vets available through trade or free agency, I think the desperation inflated demand for rookie QBs will be suppressed a bit, resulting in fewer teams looking to trade up.  I think the only teams that may trade up looking for a QB are the teams that are left without a chair when the music stops playing, and the veteran QB they were hoping for goes elsewhere.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

One of these QB needy teams is going to get nervous and go gaga over Pickett, Corral, or Willis.  Let's see the combine and free agency shake out.  We may well get a trade partner.

What is working against this dynamic is the relative glut of viable to great veteran signal callers that may be available via trade or free agency.

Traditionally, guys like Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, possibly DeShaun Watson, Garoppolo, and now possibly Kyler Murray would never hit the open market or trade market.  Now these guys and Wentz and maybe Cousin might be available. 

Before, teams like Carolina, the Giants, Denver, Washington and Pittsburgh would have little to no recourse but to wait for the draft and then compete againt teams higher up in the draft order to get their guy or wait until next year.  But with all of these vets available through trade or free agency, I think the desperation inflated demand for rookie QBs will be suppressed a bit, resulting in fewer teams looking to trade up.  I think the only teams that may trade up looking for a QB are the teams that are left without a chair when the music stops playing, and the veteran QB they were hoping for goes elsewhere.

Which is crazy, imo. Why would you get rid of a decent veteran QB this year when the QB draft class is so bad? I don't get it.

---

One of these QB needy teams is going to get nervous and go gaga over Pickett, Corral, or Willis.  Let's see the combine and free agency shake out.  We may well get a trade partner.

We can trade down if we offer the pick for the right price.  Obviously, almost any team would prefer the #1 pick to, say, the #9 pick.  So what is it worth, to move up from a later spot?  Obviously, not as much as in other years, but it is worth something.  

So, we have to find a team thinks the #1 pick is worth more than we think it's worth.  That's the equation.  Find a team who would prefer the #1 pick to, for example, the #9 and #41 picks.  And then, if we would prefer to have the #9 and #41 picks, we have a trade.

But, of course, we cannot expect to get as much in the trade as in previous years when there was a hot QB at the top of the draft.  But if we are willing to accept the fact that the #1 overall pick is not worth as much this year, then we can surely get a trade going.

I'm not saying we should do it.  I'm just saying, obviously, a trade is possible.

I would be all in favor of trading with any team with multiple 2nd round picks such as Denver, Atlanta or the Jets. As good as Hutchinson is, I'd prefer a package of picks which could result in the acquisition of Ekwonu, Cameron Thomas, Chad Muma and Won'Dale Robinson. That's too much value to pass up and even if these 4 weren't all available there would certainly be other players with comparable ability.

---

What is working against this dynamic is the relative glut of viable to great veteran signal callers that may be available via trade or free agency.

Traditionally, guys like Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, possibly DeShaun Watson, Garoppolo, and now possibly Kyler Murray would never hit the open market or trade market.  Now these guys and Wentz and maybe Cousin might be available. 

Before, teams like Carolina, the Giants, Denver, Washington and Pittsburgh would have little to no recourse but to wait for the draft and then compete againt teams higher up in the draft order to get their guy or wait until next year.  But with all of these vets available through trade or free agency, I think the desperation inflated demand for rookie QBs will be suppressed a bit, resulting in fewer teams looking to trade up.  I think the only teams that may trade up looking for a QB are the teams that are left without a chair when the music stops playing, and the veteran QB they were hoping for goes elsewhere.

Which is crazy, imo. Why would you get rid of a decent veteran QB this year when the QB draft class is so bad? I don't get it.

I typically agree with you.

But in the case of Watson, Rodgers and possibly Wilson and Murray, the QBs are forcing the issue.  Whereas before they were either content or resigned to stay with their original teams, they are excercizing their leverage in ways they had not before. 

Their teams are left with a horrible choice.  Either keep the QB on the roster, they refuse to play, and they are on the hood for what are considerable salaries without salary cap relief (like Houston), the player can retire, which means you only get salary cap relief from his absence from the roster but no draft picks to aid in the transition from him, or you trade an accomplished player at the most important position, without any guarantee his replacement is on the horizon or is anywhere close in quality to the guy you traded away.

If I were running those teams, I would do everything humanly possible to smooth things over with the guys like Rodgers and Wilson and Watson.  I wouldn't trade those guys unless there were absolutely no other way to move forward.  That is likely the case with Houston and Watson, but is not likely the case with Seattle and Wilson.

Conversely, if you are an otherwise good team like Washington or Pittsburgh and are only missing a QB to be a playoff contender, I'd definitely prefer to go after one of the vets as opposed to relying on a subpar class of rookies.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Which is crazy, imo. Why would you get rid of a decent veteran QB this year when the QB draft class is so bad? I don't get it.

I typically agree with you.

But in the case of Watson, Rodgers and possibly Wilson and Murray, the QBs are forcing the issue.  Whereas before they were either content or resigned to stay with their original teams, they are excercizing their leverage in ways they had not before. 

Their teams are left with a horrible choice.  Either keep the QB on the roster, they refuse to play, and they are on the hood for what are considerable salaries without salary cap relief (like Houston), the player can retire, which means you only get salary cap relief from his absence from the roster but no draft picks to aid in the transition from him, or you trade an accomplished player at the most important position, without any guarantee his replacement is on the horizon or is anywhere close in quality to the guy you traded away.

If I were running those teams, I would do everything humanly possible to smooth things over with the guys like Rodgers and Wilson and Watson.  I wouldn't trade those guys unless there were absolutely no other way to move forward.  That is likely the case with Houston and Watson, but is not likely the case with Seattle and Wilson.

Conversely, if you are an otherwise good team like Washington or Pittsburgh and are only missing a QB to be a playoff contender, I'd definitely prefer to go after one of the vets as opposed to relying on a subpar class of rookies.

Watson is a special case. Given that he is facing multiple criminal charges from a gluttony of women, I don't see how any team in their right mind would even consider trading for him. As far as Rodgers goes, the Packers screwed that one over so bad when they drafted Jordan Love, that they basically promised him they would trade if that's what he wanted, just so he wouldn't retire before the season began. That whole deal was mishandled and now they are stuck. As far as Wilson, Murray, Carr, Cousins and any other QB rumored to be on the block, there is no way in hell I trade them this year. That would be really dumb. There is certainly no upgrades for those teams in this particular QB draft class. I'd keep all those guys and pray that you can work things out, because I really, really don't like this QB class at all.

---