Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Most of the pre draft discussion on this board has centered around QB, and whether one is worthy of the 3rd overall pick, or whether it would be best if we drafted another position at 3 and tried to get a QB later.

 

If the latter is the desired approach, the viability of the strategy may hinge on the ability of the team to trade up into the bottom of the first round.  This is true because if other QB hungry teams follow suit and decide to take something other than QB first, there will still be a lot of demand for these QBs in the 2nd round, as Houston, Cleveland, Oakland, arguably Tampa and Minnesota all have needs at QB.  Of these teams, all but Minnesota pick ahead of Jacksonville at the top of the second round, and Cleveland has an extra first round pick at 26.  If these QBs slide into the bottom half of the first round, it would be tough to expect them to slide all the way to 39.  There is simply too much demand at the position.  Even hoping Garropolo or Mettenberger will be there is risky.  The "best" hope in this scenario would be that Cleveland were to take Bortles early, which would then remove their two picks ahead of us out of the running for a QB.

 

But even if that happens, trading up might be a necessary evil if getting a viable QB is a high priority.  The question then becomes which teams might be willing trade partners to put us in position to land one of those signal callers.  I submit two such teams would be Carolina and Kansas City.

 

Both teams were really hit hard in free agency in particular areas.

 

Carolina lost their top 5 WRs from last year.  Steve Smith is now in Baltimore.  Ted Ginn is a Cardinal.  Lafell joined the Patriots.  To slow the bleeding, Carolina signed 11 year veteran Jerrico Cotchery and 9 year guy Jason Avant, but neither can stretch the field or command double coverage.  WR is a huge need for them if Cam Newton is to continue his positive development.  They were also hit hard in the offensive line with Jordan Gross' retirement and Travelle Wharton's possible retirement.

 

Kansas City lost three OL to free agency (Asamoah to Atlanta, Geoff Schwartz, and Branden Albert).  They also lost Dexter mcCluster and DL Tyson Jackson.  According to NFL.com, that's a total of 6000 snaps lost from last year's playoff team!  http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000...ree-agency

 

 

If either of these teams are going to have any realistic shot of returning to the post season, they are going to need a combination of quality and quantity that standing pat simply can't provide them.  They have ample incentive to trade down and stockpile picks.  With Kansas City and Carolina holding the 23rd and 28th picks respectively, those would appear to be two spots a team looking to trade up should target.

I think it makes sense to look at either franchise as a potential trade partner if we do decide we want to get back into the 1st round. 

Quote:I think it makes sense to look at either franchise as a potential trade partner if we do decide we want to get back into the 1st round. 

 

i agree. over the past few years the draft has become less and less predictable. this year particularly im having a really hard time even coming up with a guess of what the jaguars might do. my gut says somehow the first round pick will be manziel. my head things mack. probably both are wrong. 

Quote:I think it makes sense to look at either franchise as a potential trade partner if we do decide we want to get back into the 1st round. 

 

The thing is, I kinda agree with TMD in terms of trading up in this draft.  This draft is so deep and our needs so myriad, I would be reluctant to trade up.

 

However, this team is devoid of star caliber players, specifically QB and a pass rusher.

 

If we want Clowney and a signal caller later, we may need to bite the bullet and deal away a mid round pick or two to ensure we get the guys we need.

 

Also...if we were planning on taking a WR in the 2nd or 3rd round to exploit the depth that is in this WR class, we have to plan around these teams, too, because it is certain they will dip into the WR pool.

Quote:i agree. over the past few years the draft has become less and less predictable. this year particularly im having a really hard time even coming up with a guess of what the jaguars might do. my gut says somehow the first round pick will be manziel. my head things mack. probably both are wrong. 

 

I think the draft has become less predictable for Jaguars fans because we have a new coach, a new GM, and we have so many needs, we could literally draft almost any position and upgrade the team.

 

As for your gut, while I am not a Manziel fan, taking a QB first might be the best way to ensure the Jaguars don't have to trade up later, because if we took a QB first, we'd avoid the competition for the QBs at the bottom of the first/top of the second round.  A quality player would be pushed down to us at 39.

No way should we trade up, at all.

Why not trade with our big brother out west, Seattle, at 32?

Quote:Why not trade with our big brother out west, Seattle, at 32?

 

If the intent is to trade up to get a QB in the bottom half of the first round, it's probably safe to assume the guys you'd be willing to go up for won't be there at 32. 

Quote:The thing is, I kinda agree with TMD in terms of trading up in this draft.  This draft is so deep and our needs so myriad, I would be reluctant to trade up.

 

However, this team is devoid of star caliber players, specifically QB and a pass rusher.

 

If we want Clowney and a signal caller later, we may need to bite the bullet and deal away a mid round pick or two to ensure we get the guys we need.

 

Also...if we were planning on taking a WR in the 2nd or 3rd round to exploit the depth that is in this WR class, we have to plan around these teams, too, because it is certain they will dip into the WR pool.

 

Agreed.  I am not a proponent of trading up unless there's just a can't lose opportunity and the cost to get back into the first round isn't prohibitive. 

While you are right about Carolina and K.C. definitely needing more picks, IMO Arizona at #20 would be key to trade back into the 1st for a QB.  They (Cardinals) don't really have any other glaring needs, so I see them taking the last remaining top 4 QB at #20 (probably Bridgewater, who I would not give up ANY picks for if I were Caldwell).

 

I see Minnesota trading up to #2 or #3 to take Bortles if Houston does not take him at #1.  Manziel and Carr go some place in the top 10.  Then Bridgewater is snagged by Arizona at #20.  The new idea mock I just did had Mack going #1 overall after Houston can't trade down:

 

1. HOU - OLB K. Mack (Clowney just does not fit their system and Mack is perfect for their 3-4...scared of QB at #1 overall)

2. MIN - QB Blake Bortles (Vikings don't take a chance to see who is left at #8 and trade up to get first pick of QB's)

3. JAC - DE J. Clowney (ideal situation to take Clowney here and a QB in 2nd, or trade down if right offer is there)

4. CLE - QB J. Manziel (Browns then take big WR K. Benjamin at #26to pair with Manziel, Gordon and TE Cameron)

5. OAK - QB D. Carr (rumors keep coming back to the Raiders loving Carr and they pull the trigger here)

6. ATL  - OT G. Robinson (Falcons "settle" for best OT in the draft after their main target K. Mack goes #1)

7. TAM - WR S. Watkins (Watkins falls in their lap after run on QB's and pass rushers, could take Bridgewater here)

8. STL - OT J. Matthews (trade works perfectly fot Rams as they get the starting Left OT Fisher want anyways)

9. BUF - WR M. Evans (must have playmakers for E.J. Manuel, and Evans too good to pass up with Stevie Johnson in decline)

10. DET - OLB A. Barr (could go CB here, but I think they choose to add more pass rush and go CB later)

**20. ARI - QB T. Bridgewater (perfect situation for Teddy to physically fill out one more year then take over in 2015)

 

So.... no to trading up.  If anything we trade down in the 1st so we have 4 picks in the first 3 rounds (all starters).  We take a QB in the 2nd (Garoppolo) or later if the situation is not right.

 

Houston might be the team to trade with Arizona at #20 so the Texans can get Clowney/Mack and a QB. 

Quote:Why not trade with our big brother out west, Seattle, at 32?

I would consider Seattle another potential trading partner.

 

But as FBT indicated in his response to you, that may not be high enough to ensure the Jaguars get their QB, especially if Cleveland does not go QB at 4.

 

Remember, other teams need QBs too, and other teams may be fearful a competitor will take the guy they want, so other teams may be prepared to maneuver to ensure they get their guy.

Quote:The thing is, I kinda agree with TMD in terms of trading up in this draft.  This draft is so deep and our needs so myriad, I would be reluctant to trade up.

 

However, this team is devoid of star caliber players, specifically QB and a pass rusher.

 

If we want Clowney and a signal caller later, we may need to bite the bullet and deal away a mid round pick or two to ensure we get the guys we need.

 

Also...if we were planning on taking a WR in the 2nd or 3rd round to exploit the depth that is in this WR class, we have to plan around these teams, too, because it is certain they will dip into the WR pool.

 

If there is a guy that you feel is really "special", then I'm for it. None of the QB's in this class really scream that to me, but I can understand the reasoning from a GM if that was the case.

Quote:While you are right about Carolina and K.C. definitely needing more picks, IMO Arizona at #20 would be key to trade back into the 1st for a QB.  They (Cardinals) don't really have any other glaring needs, so I see them taking the last remaining top 4 QB at #20 (probably Bridgewater, who I would not give up ANY picks for if I were Caldwell).

 

I see Minnesota trading up to #2 or #3 to take Bortles if Houston does not take him at #1.  Manziel and Carr go some place in the top 10.  Then Bridgewater is snagged by Arizona at #20.  The new idea mock I just did had Mack going #1 overall after Houston can't trade down:

 

1. HOU - OLB K. Mack (Clowney just does not fit their system and Mack is perfect for their 3-4...scared of QB at #1 overall)

2. MIN - QB Blake Bortles (Vikings don't take a chance to see who is left at #8 and trade up to get first pick of QB's)

3. JAC - DE J. Clowney (ideal situation to take Clowney here and a QB in 2nd, or trade down if right offer is there)

4. CLE - QB J. Manziel (Browns then take big WR K. Benjamin at #26to pair with Manziel, Gordon and TE Cameron)

5. OAK - QB D. Carr (rumors keep coming back to the Raiders loving Carr and they pull the trigger here)

6. ATL  - OT G. Robinson (Falcons "settle" for best OT in the draft after their main target K. Mack goes #1)

7. TAM - WR S. Watkins (Watkins falls in their lap after run on QB's and pass rushers, could take Bridgewater here)

8. STL - OT J. Matthews (trade works perfectly fot Rams as they get the starting Left OT Fisher want anyways)

9. BUF - WR M. Evans (must have playmakers for E.J. Manuel, and Evans too good to pass up with Stevie Johnson in decline)

10. DET - OLB A. Barr (could go CB here, but I think they choose to add more pass rush and go CB later)

**20. ARI - QB T. Bridgewater (perfect situation for Teddy to physically fill out one more year then take over in 2015)

 

So.... no to trading up.  If anything we trade down in the 1st so we have 4 picks in the first 3 rounds (all starters).  We take a QB in the 2nd (Garoppolo) or later if the situation is not right.

 

Houston might be the team to trade with Arizona at #20 so the Texans can get Clowney/Mack and a QB. 

 

I understand your point about Arizona, but I take a bit of a different approach to them.

 

In a very competitive division, they barely missed out on the playoffs by a tiebreaker.  They actually beat Seattle in Seattle.

 

If things go right for the Cardinals, they could contend for home field advantage.

 

With that in mind, I think they would be more inclined to go for a more immediate impact player at 20, and take a developmental QB behind Palmer later.

Quote:If there is a guy that you feel is really "special", then I'm for it. None of the QB's in this class really scream that to me, but I can understand the reasoning from a GM if that was the case.

 

 

You may be right about no "special" QBs.

 

But it may be a matter of getting a competent QB.

 

Either way, we may need to be prepared to deal up.

Quote:You may be right about no "special" QBs.

 

But it may be a matter of getting a competent QB.

 

Either way, we may need to be prepared to deal up.

 

Are we limiting our 'dealing up' to just picks from this draft or would you consider trading away next season's First? Imagine if we can dupe Carolina or Kansas City into a 'one for one' swap which includes their '14 First Rounder and our '15 First Rounder. Dream scenario for us I would think, but would that change your mind?

I looked at the draft pick value chart.   I know it's just a guideline, but for what it's worth, the cost of trading from #39 to #29 would be a 4th round pick and a 5th round pick, or some other combination. 

 

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

 

Currently we have these picks: 

 

Pick    Value

3         2200

39       510

70       240

105      84

114      66

144      34

150      31

159      28

179      20

205      9

222      3

 

If we trade up from pick 39 to pick 28, that's a 150 point jump, so it will cost us approximately picks 105 and 114. 

And if we get an offer from Atlanta to drop from pick 3 to pick 6, it should cost them their second round pick. 

 

STANDARD DISCLAIMER-

I know, I know, the chart may vary from one year to the next, and teams don't adhere to it at all, but I guarantee you every team uses some sort of quick reference like the draft pick value chart, as a shortcut for when they are on the clock and they have an offer.

Quote:Are we limiting our 'dealing up' to just picks from this draft or would you consider trading away next season's First? Imagine if we can dupe Carolina or Kansas City into a 'one for one' swap which includes their '14 First Rounder and our '15 First Rounder. Dream scenario for us I would think, but would that change your mind?

 

No, I placed no such limits in this speculation.

 

That said, I would not do such a trade.

 

The idea of somehow moving up without giving up any picks this year other than the 39 would be intriguing, but I am loathe to give up a # 1 next year.

 

If our season took a turn for the worse, we could be in position to get an impact player next year.  We'd really jones for that first round pick.

Quote:I looked at the draft pick value chart.   I know it's just a guideline, but for what it's worth, the cost of trading from #39 to #29 would be a 4th round pick and a 5th round pick, or some other combination. 

 

http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php

 

Currently we have these picks: 

 

Pick    Value

3         2200

39       510

70       240

105      84

114      66

144      34

150      31

159      28

179      20

205      9

222      3

 

If we trade up from pick 39 to pick 28, that's a 150 point jump, so it will cost us approximately picks 105 and 114. 

And if we get an offer from Atlanta to drop from pick 3 to pick 6, it should cost them their second round pick. 

 

STANDARD DISCLAIMER-

I know, I know, the chart may vary from one year to the next, and teams don't adhere to it at all, but I guarantee you every team uses some sort of quick reference like the draft pick value chart, as a shortcut for when they are on the clock and they have an offer.

 

If that meant getting a QB, I might pull the trigger on that.

 

A 4th and 5th would not be cost prohibitive, IMO.

The more I think about this, the less inclined I am to trade back into the 1st round.  This is especially true if we're offering up our 2015 first rounder in exchange. 

 

Personally, the 2015 draft has the potential to be the one where trading up might make sense depending on how things go this year.  I'd hate to tie our hands next year when the possibility of landing a genuine franchise QB exists.

Quote:If that meant getting a QB, I might pull the trigger on that.

 

A 4th and 5th would not be cost prohibitive, IMO.

 

Actually, I was wrong when I said a 4th round pick and a 5th round pick.  Picks 105 and 114 would be both of our our 4th round picks.   Those are picks we could use on a guard and a center.   That's a tough decision.  

 

I would have to be very convinced that the QB I was targeting was the guy, AND that we had guard and center taken care of without those picks. 

 

I'd have to do a 7 round mock draft, and then take out the guys we picked 39th, 105th, and 114th, and add back the guy we would pick 28th.