Quote:Here, I'll help you.
Yes or no, does the entire OP revolve around the Saints trade? Yes.
Yes or no, does the poster come in and say it's impossible to use the Saints trade as a comparison model? Yes.
Follow?
I get that you want this to be all about you....but thats not how this message board works.
With that said, if we get a large amount of picks...we take that.
Quote:The original post is based on the Saints trade. That particular comes in and says he doesn't like comparing it to the Saints trade because that isn't realistic. If he doesn't like comparing it to the Saints trade, he shouldn't be hijacking a thread where the original post is comparing to the Saints trade.
You follow?
But it's perfectly okay for you to hijack the other thread, m i rite?
depends on what QBs come out
Quote:You wouldn't even make the trade if a team was willing to give up what the Saints gave up? You crazy?
No, bleedingteal thinks that whoever the media says is the best QB in the draft you have to take because he is and if you dont you cant get a franchise QB. He don't know that half of the time the one they say is the best isn't. He doesn't know you could make that trade and still come out with the better QB and the picks especially with a draft like this if Hundley, Marriota, Hogan, and Manziel comes out.
Holmgren wanted to trade his entire draft for Andrew Luck and the Colts would have rightly laughed him off the line. That pick was literally unattainable once Indianapolis secured it.
The only trade scenarios I see possible at #1 are if 1. Oakland lands it and Pryor still impresses (highly unlikely), or 2. Washington is worse than Jacksonville (also highly unlikely) and Fisher lets his mancrush on Bradford trade it away for another goldmine.
In reality, the Jaguars are the big favorites to finish with the worst record.
Let's just say that if the Rams could go back and reject the Washington trade for their #2 pick and thus RG3, they would hang up the phone and take RG3 for sure. Learn from other teams mistakes don't repeat them. If you don't have a QB and there is a clear top rated QB in your grasp you don't trade it for anything.
It would have to be 3 or 4 first rounders, combined with a plethora of secondary draft choices....
And the team I am trading down with is no lower than 2 overall, so we'd get Clowney at 2...
And the Jags would already have to have Kirk Cousins on the roster....
Otherwise, I'm just taking Bridgewater at 1.
I do it in a heartbeat. I like the topic too.
Where everyone swings and misses here is that there is no such thing as the "sure fire guy"
Go back through the past 20 drafts or so, and look at all the "can't miss" guys that were drafted in the top picks and turned out to be duds. I am not going to sit and rattle off names. Anyone with google can do it for themself. The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a "can't miss guy" regardless of what everyone thinks or hopes.
Having multiple picks in high rounds increases a team's chances of making good picks and overcoming bad ones.
Look at what poor picks have done to the Jags. I rest my case right there. For everyone wanting to put all the eggs into any basket haven't been paying attention to history.
If the front office sees a top notch QB is available, their guy, somebody they are confident has the potential to be a franchise level player, you take him. You pass on the deal and pick your guy. You don't "play it safe" you stick to your guns and take him. Whether he works out or not will play itself out but you don't risk missing out on a potential franchise QB.
If the front office is not confident any franchise QB is sitting there then you take the deal and plan accordingly. I personally hope Caldwell finds a franchise QB regardless of who it is. It's time for us to find one, I'm fine with Caldwell taking the "risk" and passing on extra picks if he thinks he has his QB.
Quote:If the team below you wants Clowney, I'd take a 2nd to swap places.
That sounds pretty dangerous to me. The only way you could know this is if you asked them for a guarantee of who they're taking (which is on the honor system by the way). If you only agree to a move after that confirm they
aren't taking your QB, then why would they trade you anything? You've already confirmed you're not taking Clowney (you have proved you want the QB). So they could just sit tight if they really wanted Clowney.
On the other hand, if they were still willing to move up even knowing that you aren't taking Clowney, then I'd be concerned they were lying and would take the QB anyway, or possibly take the kings ransom to then turn around and trade pick 1 to another team who wants the QB.
Quote:That sounds pretty dangerous to me. The only way you could know this is if you asked them for a guarantee of who they're taking (which is on the honor system by the way). If you only agree to a move after that confirm they aren't taking your QB, then why would they trade you anything? You've already confirmed you're not taking Clowney (you have proved you want the QB). So they could just sit tight if they really wanted Clowney.
On the other hand, if they were still willing to move up even knowing that you aren't taking Clowney, then I'd be concerned they were lying and would take the QB anyway, or possibly take the kings ransom to then turn around and trade pick 1 to another team who wants the QB.
Another poster started a thread about this same subject before the old board shut down. It is a terrible idea. If you have the first pick, you just take the QB. It is as if some don't realize we're going to suck until we get a franchise QB. If one is there for the taking, why play a game of chicken and risk losing.
Quote:That sounds pretty dangerous to me. The only way you could know this is if you asked them for a guarantee of who they're taking (which is on the honor system by the way). If you only agree to a move after that confirm they aren't taking your QB, then why would they trade you anything? You've already confirmed you're not taking Clowney (you have proved you want the QB). So they could just sit tight if they really wanted Clowney.
On the other hand, if they were still willing to move up even knowing that you aren't taking Clowney, then I'd be concerned they were lying and would take the QB anyway, or possibly take the kings ransom to then turn around and trade pick 1 to another team who wants the QB.
There are teams that could end up 2nd that are good at QB. And we all saw what Cleveland did in 2012 trading up a spot for Trent Richardson (who is now a Colt at that). If you can be sure that the team's going to take Clowney, I'd think you'd take that 2nd rounder and then get Bridgewater -- and then you take another QB in the 2nd round with the extra 2nd pick.
Quote:Another poster started a thread about this same subject before the old board shut down. It is a terrible idea. If you have the first pick, you just take the QB. It is as if some don't realize we're going to suck until we get a franchise QB. If one is there for the taking, why play a game of chicken and risk losing.
I realize that. I think most people do. I want Bridgewater over Clowney for sure, and I really don't have the same opinion on some of the other QB's that everyone else does (Mariotta, Carr, Murray). But Bridgewater isn't a guarantee in the NFL (Nor is Luck or Clowney for that matter it's time we stop pretending that). Bridgewater does likely provide the best opportunity in this draft for a franchise guy. But being able to pick up another QB in the second would be great, especially because of how our QB situation has been.
Quote:There are teams that could end up 2nd that are good at QB.
Maybe, but then why in the world would they trade us anything to move? If we're willing to trade with them so they can take the DE, then we weren't taking him anyway, right?
Quote:Maybe, but then why in the world would they trade us anything to move? If we're willing to trade with them so they can take the DE, then we weren't taking him anyway, right?
"We really, really want Clowney here, but have too many holes and would swap picks and just settle for Bridgewater if it meant filling another hole." -Jags front office bluffing.
Quote:"We really, really want Clowney here, but have too many holes and would swap picks and just settle for Bridgewater if it meant filling another hole." -Jags front office bluffing.
If the Jags could bluff them out and get someone to give us the farm, and we still get Bridgewater at 2, then I'm all for it.
Quote:Maybe, but then why in the world would they trade us anything to move? If we're willing to trade with them so they can take the DE, then we weren't taking him anyway, right?
Team at 4: "We'll give you a 2nd, and a 3rd if you switch with us!"
Team at 2: "Don't take that trade, we'll give you our 2nd if you switch places with us, and not take that deal with the team at 4!"
Quote:I do it in a heartbeat. I like the topic too.
Where everyone swings and misses here is that there is no such thing as the "sure fire guy"
Go back through the past 20 drafts or so, and look at all the "can't miss" guys that were drafted in the top picks and turned out to be duds. I am not going to sit and rattle off names. Anyone with google can do it for themself. The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a "can't miss guy" regardless of what everyone thinks or hopes.
Having multiple picks in high rounds increases a team's chances of making good picks and overcoming bad ones.
Look at what poor picks have done to the Jags. I rest my case right there. For everyone wanting to put all the eggs into any basket haven't been paying attention to history.
Yeah, I pretty much feel the same way. I remember all the hype over Vince Young and Matt Leinart. That being said, Bridgewater does look good. So do half a dozen other guys, though.
I am actually not against the "Pick 4 QBs" idea either, except maybe cut it to 2. Dallas did it once, kept the one they wanted, and traded the other for picks.
If there's anything the Jags can learn from the past 10 years, is that you don't ignore the QB position at draft time. Swing, swing, swing, and you'll eventually hit. Don't swing, and you sure never will.
Quote:Team at 4: "We'll give you a 2nd, and a 3rd if you switch with us!"
Team at 2: "Don't take that trade, we'll give you our 2nd if you switch places with us, and not take that deal with the team at 4!"
I see your point. I'm not sure we could convince anyone we are seriously willing to move back beyond 2 though.