Lets say after the Colts took Luck they ended up with the #1 pick the following year. Another Luck came along but there was a DE at a slightly lesser grade (by 1 point) also available... Do the Colts still take the next Andrew Luck even though they already have one?

 

If they're smart they pull an RG3 style trade with a team in the NFC.

 

If no one will trade then yes, you take the guy. Drafting the best player isn't just about getting the best guy for your team, but stopping your opponents from getting a great player.

---

I said always take the highest rated guy if you can't trade back.

 

I consider it a reach any time you take a guy that you already evaluated as worse than a guy you're passing up. That includes if you rated one guy an 87 and the other an 86.

 

And as I said, always doing anything is a bad approach.  You should have flexibility depending on the situation.  And Caldwell disagrees with you as he has stated as much.  You may not care and obviously disagree with him, but there isn't one GM who does what you advocate.  ZERO.

---

If they're smart they pull an RG3 style trade with a team in the NFC.

 

If no one will trade then yes, you take the guy. Drafting the best player isn't just about getting the best guy for your team, but stopping your opponents from getting a great player.

 

You are also stopping yourself from getting a very good/great DE (potentially).  Teams should be more focused on what they are doing and less worried about hoarding players from other teams.  

---

You are also stopping yourself from getting a very good/great DE (potentially).  Teams should be more focused on what they are doing and less worried about hoarding players from other teams.  

 

It's really a rather academic argument. If Andrew Luck were in this year's draft the Texans could likely trade the pick for a team's whole draft plus some of next years.

 

Still, I'd rather have Joe Montana AND Steve Young and keep winning Superbowls instead of having to play against him all the time.

---

It's really a rather academic argument. If Andrew Luck were in this year's draft the Texans could likely trade the pick for a team's whole draft plus some of next years.

 

Still, I'd rather have Joe Montana AND Steve Young and keep winning Superbowls instead of having to play against him all the time.

 

But you aren't getting a benefit from both.  If I have Andrew Luck at this age, he is playing for 10+ years.  The other QB will only see the field in preseason.  So pretty hard to command some trade better then #1 overall pick when no one gets a chance to see what he can do.  In the meantime, you passed on a DE who could actually help you on the field on game day.  You may take the QB away from your opponent, but the DE you passed up may be sacking your QB while the QB you have is doing nothing but riding the pine.  

---

But you aren't getting a benefit from both.  If I have Andrew Luck at this age, he is playing for 10+ years.  The other QB will only see the field in preseason.  So pretty hard to command some trade better then #1 overall pick when no one gets a chance to see what he can do.  In the meantime, you passed on a DE who could actually help you on the field on game day.  You may take the QB away from your opponent, but the DE you passed up may be sacking your QB while the QB you have is doing nothing but riding the pine.  

 

Are you kidding? Teams trade for backups all the time, and really trade a lot.

 

Remember what the Jaguars got for Rob Johnson?

 

Besides, most of a guy's value is in the perception of his quality. If the Colts still had Manning and tried to trade Andrew Luck they would get A LOT of picks for him.

---

It's really a rather academic argument. If Andrew Luck were in this year's draft the Texans could likely trade the pick for a team's whole draft plus some of next years.

 

Still, I'd rather have Joe Montana AND Steve Young and keep winning Superbowls instead of having to play against him all the time.

The difference is that the 49ers didn't spend back to back first round picks in getting both QBs.

 

The 49ers traded, IIRC, a 4th round pick for Steve Young back in 1987-88-some 9-10 years into Joe Montana's career.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Its pretty simple....pick players who stand out. Who've actually made impact on their teams. Playmakers at skill positions and Linemen that do their jobs well. 

 

You could find these at every draft round. 

---

The difference is that the 49ers didn't spend back to back first round picks in getting both QBs.

 

The 49ers traded, IIRC, a 4th round pick for Steve Young back in 1987-88-some 9-10 years into Joe Montana's career.

 

We've been over this many times. The Bucs got 2nd and 4th round picks for Young, who they obviously didn't think was any good.

 

Point is QBs have value, a lot of value. The idea that the Colts would pass on the next Andrew Luck and just hand him to the next team in the order is ludicrous, they would make someone pay dearly for him, and someone would.

---

We've been over this many times. The Bucs got 2nd and 4th round picks for Young, who they obviously didn't think was any good.

 

Point is QBs have value, a lot of value. The idea that the Colts would pass on the next Andrew Luck and just hand him to the next team in the order is ludicrous, they would make someone pay dearly for him, and someone would.

 

My omission of the 2nd round pick aside, my larger point stands.

 

Message board academics would warrant a first round BAP QB selection one year after taking a first round QB, but actual NFL executives rarely would do/have done such a thing. 

 

As for trading out of the spot where a QB might be the BAP or where there is a demand for a QB when your team already has a QB, that is not exclusive to BAP teams.

 

If you assume Shack was a needs drafter (as so many have), recall in 2007, he traded down when Brady Quinn was on the board and wound up with Reggie Nelson.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

My omission of the 2nd round pick aside, my larger point stands.

 

Message board academics would warrant a first round BAP QB selection one year after taking a first round QB, but actual NFL executives rarely would do/have done such a thing. 

 

As for trading out of the spot where a QB might be the BAP or where there is a demand for a QB when your team already has a QB, that is not exclusive to BAP teams.

 

If you assume Shack was a needs drafter (as so many have), recall in 2007, he traded down when Brady Quinn was on the board and wound up with Reggie Nelson.

 

Never just pass on an elite QB prospect to select a much worse talent.

 

Also I'm not sure what relevance Quinn has, Shack was pretty stuck on Leftwich and seemed bound and determined to make a success of the guy. I don't know that Shack would have ever drafted a replacement for him.

---

Never just pass on an elite QB prospect to select a much worse talent.

 

Also I'm not sure what relevance Quinn has, Shack was pretty stuck on Leftwich and seemed bound and determined to make a success of the guy. I don't know that Shack would have ever drafted a replacement for him.

 

The premise behind BAP is that if the BAP on your board when you are on the clock does not represent a need, but instead a possible strength, you try trading out of the position. 

 

Quinn was considered a first round talent at QB by some (a top ten talent according to much of the pre draft speculation at the time) who slid down to the Jaguars' pick at 17.  Jacksonville traded back when Quinn was on the board when they were on the clock.  Even though Shack is considered to be a needs drafter, he understood the value of trading down under those circumstances.  How would that be any different from the BAP drafter who traded down when BAP is not at a position of need?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Are you kidding? Teams trade for backups all the time, and really trade a lot.

 

Remember what the Jaguars got for Rob Johnson?

 

Besides, most of a guy's value is in the perception of his quality. If the Colts still had Manning and tried to trade Andrew Luck they would get A LOT of picks for him.

 

Again, you are taking him #1 overall.  Not likely you will get the same compensation back when the guy is going to be on the bench.  Obviously the best time to make a trade would be trading the pick not picking him and trying to trade later.

 

That is because we have seen what Andrew Luck can do.  If Colts still had Manning, Luck would be on the bench.  Are you getting more then the #1 overall pick for Luck by only watching him in preseason?  

---

The premise behind BAP is that if the BAP on your board when you are on the clock does not represent a need, but instead a possible strength, you try trading out of the position. 

 

Quinn was considered a first round talent at QB by some (a top ten talent according to much of the pre draft speculation at the time) who slid down to the Jaguars' pick at 17.  Jacksonville traded back when Quinn was on the board when they were on the clock.  Even though Shack is considered to be a needs drafter, he understood the value of trading down under those circumstances.  How would that be any different from the BAP drafter who traded down when BAP is not at a position of need?

 

The difference is the Needs guy takes a player of less value if he can't trade down and the BAP guy goes ahead and takes the player of more value.

 

I'm not sure what your point is, that sometimes two different equations equal the same value? Sure they do, that doesn't mean the two equations are the same everywhere.

---

We've been over this many times. The Bucs got 2nd and 4th round picks for Young, who they obviously didn't think was any good.

 

Point is QBs have value, a lot of value. The idea that the Colts would pass on the next Andrew Luck and just hand him to the next team in the order is ludicrous, they would make someone pay dearly for him, and someone would.

 

No, they would trade the pick.  He was giving a specific scenario.  

---

Again, you are taking him #1 overall.  Not likely you will get the same compensation back when the guy is going to be on the bench.  Obviously the best time to make a trade would be trading the pick not picking him and trying to trade later.

 

That is because we have seen what Andrew Luck can do.  If Colts still had Manning, Luck would be on the bench.  Are you getting more then the #1 overall pick for Luck by only watching him in preseason?  

 

Yes, you are getting that much only watching him in the preseason. Have you not paid attention to anything?

 

The Jaguars even got a pick for Gabbert. Gabbert

---

The difference is the Needs guy takes a player of less value if he can't trade down and the BAP guy goes ahead and takes the player of more value.

 

I'm not sure what your point is, that sometimes two different equations equal the same value? Sure they do, that doesn't mean the two equations are the same everywhere.

 

There is no BAP and Need only guys.  They all do some combination.  Maybe some guys are more BAP and others are more Need, but they all use a combination.  

---

Yes, you are getting that much only watching him in the preseason. Have you not paid attention to anything?

 

The Jaguars even got a pick for Gabbert. Gabbert

 

Okay, so you are getting the #1 overall pick which you used for Luck to then trade again for the #1 overall pick.  Quite the risk to only get the same exact value you had before.

---

We as the fans didn't know what Leftwich would be, but when the Jaguars radio guys talk about the 2004 draft they say a lot of guys already knew at that point that Leftwich would never make it in the league and that taking Roethlisberger should have been done.

 

QB is the most important position in all of sports, and if a truly elite prospect is there you either have to take him or make someone else pay to come and get him. Anything else is wasting value, and the draft is all about value.

 

Free agency is for positional need.

 

Whhhhhhaat? Who are these guys who knew Leftwich would never make it after 13 starts? I'll tell you who, they are either rainman style savants or flat out liars. Going into 2005 this was Byron's team.

 

You what else QBs are, the most expensive thing in football. With the salary cap and the old CBA, nobody is taking QBs in the top 10 twice, it would be madness.

 

I hate to keep revisiting history because it really doesn't agree with what you say. Roethlisberger was not this cast iron absolutely must be BAP on every board player. Nobody traded up for Roethlisberger, you dont think if someone had offered a big trade to pick him someone would have taken it wouldn't they, but no.

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

Okay, so you are getting the #1 overall pick which you used for Luck to then trade again for the #1 overall pick.  Quite the risk to only get the same exact value you had before.

 

You'd get more than just a #1 pick for Luck, even if he was behind Manning.

 

The Jaguars got a first and fourth rounder for Rob Johnson based on one regular season game, and he wasn't a heralded guy coming out.

 

If the Colts had kept Manning and traded Luck this offseason they'd get an RG3 style haul for him.

---