One thing we need to consider is that all these GMs will be working at home during the draft and they won't have all that war room infrastructure available to them.   This might handicap them from making sudden first round trades that haven't been worked out before hand.  

I could see the usual number of overnight trades between rounds.  But to pull off an unplanned trade in the middle of the first round when the GMs are sitting at home by themselves?   I could see a lot of hesitation there.

I don't consider that an issue at all.

Teams know what to expect. They will have their board. They know how to reach other teams. They still are doing all the prep to know who is likely to go where, and if they want to get to that pick, what will be needed to move.

IIRC, the league said that they are also going to do a trial run of the virtual darft. If they find issues with timing and communications, they will make consolations.

---

You don't take flyers in the first round.

@Trautman isn't supposed to go till the third, duh@

---

Under the right circumstances you might.  


But then again, perhaps our operational definitions of "flyer" differs.

But accepting your interpretation of that word at face value, what would you do if you won't take one of the QBs, the players you would have otherwise wanted are now off your board, and what is left are either receivers (a position most on these boards are loathe to take that high, especially in a generationally deep WR class) or players deemed reaches at the position?

At 9 I am taking Lamb or Kinlaw. Kinlaw because he fills a huge need and is the second highest rated DT and I would take Lamb because I feel he is going to be special and I want to give Minshew the best possible chance ro succeed.

But under the hypothetical, Kinlaw has an issue(s) that makes the team not want to take him in the first.

Would you be willing to spend the 9 overall on a player with medical/character issues?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

At 9 I am taking Lamb or Kinlaw. Kinlaw because he fills a huge need and is the second highest rated DT and I would take Lamb because I feel he is going to be special and I want to give Minshew the best possible chance ro succeed.

But under the hypothetical, Kinlaw has an issue(s) that makes the team not want to take him in the first.

Would you be willing to spend the 9 overall on a player with medical/character issues?

It depends on how our interview with the player went. When it comes to medical, I have to trust my doctors. If the kid shows he has matured and his character issues are in the past and out doc clears him medically, I am taking Kinlaw over anyone else at 9.

---

But under the hypothetical, Kinlaw has an issue(s) that makes the team not want to take him in the first.

Would you be willing to spend the 9 overall on a player with medical/character issues?

It depends on how our interview with the player went. When it comes to medical, I have to trust my doctors. If the kid shows he has matured and his character issues are in the past and out doc clears him medically, I am taking Kinlaw over anyone else at 9.

So then you ARE willing to take a chance on a risky player-a flyer- at 9?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

If the Jags don't take Tua in that scenario, they will end up regretting it. As much as many of us like GM he is far from a lock to even be an above average QB.

---

If the Jags don't take Tua in that scenario, they will end up regretting it. As much as many of us like GM he is far from a lock to even be an above average QB.

Some would say that Tua is far from a lock to even make the field consistently, much less be an above average QB.

---

If the Jags don't take Tua in that scenario, they will end up regretting it. As much as many of us like GM he is far from a lock to even be an above average QB.

Then you can say the same about all other rookie QBs from last year since Minshew was better than all of them.

---

It depends on how our interview with the player went. When it comes to medical, I have to trust my doctors. If the kid shows he has matured and his character issues are in the past and out doc clears him medically, I am taking Kinlaw over anyone else at 9.

So then you ARE willing to take a chance on a risky player-a flyer- at 9?

There is a difference between a risk and a flyer.

---

One thing we need to consider is that all these GMs will be working at home during the draft and they won't have all that war room infrastructure available to them.   This might handicap them from making sudden first round trades that haven't been worked out before hand.  

I could see the usual number of overnight trades between rounds.  But to pull off an unplanned trade in the middle of the first round when the GMs are sitting at home by themselves?   I could see a lot of hesitation there.

I am sure GMs will often discuss the general parameters of potential trades beforehand under normal circumstances.  They may not get into specifics-like which player they are interested in, but they may discuss generally how interested they are in moving and what they would look for to move up/down.   With the reliance on the technology taken to a whole new level this year, and given how complex some trades can get, with possibly no guarantee of extra time allotted to execute the trades, teams will have to move fast.  I'm sure more pre draft work/collaboration between GMs will happen this year.  Teams will have to be more decisive this year to pull off trades and haggling may be limited, especially rounds 3-7 since there are only 5 minutes between picks.

Edit:  Here is a quote from Tampa's GM Jason Licht about adapting to  the circumstances...https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/04/10/bucs-g-m-ready-to-phone-it-in-if-need-be/

That said, for those of you who think we already have more picks than we can use, consider the following hypothetical:

Suppose the GMs shared Caldrac's concern about the QBs in this draft class and the top 8 went something like this

1.  Cin-Burrow
2.  Was-Chase Young
3.   Det-Okudah
4.  NYG-Wills
5.  Mia-Wirfs
6.  LAC-Thomas
7.  Car-Brown
8.  Ariz-Becton

Suppose also that pre draft work showed three prospects linked to the Jaguars-Simmons, Kinlaw and Henderson-have some sort of publicly undisclosed medical and/or character issues that make the Jaguars more reluctant to select them at 9 for whatever reason.

What would you do if you are Caldwell under these circumstances?

Would you take a flyer on one of the QBs?
Would you take the receiver of your choice?
Would you reach for another player?
Or would you relent and trade back?

Please explain your answer.

I will do two of the choices with one swoop.

Trade back would be an ideal situation. With all the better tackles going jets panic and trade up for a WR Juedy and give up #68 and #120. We take #11 and take a WR - Lamb then trade up from #20 to #16 w/ the falcons (For #20 and #68) for Henderson or Kinlaw. 

So I would take the trade back, and grab the WR.

---

LOVE THEM JAGUARS!

That said, for those of you who think we already have more picks than we can use, consider the following hypothetical:

Suppose the GMs shared Caldrac's concern about the QBs in this draft class and the top 8 went something like this

1.  Cin-Burrow
2.  Was-Chase Young
3.   Det-Okudah
4.  NYG-Wills
5.  Mia-Wirfs
6.  LAC-Thomas
7.  Car-Brown
8.  Ariz-Becton

Suppose also that pre draft work showed three prospects linked to the Jaguars-Simmons, Kinlaw and Henderson-have some sort of publicly undisclosed medical and/or character issues that make the Jaguars more reluctant to select them at 9 for whatever reason.

What would you do if you are Caldwell under these circumstances?

Would you take a flyer on one of the QBs?
Would you take the receiver of your choice?
Would you reach for another player?
Or would you relent and trade back?

Please explain your answer.

Some team *cough* Miami *cough* will want Tua - or Hebert.  The tough part is, Simmons is still on the board.  I wouldn't take a receiver this high in this particular class on a dare.

With a Miami trade, we can still get a very good receiver at 18 or 20 and probably net Henderson.  A LOT of possibilities, including some you didn't mention.  The Vikes at 22 and Pats at 23 aren't out of the running for a QB, and might make an offer too good to refuse if they fall in love with a passer, be it Tua or Hebert.

---

That said, for those of you who think we already have more picks than we can use, consider the following hypothetical:

Suppose the GMs shared Caldrac's concern about the QBs in this draft class and the top 8 went something like this

1.  Cin-Burrow
2.  Was-Chase Young
3.   Det-Okudah
4.  NYG-Wills
5.  Mia-Wirfs
6.  LAC-Thomas
7.  Car-Brown
8.  Ariz-Becton

Suppose also that pre draft work showed three prospects linked to the Jaguars-Simmons, Kinlaw and Henderson-have some sort of publicly undisclosed medical and/or character issues that make the Jaguars more reluctant to select them at 9 for whatever reason.

What would you do if you are Caldwell under these circumstances?

Would you take a flyer on one of the QBs?
Would you take the receiver of your choice?
Would you reach for another player?
Or would you relent and trade back?

Please explain your answer.

Some team *cough* Miami *cough* will want Tua - or Hebert.  The tough part is, Simmons is still on the board.  I wouldn't take a receiver this high in this particular class on a dare.

With a Miami trade, we can still get a very good receiver at 18 or 20 and probably  net Henderson.  A LOT of possibilities, including some you didn't mention.  The Vikes at 22 and Pats at 23 aren't out of the running for a QB, and might make an offer too good to refuse if they fall in love with a passer, be it Tua or Hebert.

Well of course a team in the top 5-10 will take a chance with Tua or Herbert.  That's the nature of the QB position.

The initial focus of the thread is trading down from 9.

I deliberately did not discuss QB possibilities because I don't think the team would trade down that far (9 into the 20s), to say nothing of the fact the original post would have become a novel had I done so.  I thought it more appropriate/likely in a "Trade down from 20" discussion.

I agree with you that Minnesota, New England, New Orleans and Green Bay are all teams that could take a QB early under the right circumstances.  Cousins is on the last year of a three year deal, and given the losses they have suffered on their once great defense and the trade of Diggs, they may be willing to start over at the position.  The Patriots let Brady walk.  The Saints and Packers have very old QBs.  While Brees and Rodgers are still effective, either or both could decline appreciably this year.  Besides, the Packers are one of those teams that are proactive in terms of addressing the QB position.  They drafted Rodgers and sat him on the bench while they still had Favre and Favre was still a viable passer.  If Pittsburgh had a first round pick this year, I would include them in the discussion, and I can't imagine them being without a first round pick in back to back years (were they to send next year's 1 to us in a deal).

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Some team *cough* Miami *cough* will want Tua - or Hebert.  The tough part is, Simmons is still on the board.  I wouldn't take a receiver this high in this particular class on a dare.

With a Miami trade, we can still get a very good receiver at 18 or 20 and probably  net Henderson.  A LOT of possibilities, including some you didn't mention.  The Vikes at 22 and Pats at 23 aren't out of the running for a QB, and might make an offer too good to refuse if they fall in love with a passer, be it Tua or Hebert.

Well of course a team in the top 5-10 will take a chance with Tua or Herbert.  That's the nature of the QB position.

The initial focus of the thread is trading down from 9.

I deliberately did not discuss QB possibilities because I don't think the team would trade down that far (9 into the 20s), to say nothing of the fact the original post would have become a novel had I done so.  I thought it more appropriate/likely in a "Trade down from 20" discussion.

I agree with you that Minnesota, New England, New Orleans and Green Bay are all teams that could take a QB early under the right circumstances.  Cousins is on the last year of a three year deal, and given the losses they have suffered on their once great defense and the trade of Diggs, they may be willing to start over at the position.  The Patriots let Brady walk.  The Saints and Packers have very old QBs.  While Brees and Rodgers are still effective, either or both could decline appreciably this year.  Besides, the Packers are one of those teams that are proactive in terms of addressing the QB position.  They drafted Rodgers and sat him on the bench while they still had Favre and Favre was still a viable passer.  If Pittsburgh had a first round pick this year, I would include them in the discussion, and I can't imagine them being without a first round pick in back to back years (were they to send next year's 1 to us in a deal).

Cousins signed an extension a few weeks back

---

Since we have discussed trading up from 20 here, I figured I might as well discuss why the teams above us in that draft order might/might not be willing to move down.

10. Cleveland-primary need: LT.
Why would they trade down? If they miss out on the T of their choice or the top 4 tackles, given their needs and how the talent seems to proect, 20 might be a more appropriate spot under the circumstances. Furthermore, they are one of the analytics teams, and it's my understanding that analytics teams are more inclined to gavor trading down (I may be wrong on this point because the Jaguars have not traded down),

Why wouldn’t they trade down? Simple. If the T they want is still on the board, it would be silly of them to get too cute and overthink this. Just make the pick.

11. N.Y. Jets-Primary needs: LT, WR
Why would they trade down? Actually I can't imagine them trading down given how the board is likely to fall. The only scenario I could see them trading back to 20 is if there was an early run on the LTs and all of the top 4 are gone by now, plus their top choice of WR is gone. That can only happen if the QBs drop, IMO. That plus a desire to recoup the draft choices lost in trading up for Darnold a couple of years ago.

Why wouldn’t they trade down? Their top choices at T or receiver are likely to be there. If they went BPA if their choices are gone, they should still end up with a good player.

What would a trade cost Jacksonville? According to the Drafttek chart, the difference between 11 and 20 is 400 points, or the equivalent of a mid low 2nd. Note the Jets have a desperate need for an edge rusher and are rumored to be one of the teams interested in Ngakoue. Perhaps they somehow bundle these picks and players together?. (Add'l note: each subsequent draft position is worth 50 points less in the trade value chart)


12 and 19. Las Vegas-Primary need: WR
Why would they trade down? With the Cardinals theft of Hopkins from the Texans, they are not likely to pick a WR, which means barring a trade up, the top tier of 3 WRs (Jeudy, Lamb, Ruggs) should still be on the board at 12. If they are set on one guy and he is somehow off the board by 12, maybe they move back.

Why wouldn’t they trade down? Sitting still should still net them one of the top 3 WRs if they like all three, and there is a good chaince their top choice may still be on the board. Besides, they alreadty have a bunch of draft picks, and could still upgrade spots on defense like DT or CB if they stand pat.

What should we pay in trade? There is a 350 point difference between the 12 and the 20th pick-about a late 2. Probably the 12 and #91 for 20 and 42

13. San Francisco-Primary needs: WR, CB, DT
Why would they trade down? If they wanted to accumulate depth to soften the blow of inevitable free agency losses from such a young and talented team. The problem is, after the 31st pick in the draft, the 49ers don’t pick again until round 5. If they value Kinlaw or one of the top WRs, they will stand pat. But if they like the depth in this draft class and want to add depth to their roster, they should be interested in moving down.

Why wouldn’t they trade down? Even with the loss of Buckner, this is a very talented team whose Super bowl window is still wide open. If they could add a guy like Kinlaw or Ruggs/Jeudy, their window should be open longer. But not having any picks from rounds 2-4 can limit much needed depth.

What should we expect to pay them to trade down? There is a 300 point difference between 13 and 20, about a mid to late 2. See similar trade to Raiders above. I think this represents one of the best possibilities of a trade up from 20, TBH.

14. Tampa Bay-Primary needs: T, RB, DT
Why would they trade down? If they missed out on a T to protect Brady, 14 might be too low to land a guy like Kinlaw, and too high to take a RB or maybe Josh Jones.

Why wouldn’t they trade down? Good chance Kinlaw is there at 14. A Vea, Suh--Kinlaw triumvirate would be a strong rotation at DT. If one of the top tier Ts are there, forget it. They will do everything they can to give Brady the protection he needs.

What should we expect to pay them in a trade? There is a 250 point difference between 14 and 20, Our 3rd round pick and our first 5th round pick should be enough per the chart is decent price to get the guy we want. But I don't see Tampa moving down.

15. Denver-Primary needs: WR, LT
Why would they trade down? Given the depth of the WR class, I could see Elway wanting to add more depth while still getting Lock a viable weapon opposite Sutton and Fant. Again, trades are often about relationships between GMs. Caldwell established a rapport with Elway with the Bouye trade. Perhaps they collaborate again. Twenty isn't too far down from 15.

Why wouldn’t they trade down? If one of the top 4 WRs fall, forget it. Josh Jones seems to fit around this point in the draft if all of the top 3 receivers fall. Could even take a CB is Henderson is there and pair him with Bouye.
.
What should we expect to get from them? Difference of 200 points between 15 and 20-the equivalent of a 3rd round pick with change. That shouldn't be too expensive for the Jaguars to move up, but would they move down?

16. Atlanta-Primary needs: DT, CB
Why would they trade down? Caldwell also has a rapport with the Atlanta FO.
Why wouldn’t they trade down? They are in a pretty good spot to land the CB of their choice after Okudah.
What should we expect to pay in trade? Per the trade chart, there is a 150 point difference between 16-20-a late 3rd.

17. Dallas-Primary needs: DT, CB, WR
Why would they trade down? See SF discussion on CB. They have a lot of DBs likely to become free agents/cap casualties next year and may need extra picks to supply many cheaper replacements in a deep DB draft. They also like to make a splash.

Why wouldn’t they trade down? If they sit tight, CB meets need and value at 17, the depth of the WR class enables them to wait until round 2.
What should we exoect to pay them? Hundred point difference between picks-a late 3rd.

18. Miami

Why would they trade down? Even though they have had a good offseason so far and have a ton of picks, considering how talent depleted they were, they could add a pick later and still get a similar caliber player.

Why wouldn’t they trade down? If someone unexpectedly falls, they may not think it is worth whatever minor benefit they would get. Of course given their ammo, I wouldn't think they would just sit and wait if they saw someone fall. I think like the Jaguars, they would try to move u[ from here.

---

Well of course a team in the top 5-10 will take a chance with Tua or Herbert.  That's the nature of the QB position.

The initial focus of the thread is trading down from 9.

I deliberately did not discuss QB possibilities because I don't think the team would trade down that far (9 into the 20s), to say nothing of the fact the original post would have become a novel had I done so.  I thought it more appropriate/likely in a "Trade down from 20" discussion.

I agree with you that Minnesota, New England, New Orleans and Green Bay are all teams that could take a QB early under the right circumstances.  Cousins is on the last year of a three year deal, and given the losses they have suffered on their once great defense and the trade of Diggs, they may be willing to start over at the position.  The Patriots let Brady walk.  The Saints and Packers have very old QBs.  While Brees and Rodgers are still effective, either or both could decline appreciably this year.  Besides, the Packers are one of those teams that are proactive in terms of addressing the QB position.  They drafted Rodgers and sat him on the bench while they still had Favre and Favre was still a viable passer.  If Pittsburgh had a first round pick this year, I would include them in the discussion, and I can't imagine them being without a first round pick in back to back years (were they to send next year's 1 to us in a deal).

Cousins signed an extension a few weeks back

D'oh!  Missed that!  Mea culpa and thanks.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Supposedly the Broncos really like Jefferson and he's been mocked to them at 15 over guys like Ruggs and Jeudy a handful of times. That might be the best trade partner since he will likely still be there at 20 and then we can get Henderson or Kinlaw.

---

Supposedly the Broncos really like Jefferson and he's been mocked to them at 15 over guys like Ruggs and Jeudy a handful of times. That might be the best trade partner since he will likely still be there at 20 and then we can get Henderson or Kinlaw.

If this is true, that makes them a more viable trade partner, but they would have to beware of the Eagles jumping ahead of them for Jefferson if they get too cute.

I think I would rank the teams in terms of likelihood of trading down with us like this

1.  San Francisco
2.  Dallas
3.  Denver
4.  Cleveland
5.  Atlanta
6.  N.Y. Jets

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Well of course a team in the top 5-10 will take a chance with Tua or Herbert.  That's the nature of the QB position.

The initial focus of the thread is trading down from 9.

I deliberately did not discuss QB possibilities because I don't think the team would trade down that far (9 into the 20s), to say nothing of the fact the original post would have become a novel had I done so.  I thought it more appropriate/likely in a "Trade down from 20" discussion.

I agree with you that Minnesota, New England, New Orleans and Green Bay are all teams that could take a QB early under the right circumstances.  Cousins is on the last year of a three year deal, and given the losses they have suffered on their once great defense and the trade of Diggs, they may be willing to start over at the position.  The Patriots let Brady walk.  The Saints and Packers have very old QBs.  While Brees and Rodgers are still effective, either or both could decline appreciably this year.  Besides, the Packers are one of those teams that are proactive in terms of addressing the QB position.  They drafted Rodgers and sat him on the bench while they still had Favre and Favre was still a viable passer.  If Pittsburgh had a first round pick this year, I would include them in the discussion, and I can't imagine them being without a first round pick in back to back years (were they to send next year's 1 to us in a deal).

My gut, based on a bunch of mock drafts and reading a bunch of analysts, is that either Tua or Hebert will be available at 9.  However, if 3 QBs are taken in the first 8 picks, that's actually really great for the Jags too.  It leaves us a pretty good choice of non-QBs, including probably Simmons or our first choice at OT or WR.  I think Hebert will still be on the board, and when another team falls in love him, well...

Glad you mentioned the Favre/Rodgers situation.  I'll bet most GMs remember it too - the smart ones, anyway.  If someone in the 20s loves Hebert, values him as worthy of the #9, AND has the draft capital, I could see a trade up happening.

BTW, had the first post been a novel, I'd still have read it.

---

Well of course a team in the top 5-10 will take a chance with Tua or Herbert.  That's the nature of the QB position.

The initial focus of the thread is trading down from 9.

I deliberately did not discuss QB possibilities because I don't think the team would trade down that far (9 into the 20s), to say nothing of the fact the original post would have become a novel had I done so.  I thought it more appropriate/likely in a "Trade down from 20" discussion.

I agree with you that Minnesota, New England, New Orleans and Green Bay are all teams that could take a QB early under the right circumstances.  Cousins is on the last year of a three year deal, and given the losses they have suffered on their once great defense and the trade of Diggs, they may be willing to start over at the position.  The Patriots let Brady walk.  The Saints and Packers have very old QBs.  While Brees and Rodgers are still effective, either or both could decline appreciably this year.  Besides, the Packers are one of those teams that are proactive in terms of addressing the QB position.  They drafted Rodgers and sat him on the bench while they still had Favre and Favre was still a viable passer.  If Pittsburgh had a first round pick this year, I would include them in the discussion, and I can't imagine them being without a first round pick in back to back years (were they to send next year's 1 to us in a deal).

My gut, based on a bunch of mock drafts and reading a bunch of analysts, is that either Tua or Hebert will be available at 9.  However, if 3 QBs are taken in the first 8 picks, that's actually really great for the Jags too.  It leaves us a pretty good choice of non-QBs, including probably Simmons or our first choice at OT or WR.  I think Hebert will still be on the board, and when another team falls in love him, well...

Glad you mentioned the Favre/Rodgers situation.  I'll bet most GMs remember it too - the smart ones, anyway.  If someone in the 20s loves Hebert, values him as worthy of the #9, AND has the draft capital, I could see a trade up happening.

BTW, had the first post been a novel, I'd still have read it.

Yes...if three QBs go in the top 6 as most seem to predict, then a good player will fall to us.  Furthermore, if any team in the 20s gets desperate for Jordan Love, maybe they try to package a deal to get him.  I just saw something the teams with the most draft capital.  The Patriots were one of those teams.  But somehow I don't see them moving up that high for Love.

Thanks for the closing line.  I know my QB post caused some pain.  Don't wanna do that again.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...und-trade/

Article on the Eagles possibly trading up.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...und-trade/

Article on the Eagles possibly trading up.

I'm not trading past 16 or 17 unless I'm getting an absolute haul. As I've said a bunch I think there's a steep drop off about 18 in this draft I'm not going below that unless it's a future 1st and then some.

---

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...und-trade/

Article on the Eagles possibly trading up.

I'm not trading past 16 or 17 unless I'm getting an absolute haul. As I've said a bunch I think there's a steep drop off about 18 in this draft I'm not going below that unless it's a future 1st and then some.

I'm not inclined to deal past 16, TBH.

But the Eagles still may give us a huge haul-doubtful, and they still may trade for Ngakoue.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!