Normally I would be in complete agreement with you.

But I think because QBs are such a premium position, they are likely to go very early, which means those teams in the middle of the pack who still need a QB will have to give up more for that desperation trade up.  Since there is this gulf between Trask and the upper tier QBs, and the teams ahead of them have already met their QB needs in many instaces, they could wait for him to fall some and save draft capital, if they decide to not wait a year for their QB.

We'll just have to wait and see. With teams like the Jets, Houston, Carolina, Denver, San Francisco, New England, Washington, Chicago, Indianapolis and possibly New Orleans, Atlanta and Dallas all targeting a new QB and many being able to acquire one via a trade or free agency, this is gonna be very interesting.

 They said this is going to have the most QB change in NFL history.

All those teams you mentioned could be changing from QBs who were their week 1 starter last season. Even in the AFC south, there could be 3 new opening day starters just in our division.

---

Normally I would be in complete agreement with you.

But I think because QBs are such a premium position, they are likely to go very early, which means those teams in the middle of the pack who still need a QB will have to give up more for that desperation trade up.  Since there is this gulf between Trask and the upper tier QBs, and the teams ahead of them have already met their QB needs in many instaces, they could wait for him to fall some and save draft capital, if they decide to not wait a year for their QB.

We'll just have to wait and see. With teams like the Jets, Houston, Carolina, Denver, San Francisco, New England, Washington, Chicago, Indianapolis and possibly New Orleans, Atlanta and Dallas all targeting a new QB and many being able to acquire one via a trade or free agency, this is gonna be very interesting.

Regarding the QB position, I've never seen an offseason like this, even if nobody else gets traded.

I've never heard so many reports and rumors of good experienced signal callers potentially being traded, or, in the case of Brees and Rivers, retiring.

I wonder how much of this talk is driven by the possibility of a reduced salary cap, and how much is based upon the age of the QBs involved.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I wouldn't go into the draft with the expectation of trading.  We have multiple picks and many different needs.  As such, we can probably match need and value without having to move around.  I'm very reluctant to trade up if it involves any of our first five picks.  The fifth pick is the top pick in the third round.  That should be a starter for us.  If we use those picks to trade up, we'd be getting one starter instead of two.  I can come up with hypothetical exceptions where it would be worth it, but I find those scenarios to fall somewhere between "unlikely" and "unrealistic".  I'm fine with using our day 3 picks in trade ups if a quality player at a position of need falls, but doesn't appear will fall to us.  I'm also not a particular fan of trading future picks.  It feels like putting money on a credit card.  If you can't afford it now, you can't afford it later.

In regards to trade down, I'm not inclined to do it as I prefer quality and we already have a number of extra picks to get quantity.  However, sometimes it just makes sense.  If a team offers us an incredible offer, then sure, you take it.  It also can make sense if you have multiple players rated equally at need positions.  For example, if you have five players rated equally and all are needs, why not trade back five spots?  One of them will be there and you basically got an extra draft pick for free.

---

The only way I trade down from 25 is if I get a bounty of picks for that 5th year option. If Lance is on the board late I could see someone try to move up to grab him for the 5th year option

---

The only way I trade down from 25 is if I get a bounty of picks for that 5th year option. If Lance is on the board late I could see someone try to move up to grab him for the 5th year option

QB would be the most enticing target for someone to trade up. but not the only one.

I know a couple of years back, a lot of teams moved up in the second round for tackles.  All it takes is one team wanting one player.

But I would be cautious about trading down.  Sometimes you can get too cute and lose the player you want.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

https://blackandteal.com/2021/04/02/jagu...Ql2oPS5Deo

Which of these scenarios would be most appealing to you and why?

I would like the Baltimore trade, because it represents the shortest move down.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

https://blackandteal.com/2021/04/02/jagu...Ql2oPS5Deo

Which of these scenarios would be most appealing to you and why?

I would like the Baltimore trade, because it represents the shortest move down.

I agree.  The Baltimore trade would be better.  But I wouldn't hate the Green Bay trade, either.  There is too much value in keeping a second pick in the first round.  I'm not sure the quality of player you get in rounds 6 & 7 that aren't available as free agents after the draft.  But this year we need quantity upgrades more than we need potential stars.  As always, I'm biased towards upgrading and fortifying both lines.  Also, we should be able to pick up one of the top 4 or 5 TEs.  None of those available after Pitts (who will be gone in the top 10) may be a difference maker right away.  But they would upgrade the roster.

---

https://blackandteal.com/2021/04/02/jagu...Ql2oPS5Deo

Which of these scenarios would be most appealing to you and why?

I would like the Baltimore trade, because it represents the shortest move down.

I honestly would have to see who is still on the board, before I would consider any trade.

---

https://blackandteal.com/2021/04/02/jagu...Ql2oPS5Deo

Which of these scenarios would be most appealing to you and why?

I would like the Baltimore trade, because it represents the shortest move down.

In each of these scenarios, the trade basically netted at best a 4th round pick.  In the last draft, we selected Bartch, Scott, and Quarterman in the 4th round.  Although potentially good depth players, generally 4th round picks don't thrill me enough to risk moving down in the first round and risk losing a player(s) I may value highly.

---

https://blackandteal.com/2021/04/02/jagu...Ql2oPS5Deo

Which of these scenarios would be most appealing to you and why?

I would like the Baltimore trade, because it represents the shortest move down.

In each of these scenarios, the trade basically netted at best a 4th round pick.  In the last draft, we selected Bartch, Scott, and Quarterman in the 4th round.  Although potentially good depth players, generally 4th round picks don't thrill me enough to risk moving down in the first round and risk losing a player(s) I may value highly.

So which player(s) do you value highly at 25 to preclude you from trading down?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

In each of these scenarios, the trade basically netted at best a 4th round pick.  In the last draft, we selected Bartch, Scott, and Quarterman in the 4th round.  Although potentially good depth players, generally 4th round picks don't thrill me enough to risk moving down in the first round and risk losing a player(s) I may value highly.

So which player(s) do you value highly at 25 to preclude you from trading down?

Realistically, if Teven Jenkins, Zaven Collins, Liam Eichenberg or one of the top 3 corners (Surtain, Farley or Horn) are still on the board, I stay put and take them. If they are all gone, I probably take the Jets offer and trade down.

---

https://blackandteal.com/2021/04/02/jagu...Ql2oPS5Deo

Which of these scenarios would be most appealing to you and why?

I would like the Baltimore trade, because it represents the shortest move down.

I agree.  The Baltimore trade would be better.  But I wouldn't hate the Green Bay trade, either.  There is too much value in keeping a second pick in the first round.  I'm not sure the quality of player you get in rounds 6 & 7 that aren't available as free agents after the draft.  But this year we need quantity upgrades more than we need potential stars.  As always, I'm biased towards upgrading and fortifying both lines.  Also, we should be able to pick up one of the top 4 or 5 TEs.  None of those available after Pitts (who will be gone in the top 10) may be a difference maker right away.  But they would upgrade the roster.

I disagree.  The Jaguars lost very little in free agency and signed a ton of players.  The team surprisingly at this point actually has pretty good depth and we still have 10 draft picks to strengthen it further.  We also get first pick on the waiver wire which can be a good place to acquire depth.  We need quality starters.  When I go through the roster, I'm already having trouble finding positions for all of our mid-to-late round draft picks where they would be likely to make the team, particularly if you generally assume that Meyer/Baalke didn't sign free agents for the purpose of cutting them.  I'm more inclined to trade up than trade down.  If it did make sense to trade down somewhere, I would look to turn around and trade up somewhere else.

I do like the Baltimore trade the best because it represents the shortest move down.  If we think the player we want will still be there a couple of spots later, why not acquire an extra pick?  However, as I said, I'm not particularly looking for trade downs.

---

I agree we need stars now too. Our quantity over quality FA approach gave us a decent foundation outside of TE and OT, now we need the game changers to push us to contenders.

---

In each of these scenarios, the trade basically netted at best a 4th round pick.  In the last draft, we selected Bartch, Scott, and Quarterman in the 4th round.  Although potentially good depth players, generally 4th round picks don't thrill me enough to risk moving down in the first round and risk losing a player(s) I may value highly.

So which player(s) do you value highly at 25 to preclude you from trading down?

I think this team is lacking playmakers.  The team has filled many of the holes and created depth in free agency, delivering the opportunity to take the best playmaker available at 1-25, regardless of position.  In my opinion, the further they move down from pick 1-25, the more chance they diminish the quality or potential impact of the playmaker.  I am more an advocate for them to package a later round pick(s) to move up, not down.

Using Bucky Brooks mock 2.0, for example, he has picks 1-19 through 1-23 being DeVonta Smith, Christian Darrisaw, Jaelan Phillips, Greg Newsome, and Travis Etienne. Could I envision Baalke trading up "mildly" for one of the draft's guys like or similar to these...yes. It all depends, of course, who is still or projected to be on the board at the 1-25 spot (or before).

---

https://blackandteal.com/2021/04/02/jagu...Ql2oPS5Deo

Which of these scenarios would be most appealing to you and why?

I would like the Baltimore trade, because it represents the shortest move down.

I honestly would have to see who is still on the board, before I would consider any trade.

this.

but for the sake of conversation, I think it also depends on who you are targeting. If we have a number of later round guys on the radar, moving a little more or getting a later pick in the deal may make the trade more valuable than the other offers. Especially if the first round target is still expected to be on the board at 29, you have options.

I also think there comes a point where you have too many picks. Granted, those extra picks can help with upward mobility, but one of the things I've liked to do in sims is get future picks for moving this year - swap picks this year, and the team moving up sends a 2022 pick. For instance, the Jets trade, I'd rather get a 2022 3rd than their fourth this year for the slide back.

---

So which player(s) do you value highly at 25 to preclude you from trading down?

I think this team is lacking playmakers.  The team has filled many of the holes and created depth in free agency, delivering the opportunity to take the best playmaker available at 1-25, regardless of position.  In my opinion, the further they move down from pick 1-25, the more chance they diminish the quality or potential impact of the playmaker.  I am more an advocate for them to package a later round pick(s) to move up, not down.

Using Bucky Brooks mock 2.0, for example, he has picks 1-19 through 1-23 being DeVonta Smith, Christian Darrisaw, Jaelan Phillips, Greg Newsome, and Travis Etienne.  Could I envision Baalke trading up "mildly" for one of the draft's guys like or similar to these...yes.  It all depends, of course, who is still or projected to be on the board at the 1-25 spot (or before).

I agree with this generally.

While I am not averse to moving up, I think this team has enough holes and there's enough talent in this draft that either trading back and adding a mid round pick or two, or at the very least conserving the multiple mid round picks we have might be preferable on some level.  That said, if a stud LT like Sewell or Darrisaw should fall, then explore trading up.

---

I honestly would have to see who is still on the board, before I would consider any trade.

this.

but for the sake of conversation, I think it also depends on who you are targeting. If we have a number of later round guys on the radar, moving a little more or getting a later pick in the deal may make the trade more valuable than the other offers. Especially if the first round target is still expected to be on the board at 29, you have options.

I also think there comes a point where you have too many picks. Granted, those extra picks can help with upward mobility, but one of the things I've liked to do in sims is get future picks for moving this year - swap picks this year, and the team moving up sends a 2022 pick. For instance, the Jets trade, I'd rather get a 2022 3rd than their fourth this year for the slide back.

Trades are always going to depend on who you are targeting and who else is targeting your guy, whether you are trading up or down.

If you want a guy likely to be taken before your pick, and you have the capital to move up to get him, then you make the move up if you really want that player.

Conversely, if you are targeting a player, you don't trade down unless you can get that player of a player of comparable value with your later pick, or the number of picks make up for the difference.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Only one poster really addressed this, but that's probably because I really didn't raise it as an issue until now.

Here goes...

Assuming the team is looking to trade back, from which spot would you prefer the Jaguars trade back: 25, 33, or 45?

Why?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Only one poster really addressed this, but that's probably because I really didn't raise it as an issue until now.

Here goes...

Assuming the team is looking to trade back, from which spot would you prefer the Jaguars trade back:  25, 33, or 45?

Why?

I'd prefer to trade back from pick 33, because I believe they will get the best offer. This is most likely to occur if there is a potential playoff team desperately needing to upgrade one position and there is one player at that position who surprisingly dropped out of round 1. In this scenerio, it is possible for the Jaguars to receive that team's 2nd rounder plus a first rounder next year. This offer would be very hard to pass up.

---

Only one poster really addressed this, but that's probably because I really didn't raise it as an issue until now.

Here goes...

Assuming the team is looking to trade back, from which spot would you prefer the Jaguars trade back:  25, 33, or 45?

Why?

Again, it all depends on who is still on the board. If there is one of the OT's I targeted, still on the board at #25, I stay put and take them. If none of my OT's are left at #25, but Zaven Collins is, I stay put and take him. If Collins and all my targeted OT's are gone I'd consider a trade down from #25, unless there is a player I have in my top 15 overall, that is still available. In that case, they represent too much value and I have to take them, but anything outside of my top 15, I'd consider for the right price. The same would go for picks #33 and #45. If the value of the trade was greater than the players you still have on the board, you take the trade. Otherwise you don't.

---

Only one poster really addressed this, but that's probably because I really didn't raise it as an issue until now.

Here goes...

Assuming the team is looking to trade back, from which spot would you prefer the Jaguars trade back:  25, 33, or 45?

Why?

Again, it all depends on who is still on the board. If there is one of the OT's I targeted, still on the board at #25, I stay put and take them. If none of my OT's are left at #25, but Zaven Collins is, I stay put and take him. If Collins and all my targeted OT's are gone I'd consider a trade down from #25, unless there is a player I have in my top 15 overall, that is still available. In that case, they represent too much value and I have to take them, but anything outside of my top 15, I'd consider for the right price. The same would go for picks #33 and #45. If the value of the trade was greater than the players you still have on the board, you take the trade. Otherwise you don't.

For the sake of this question, assume that either:

I.  You could get comparable talent post trade that you could pre-trade, and/or;
2.  If you couldn't get comparable talent after the trade down, the compensation would be worth the move down.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!