The Cost of Trading Up

[GimmedaBall]

It's too much to give up to get up there. We all want the franchise QB, but picking through the leftovers and paying for the privilege to do so is a recipe for disaster.

Not to mention the already noted history of trade ups not working out, and the fact that this roster is going to need players next year with very few under contract. We need the picks.

Yup.

 

[Minski]

It's too much to give up to get up there. We all want the franchise QB, but picking through the leftovers and paying for the privilege to do so is a recipe for disaster.

Not to mention the already noted history of trade ups not working out, and the fact that this roster is going to need players next year with very few under contract. We need the picks.

Would you do it for the #1?

 

[Solar7]

Would you do it for the #1?

Absolutely not.

This roster has too many holes. Giving away multiple #1s could be multiple top 5 picks. Add in us not being able to fill our gaping holes at WR and CB with 2nd rounders, assuming we'd have to give those up too, and we're going to be devoid of talent with no way to replace it.

 

[oaken1]

Saw a tweet from Jurecki the other day that said we would have to part with a 1,2,3 this year, along with a 1 and 2 next year in order to move up to #4.

The first part is doable to me, because we would still be left with the #4 pick and our 3rd round compensatory pick. It is what we would have to give up next year that gives me pause.

if we are gonna do that,... may as well throw in an additional first and just get the #1

 

[oaken1]

Absolutely not.

This roster has too many holes. Giving away multiple #1s could be multiple top 5 picks. Add in us not being able to fill our gaping holes at WR and CB with 2nd rounders, assuming we'd have to give those up too, and we're going to be devoid of talent with no way to replace it.

such a fear of failure, lol.... Multiple #1's could also be a stack of #32's...... but the truth is it is far more likely they are somewhere in between.

it matters who you are trading up for. So many times I have seen those trades happen and said "That is insane"..... Carson Wentz was the first time I really wanted the Cards to trade up,... but the lambs and iggles jumped in and did it.
Sam Darnold is worth the trade to #1...

but based on keims M.O. we will have to wait six years and hope that cleveland does not ruin him in the meantime.

 

[Ohcrap75]

No. Because in a scenario where the 1st 3 picks are QBs Cards would get a chance at #4 QB.

I wouldn't do this blindly like the Jets. But I would if after the top 3 picks were already made and Darnold somehow still on the board. I agree that before those picks are in this wouldn't be too smart!

 

[Solar7]

such a fear of failure, lol.... Multiple #1's could also be a stack of #32's...... but the truth is it is far more likely they are somewhere in between.

it matters who you are trading up for. So many times I have seen those trades happen and said "That is insane"..... Carson Wentz was the first time I really wanted the Cards to trade up,... but the lambs and iggles jumped in and did it.
Sam Darnold is worth the trade to #1...

but based on keims M.O. we will have to wait six years and hope that cleveland does not ruin him in the meantime.

It's not a fear of failure, it's just looking forward and being honest about my assets. If this team had a belly full of solid talent, and really needed a QB to take the next step, fine, count me in. But we currently have no #2 CB, no X or Y WR (and only 3 under contract), are thin on the defensive line, have questions at linebacker, and those are just the glaring immediate issues, much less the issues we face in 2019 to fill out a roster.

It's not like the rookie is going to play this year and drive us to a 10-win season. We're going to be praying Bradford holds up, or else watching Glennon fail miserably out there. There's a very good chance this team flops this year. I'm not willing to give up years of top-flight, cheap players, for one guy that isn't old enough to order a beer in the bar, and pin all of our franchise's hopes on him doing something with nothing.

 

[GimmedaBall]

Teams add talent via trade, FA, or the draft.

The millions given to Cousins in his fully guaranteed contract will have dramatic implications for signing valuable FA vets. Look for more guys (not just QBs) to demand that their contract is fully guaranteed---there goes the current way the cap is managed.

Because it is going to be more costly to fill out the roster with competent FA players, there will be more value placed on getting top talent via the cost-controlled draft. Whereas in the past, a GM could fill a Position of Need by combing through the FA discount bin---it will soon be cheaper against the cap to do so via the draft.

So, if you want to continue to fill out the roster need to plan on more emphasis on the draft. You can't do that if you bartered away your top picks on a gamble that the 4th QB of the board is going to be a winner. Chances are that guy will be a bonafide bust and the team is left without picks and trying to flush out the roster while giving away guaranteed money.

I've posted plenty of supporting evidence on several different threads that spending lots of draft capital to move to the top of the draft doesn't work. I've not seen any comparable supporting evidence that it does work. For those wanting to give up multiple drafts to get to #4 (or whatever), please provide the preponderance of the evidence that that is the way to go and that historically that has paid off. Need to see this on a career long basis and not just one good year (see Goff, Wentz).

Just repeating the mantra that 'We need a franchise QB' does make trading multiple picks as the way to get there.

 

[oaken1]

It's not a fear of failure, it's just looking forward and being honest about my assets. If this team had a belly full of solid talent, and really needed a QB to take the next step, fine, count me in. But we currently have no #2 CB, no X or Y WR (and only 3 under contract), are thin on the defensive line, have questions at linebacker, and those are just the glaring immediate issues, much less the issues we face in 2019 to fill out a roster.

It's not like the rookie is going to play this year and drive us to a 10-win season. We're going to be praying Bradford holds up, or else watching Glennon fail miserably out there. There's a very good chance this team flops this year. I'm not willing to give up years of top-flight, cheap players, for one guy that isn't old enough to order a beer in the bar, and pin all of our franchise's hopes on him doing something with nothing.

Marino, Luck, Dalton....all lead their teams to the playoffs their rookie seasons....so did Matt Ryan....their teams were not afraid to put them in the game and make it work.

regardless of all the "sky is falling" our roster is not horrible...we have a few holes to fill...
but the basic fact is, with another WR we can win with what we have. Add in a center and we even look better for the future.....draft a center, a CB and a WR and we look pretty good....obviously we need a couple vets on the defense but there are three dozen vet corners on the market.

 

[Jetstream Green]

It's not a fear of failure, it's just looking forward and being honest about my assets. If this team had a belly full of solid talent, and really needed a QB to take the next step, fine, count me in. But we currently have no #2 CB, no X or Y WR (and only 3 under contract), are thin on the defensive line, have questions at linebacker, and those are just the glaring immediate issues, much less the issues we face in 2019 to fill out a roster.

It's not like the rookie is going to play this year and drive us to a 10-win season. We're going to be praying Bradford holds up, or else watching Glennon fail miserably out there. There's a very good chance this team flops this year. I'm not willing to give up years of top-flight, cheap players, for one guy that isn't old enough to order a beer in the bar, and pin all of our franchise's hopes on him doing something with nothing.

Solar, it's like this and it's no revelation to you, I or anyone, we do not have a quarterback of the future. Even when we had Warner or Palmer it was short lived because we do not have our own young cornerstone. If you do not get him, you will never be consider a winning franchise. We cannot put this off any longer. Yes, it's our fault for not attempting a more conservative drafting of one at least in the second last year or the year before and rely more on getting lucky but we did not. So, being that you do not go into this blindly, there is only one recourse which is you draft the guy you think has the best chance of being successful. If it happens to be a guy like Rudolph who you think may last to the fifteen, then you take him there and stay put. If you think that is Darnold or a guy like Rosen, then you move up and take him. Solar, it's not the act of the trade which makes the guy fail in the draft, it's trading up for the wrong guy for your franchise. Lastly, I think everyone one of the players in this draft can order their own beer now (this is not the NBA draft) and it's not the trip in itself which gets you in trouble but the bar and how much you drink

 

[gbrim21]

Teams add talent via trade, FA, or the draft.

The millions given to Cousins in his fully guaranteed contract will have dramatic implications for signing valuable FA vets. Look for more guys (not just QBs) to demand that their contract is fully guaranteed---there goes the current way the cap is managed.

Because it is going to be more costly to fill out the roster with competent FA players, there will be more value placed on getting top talent via the cost-controlled draft. Whereas in the past, a GM could fill a Position of Need by combing through the FA discount bin---it will soon be cheaper against the cap to do so via the draft.

So, if you want to continue to fill out the roster need to plan on more emphasis on the draft. You can't do that if you bartered away your top picks on a gamble that the 4th QB of the board is going to be a winner. Chances are that guy will be a bonafide bust and the team is left without picks and trying to flush out the roster while giving away guaranteed money.

I've posted plenty of supporting evidence on several different threads that spending lots of draft capital to move to the top of the draft doesn't work. I've not seen any comparable supporting evidence that it does work. For those wanting to give up multiple drafts to get to #4 (or whatever), please provide the preponderance of the evidence that that is the way to go and that historically that has paid off. Need to see this on a career long basis and not just one good year (see Goff, Wentz).

Just repeating the mantra that 'We need a franchise QB' does make trading multiple picks as the way to get there.

Agree with a lot of your post, but that's a pretty high bar to pass: "I want to see it on a career long basis." The flip side to that is fans who'll argue that they want more recent examples of it actually working out, which would take the exact opposite set of demands to the ones you require.

I don't see how you can write off Goff/Wentz unless you actually don't anticipate them being good NFL QB's. These examples are sound. Are they the exception to the rule? Sure, that's valid, but I don't think we doubt they'll continue to be good QB's and worth the price paid by their teams.

The only question that matters is: is the guy we're trading up for any good? That's the only relevant piece. If he turns out to be a great QB, he's worth about any price. If he's a dud, we'll all rant and rave.

We all played this "show me" game when we traded for Kolb. The narrative back then was: show me a QB drafted in the 2nd round who was any good. And there weren't any. They either went in the 1st, or a team got lucky in a later round. Conclusion: never draft a QB in the 2nd. Then Derek Carr came and broke that stigma. Now we are all trying to come up with examples to support whatever narrative we support, be it trade up, never trade up, or the Keim approach: never draft a QB.

There are no hard and fast rules here. It just comes down to whether the dude can play, which we won't know until he gets on the field.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Solar7]

Solar, it's like this and it's no revelation to you, I or anyone, we do not have a quarterback of the future. Even when we had Warner or Palmer it was short lived because we do not have our own young cornerstone. If you do not get him, you will never be consider a winning franchise. We cannot put this off any longer. Yes, it's our fault for not attempting a more conservative drafting of one at least in the second last year or the year before and rely more on getting lucky but we did not. So, being that you do not go into this blindly, there is only one recourse which is you draft the guy you think has the best chance of being successful. If it happens to be a guy like Rudolph who you think may last to the fifteen, then you take him there and stay put. If you think that is Darnold or a guy like Rosen, then you move up and take him. Solar, it's not the act of the trade which makes the guy fail in the draft, it's trading up for the wrong guy for your franchise. Lastly, I think everyone one of the players in this draft can order their own beer now (this is not the NBA draft) and it's not the trip in itself which gets you in trouble but the bar and how much you drink

Sam Darnold, the presumed #1 overall pick, is 20 years old and won't be 21 until June. He's specifically who I was referencing.

We can definitely put it off longer. We cannot afford to gut the rest of this roster for a "quarterback of the future" and expect him to transcendentally improve the play of the rest of the team, including a unit he does not play on. We are not a franchise one piece away. Our division is so difficult right now that we are not a team that is going to win now adding him to the roster, and we're absolutely going to waste his career if we cannot put weapons around him to compete.

 

[Dan H]

Teams add talent via trade, FA, or the draft.

The millions given to Cousins in his fully guaranteed contract will have dramatic implications for signing valuable FA vets. Look for more guys (not just QBs) to demand that their contract is fully guaranteed---there goes the current way the cap is managed.

Because it is going to be more costly to fill out the roster with competent FA players, there will be more value placed on getting top talent via the cost-controlled draft. Whereas in the past, a GM could fill a Position of Need by combing through the FA discount bin---it will soon be cheaper against the cap to do so via the draft.

So, if you want to continue to fill out the roster need to plan on more emphasis on the draft. You can't do that if you bartered away your top picks on a gamble that the 4th QB of the board is going to be a winner. Chances are that guy will be a bonafide bust and the team is left without picks and trying to flush out the roster while giving away guaranteed money.

I've posted plenty of supporting evidence on several different threads that spending lots of draft capital to move to the top of the draft doesn't work. I've not seen any comparable supporting evidence that it does work. For those wanting to give up multiple drafts to get to #4 (or whatever), please provide the preponderance of the evidence that that is the way to go and that historically that has paid off. Need to see this on a career long basis and not just one good year (see Goff, Wentz).

Just repeating the mantra that 'We need a franchise QB' does make trading multiple picks as the way to get there.

It works both ways, though.

QB are by far the most expensive FA acquisitions. If you have a good one on a rookie contract, that frees up cap money to go after elite OL FAs, or supplement other positions. That, to me, is worth spending multiple picks on a franchise guy.

 

[Solar7]

It works both ways, though.

QB are by far the most expensive FA acquisitions. If you have a good one on a rookie contract, that frees up cap money to go after elite OL FAs, or supplement other positions. That, to me, is worth spending multiple picks on a franchise guy.

Elite players rarely make it to market, and frequently have a major drop in production after getting paid. They're mercenaries, not part of your culture, and you have to overpay for them and be stuck with dead money if they don't pan out.

It's a major issue when we don't just need to "supplement positions," but have basically no one to fill the roster spot. (WR and #2 CB, specifically.)

 

[Gandhi]

It's too much to give up to get up there. We all want the franchise QB, but picking through the leftovers and paying for the privilege to do so is a recipe for disaster.

Not to mention the already noted history of trade ups not working out, and the fact that this roster is going to need players next year with very few under contract. We need the picks.

No, they don’t need picks. They need a stud franchise quarterback. How they get that guy is obviously up for debate. Also, none of us has a chance of knowing who they like the best. It could very easily be the third or fourth quarterback drafted, and thus there really is no point in thinking about whether they are left with picking through the leftovers. You are right that they might select the third or fourth quarterback off the board, but that’s obviously a completely different discussion.

History tells us that trading up for a quarterback has been a good idea the last two years. Five teams have done it, and I think it’s safe to say that all five of them are happy that they did. Yes, the conclusion would be different if you went further back in history, but the NFL evolves so fast that you could argue that it would be irrelevant to do so.

I can’t remember who on this board brought this up, and I would like to apologize to that poster, but the Packers are probably the best example of a team that is bad without their best quarterback but can’t be ruled out as contenders when they have that quarterback on the field. My point is that you need good quarterback-play to win in this league, and the cost to secure a good franchise quarterback cannot be too high.

 

[Solar7]

No, they don’t need picks. They need a stud franchise quarterback. How they get that guy is obviously up for debate. Also, none of us has a chance of knowing who they like the best. It could very easily be the third or fourth quarterback drafted, and thus there really is no point in thinking about whether they are left with picking through the leftovers. You are right that they might select the third or fourth quarterback off the board, but that’s obviously a completely different discussion.

History tells us that trading up for a quarterback has been a good idea the last two years. Five teams have done it, and I think it’s safe to say that all five of them are happy that they did. Yes, the conclusion would be different if you went further back in history, but the NFL evolves so fast that you could argue that it would be irrelevant to do so.

I can’t remember who on this board brought this up, and I would like to apologize to that poster, but the Packers are probably the best example of a team that is bad without their best quarterback but can’t be ruled out as contenders when they have that quarterback on the field. My point is that you need good quarterback-play to win in this league, and the cost to secure a good franchise quarterback cannot be too high.

History tells us nothing but bad news so far.

- Goff - One good season, driven heavily by the production of Todd Gurley. Had huge concerns in his rookie year. His head coach still calls protections for him at the line.
- Wentz - Looks to be the real deal, but the Eagles won the Super Bowl with a journeyman backup, not him. Torn ACL. Let's see how he recovers, and how much he elevates his team when they have to start shedding contracts, and consider extending him to pay him $30 million a year.
- Trubisky - Showed very minimal flashes. He'll need to take a major jump to be considered a success.
- Mahomes - Played in one game, did not throw a touchdown. Can't call him a success.
- Watson - Looked dynamic, but tore a second ACL - not a good sign for a player who relies heavily on mobility. Can he turn 5 games into 16? Not to mention, he cost the Texans the #4 overall pick. What if that's a Saquon Barkley that goes on to have a Hall of Fame career?

You're getting distracted by the shiny names and not looking at the real production here.

 

[GimmedaBall]

Agree with a lot of your post, but that's a pretty high bar to pass: "I want to see it on a career long basis." The flip side to that is fans who'll argue that they want more recent examples of it actually working out, which would take the exact opposite set of demands to the ones you require.

I don't see how you can write off Goff/Wentz unless you actually don't anticipate them being good NFL QB's. These examples are sound. Are they the exception to the rule? Sure, that's valid, but I don't think we doubt they'll continue to be good QB's and worth the price paid by their teams.

The only question that matters is: is the guy we're trading up for any good? That's the only relevant piece. If he turns out to be a great QB, he's worth about any price. If he's a dud, we'll all rant and rave.

We all played this "show me" game when we traded for Kolb. The narrative back then was: show me a QB drafted in the 2nd round who was any good. And there weren't any. They either went in the 1st, or a team got lucky in a later round. Conclusion: never draft a QB in the 2nd. Then Derek Carr came and broke that stigma. Now we are all trying to come up with examples to support whatever narrative we support, be it trade up, never trade up, or the Keim approach: never draft a QB.

There are no hard and fast rules here. It just comes down to whether the dude can play, which we won't know until he gets on the field.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Asking for 'career' stats on my part was a stretch. I was looking to stifle anyone pointing to Goff/Wentz as success stories for trading picks. The jury is still out on both those guys---there have been plenty of one-hit wonders in both popular music and NFL QBs. It wasn't that long ago that Dak P was thought to be a major steal---and last year the NFL D's caught up with his play and the Cowboy playbook.

Ditto with Carr---he showed a slump last year as well.

The QBs in this draft are just guys---there will be the same level of QBs in the next draft and the one after that. Best way for the Cards to get one is the old fashioned way earn it with an awful season record. Giving up multiple drafts isn't a way to assure QB but it sure is a way to assure a depleted roster with no hopes of cheap replacements.

Do you have any success story---with a few years of play to support your choice---that shows trading multiple picks to move up from lower 1st round to the top of the draft???

RGIII looked like he might be one---but he got injured and then abused by the coaching staff when they sent him back out on the field. That still counts as a failure---the picks were gone and the QB did not perform. Washington is still trying to recover from those lost drafts.

 

[GimmedaBall]

It works both ways, though.

QB are by far the most expensive FA acquisitions. If you have a good one on a rookie contract, that frees up cap money to go after elite OL FAs, or supplement other positions. That, to me, is worth spending multiple picks on a franchise guy.

Name one success story with a team trading several #1, 2, etc to move up and get a QB in the top 4 picks????

 

[GimmedaBall]

Can anyone who is advocating trading up from #15 to #4 and taking the 3-4 QB off the board have any evidence that such a move has ever worked???? I'll settle for a transaction that is only remotely similar in picks/move upward.

Here's the Pro Football Draft Pick Transactions database going back to 1936:

https://www.prosportstransactions.com/football/DraftTrades/Years/

 

[Minski]

Don’t know why people are always looking for patterns where none really exist. Maybe the teams who traded up to get their guy who didn’t pan out scouted badly etc or maybe just bad team fits.

 

[gbrim21]

Asking for 'career' stats on my part was a stretch. I was looking to stifle anyone pointing to Goff/Wentz as success stories for trading picks. The jury is still out on both those guys---there have been plenty of one-hit wonders in both popular music and NFL QBs. It wasn't that long ago that Dak P was thought to be a major steal---and last year the NFL D's caught up with his play and the Cowboy playbook.

Ditto with Carr---he showed a slump last year as well.

The QBs in this draft are just guys---there will be the same level of QBs in the next draft and the one after that. Best way for the Cards to get one is the old fashioned way earn it with an awful season record. Giving up multiple drafts isn't a way to assure QB but it sure is a way to assure a depleted roster with no hopes of cheap replacements.

Do you have any success story---with a few years of play to support your choice---that shows trading multiple picks to move up from lower 1st round to the top of the draft???

RGIII looked like he might be one---but he got injured and then abused by the coaching staff when they sent him back out on the field. That still counts as a failure---the picks were gone and the QB did not perform. Washington is still trying to recover from those lost drafts.

I don't think you're totally off base. For the record, I've historically been a "don't trade up" guy. I don't feel like doing any research into finding success stories, but I think generally my point about the narrative around 2nd round QB's being bad could reasonably be applied here.

Another problem with these debates: what is considered successful? I agree, Goff could still flame out. I think a reasonable fan would say Wentz is the real deal, but you can disagree. Let's list some "franchise QB's" Eli Manning, Matt Ryan, Marcus Mariota, Matt Stafford...and let's say Derek Carr for fun. Which of those guys would have been worth trading up for? Eli had some real crappy years, then won 2 super bowl while on a good team. Are you ok with his down years? Mariota started pretty hot then came to earth this year. Would he have been worth trading up for?

I agree with the general approach of looking at costs to trade up and how that worked out from a perspective of teams not being able to fill holes due to not having those draft picks. That has to be considered. I don't agree that a QB suddenly is destined to suck if a team trades up for him. As further noted above, sometimes even good QB's have down years, so it's tough to even definitively state what they were worth to give up. The bottom line is, being a QB in the NFL is really hard, so in order to even have a chance at a good one, you typically need to pay a high price in the form of a high 1st round pick. I think the anti-trade up crowd is saying it's not worth paying an even higher premium to play that game. I guess the philosophical debate then becomes, would you rather put all your chips in for a 10% chance at a home run (franchise QB), or put fewer chips in for a 65% chance at a single or double (really good guard or ILB let's say). Yes, QB's have a lower success rate as compared to their 1st round counterparts, whether a team trades up for them or not. I was just disagreeing with the perceived premise that because they were traded up for, they won't be successful. If Peyton had been 30, and expecting a full recovery, the Colts would have auctioned Andrew Luck to the highest bidder. And up until last year, I would bet his franchise would say he's worth the price.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[oaken1]

I don't think you're totally off base. For the record, I've historically been a "don't trade up" guy. I don't feel like doing any research into finding success stories, but I think generally my point about the narrative around 2nd round QB's being bad could reasonably be applied here.

Another problem with these debates: what is considered successful? I agree, Goff could still flame out. I think a reasonable fan would say Wentz is the real deal, but you can disagree. Let's list some "franchise QB's" Eli Manning, Matt Ryan, Marcus Mariota, Matt Stafford...and let's say Derek Carr for fun. Which of those guys would have been worth trading up for? Eli had some real crappy years, then won 2 super bowl while on a good team. Are you ok with his down years? Mariota started pretty hot then came to earth this year. Would he have been worth trading up for?

I agree with the general approach of looking at costs to trade up and how that worked out from a perspective of teams not being able to fill holes due to not having those draft picks. That has to be considered. I don't agree that a QB suddenly is destined to suck if a team trades up for him. As further noted above, sometimes even good QB's have down years, so it's tough to even definitively state what they were worth to give up. The bottom line is, being a QB in the NFL is really hard, so in order to even have a chance at a good one, you typically need to pay a high price in the form of a high 1st round pick. I think the anti-trade up crowd is saying it's not worth paying an even higher premium to play that game. I guess the philosophical debate then becomes, would you rather put all your chips in for a 10% chance at a home run (franchise QB), or put fewer chips in for a 65% chance at a single or double (really good guard or ILB let's say). Yes, QB's have a lower success rate as compared to their 1st round counterparts, whether a team trades up for them or not. I was just disagreeing with the perceived premise that because they were traded up for, they won't be successful. If Peyton had been 30, and expecting a full recovery, the Colts would have auctioned Andrew Luck to the highest bidder. And up until last year, I would bet his franchise would say he's worth the price.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

you either trust the staff to pick the right guy and help him to be successful,...or you dont.


I am surprised that I do.

 

[CardsFan88]

We should only trade up if the guy we want is there and the team we'd be trading with are on the clock. If we think Allen or Mayfield or whoever is our #1 guy, and he's available, I can understand that trade. I would think we wouldn't break the bank, but be willing to give up quite a bit. It would suck in terms of filling other needs, but if Keim sees his guy, he should be poking around and seeing if he can get him.

But because the Browns have the #1 and #4 pick, they could trade either one and take their QB (or not) with the other pick. That means if you trade for the #2 pick, someone could still trade for #1. Maybe Denver. Maybe the Jets. Maybe the Bills. Or someone else. So you have to do it on the clock.

I do not want to trade up for OUR 3rd or 4th guy. If it's the 1st or 2nd (perhaps they are closely rated), we could go get him. If it's our 3rd or 4th guy, we probably should see if they fall.

But I think we're forgetting that for each of these teams needing a QB, they might be eyeing one or two guys. They might not like all 4 or 6. Thus if their guy isn't there, they might pass on a QB. It is possible the guy we like, whoever that is, falls. Perhaps a small trade up, on the clock, if our #1 or #2 guy falls to 7-11. I say 7 as a possibility because of Licht. If Keim can swing a deal with anyone, it might be him. They have Winston and they worked together. Overall I'd say #7, 8 (Bears), 10 (Raiders) would be the most likely trade up partners.

Even #6 is a slight possibility. They may be willing to take a little less since they just got a windfall for dropping from 3 to 6. Not saying they would. Just that if they could parlay 3 to 6 to 15 or whatever and pick up a bunch of picks, they might think hard about the overall haul. They have said they are open to trading back again.

I wouldn't read too much into all the teams at various pro days, they have to do their due diligence. If they are going to try to select one, they have to go through the process for all the top tier or two guys.

If Denver's guy is gone, they still went out and got Keenum. They don't need a QB. They could pass.

As was said somewhere, maybe this thread, people have been hearing about Rosen and Mayfield for the Jets, not the other guys. What if Rosen and Mayfield are gone by #3? Could the Jets pass and pick up Barkley or Chubb?

Browns claim they have their starter, but that's probably smoke. Never know though.

If there is a run, and our guy is gone, I think we should look to trade back, and hopefully pick up a 2nd round pick. Then with either our 1st or one of the 2nd's, take one of the 2nd tier QB's. Maybe it's just a 3rd and a 4th or something like that.

If we can't trade back, hopefully there is a OL, CB, WR we like.

 

[Jetstream Green]

Sam Darnold, the presumed #1 overall pick, is 20 years old and won't be 21 until June. He's specifically who I was referencing.

We can definitely put it off longer. We cannot afford to gut the rest of this roster for a "quarterback of the future" and expect him to transcendentally improve the play of the rest of the team, including a unit he does not play on. We are not a franchise one piece away. Our division is so difficult right now that we are not a team that is going to win now adding him to the roster, and we're absolutely going to waste his career if we cannot put weapons around him to compete.

Wrong... trying to build an arch without a keystone, you waste the whole roster till you get that quarterback

 

[GimmedaBall]

The New York media/fans are anxious for the Jets to move up even further. Looks like the same discussion is going on for several fan bases just as it is here. Some perspective on trading up in the draft for a QB:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trade-up-for-qb-nfl-draft-2018-3

http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2018/01/does_trading_up_for_a_quarterback_in_the_nfl_draft.html

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...und-quarterback-is-generally-a-terrible-idea/

Some recent QBs that were traded up for:

Joe Flacco
Mark Sanchez
Josh Freeman
Tim Tebow
Blaine Gabbert
RGIII
Johnny Manziel
Paxton Lynch

Jury Still out
Goff
Wentz
Teddy Bridgewater???
Trubinsky
Mahomes
Watson