The Cost of Trading Up

[oaken1]

I have one question for every one saying let's sell the farm to get one of these QBs. Which team in the top 5 are you expecting to take the offer to drop to 15 this year. I just don't see any of them wanting out of the top 10 picks. If I was a GM in the top 5 I'd be asking for our 1st and 2nd this year our 1st next year a proven younger starter (Golden/ DJohnson ) a 3rd this year and a 3rd next year,,. JMO If a QB slides and we like him forsure go get him around 10 we aren't killing our future for an unknown. But just saying we should do it you still need some team willing to trade out and I'm not seeing it

the Browns announced a couple weeks back that they would be willing to trade #1... they never mentioned trading 4

 

[pinetopred]

the Browns announced a couple weeks back that they would be willing to trade #1... they never mentioned trading 4

I didn't see that they offered 1 so if its for 1 we will have to throw in another 1st. Why not we can suck with nobody around our franchise QB just as bad as not having one for a few years. Let's hope we don't turn him into another she'll shocked QB until we can get a team around him.

 

[oaken1]

I didn't see that they offered 1 so if its for 1 we will have to throw in another 1st. Why not we can suck with nobody around our franchise QB just as bad as not having one for a few years. Let's hope we don't turn him into another she'll shocked QB until we can get a team around him.

well,... they just signed guys to "upgrade" the oline...may as well see if it worked. It aint like Bradfords knees are gonna last all season if it didnt

 

[Harry]

Would love to hear the caliber of player expected in that scenario. 2 #1s and a guy doesnt seem too far out for me. That being said, it can't be any of our top tier guys, and we really HAVE to believe that the 4th best guy at the position still has the skill set to be QBOTF, regardless of who it may be. When have 4 QBs ever brought that to a single a draft year? Especially when they are taken 1 - 4?

Sorry, been busy. I should have been more specific. All I could find out is they asked for 1 of 2 defensive starters. The pick was a future second, I presume 2019.

 

[Solar7]

No, he doesn’t have to do more. They will obviously want him to, and they might even expect him to, but no, he doesn’t have to for them to be a serious contender.

I'll ask it again. If we trade all of our draft picks and our QB becomes just a "game manager," you're okay with that? If so, that's silly. If we move all the way up to number one and sacrifice three first round picks, that guy better be the best ********* QB in the league week in and week out. Not hovering around top 10, but the best. Hall of Fame-esque.

We all know that history, and that’s all fine. I just think there is a major difference between knowing that someone might struggle in the playoff based on their individual history and then to expecting someone to struggle in the playoffs. Like I said, I don’t think there was any reason to believe that Wentz would struggle.

Oh, there is always doubt. Basically every season you will see teams with huge expectations crumble to one of the worst teams in the league. That said, trying to predict the future, like you just did, will obviously keep you from taking risks exactly because there will always be doubts.

I don’t play fantasy football so I don’t know that, but I can tell you that he had six inspiring games that gave that fanbase hope and expectations for the future. Sure they are nervous, but it’s not even remotely farfetched that they have reason for optimism.

Risks are fine. Optimism is fine. Blowing it all out for a huge reach with absolutely no backup plan is not. Unless you're out there mortgaging your house right now for "once in a lifetime" offers like Bitcoin, I think you're ignoring the risk completely because you're refusing to be patient and strike when the time is right.

I guess it depends on the definition of selling the farm. I don’t think giving up, for example, three first round picks are selling the farm. Giving up multiple picks in the same draft would be selling the farm.

How are three first round picks not selling the farm? This team could be really, really, bad! You're looking at very likely giving up picks in the top 10 for the next three years. Blue chip, change-your-franchise players!

We can probably keep arguing if drafting quarterbacks have given those fanbases excitement, and I think it depends on the perspective you look at it from. Maybe that’s the real difference in opinions between us? That there simply are not a prospect that would get you excited as a Cardinals fan? If so, I completely understand that you don’t want to trade up. If they drafted a certain prospect only for the sake of showing that they could, that would obviously be an inexcusable scandal.

Plenty of prospects excite me. I think these quarterbacks have great potential to be very good players. I would be excited if one of them fell into our range and we made a reasonable offer to move up and get one. But 11 players take the field. The QB is probably the most important part of that. But he's not the only guy, and if the rest of your roster is a hot dumpster fire, there's no reason to get excited about anyone. Kurt Warner's a Hall of Famer, and he sure as hell wouldn't be taking us to the playoffs or Super Bowl throwing to these WRs, even in his prime. We're just not that good of a team. We're decent, but we need a lot more, and we need the picks to do it.

If, if, if. The problem is that you can always say that, and you can always argue why a certain quarterback might become a problem. I think that being afraid of failure will hold you back, and that also goes for the development of a team. If you don’t think there is a quarterback worth trading up for, then I would have absolutely no problem with it. Being afraid to pay the prize because of what might happen is an entirely different matter, in my opinion.

The ifs are completely valid. You give yourself the best chance to win on a week-in, week-out basis. You build a strong roster across the board, and you can compete. You do that by diversifying your assets and continuing to have the flexibility to make maneuvers to get the right players at the right time. Another analogy: This is like putting your entire 401k in Toys R' Us stock four years ago. Would that ever be the right idea? No, not really. Sometimes you may hit it out of the park, but rarely.

Well, I would like to have Matthew Stafford or Philip Rivers on the Cardinals’ roster right now, even though I know what they have accomplished with their teams, but that’s just me.

Would you trade for the #1 overall QB right now if I told you they were going to mirror Matthew Stafford or Philip Rivers' career exactly? Lots of accolades, lots of Pro Bowls, but a combined playoff record of 4-8, with no Super Bowl appearances?

 

[pinetopred]

Andrew Luck one of the recent examples QB is the most important position on a football field but if you don't build a team around them does it matter.

 

[oaken1]

Would you trade for the #1 overall QB right now if I told you they were going to mirror Matthew Stafford or Philip Rivers' career exactly? Lots of accolades, lots of Pro Bowls, but a combined playoff record of 4-8, with no Super Bowl appearances?

you keep bringing up the lions and the chargers, even the skins...while failing to recognize that those are historically bad franchises with very poor management.
the lions allowed Matt Millen to stay their GM for years when he showed beyond any doubt he was incapable of making a decent pick in the draft...and the chargers are so poor, eli absolutely refused to go play for them.

any gusto I have for trading up for a QB is based on the idea that since Michael took over we are not that kind of franchise...chargers, lions, skins, browns...all very poorly managed.

if you are telling me that we are now, exactly the same Cardinals we have been for the past fifty years/... then we are all just wasting our time being here... because they will never win anything regardless of which players they select.

all my hope is based upon the idea that our culture and quality of management has changed. but if we are only fit to be compared to franchises like the lions, chargers, skins,a nd browns... then it hasnt... they failed. they fail a lot...its what they do.... hell, even the York run Niners are showing signs of success more than those guys...and they fired the best coach they have had in thirty years strictly because he was an cornholio.

 

[Solar7]

you keep bringing up the lions and the chargers, even the skins...while failing to recognize that those are historically bad franchises with very poor management.
the lions allowed Matt Millen to stay their GM for years when he showed beyond any doubt he was incapable of making a decent pick in the draft...and the chargers are so poor, eli absolutely refused to go play for them.

any gusto I have for trading up for a QB is based on the idea that since Michael took over we are not that kind of franchise...chargers, lions, skins, browns...all very poorly managed.

if you are telling me that we are now, exactly the same Cardinals we have been for the past fifty years/... then we are all just wasting our time being here... because they will never win anything regardless of which players they select.

all my hope is based upon the idea that our culture and quality of management has changed. but if we are only fit to be compared to franchises like the lions, chargers, skins,a nd browns... then it hasnt... they failed. they fail a lot...its what they do.... hell, even the York run Niners are showing signs of success more than those guys...and they fired the best coach they have had in thirty years strictly because he was an *******.

Fine dude, point out to me one of your "winning franchises" that has a top 5 pick QB, that they drafted, that is a year-in, year-out contender, without falling back on Goff and Wentz. I'll even give you Eli Manning here, even though he technically wasn't drafted by them and wouldn't have been a Giant had he have not thrown a huge hissy fit.

I count three, and I don't know if I want to count the Falcons as a "winning franchise." Matt Ryan, Eli Manning (who is almost done), Cam Newton. 3 teams, 9% of the league. Oh, and two of those teams didn't give anything up for their guy but a bad record.

You keep seeming to think we're going to be the magic ones to buck the trend and get this right, but no one is getting it right. If we trade up, we are pretty much ignoring all of the evidence staring us right in our faces.

 

[GimmedaBall]

depends... if it is just picks??

first and third 2018, 2019, 2020

thats to swap obviously so we would be losing two additional first and three thirds...

Well, while we are waiting for the draft, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'm looking to sell if you're interested.

Actually, I asked the question to get an idea of the number of draft picks we have in mind to make the move---say all the way to #1 to assure we get 'Our Guy.'

I noticed none of the other forum members who have been talking about bundling picks to move up made any comment for or against your barter arrangement. To put some parameters on the debate, need to define what we are all talking about we when talk about picks to move up.

So . . . going forward, are we all thinking along the same lines---to get to #1 from #15, we are talking about trading (3) 1st picks and (3) 3rd round picks????

Given the feeding frenzy that's getting generated by the media and the lead-up to the draft, that may not be enough for Cleveland. From my view, that is too much to offer or surrender. . . unless Darnold comes pre-wrapped in a HOF golden jacket.

 

[Gandhi]

I'll ask it again. If we trade all of our draft picks and our QB becomes just a "game manager," you're okay with that? If so, that's silly. If we move all the way up to number one and sacrifice three first round picks, that guy better be the best ********* QB in the league week in and week out. Not hovering around top 10, but the best. Hall of Fame-esque.

That’s because you, along with a lot of other people, think badly of a game manager. Tom Brady is a game manager. Alex Smith has taken the Niners to the Super Bowl and the Chiefs to the playoff though he is a game manager. Case Keenum and Nick Foles were game managers that took their teams far in the playoff, including obviously winning it all. You could even argue that Matt Ryan is a game manager, and that Ben Roethlisberger has become a game manager the last couple of years. Being a game manager is not a bad thing. Kirk Cousins is a game manager, and if I remember correctly you wanted the Cardinals to sign him and make him the highest paid player in the NFL. Quarterbacks like Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees or Cam Newton who are great at improvising when a play breaks down are extremely rare, and not necessary for success.

Risks are fine. Optimism is fine. Blowing it all out for a huge reach with absolutely no backup plan is not. Unless you're out there mortgaging your house right now for "once in a lifetime" offers like Bitcoin, I think you're ignoring the risk completely because you're refusing to be patient and strike when the time is right.

I believe that paragraph says it all. Like you wrote, you believe drafting one of the quarterbacks in the top one, top three or top five would be a reach. I can understand that, and I think it is a completely fair opinion. It is, however, far from not wanting to pay up to get a quarterback. By the way, I don’t know if you experienced the Cardinals go through multiple really bad quarterbacks, but if you did, I don’t understand how you can say that patience and believing the Cardinals should just stay put and see if anyone slides to them is the way to go at the moment. Again, they tried that approach last year and failed badly.

How are three first round picks not selling the farm? This team could be really, really, bad! You're looking at very likely giving up picks in the top 10 for the next three years. Blue chip, change-your-franchise players!

Kam Chancellor as a fifth round pick is why. Robert Mathis as a fifth round pick is why. Jared Allen as a fourth round pick is why. Josh Norman as a fifth round pick is why. Antonio Brown as a sixth round pick is why. Richard Sherman is a fifth round pick is why. Tyrann Mathieu before his injuries was a stud. John Brown before his injuries was a stud. Markus Golden is a stud. David Johnson is a stud. Budda Baker has the making of a stud. Do you really want me to go on? I guess it depends on the definition of selling the farm, and personally, I would much rather give up one pick in different years than multiple picks the same year. At least saying that major talent can’t be found in the later rounds are simply wrong. If you want to use history as arguments in this debate, you have to acknowledge the history when it doesn't suit your points as well.

The ifs are completely valid. You give yourself the best chance to win on a week-in, week-out basis. You build a strong roster across the board, and you can compete. You do that by diversifying your assets and continuing to have the flexibility to make maneuvers to get the right players at the right time. Another analogy: This is like putting your entire 401k in Toys R' Us stock four years ago. Would that ever be the right idea? No, not really. Sometimes you may hit it out of the park, but rarely.

No, the ifs are valid to back up your argument but are not valid in a discussion about what to do right now. You cannot predict what will happen in the future and claiming otherwise is only a way of being scared of shooting for greatness, in my opinion.

By the way, the idea to build a team is great, but if it was as easy as writing it on a message board every team in the league would do it. If I could choose, I would not settle for likely mediocracy for years.

Would you trade for the #1 overall QB right now if I told you they were going to mirror Matthew Stafford or Philip Rivers' career exactly? Lots of accolades, lots of Pro Bowls, but a combined playoff record of 4-8, with no Super Bowl appearances?

Probably not since those guys are getting up there in years, and the draft is obviously for younger players. I would without a doubt make them the highest paid players in the league, though, and three or four years ago I wouldn’t have thought twice of giving up high draft pick to acquire them.

 

[Stout]

"elite" talent... yeah... only four positions on an NFL team do you need "Elite" talent. Cornerback,... pass rusher,... left tackle,...and quarterback.(even corner is debatable if you have a strong pass rush)

we already have the "elite" guys on defense.... Keim thinks he has him at LT...so all that leaves us is QB.. if those positions are filled the rest can all be journeymen...average players.

because of those guys we have Keim is not going to draft an elite edge rusher, an elite corner, or an elite left tackle... its a wasted pick because in a few years you have to pay them and we cannot afford to pay two of them. He may do so in a few years, when PP21 is creeping towards decline... but not now.... Pending how DJHump pans out this season we may well draft another LT before we draft a top corner or edge rusher... this is basically his contract year since if he doesnt play well we will need to draft his replacement before we are due to sign him to a fat contract(I realize he has two years left but I dont think they will wait until his final year to draft a guy if Hump isnt panning out)

it is fairly common for guards, centers and RT's to come out of the later rounds and be developed into good players... this years most coveted, andrew Norwell, was a fourth round guy.

we continually do the "wait till next year" thing. But unfortunately next year the QB prospects kinda suck.... there is maybe one who can be seen as a top 10 pick... which means he will likely go #1 overall.

Dont worry though. Keim is prepping us for a third round "steal" thats gonna take the league by storm

Then I'll laugh my ass off when you're whining mid-season about our awful QB situation, gnashing your teeth over the fact that we didn't get a QBOF. Happens every year. A bunch of goofball posters come up with the annual "next year is THE year, 'cause we can't THIS year", then regret it during the season.

Okay, I won't be laughing--I'll be crying in my beer because Keim will have effed us again--but still. Every year is "next year will be better", and you know what the definition of insanity is?

 

[Stout]

Then I'll laugh my ass off when you're whining mid-season about our awful QB situation, gnashing your teeth over the fact that we didn't get a QBOF. Happens every year. A bunch of goofball posters come up with the annual "next year is THE year, 'cause we can't THIS year", then regret it during the season.

Okay, I won't be laughing--I'll be crying in my beer because Keim will have effed us again--but still. Every year is "next year will be better", and you know what the definition of insanity is?

Sorry, Oaken, that was a mis-quote. It was supposed to be in response to this post:


Not playing ostrich. Just looked at the QB talent coming out this year and don't see anyone that warrants draft pick bankruptcy. Just watched the Allen Pro-day on NFL Live---hard pressed to see any difference between his play/stats/performance over our guy John Skelton.

Drafts are seldom more than 1 or at most 2 deep in QB talent---we are looking to trade up for the 4th-5th guy? Really? That is your aggressive solution?

Sorry that you are SICK AND TIRED. Trading the farm is not going to solve that. You'll end up sick and tired of having no draft picks when the average QB you traded for falls flat.

Both SW and SK got 4 year deals on their contracts. MB has given both time to rebuild (or reload if you prefer) within that time frame. Get some vitamins and iron supplements because you are most likely in for more SICK AND TIRED time.

 

[GimmedaBall]

Then I'll laugh my ass off when you're whining mid-season about our awful QB situation, gnashing your teeth over the fact that we didn't get a QBOF. Happens every year. A bunch of goofball posters come up with the annual "next year is THE year, 'cause we can't THIS year", then regret it during the season.

Okay, I won't be laughing--I'll be crying in my beer because Keim will have effed us again--but still. Every year is "next year will be better", and you know what the definition of insanity is?

Stout---I believe you meant this to go as a response to my post and not to Oaken1? This response doesn't make any sense to attack Oaken1 since he has been here making repeated posts to trade up in the draft.

I'm not going to be whining mid-season about our awful QB situation. I've been supporting a vet QB over a college QB---in this order, I had Smith, Cousins, Bradford. I'm OK with Glennon as a backup and even if he comes in as a starter if Bradford goes down. I want a QB that has some experience at the NFL level who can come in and play now---too many college QBs are going to require a lot of retraining to play the pro game and I don't want to waste Sunday afternoon watching a guy learn on the job with INTs, fumbles, and 'promising' play even as we lose, etc.

I don't see a QB in this draft class that warrants that trade up---Oaken1 gave some dimensions to that trade (#15 to #1) by offering (3) #1 picks and (3) #3 picks. Too rich for my liking and too much of a gamble. I don't have a crystal ball---maybe Allen is the next Roth or maybe he's the next Skelton; maybe LJ is the next Vick or maybe he's the next Vince Young; etc. Let some other team take that draft pick leap to find out.

I never said 'wait until next year' to draft a QB. Solar7 is the other poster here who is against a draft choice gamble and I've never seen him make that statement---perhaps he can correct me if he has. To draft a QB, I say wait until we earn that by our bad play and have that top pick. If a QB drops to our #15 . . . or even within a slot or two and minor draft value is needed to trade up . . . I'm fine with that if that guy is on SK's board as the BPA.

Looks like you are alluding to the definition of insanity as the popular phrase of "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." That's not the definition of insanity, it is a catchy phrase that is easy to repeat and pretend you have insight into what is going on. Here's the legal definition of insanity: n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.

Wanting to trade 3 #1 picks and 3 #3 picks to jump up for a slighty-above average looking QB (Darnold) is close to the legal definition of insanity---Cards would not be distinguishing fantasy from reality and the move would be impulsive in order to look like something is being accomplished.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-therapy/200907/the-definition-insanity-is

Now, where your use of the popular definition of insanity comes into play is seen in the multiple threads and posts all repeating the same arguments for and against moving up in the draft. Between Solar7 and me, I believe we have meet our burden of the insanity definition. As have you and Oaken1. LOL.

I believe you are a sincere fan and live-and-die with the Cards. Whatever happens with this season, I hope we both get our desire to see our Cards bring home the SB.

I've made my point on the issue---going to find a different topic. Peace Out.

 

[oaken1]

Then I'll laugh my ass off when you're whining mid-season about our awful QB situation, gnashing your teeth over the fact that we didn't get a QBOF. Happens every year. A bunch of goofball posters come up with the annual "next year is THE year, 'cause we can't THIS year", then regret it during the season.

Okay, I won't be laughing--I'll be crying in my beer because Keim will have effed us again--but still. Every year is "next year will be better", and you know what the definition of insanity is?

uh....that was sarcasm......

 

[JeffGollin]

Using the drafting of the Badger as a template:

Someone on the Cardinal coaching or scouting staffs apparently knew that Tyrann was a baller who had unique talent that transcended a not-insignificant amount of baggage. And they stole him in Round 3.

For the Cards to invest anything more than a 2nd round pick to trade up for a QB; someone in their braintrust would have to have inside "magic" information that the QB (whomever it might be) had special "can't miss" talent that made him worth the extra pick.

Otherwise, foggediboudit.

 

[oaken1]

Using the drafting of the Badger as a template:

Someone on the Cardinal coaching or scouting staffs apparently knew that Tyrann was a baller who had unique talent that transcended a not-insignificant amount of baggage. And they stole him in Round 3.

For the Cards to invest anything more than a 2nd round pick to trade up for a QB; someone in their braintrust would have to have inside "magic" information that the QB (whomever it might be) had special "can't miss" talent that made him worth the extra pick.

Otherwise, foggediboudit.

Carson Palmers brother has been training Sam Darnold for the past two years...does that count?

cause that's all I got....

 

[Solar7]

That’s because you, along with a lot of other people, think badly of a game manager. Tom Brady is a game manager. Alex Smith has taken the Niners to the Super Bowl and the Chiefs to the playoff though he is a game manager. Case Keenum and Nick Foles were game managers that took their teams far in the playoff, including obviously winning it all. You could even argue that Matt Ryan is a game manager, and that Ben Roethlisberger has become a game manager the last couple of years. Being a game manager is not a bad thing. Kirk Cousins is a game manager, and if I remember correctly you wanted the Cardinals to sign him and make him the highest paid player in the NFL. Quarterbacks like Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees or Cam Newton who are great at improvising when a play breaks down are extremely rare, and not necessary for success.

Uhhh, Kaepernick played the entire playoffs. Smith didn't take them there. He's gotten teams to the playoffs, but there's a reason he's on his third team. He isn't capable of changing the game.

By far the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on this board though, is calling Tom Brady a game manager. Game managers are not guys that win multiple MVPs, Super Bowl MVPs, have more rings than any other QB, throw for 500 yards in the Super Bowl, or break touchdown passing records. Brady has elevated the play of players who couldn't do anything else on other rosters because he is absolutely able to completely take over a game and be unstoppable.

Case Keenum had one good year. Nick Foles isn't a game manager, he's just hot and cold. Matt Ryan isn't really a game manager, but he's also not a guy I'd put in the "takes over a game" category. Roethlisberger is also hot and cold these days, but he's not at all a game manager. Kirk Cousins is not at all a game manager.

My point is: You're misdefining "game manager." Ask just about anyone who knows the sport, and they'll tell you that a game manager is a guy whose stats are middling, takes what the defense is giving him, and relies on his team's superior playmakers at running back or on defense to elevate his game for him. Trevor Siemian is a game manager. Not Tom Brady.

I believe that paragraph says it all. Like you wrote, you believe drafting one of the quarterbacks in the top one, top three or top five would be a reach. I can understand that, and I think it is a completely fair opinion. It is, however, far from not wanting to pay up to get a quarterback. By the way, I don’t know if you experienced the Cardinals go through multiple really bad quarterbacks, but if you did, I don’t understand how you can say that patience and believing the Cardinals should just stay put and see if anyone slides to them is the way to go at the moment. Again, they tried that approach last year and failed badly.

I don't think these QBs being drafted in the top 5 is necessarily "reaching." If the Cardinals owned the #4 pick in the draft this year on account of record, and decided to go with Josh Allen because he was all that was left of the top 4? I can live with it. I just don't want to give up years and years of top picks to move up to that space, because it costs way too much for an unknown return. I'd literally rather have traded three number ones for Jimmy Garoppolo than move up to number 1 for a guy that hasn't thrown an NFL pass.

I'm also not saying "wait and see if they slide to 15," I can accept trading up to #8 or something if the guy we like is there. Just don't move up to the top 5. It's not worth it.

Kam Chancellor as a fifth round pick is why. Robert Mathis as a fifth round pick is why. Jared Allen as a fourth round pick is why. Josh Norman as a fifth round pick is why. Antonio Brown as a sixth round pick is why. Richard Sherman is a fifth round pick is why. Tyrann Mathieu before his injuries was a stud. John Brown before his injuries was a stud. Markus Golden is a stud. David Johnson is a stud. Budda Baker has the making of a stud. Do you really want me to go on? I guess it depends on the definition of selling the farm, and personally, I would much rather give up one pick in different years than multiple picks the same year. At least saying that major talent can’t be found in the later rounds are simply wrong. If you want to use history as arguments in this debate, you have to acknowledge the history when it doesn't suit your points as well.

Here are the numbers for Pro Bowlers by round from 2010 to 2015.

1 - 48.5%
2 - 14.0%
3 - 8.8%
4 - 7.0%
5 - 5.3%
6 - 3.5%
7 - 1.2%
Undrafted - 10.5%


See the issue here? By trading away first round picks, you're missing out on big difference makers. The kinds of guys who are the reasons you win games, not just filler because you can't find better. You can cherry pick the great examples all you want, but data doesn't lie.

No, the ifs are valid to back up your argument but are not valid in a discussion about what to do right now. You cannot predict what will happen in the future and claiming otherwise is only a way of being scared of shooting for greatness, in my opinion.

By the way, the idea to build a team is great, but if it was as easy as writing it on a message board every team in the league would do it. If I could choose, I would not settle for likely mediocracy for years.

No, you can't predict what will happen in the future, but you can mitigate your risk and give yourself the best overall chance to win. Most of the winning teams in the league did not wildly burn their assets and move up for a quarterback to "shoot for greatness." They exhibited patience and hit on the right guy at the right time.

Odds are, if you put together a list of top five QBs in the NFL right now, only one of them would be a top 5 overall pick. Top ten? Maybe 3.

Probably not since those guys are getting up there in years, and the draft is obviously for younger players. I would without a doubt make them the highest paid players in the league, though, and three or four years ago I wouldn’t have thought twice of giving up high draft pick to acquire them.

I wasn't asking if you'd trade for them, but if we traded up for Sam Darnold, and we could guarantee he was going to have a career 91.5 QB rating, throw for 42,548 yards, 279 TDs and 142 INTs, but only had a 50% regular season win percentage, and a 33% playoff win percentage with no Super Bowl appearances by the time he retired, would you want him? (These numbers are the averages of Stafford & Rivers' statistics, so TDs and yardage are a little inflated here on account of Rivers playing 5 more years or so.)

I probably wouldn't. The wins are the key. It's just like why people didn't want Cousins. Great fantasy numbers, but the wins didn't add up.

 

[Solar7]

Then I'll laugh my ass off when you're whining mid-season about our awful QB situation, gnashing your teeth over the fact that we didn't get a QBOF. Happens every year. A bunch of goofball posters come up with the annual "next year is THE year, 'cause we can't THIS year", then regret it during the season.

Okay, I won't be laughing--I'll be crying in my beer because Keim will have effed us again--but still. Every year is "next year will be better", and you know what the definition of insanity is?

Like @GimmedaBall said, I don't want to wait until next year. I'm not saying "next year will be better." Let's call our shot at 15 and take a risk on Lamar Jackson or Mason Rudolph. Or if one of the top four drops into range, let's offer up some reasonable picks to get him, if we think he fits our offense. Or, let's wait a little bit later, and take someone in the 2nd round and hope he impresses, but if he doesn't, we haven't invested so much into him that we can't take a shot next year.

The definition of insanity is trading up with a ton of picks for a QB when no trade ups have proven long term success in the modern era. A bunch of other teams have tried it, thinking they're outsmarting everyone, and have failed. We're thinking we're going to be the exception to the rule... why? Most of the people asking for a trade up hate Keim's drafting. So why would he suddenly get over whatever you think is wrong with him and make the right pick? Most of you hate what we've done in free agency, so why would he be better at picking up all of the FAs we need to fill our holes next offseason?

There's nothing pointing toward this being a good move, it's just people getting frustrated and wanting to do something in desperation.

 

[oaken1]

rady




Here are the numbers for Pro Bowlers by round from 2010 to 2015.

1 - 48.5%
2 - 14.0%
3 - 8.8%
4 - 7.0%
5 - 5.3%
6 - 3.5%
7 - 1.2%
Undrafted - 10.5%


See the issue here? By trading away first round picks, you're missing out on big difference

.

an important item to consider here... Keim is not drafting pro bowlers in the first round...and I am pretty sure the only second round pro bowler he has drafted was Baker,...and he didnt even make it for the position he plays, but for special teams.

he is drafting guys who redshirt their first year then cant manage to stay on the field when they finally get a chance to play. Keim suxx actual ass in the first two rounds....as I have said many times over the past couple years....the dude would be better off letting Mel Kyper make his picks in the first two rounds. The types of players he drafts in the early rounds are not game changers... most of them cannot even be seen as impact players...
3rd, 4th, 5th rounds he is pretty good.... but he tries to get too slick in the first two rounds when he should just draft the obvious guy.

 

[Solar7]

an important item to consider here... Keim is not drafting pro bowlers in the first round...and I am pretty sure the only second round pro bowler he has drafted was Baker,...and he didnt even make it for the position he plays, but for special teams.

he is drafting guys who redshirt their first year then cant manage to stay on the field when they finally get a chance to play. Keim suxx actual ass in the first two rounds....as I have said many times over the past couple years....the dude would be better off letting Mel Kyper make his picks in the first two rounds. The types of players he drafts in the early rounds are not game changers... most of them cannot even be seen as impact players...
3rd, 4th, 5th rounds he is pretty good.... but he tries to get too slick in the first two rounds when he should just draft the obvious guy.

The lowest he's picked outside of his first year is 13, and we haven't even had a full year to see the guy play in the position we drafted him to play in. BA was the one redshirting the guys, Keim can't force them onto the field. DBuc has been a solid contributor for years. Keim drafted Markus Golden, who led our team in sacks two years ago. He traded one away for Chandler Jones. Minter wasn't great, but he contributed. Honestly, Baker, Golden, and Jones is a hell of a 2nd round lineup. Yeah, Niklas sucked. But 3/5 is pretty good.

I'll ask it again though, if you think he sucks drafting in the first round, why the hell do you think he's going to be the GM that selects the right QB?

 

[oaken1]

The lowest he's picked outside of his first year is 13, and we haven't even had a full year to see the guy play in the position we drafted him to play in. BA was the one redshirting the guys, Keim can't force them onto the field. DBuc has been a solid contributor for years. Keim drafted Markus Golden, who led our team in sacks two years ago. He traded one away for Chandler Jones. Minter wasn't great, but he contributed. Honestly, Baker, Golden, and Jones is a hell of a 2nd round lineup. Yeah, Niklas sucked. But 3/5 is pretty good.

I'll ask it again though, if you think he sucks drafting in the first round, why the hell do you think he's going to be the GM that selects the right QB?

BA may have been the guy doing the redshirting...but when they got on the field they still sucked. so maybe he was right to redshirt them?

Jones was a trade, not to be confused with a draft pick...

Keim selected cooper at #7 overall......

I like Golden, but he is an effort guy, not a talent guy.

I think he can pick the right QB because it is a legit no brainer...and he is qualified for that

 

[Solar7]

BA may have been the guy doing the redshirting...but when they got on the field they still sucked. so maybe he was right to redshirt them?

Jones was a trade, not to be confused with a draft pick...

Keim selected cooper at #7 overall......

I like Golden, but he is an effort guy, not a talent guy.

I think he can pick the right QB because it is a legit no brainer...and he is qualified for that

Production = Talent. Dion Jordan may be more athletic than Golden, but he never produced, so he is out of the league. JaMarcus Russell may be able to throw a ball farther than Tom Brady, but he didn't prepare or put in the effort, and so he's out of the league.

As far as Cooper goes, I said "the lowest he's picked outside of his first year." That was a bad draft for everyone involved. Very few players are good. But fine, cutting out Jones, and we'll consider it 2/4 successes. Still decent.

 

[Cheesebeef]

uh....that was sarcasm......

Ha!

 

[WisconsinCard]

One big advantage of trading up to get their guy is that it would be hard to build a team and then add a QB. It would probably be better to draft a QB first and then build the team around his strengths.

 

[Gandhi]

By far the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on this board though, is calling Tom Brady a game manager. Game managers are not guys that win multiple MVPs, Super Bowl MVPs, have more rings than any other QB, throw for 500 yards in the Super Bowl, or break touchdown passing records. Brady has elevated the play of players who couldn't do anything else on other rosters because he is absolutely able to completely take over a game and be unstoppable.

Case Keenum had one good year. Nick Foles isn't a game manager, he's just hot and cold. Matt Ryan isn't really a game manager, but he's also not a guy I'd put in the "takes over a game" category. Roethlisberger is also hot and cold these days, but he's not at all a game manager. Kirk Cousins is not at all a game manager.

My point is: You're misdefining "game manager." Ask just about anyone who knows the sport, and they'll tell you that a game manager is a guy whose stats are middling, takes what the defense is giving him, and relies on his team's superior playmakers at running back or on defense to elevate his game for him. Trevor Siemian is a game manager. Not Tom Brady.

I think it’s great that we agree as you perfectly underline my point. I have my view on what a so-called game manager is, and you have your view on what a so-called game manager is. I think Tom Brady is playing and utilizing his strengths within the system, and thus is managing the game which would qualify him as a game manager. Quarterbacks that can change the game by improvising is extremely rare. I don’t think it is bad to be a game manager. You do, and that is fine.

I don't think these QBs being drafted in the top 5 is necessarily "reaching." If the Cardinals owned the #4 pick in the draft this year on account of record, and decided to go with Josh Allen because he was all that was left of the top 4? I can live with it. I just don't want to give up years and years of top picks to move up to that space, because it costs way too much for an unknown return. I'd literally rather have traded three number ones for Jimmy Garoppolo than move up to number 1 for a guy that hasn't thrown an NFL pass.

I'm also not saying "wait and see if they slide to 15," I can accept trading up to #8 or something if the guy we like is there. Just don't move up to the top 5. It's not worth it.

Well, you wrote that you considered it reaching so I based my response on that. Not wanting to pay the prize is an entirely different matter, and not what I thought we were discussing.

Also, would you please tell me about all the great first round draft selections in Cardinals history. You can just go back the five years that Steve Keim has run the draft. Not that I am ready to call Bucannon, Humphries, Nkemdiche or Reddick busts, but they have hardly been game changers either.

Here are the numbers for Pro Bowlers by round from 2010 to 2015.

1 - 48.5%
2 - 14.0%
3 - 8.8%
4 - 7.0%
5 - 5.3%
6 - 3.5%
7 - 1.2%
Undrafted - 10.5%


See the issue here? By trading away first round picks, you're missing out on big difference makers. The kinds of guys who are the reasons you win games, not just filler because you can't find better. You can cherry pick the great examples all you want, but data doesn't lie.

Come on, we both know that the Pro Bowl should not be used as seal of quality for anything. Way too much bias goes into selecting who are Pro Bowlers.

Also, once again I would encourage you to list all the first round draft pick Steve Keim has made that absolutely makes is essential to keep them.

No, you can't predict what will happen in the future, but you can mitigate your risk and give yourself the best overall chance to win. Most of the winning teams in the league did not wildly burn their assets and move up for a quarterback to "shoot for greatness." They exhibited patience and hit on the right guy at the right time.

Odds are, if you put together a list of top five QBs in the NFL right now, only one of them would be a top 5 overall pick. Top ten? Maybe 3.

That’s right. Personally, I don’t think the Cardinals has won a lot by using your approach. I don’t want to belittle your posts but for a guy who uses history as an argument as much as you do, you sure seem to ignore a lot of the history that undermines your points.

Another thing is that you believe that guy will be there at #15. Again, that is an entirely different discussion, and it changes the foundation for this debate.

I wasn't asking if you'd trade for them, but if we traded up for Sam Darnold, and we could guarantee he was going to have a career 91.5 QB rating, throw for 42,548 yards, 279 TDs and 142 INTs, but only had a 50% regular season win percentage, and a 33% playoff win percentage with no Super Bowl appearances by the time he retired, would you want him? (These numbers are the averages of Stafford & Rivers' statistics, so TDs and yardage are a little inflated here on account of Rivers playing 5 more years or so.)

I probably wouldn't. The wins are the key. It's just like why people didn't want Cousins. Great fantasy numbers, but the wins didn't add up.

Well, we can’t guarantee that Darnold will have the exact same numbers, so the question is kind of irrelevant. Like I said, you can’t predict the future. For all we know, Darnold could just as well lead a team to multiple Super Bowl wins and end up a first ballot Hall of Famer.