Today’ Rumor: Pick 3

[Zalixar]

Trading away premium talent to fill holes is the surest way to the bottom.

I know this has been repeated, but there have been plenty of teams that have rarely picked top 10, much less top 5 and still stay competitive.

There's other factors to consider like coaching and ownership, but some teams never get that top talent while the bad teams routinely do.

So while I like Anderson, not sure the statement holds. A QB is a different story of course.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I know this has been repeated, but there have been plenty of teams that have rarely picked top 10, much less top 5 and still stay competitive.

Ok - but are those teams able to attract free agent talent?

There's other factors to consider like coaching and ownership, but some teams never get that top talent while the bad teams routinely do.

Likely because good players do their time with bad teams then go to good teams. Is it because the bad teams draft poorly in the top 10?

So while I like Anderson, not sure the statement holds. A QB is a different story of course.

Trading down from the closest thing to a sure thing in the draft for magic beans would be Suggs/Pace-Johnson two dimes for a quarter type move. Pace was a nice player, but half the player of Suggs, and Johnson was just a guy.

Teams don't win super bowls without stars. Our most realistic path to getting/maintaining stars is through the draft.

 

[Stout]

They are. IMO they would be stupid not to.

Way to many starting jobs to fill to take a guy who isn't going to win you games by himself.

IMO If you're letting the number of roster holes you have directly dictate who you're drafting, you're a garbage franchise. We've been a garbage franchise; now we're trying to not be a garbage franchise.

 

[Zalixar]

Ok - but are those teams able to attract free agent talent?

Likely because good players do their time with bad teams then go to good teams. Is it because the bad teams draft poorly in the top 10?

Trading down from the closest thing to a sure thing in the draft for magic beans would be Suggs/Pace-Johnson two dimes for a quarter type move. Pace was a nice player, but half the player of Suggs, and Johnson was just a guy.

Teams don't win super bowls without stars. Our most realistic path to getting/maintaining stars is through the draft.

Free agency is great, but a team still has to hit on the draft because FA is typically overbloated contracts for the stars.

They could draft poorly in top 10, but yes, a guy like Anderson could totally be on another team in a few years because we failed to rebuild and one elite player wasn't enough. That's a story told 100 times before.

There's no 100% guarantees in the NFL. Not Bosa, not Anderson. The Suggs trade gets brought up, sure, but he was a #10 pick.

I'm sure the inverse also exists, a team trades down and picks up a couple/several players that also works out for the team.

 

[Stout]

I know this has been repeated, but there have been plenty of teams that have rarely picked top 10, much less top 5 and still stay competitive.

There's other factors to consider like coaching and ownership, but some teams never get that top talent while the bad teams routinely do.

So while I like Anderson, not sure the statement holds. A QB is a different story of course.

It's not because they don't take premium talent; it's because those teams are better at identifying that talent. 10 times out of 10, if TJ Watt is in the draft again, he now goes top 3 if not #1. The Stillers were smart enough to recognize top talent way farther down the board than that.

 

[Proximo]

I know this has been repeated, but there have been plenty of teams that have rarely picked top 10, much less top 5 and still stay competitive.

There's other factors to consider like coaching and ownership, but some teams never get that top talent while the bad teams routinely do.

So while I like Anderson, not sure the statement holds. A QB is a different story of course.

If there are 3 QB's worthy of being drafted top 3 - You should trade that pick if you don't want a QB.

Why - because QB's are worth way more than any other position, and you are not getting full value out of the pick if you are not using it on a QB.

It is just bad management of resources not to trade down in that situation.

 

[Stout]

If there are 3 QB's worthy of being drafted top 3 - You should trade that pick if you don't want a QB.

Why - because QB's are worth way more than any other position, and you are not getting full value out of the pick if you are not using it on a QB.

It is just bad management of resources not to trade down in that situation.

Um, what? That doesn't make any kind of logical sense. So if we're staring at a Joe Thomas or a Lawrence Taylor or a Von Miller at #3, it makes no sense to take them because they aren't a QB so you must trade out? Taking a HoF non-QB at #3 would not be getting full value? I'll say I'm glad you're not in charge of anything and roll from there

 

[Zalixar]

It's not because they don't take premium talent; it's because those teams are better at identifying that talent. 10 times out of 10, if TJ Watt is in the draft again, he now goes top 3 if not #1. The Stillers were smart enough to recognize top talent way farther down the board than that.

There was an analysis run that in general, teams are pretty close to hitting/missing on talent. Of course a few % matters and certainly on the high picks, but the great GM's miss almost just as much.

Sure, you can say AD would be a #1 pick in retrospect, but he wasn't, he was 13. We never know how anyone will turn out. It's obviously all a gamble. Anderson is probably the safest pick but we don't get any extra draft capital (unless trade with Colts of course).

We need draft capital badly. We also need someone like Anderson. Next year's draft is (potentially) loaded as well. I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" answer here. Obviously in retrospect we can say "I told you so!"

 

[BirdGangThing]

They are. IMO they would be stupid not to.

Way to many starting jobs to fill to take a guy who isn't going to win you games by himself.

So you've never seen a football game where one team is trying to make one final drive, no time outs, only to have their quarterback, hopes and dreams demolished and suplexed by a defensive badass like Will Anderson? Would that be considered winning games by himself? Because that's who Will Anderson is

 

[Zalixar]

Um, what? That doesn't make any kind of logical sense. So if we're staring at a Joe Thomas or a Lawrence Taylor or a Von Miller at #3, it makes no sense to take them because they aren't a QB so you must trade out? Taking a HoF non-QB at #3 would not be getting full value? I'll say I'm glad you're not in charge of anything and roll from there

Browns certainly took Thomas and went to 0 playoffs.

He's saying the potential value for trading down (for someone trading up for a QB) is going to much more than a regular trade up (via the value chart) so that's the time to maximize your gain.

Of course elite prospects are great and tough to pass up, but that kind of opportunity is limited and could potentially yield much more than that one elite player.

 

[Zalixar]

So you've never seen a football game where one team is trying to make one final drive, no time outs, only to have their quarterback, hopes and dreams demolished and suplexed by a defensive badass like Will Anderson? Would that be winning games by himself? Because that's who Will Anderson is

AD comes to mind in the SB. Drafted #13. Of course I'll say he's an outlier, but still.

 

[Garthshort]

It's been said we should trade down, and I agree, but only one spot and we get Anderson (fingers crossed) and more draft capital than we have now. And naturally this is based on Indy really wanting the #3 pick.

The really good news is that three weeks from Thursday, we'll know.

 

[Proximo]

So you've never seen a football game where one team is trying to make one final drive, no time outs, only to have their quarterback, hopes and dreams demolished and suplexed by a defensive badass like Will Anderson? Would that be considered winning games by himself? Because that's who Will Anderson is

Not saying it never happens, but you have to be in the game for something like that to matter.

The roster as it exists now is only going to lead to constant blowout losses.

 

[Zalixar]

It's been said we should trade down, and I agree, but only one spot and we get Anderson (fingers crossed) and more draft capital than we have now. And naturally this is based on Indy really wanting the #3 pick.

The really good news is that three weeks from Thursday, we'll know.

My finger is already itching to post the Frodo meme.

 

[BirdGangThing]

The roster as it exists now is only going to lead to constant blowout losses.

And that's where the draft comes in my friend, that's when the restank officially begins

 

[Proximo]

And that's where the draft comes in my friend, that's when the restank officially begins

Yeah, that's my point.

It seems like a ton of you think that only a top 3 player in the draft helps somehow.

That is total garbage. Look at the rosters of any good team, they are not filled with top 10 picks.

 

[BirdGangThing]

Yeah, that's my point.

It seems like a ton of you think that only a top 3 player in the draft helps somehow.

That is total garbage. Look at the rosters of any good team, they are not filled with top 10 picks.

Drafting Will Anderson allows him to learn during his rookie season in a year where we don't expect to be competitive - allowing Anderson to get more snaps than slam poetry in the late 80s

 

[kerouac9]

Yeah, that's my point.

It seems like a ton of you think that only a top 3 player in the draft helps somehow.

That is total garbage. Look at the rosters of any good team, they are not filled with top 10 picks.

Obviously not, but they’re also not filled with blue-chip players, either. I bet the good teams you’re thinking of have 5-8 blue-chip players, and most of them are at premium positions.

Using a high pick maximizes your potential to find a blue-chip player. Bad teams have a bunch of high picks on their roster usually because they miss on those picks.

 

[ajcardfan]

Using a high pick maximizes your potential to find a blue-chip player. Bad teams have a bunch of high picks on their roster usually because they miss on those picks.

And a lot of high picks don't pan out because of the lack of surrounding talent on their teams. They get their brains beat in for a few years and they are ruined.

Thank God the Cardinals aren't making that mistake in free agency this year.

 

[CardNots]

If we are stuck at slot 3
with zero acceptable offers
and Anderson is off the board,
who do we target?

 

[Stout]

Browns certainly took Thomas and went to 0 playoffs.

He's saying the potential value for trading down (for someone trading up for a QB) is going to much more than a regular trade up (via the value chart) so that's the time to maximize your gain.

Of course elite prospects are great and tough to pass up, but that kind of opportunity is limited and could potentially yield much more than that one elite player.

He made an absolute statement. Your point is a good one; his point was you always have to do what he is espousing or you're dumb. Which is a bad absolute take.

 

[ajcardfan]

If we are stuck at slot 3
with zero acceptable offers
and Anderson is off the board,
who do we target?

This could happen. It would not be good.

But, for myself, I would not take Carter. I will get slagged for this, but I would be VERY tempted to take Bijan Robinson. I don't care about position, as much as the talent of the player and he is top 3 talent. If it's a BEST player philosophy, then he's the guy. If not him, then Gonzalez. I am more confident about him being an elite player than Wilson.

Who do the Cards target? God only knows. It will tell us more about the new guys than anything else so far.

 

[QuebecCard]

Yeah, that's my point.

It seems like a ton of you think that only a top 3 player in the draft helps somehow.

That is total garbage. Look at the rosters of any good team, they are not filled with top 10 picks.

No team is filled or has ever been filled with top-ten picks.

As a general rule, you can't win if:

1. you don't have a competent QB
2. you can't protect the QB
3. Can't get to the QB.

It's why QB, LT and elite pass rushers are premium positions, and unless you acquire them in the draft, you'll pay an exorbitant cost in the free agent market.

You don't pass on this need in the draft when a TOP prospect is readily available.

 

[oaken1]

There was an analysis run that in general, teams are pretty close to hitting/missing on talent. Of course a few % matters and certainly on the high picks, but the great GM's miss almost just as much.

Sure, you can say AD would be a #1 pick in retrospect, but he wasn't, he was 13. We never know how anyone will turn out. It's obviously all a gamble. Anderson is probably the safest pick but we don't get any extra draft capital (unless trade with Colts of course).

We need draft capital badly. We also need someone like Anderson. Next year's draft is (potentially) loaded as well. I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" answer here. Obviously in retrospect we can say "I told you so!"

There are always top prospects in a given draft. The argument to get the guy in front of you is based on the idea that you wont be picking high enough to get a top guy next year.

I dont think we need to factor that in at this point

 

[oaken1]

No team is filled or has ever been filled with top-ten picks.

Browns tried really hard