Trading up in the Draft for a QB

[GimmedaBall]

Again, I am sorry that I misunderstood you.

No problem. Respect you for coming back to the discussion with the apology. I make the same mistakes every single day and have come accept that humble pie is one of my dietary staples.

Almost as much as a Cheeseburger in Paradise!

 

[cardncubfan]

He was a walk on and has a chip on his shoulder. He caused the QB they had on their roster to transfer I think. He has all of the tools I want in a QB. He needs some work, but what young player doesn't? Also, his areas of concern are all fixable IMO. I can't say that for most of the other top QBs in this draft (I have personality concerns about Rosen, but who really knows about those).

Are there any 2nd, 3rd day QB's you like or think they may have potential? I know Sam is the man when it comes to fitting tight windows & has the balls to make those throws. But there could be QB's from smaller programs that may have similar traits?

 

[JeffGollin]

Not to mention... there's a middle ground here. What if we draft a guy and he comes out and throws for say, 2,000 yards, 7 TDs, and 7 INTs (Mitch Trubisky's stat line last year... I could make this worse by using Goff as the example)? And leads us to a 5-11 record (Bears record)? Are we going to scream and panic? Probably not if we pick him at #15. If we traded three first round picks for him, like some people are suggesting, yeah, then it's going to create panic - but Trubisky may continue to improve, as Goff showed last year.

People have gotten too used to rookies coming in and lighting it up.

We too often fall victim to "It worked when some team did it 4 years ago" syndrome. (The logic seems to be: "We drafted a 5-9 QB last year and he became All Pro. Ergo - We've got to get ourselves a 5-9 QB and it's "Super Bowl.")

This, in turn fosters a follow the leader MO. Meanwhile, Team A has their 5-9 QBOF and 10 other GMs draft 5-9 guys and get fired.

Moral: Do what they paid you to do. Find guys you like a lot and grab them.

 

[GimmedaBall]

Yes, they can look back and say "man, we whiffed here, that guy ended up being amazing," but they're not saying "the Steelers selected Antonio Brown with the fifth round pick they received from the Skelton trade, so that means we would have had Antonio Brown in the fifth," they're saying "we really screwed up on our evaluation of Antonio Brown. We should have definitely selected him instead of Andre Roberts in the third, or even over Dan Williams in the first." Even if we still had our original pick, we probably would not have selected Antonio Brown, we probably would have selected someone else on our board, without the foresight of knowing that Brown was going to become one of the NFL's best.

The evaluation of a trade like that can really only be correlated to your draft board, just like the Texans are probably kicking themselves that they don't have access to Saquon Barkley right now. But Barkley could turn out to have a drug habit and only play in 5 games, which wouldn't make the trade for Watson any more or less successful.

Why do you respond to my comments and quote me when your answer has little or nothing to do with my post?

I clearly stated that teams look back on which PLAYERS were on the board at the pick that they traded away. I never said that it was going to be the very exact same player there---I did make a distinction that it COULD be the same guy say when trading up in the first round to another first round pick.

There's going to be a chance that the guy the Cards were going to pick at #15 is still on the board after they trade up to #10. Then they would be looking at the scenario of comparing who they got in trade and who they were planning to take at the original slot.

Teams will look at the results of the trade with the guy they got and also the PLAYERS (note that is plural) that were still on the board. Why wouldn't they do that????

 

[Solar7]

Why do you respond to my comments and quote me when your answer has little or nothing to do with my post?

I clearly stated that teams look back on which PLAYERS were on the board at the pick that they traded away. I never said that it was going to be the very exact same player there---I did make a distinction that it COULD be the same guy say when trading up in the first round to another first round pick.

There's going to be a chance that the guy the Cards were going to pick at #15 is still on the board after they trade up to #10. Then they would be looking at the scenario of comparing who they got in trade and who they were planning to take at the original slot.

Teams will look at the results of the trade with the guy they got and also the PLAYERS (note that is plural) that were still on the board. Why wouldn't they do that????

Because you quoted my post talking about specific players that were picked at that pick? A post that was specifically directed at another user who was making that argument? I'm continuing the dialogue from my post that you quoted.

Teams whiff on players all the time. And yes, who they "could have gotten" has a place in the evaluation of the overall GM. But you can't cherry pick your successes and failures. There's no point in evaluating the Redskins' RG3 trade by saying "well they could have gotten Russell Wilson/Kirk Cousins/Nick Foles with their second round pick" when there's no insight into whether or not Washington had Brock Osweiler higher on their board and it would have been a moot point. The trade isn't evaluated on the hypothetical of who you would have gotten, it's evaluated on how your scouting department and GM had that player so highly rated over others who proved to be more successful.