AU-panther

Beason wasn't traded for 3 weeks earlier. Its not that they thought Fields had a 100% chance and Darnold had a 20%. They probably thought they both were fairly close in chance of being successful.

Maybe, but there was talk that we talked to Miami about going to 3 and you don't trade up to 3 for a non-QB. Also you don't go to 3 hoping one of the top 2 QBs fall to you. Regardless of what the Jets were saying everyone assumed QBs were going 1-2 in the draft. I think there is a very good chance we had 3 QBs we liked. Also San Fran traded up to 3 at end of March. We traded for Sam beginning of April. Once San Fran went to 3 we pretty much knew best case we would end up with QB4 and even then that wasn't guaranteed.

exactly, once you trade for Darnold your draft board changes.

who said anything about can't miss? Cam wasn't can't miss at 1. bad argument, it actually supports what I'm saying. They might have thought Fields and Darnold both had similar chances of being successful, neither were a 100%, QBs rarely are. My point was that Darnold being on the roster has a clear effect on how you approach the draft. Why are you going to waste the 8 pick on a guy that you might consider marginally better or worse or the same. If Darnold isn't on the roster then maybe you take the gamble. Here again passing on Fields by itself doesn't tell you what they thought of Fields, it tells you what they thought of Fields relative to Darnold. That's a totally different thing, but I understand that most people around here look at everything in a vacuum, which is rarely how things happen in the real world. Passing on Fields when you have Darnold in itself doesn't tell you that they didn't like Fields, it tells you that they didn't like Fields more than Darnold to the point you were willing to give up taking another player at 8. Its pretty simple logic but at this point I think I'm wasting my time trying to explain it.

and roll with Grier? I don't think so, but that is an opinion and yours might be right.

what exactly did I say that they don't support? and you never did answer the question earlier, if we had not been able to trade for Darnold do you still think we take Horn at 8?

You and I probably would have picked Fields anyway, but it didn't surprise me that the team didn't. Most teams aren't going to spend multiple picks to trade for a guy, especially a QB, and then a few weeks later draft a guy for the same position. They almost feel like they are wasting the sunk cost so to speak.

Poeple are saying two different things in this thread. Did we pass on Fields because we didn't like him or because we had already invested in Darnold? I believe we liked Fields, but we were not sure if we could get him so we traded for Darnold, who we also liked, which was a sure thing. At that point fields was no longer really an option on draft night. We didn't like him so much more than Darnold to give up on Darnold already. Simple question, if the trade for Darnold had not gone through do you believe we still would have picked Horn at 8? or drafted a QB?

You trying so hard to prove a point you are arguing something that people really aren't saying. Nobody, or at least I'm not, is saying that the team traded for Darnold just to be a back up incase a QB didn't' fall in the draft. Actually what you are saying backs up what I said. Once the team traded for Darnold he was the center of their plans as you say. At that point QB isn't really part of their drafting plans. It is very possible for the team to have liked Fields but not to draft him since they had Darnold. Those two facts can exist together.

Do you honestly think we haven’t passed on players in the past in the draft,that we have liked, because we didn’t have a need at that position? Need factors into drafting regardless of what people claim. With Darnold on the roster the desire to draft a QB was considerable less. If Darnold had not been on the roster the desire would have been higher. Simple concept. How often have you seen a team trade multiple picks for a starting QB and then 3 weeks later draft one in the first round? Think about it…

Silly? No People keep leaving out the fact that we had already spent resources to address our starting QB position before the draft happened. That changes the way you approach the draft. It was never a Fields vs Horn question. In reality it was a Darnold (sure thing) + keeping pick 8 vs hoping a QB fell (not sure thing) vs trading up (too expensive but would make a QB a sure thing) decision. Ask yourself this, let’s say the Darnold trade fell through and we go into the draft without a QB, do you really think we take Horn over Fields or whichever QB we had rated the highest?

Of course he wasn’t, we had already addressed the QB position during free agency.

Everyone keeps over thinking this versatility deal. On game day you usually only have 8 OL active, you don’t have a backup for each spot, because of this every team has a multitude of players that can play multiple positions on the line. All that matters is if LT1 gets hurt who fills in? Who fills in if RT2 gets hurt? More times than not it is some combination of three guys, not 4 like some fans think.

Seems like Moton is the swing tackle, just happens to start. Some teams will have OT3 be the swing tackle for RT and LT. Based on how they seem to be moving Moton around in camp they will just let him be the back up LT and OT3 can fill in at RT.

It has worth when I was making a broad statement that includes everyone from BC to David Moore, since people also seemed surprised Moore was let go which also happened recently, not to mention Brown. We had people around here expecting 2/3 being opening day starters and the third being part of the 2 deep. That was just unrealistic. You are the one making my statement about just BC. As far as versatility goes, it is a bit overplayed around here. Think about it on game day you usually only have 8 guys active a lot of times. Every team has guys who can play LT/RT, G/C, G/T, not really that odd, just the coaches have talked about it so fans are running with the idea. As far as BC goes the fact he was listed as T or G on the big board still doesn't change the fact they are probably going to have him focus on one position or the other, especially early in his development. Maybe they didn't draft him to start at G early and RT later. Maybe they are thinking backup RT early and starting RT later.

but how many teams, successful or not, do you remember having traded multiple draft picks for a starting QB 3 weeks before a draft and then still used a first round pick on a QB. Has that ever happened? I can't think of an instance. As fans, some of us wanted us to still be in the QB market but for all practical purposes once the draft started we were out of the QB market. By draft night how much we liked or didn't like Fields or Jones, or any of the QBs was largely irrelevant.

I think that is a bit too simplistic of a conclusion. We preferred Horn over Field with Darnold on the roster. We had already invested resources into Darnold. You and I might have picked Fields anyway ,but a lot of teams once they trade for a QB like we did, aren't going to draft another guy, they feel like they wasted those draft picks they used for the trade. I'm not convinced we would have took Wilson at that point if he had magically fell. If we had lost to WFT and were picking 3rd, do we still trade for Darnold? Would we have picked Horn at 3 over Fields if we don't have Darnold? I can't say for 100% we would have. Right or wrong, there seemed to be this idea that Fields struggled with the processing part of playing QB, holding the ball too long or not getting to second reads. If you looking at which QB was best from throwing from point A to point B, than Fields was the best prospect in the draft, even better than Trevor. His accuracy was off the chart, along with plus arm strength. The athletic ability was just another bonus. I think when it is all said it done teams might have overthought Fields, also I think Wilson might have higher bust potential than a lot think.

I said all rookies because my statement was not only intended for BC but also this expectation by many fans of all of our drafted players, including UDFAs. I totally agree that is you want to go to smaller sample size and just look at 2nd and 3rd rounders then of course the expectation should still be somewhat higher. Its clear you are trying to prove a point that you made earlier but calling my statement false to prove yours correct when they are in fact two different statements is... If you want to get specific about round that is why i decided to get specific and look at just tackles. OTs tend to do get on the field a bit slower than OG. What they had him listed on the board as on some little promo piece is irrelevant. Pretty clear so far he is spending most of his time at RT, he is a rookie, they aren't looking to develop him at two spots he has enough to learn at one spot. Staff isn't worried about getting him on the field the quickest, they are worried about figuring out the best starting five, the best game day 8 and the best roster 9-10. They might have had graded as a better G than T coming out but they might decide he is a better upgrade at RT but as a OG he might be similar to what we already have.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't he getting most of his snaps at RT?

I said rookies, not 2nd day picks, but out of curiosity who are the 2nd day picks in 2020 you are referring to? I see 5 listed as OT, of which only 2 played more than half the games. Also just because you are started doesn't' mean you are good.

I get where you are coming from. If our vet guard is one of the worst in the league you would think a rookie could also be one of the worst in the league, but maybe the coaches think they would be next level worst.

My guess is Elflein would be the backup center and someone else would slide into LG.

and he might, but that doesn't change the fact he would be a huge exception.

rooting is fine, expecting is delusional.

Fans need to realize that below average vet lineman are usually still better than rookie lineman. Rookie OL that excel are very much the exception, not the norm.