kungfoodude

I sincerely hope they aren't sold on Darnold but that is because I don't buy into him as being more than a journeyman backup. I don't think Fields will slip either. I think the best candidates to have an "Aaron Rodgers" moment are Lance and Jones. They feel like the most polarizing of the first round potential QB's.

I don't personally rate him that way. I think he still has a bust factor that had to be calculated. Obviously, I would be FLOORED to take him. After the top 4 QB's, definitely my favorite prospect.

I honestly think this is one of the least sure top 10 picks we have ever had. I cannot recall a previous top 10 pick we have had where the order uncertainty was this high

I can't agree with this. I would take Fields in a heartbeat. I can understand trading down(not agree, but understand) if the FO isn't sold on Fields. Any "QB available" trade down needs to be for a haul, though.

I don't think he is exactly a "can't miss" prospect. I think he is an ULTRA high ceiling and relatively moderate floor guy. Hard to envision him not being a successful OL in the NFL, but does he develop into an elite LT? The attributes are bananas.

That your personal evaluation, though. Remains to be seen how we(and the league) value him. I understand the viewpoint if that is your personal rating of him. Slater is one of the more interesting top 10 picks because of his elite attributes but also his high level versatility. If he is capable of being a LT, he is obviously a top 10 caliber prospect, but if he ends up being a high level RT or IOL, that top 10 pick probably seems quite high. I love him as a prospect but I will admit that you probably have to be pretty convinced he is ultimately a LT to take him in the top 10.

As in, take a QB at 8?

I don't necessarily agree with that. There are more variables that come into play than that. Strength of draft class, positional value, etc. I agree in THEORY you should be getting a starter with your first two round draft picks but the statistics also don't bear out that as the case. Hence the reason why I am skeptical of trading down. It SHOULDN'T be as hard to get a starter with the 8th pick of the draft. Results obviously vary historically, of course.

Seattle trading back is also a WAAAAAAAY different scenario than ours. Right now we have a chance to pick after only 7 players have been selected rather than in the bottom of the first where a good chunk of the top 2-3 players at their position have been taken. Moving from a bottom of the 1sr to top of the second spot isn't that big of a deal.

I would be reticent to trade down if we can land a day one starter at a position of high value or extreme need. I think that has to be a situation where the price makes that really, really worthwhile. I am not in favor of trading down for the sake of trading down.

That's not smart unless you don't like Slater, TBH(and we very well may not have him rated highly). Getting too cute on trading down isn't wise. And I say that fully knowing how much we are lacking in overall roster talent. We don't need to try and get it all in one offseason. This rebuild will be a process.

The "he is only 23 years old" thing is kind of played out. Young or old, some guys have it or some don't. It isn't some magical switch that flips when you are a certain age.

I agree. The odds of us landing a starter at 8 seem pretty high. Even Marty Hurney didn't screw up these picks. Not sure I buy enough into our FO talent evaluation yet to want to see then make one of those trade down moves. The hope is that after this offseason/draft, we have a lot more confidence in these guys.

It's all those winning seasons that.....oh....

100% in. It would be a huge boost to our OL.

If Fitterer gets a 3rd or 2nd rounder for Teddy, he is immediately our best GM of all time.

I wouldn't necessarily argue against your point, however you are also the guy that refused to give Hurney credit for the players he drafted that Gettleman took advantage of. You gotta be consistent on that. As you often said in those discussions, the wins and losses are what matters. Tepper has presided over one of the worst three years spans in franchise history(sadly, there are more to choose from than you would think).

1. How did you not know he was younger than Joe Burrow? That had been said in this forum probably 70+ times? 2. Stephen A. Smith being in your corner is probably not a great thing. He is the worst hot take dipshit under ESPN employ since Skip Bayless got the boot.

Well, he has never had even one winning season. Not sure that will really be a point in his favor.

Easily? Lol.....I would disagree with that. Our highs have been high but we are in the bottom 5 of the NFL in winning seasons in the span of our existence. Hard to beat that for futility.

7 winning seasons out of 27 is not what I would call a successful franchise. Frankly, it is pretty likely to be 7 out of 28 after 2021 and would be our 3rd streak of at least 4 straight seasons without a winning record. Our longest being 6 years. The Jets have less consecutive losing seasons than we do and have not had as long of a steak of futility in that span. Just pointing out that we don't have many franchises we can legitimately poo on. After all, we are the only team in NFL history to not have consecutive winning seasons.

Look up how many winning seasons and back-to-back winning seasons we have each had in that period.

I guess you have never heard of Google?

Well, you will just have to live with being wrong. I actually did look it up. One day you will understand Google. Actually, probably not.

Well....considering you didn't look us up, I am not surprised.