CL1022

And Levis will end up rewriting the record books. #keeppounding

We may have increased the value of these top picks by taking #1 by compressing the range of where QBs will be taken. Before the trade, the top 4 could have gone 2, 4 and anywhere from 5-9. Now, it's nearly certain that 3 QBs will go top 4, and that last one standing could be very valuable to those 5-8 teams still needing one. Could this have been part of the thought process all along? Regardless, I'd love to hear what everyone thinks of this hypothetical: What if we traded down until there was only 1 QB left, at least to 5 you'd think. According to most draft charts, that would be worth about three 2nds, which are valued roughly equal to future 1sts. If we could net something equivalent to three 2024 1sts to take the leftovers at 5 or 6, the pick itself would be free. We'd have traded DJ + a 2025 2nd for two extra 1sts in 2024 AND moved up from 9 to 5 this year. All-in, we'd have a rookie top 5 QB, three 1st rounders and our own 2nd next year, and our 2025 1st. If the leftovers, presumably Levis, ends up hitting, then we are loaded for the future. If he busts, we're better positioned to trade up for our guy next year. This would give us two shots at getting what we want, with the 1st option just being better, but the 2nd option no worse off than we were before. None of these guys are Luck or Lawrence level sure things. If we get a chance, give me a free mulligan if needed and if not, we can cash our mulligan in next year and build a dynasty for the next decade.

Agree with the point, but in fairness Brady missed a season, as did Manning.

There's a scenario I haven't seen discussed, but to me would make a lot of sense. We had a roughly .500 roster with Darnold/Wilks. I'm not convinced we are "one player away" at this point. But I think with Reich/Darnold we could be competitive for the division in 2023 and give Corral a chance to develop another year under Reich. What if we traded down with someone like Tampa Bay at 19 (a team on the decline and desperate for a QB). We could probably get their 1st next year, which could easily be a high pick. Unlike years past where this would sound like a "tank" scenario, I actually think we can be competitive at worst, win the division at best, and still end up with a potential top 10 pick plus our own next year. How could this play out? 1. We suck and end up with two high picks next year to package for Caleb Williams, or my personal homer preference, Drake May. We would be closer to a more complete roster around them with the #19 from TB this year. 2. We find out that Corral (or Darnold ) actually can play and we don't need a QB, and now have 2 first rounders to use to continue to build around them. 3. I suppose we could just be mediocre again, but that's just something in between the two and we still are in a better position to move up to get Williams or Maye, with a better roster around them and fully stocked shelves in 2025 to continue building. It's not sexy, but it's practical and doesn't have a lot of downsides either way.

I mean, yes and no. At 20m even for 7 years, that’s a $76m bigger risk than before. Big number, but it’s about 0.69% of DTs net worth.

Nothing to add that hasn’t been said. But posting to bump the approval count in case Tepper actually checks Huddle for good ideas. I wanted Harbaugh the last two times we hired a coach and for once I’d like to at least see us lose doing things I thought were smart so I won’t have a right to complain .

As long as we beat Tampa, we have a few pathways. There is even a possibility that we could get in if we beat TB and lost both other games.

There’s actually a scenario where the entire NFCS ends up 6-11. Lol

Doesn’t this question almost counter the tanking argument? Like, if we lose out and get the 5th pick, “we’re a joke” so no coach wants to come here. But if we go a respectable 8-9, seem competitive, then no coach wants to come because we don’t have a high enough pick to get the QB they want?

There’s a big gap between the worst and great. He’s probably the same middle tier coach we’ve always had who can’t get over the hump. If he can run the table to the divisional round, I’d love to hope otherwise. But that’s the trajectory I see right now.

There’s an ocean of a gap between the next great NFL HC and Matt Rhule. Wilks falls somewhere along that curve.

That 1st and goal from the 4 comes to mind. There’s a spot he still adds value. He’s not a full time signal caller now. But there are a few spots that come up where he’d be great to have around.

If he would work in a Taysom Hill type of Swiss Army knife role, absolutely. As a QB, he’s done. But as an Athlete….he’s got a few good ones in him per week. Plus the intangible bonus that he would add some crowd energy for our one home playoff game. Not the worst idea the franchise would have ever had. It won’t happen and I’m not sure it should. But damn it would be cool to see.

Personally this feels like I’m watching a presser of Lou from the movie Major League. I think the mystery word in question isn’t “are” or “our”, I think it’s “or”. “Coaching changes”, OR “players traded” OR “the organization trying to tank it.” I think he stood down quickly and intelligently by clarifying that he meant outside media. But I think it was a slip that he admitted the organization wasn’t “expecting to win”, while not necessarily implying they were “trying to lose”. Who cares? We are winning. Let’s just go win the division and enjoy a home playoff game for the first time in 7 years. But I do think it’s funny that we probably did think we were tanking (as an organization), but reality is even a “failed HC position coach” made this team a playoff caliber contender. Shows how much it really was Rhule all along. (IMHO)

Over/under 100 pages on this thread by midnight tonight?!

Not to mention, we’d have never got baker for that cheap if we hadn’t spent that third on Corral imho. We’d have probably had to spend the third just to get Baker.

Just curious…anybody know the huddle record for pages on a single topic?

Please tell us you know something we don’t. This would be amazing.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned specifically, but it's been touched on by other posters, is the value of our 6th overall this year vs. other competing offers. Because the value of future picks is reduced by about 1 round per year into the future, our 6th overall this year is worth approximately the same as a mid-first round pick each of the next 3 drafts. If Burns and Chinn are worth a late first each, then our 6th overall this year and those two players is equivalent to 3 1s this year, and a first in each of the next 2 drafts (5 1sts overall). That should be more than enough to meet their asking price, right?! If so, we would have our QB and all of our picks starting next year to start building the team around him. What am I missing (besides the fact that we are probably going to give up far more than Houston's original asking price)?

In our case? Pretty much a risk free deal for us.

Do you not think Fitts was the reason for all the trade downs in the draft? That was definitely a first for this franchise. (Not arguing, just asking your take.) We’ve definitely been more active overall this year, which is probably a better approach. You can still argue if the moves we’ve made have been the right ones or not, but I like being more active.

Pretty much this. I remember thinking pre-riverboat Ron was in over his head after blowing a last minute lead in Atlanta early in 2012. I’d have understood him being fired on the spot that day, but obviously patience paid off in that situation. Funny how we try to (or are at least told to) wait 3 years to evaluate players, but we think coaches should reach their potential in their first year and a half. Rhule will at least match the win total from last year and I doubt we lose out. So there’s been progress. But he obviously isn’t there yet. My opinion means nothing but from what Tepper said when he hired him I’d be surprised if he’s ready to give up on him already. Not saying Rhule is gonna be great. Just saying I don’t think you can grade him completely yet.

Cam and Luke. My first instinct was Gross/Cam, but no single OL would make this line great by themselves. Cam was able to put our offense in the top 10 with an average OL and no real weapons like we have now. Even with this line, I think if you put early 2018 Cam in the huddle, this would be a top 5 offense. And yes, I meant to say 2018. I think that was his best football, and hitting those short, quick passes is something he’d need to be able to do in this system with this line. You put Luke in charge of this defense and I think it’s top 5, maybe top 1. With Cam and Luke, I think this team would beat our 2015 team by two touchdowns.

I'm not quite following the thinking behind so many QBs being taken before 8. Jags- Obvious Jets- This pick will probably be Wilson, but it could be someone other than the Jets picking. 49ers- Looks obvious, the question is which QB they traded up for. Bengals- Have Burrow So that leaves the Falcons, Dolphins and Lions. The Falcons and Lions have QBs that will cost north of $30M in dead cap to move on from before 2023. (And in this Lions case, they just traded themselves into this position.) How likely are they to really use top 7 picks on someone who wouldn't play for 2 years? And the Dolphins just traded themselves OUT of prime position to take a QB, so they seem to be sticking with Tua. So to me, it looks like: 1. Lawrence 2. Wilson 3. Jones/Fields/Lance 8. BPA of Jones/Fields/Lance not taken at 3. Personally, I'm not a fan of Jones or Fields, but I do really like the idea of Lance after sitting a year. But this also suggests to me that IF we wanted to move up for Wilson, we would be in the best position to do so, having the highest pick available to offer to the Jets among the teams still targeting QB. Not claiming to be right at all. Just asking those with better info, what am I missing?

I’m a very rare poster (Huddle stalker, not contributor). But this topic is like my own personal soap box. Analytics aside, trading down has always made so much sense to me. You’re evaluating 21 year olds who are nowhere near finished developing (physically for one), but more importantly mentally or emotionally (compare the 28 year old you to the 21 yr old version for a minute). To me, no matter how good of a talent evaluator you are, I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t want as many tickets in that lottery each year as you could get. When you look at the value chart and compare it to the hit rate, high picks are incredibly over valued. As an added bonus, 20-30 guys on rookie contracts each year sure as hell doesn’t hurt your cap either. And if you want to verify the merit of this philosophy, take a look at the average number of picks taken each year by the 10 winningest franchises compared to the 10 worst over, say, the past decade. (Or just look at how trading up worked out for Hurney I guess.)