tukafan21

Seriously?!?! We're giving $13 million guaranteed to a DT nobody has heard of right off the bat in FA?!?!? Good thing we don't have more important holes out there like WR, TE, CB, DE, LB

Unless a team is just really stupid and gives us a 3rd rounder for him, I don't see the value in trading him, even more so if the NFL ends up adjusting their rules this year to allow for every team to dress an emergency 3rd QB without it counting towards the game day roster limits. He's going to be better than almost any other 3rd stringer out there, so assuming we sign a vet to back up the rookie, I think his value is best as our 3rd stringer than trade him for a late round pick that is likely to get cut or IR'd in camp after breaking a toe nail.

The Raiders can and will Short of them finding a way to trade up and get Stroud or Young, their Week 1 starting QB is going to be a Free Agent signing. They're in a much more "win now" mode than any of the other teams looking for a QB not named the Jets (who also could give him that starting job if they don't land Rodgers). Beyond them, the Commanders and Bucs can more or less give him that guarantee as well. After that, signing with the Colts or Falcons would give him a significantly better chance at starting than over the #1 pick in the draft as well.

I love Ekeler the player, but he's asking for a trade because he wants an extension and the Chargers don't want to give him one. In a vacuum I'd be fine with it, but not a few months after we traded away a better and younger player in CMC.

Nobody said anything about him being a franchise savior. But given his history and actual level of QB play, he's not signing with the team with the first overall pick, he's going somewhere that he'll be locked in as the Week 1 starter as soon as he signs.

I love Cam, I was even on board in bringing him back last year, he's my QB. But he's not the right guy to be the backup to the #1 pick, at least not here. That's WAY too big of a distraction for a rookie QB, you can't draft him and then sign our last #1 pick and an MVP to be his backup/mentor. It just would create a level of awkwardness when your backup QB is more loved by the fan base than the #1 draft pick. It's one thing to do it a couple years ago when Darnold was struggling and then got hurt, but you can't do it to a rookie #1 draft pick. It would be like the Lions trading up to #1, drafting one of these QBs and then re-trading for Stafford. It would just be too awkward of a situation to want to put your #1 draft pick and future of your franchise into. Sure it could end up working out in the end, but it's definitely not setting him up for success from the start.

Huh? I think you mis-read that, because I didn't give Minshew any credit for anything. I was saying he was a 3rd year player trying to win the starting job in camp, not trying to help mentor Lawrence, and then they traded him before the season began. Yes, competent coaching helped Lawrence make a big jump this year, but I think him not having a solid veteran presence in the QB room with him as a rookie hurt his development that year.

Yes and no He'll do that, but you still need a player and not a coach to be that guy for a rookie QB, it needs to be a peer, not one of his coaches. When McCown gets on him for doing something wrong, he needs that vet QB to then pull him aside afterwards and be his friend, it's not a coaches job to be the friend, it's to coach. He needs that vet to be in the locker next to his and talking to him all the time, coaches don't spend a ton of time in the locker room itself, that's the player's area. I think it's one of the reasons Lawrence had a rough rookie year. He had a demanding coach in Urban, but he didn't have that vet QB to help him along, he had Minshew who was trying to beat him out for the job in camp and then CJ Bethard as his backup during the season. We need the Derek Anderson to Cam Newton for this rookie

I think we keep Corral as the #3 for now unless someone makes us an offer that we can't turn down (which I don't think happens unless he balls out in the pre-season). But we have to have a solid vet QB in the room to help teach the rookie, who do we think that will be? Personally I don't at all want it to be Darnold, sure he played decent late in the year, but his biggest issue was struggling to process things at an NFL level, not the type of guy we want mentoring a rookie QB. Jimmy G likely wouldn't be wanting to step into a situation where he might be overtaken as the starter by week 1 or at worst, know he's only a placeholder for 1 season at the very most. Heinicke's game is too much of a gunslinger, not who I'd want mentoring the rookie Baker, Drew Lock, Wentz, lol I'd have to lean towards Dalton, Brissett, or believe it or not, Teddy Two Gloves again. None of them would be signing with the expectation that they're guaranteed to start week 1, they're all very seasoned pros who know how to go about their business properly and would likely be good mentors for a rookie QB. If none of them work, on a personal note since I'm an Arizona alum, I'd love for us to sign Foles. He would be familiar with Reich, not expecting to start, and sure, his game might be spent, but I think he'd at least be a good mentor for a young QB.

No chance 100% chance that picks 1 and 2 will be QB's, 98% chance the Colts take a QB at #4 (and that might be a low percentage). There are way too many QB needy teams right now that won't pass up on either Richardson or Levis (whichever isn't taken from those 3 picks above) in the first round. Hell, even if you wanted to make arguments that the 4th won't go in the Top 10 in the end, I'd be willing to guarantee there is no way a 4th QB slips past #20, likely not past #18. The Lions and Seahawks are both in situations where they have temporary starting QB's and need a QB of the future, and both of them have 2 first rounders. I can't see a scenario where their second picks come up at 18 and 20 and one of them doesn't take that 4th QB if for some wild reason they're still sitting out there (they're both rumored to be considering a QB with their first pick as is). It's one thing for them to want to use their Top 10 picks on players that can help them win now, but I don't think they'd pass on the QB with their second picks in the round. Beyond them, I don't think Washington would pass on someone at 16, depending what happens with the Jets and Rodgers, they might not pass on one at 13 either, and I'd think the Bucs would also jump at any of the 4 QB's if one fell to them at 19. And all of that is if someone other than the Colts doesn't trade up to #3 (if that happens, QB's are going 1-4) and if both the Raiders and Falcons pass on one as well. TLDR.... 0% chance the 4th QB falls out of the first, I'd say 5% chance they fall outside the Top 20, and probably only a 10-15% chance they fall outside the Top 10.

The other way to read this is her saying, "we might not actually be at home (Charlotte) right now, we're stuck in Nashville, but our heart (baby) is here with us, so this is home at the moment" Just saying.... I wouldn't read anything into this in terms of his team next year

I'd need some more information on why this would happen before having any interest in him. The Colts are drafting a QB in the 1st, doing that and then getting rid of a Pro Bowl Center doesn't really make a lot of sense, feel like there must be something more to this for them to even be considering it.

I really don't understand why people keep mentioning the Cardinals in a possible trade down. 100% chance that 2 QB's are going 1-2 in the draft, so for a team who doesn't need a QB, they're essentially already sitting there with the 1st pick in the draft. Even if we were to tell them we would swap the #1 for #3 without anything extra from them, they wouldn't do it (short of to then trade it again themselves at least) because it would only make that contract bigger for whoever they select.

That's the other thing in all of this that's kinda being ignored that I think ends all this talk before it begins. I'd find it very hard to believe the Bears made this trade without one last check in with the Texans, as trading down to #2 and then trading down again likely would have gotten them the biggest return, especially as they could have still traded #2 to us for close to the same offer. If the Texans didn't feel it necessary to make that move then, I can't see that changing before draft day unless something happens in their evaluation and they decide there is only 1 real option and they think we're going to take that player. And if that happens, it means some players had terrible pro days or had injuries and we likely would have come to the same conclusion as well.

Any word on if he was told he'd have to give up his number as a condition to doing this? Wink wink nudge nudge?

Shaq, Luvu, Burns, Chinn at LB and hopefully Brown as a DE, unsure of the other DE and DT though. Really think Chinn needs to be moved back to LB, he was almost invisible as a safety.

I get all that, but we're not talking about which movie you're going to watch tonight and that you'd be equally happy between 2 different movies here. We're talking about the most important player for a team worth billions of dollars and will be leading that team for the next 10+ years. If you took one player over the other, even if you would be perfectly happy with the other, you would have done that for a reason. And at a position like QB, I think you go with that player and not let someone else make the decision for you. That's all. And yes, my example of them needing to be fired if they couldn't choose is ridiculous, but so is the reasoning I gave that would make them be fired in my example, literally flipping a coin to make the decision, which in reality would never happen because they'd find a way to make a call between the two players. And that is the crux of my argument when responding to your "equal grade" point. That in the end, there is no such thing as a completely and 100% equal grade, there is always some way to make a decision as to who is ranked above the other, even if they get the same "grade" there is still some way to rank one over the other. And I don't care if that difference is the equivalent of what 1 cent is to a billionaire, if you found a way to differentiate them, no matter how small, you take that player instead of trading down to pick up a 2nd rounder. Hence as I've said in this thread, my cost is #2, #12, and 2024 1st, and even then, we have to be very certain that they are taking the player we wouldn't take if we kept the pick. Getting the right QB is that important to me that I wouldn't do it for anything less than that.

I'd love to hear the reasoning behind it, because you haven't given any. Let's say for the sake of argument, teams have the exact "same grade" on two players when their pick is up. Are you saying they can't make a decision on which player to draft because they have the "same grade"? If so, how do they make that decision? As long as they're not literally flipping a coin to make the decision, they found a way to distinguish between the two players with the "same grade" in some way, maybe it's age, or size, or personality, or how they think they'll fit with the rest of the players on the team. For me, when it comes to QB and we have our choice between taking one of them or letting someone else make the decision for us and we gain say a 2nd round pick to let them make that call, I'm taking the one that we found a way to rank above the other every single time. If we're talking about any other position, then yea, I'll take the trade down, but not with QB, you take the one that you found a way to rank them above the other. But if they literally have to flip a coin to make that call because they just can't find a way to rank one above the other, then that to me shows too poor of a decision making process to deserve to be an NFL HC or GM. You can disagree with my feelings on the position, but I don't think there is any way that can be considered a "dumb take" as it's rooted in reasoning.

Again, same value and not being able to decide between the two players is different. You can have the same value on two players but still make a decision which to draft without a literal coin flip. And that's my point, the HC/GM should be able to make that decision, and if they can make that decision, then I'm taking that guy 100 times out of 100 instead of trading down to 2 and letting the Texans choose who they want first. When it comes to QB, I want the guy that for whatever reason, we'd have selected over the other guy. But if a HC/GM can't make a decision on a QB with 6 weeks of dedicated evaluating, without literally flipping a coin, then they don't deserve those jobs.

There is a difference between putting equal values on two different players and not being able to rank one ahead of the other, even by the slightest of margins, particularly when it comes to the most important single position in all of sports, which QB in the NFL is. I don't care if you're trying to compare greats like, Brady, Manning, Montana, Mahomes, etc or even Ryan Leaf to Jamarcus Russell. If you can't rank one QB over another in regards to who you'd draft, then you shouldn't be an NFL HC or GM, period. You're saying you think there is a scenario where a team would literally have to flip a coin to decide what QB to take at #1 overall and that HC/GM of that team is making the right call by doing so? Because that's basically what you're saying here, that the grades are so equal that they can't decide which one should be given the higher grade for one reason or another by the slimmest of margins. If we had the #1 pick and trading wasn't allowed, and we literally had to flip a coin to make the selection, you'd be okay with that HC and GM keeping their jobs moving forward? HELLLLLLL NOOOOOOOO, they NFL HC's and GM's, they have to be able to find a way to rank one over the other by even the slimmest of margins. That's my point, in the end, they can and will be able to rank one above the other for some reason or another, and that's who I want to take without risking the Texans drafting that player if we were to swap picks.

Yes it's an extreme take, but do you really want a coaching/front office staff that can't rank two very different players with 6 weeks of dedicated work? That's really my point, that if they can't, they shouldn't be in this position.

It's shifting back that way, it's sure as hell a passing driven league, and kinda need WRs to make that work. Sure, KC just won the SB without any stud WRs, but Kelce is a TE in name only and they have the best QB in the league who makes it work. We don't have Mahomes and we don't have Kelce, we need legit WRs to help a rookie QB not fail right out of the gates.

Unless that TE is current level Travis Kelce, then no it's not We don't have a startable WR on the roster at the moment, that's not a tenable situation to put a rookie QB into if you want them to succeed. Lots of good teams don't have weapons at TE, yes we need to find one, but it's nowhere near more important than getting a threat at WR right now.

Then fire the entire coaching staff and front office who can't rank one higher than the other. That's the crux of their jobs, to evaluate who they think is a better player, and that's true for the draft, free agents, and then who to play in games themselves. If they can't rank one above the other, even by the slightest of margins, with 6 weeks to focus only on those two players, then they don't deserve to be coaches and front office staff in the NFL, period. In the end, this comes down to it being a QB, any other position and those are all totally valid arguments, but when it comes to QB, you have to take the player you think is the better prospect. Even if you rank them as 1aaa and 1aab, you have to trust that smallest margin and take your guy when it's about a QB.

But in that theory, the Texans would then also know they don't want the player we'd prefer, and thus, why would they then give up assets when they could stay put and still get their guy. That's where the idea of a swap with the Texans falls apart Back-to-back pick swaps only work for players of a different position and when a 3rd team is involved.