tukafan21

He's trying to make two arguments at the same time, but the problem with them is that they're conflicting ideas. First he's trying to say that we'll make the trade because we'd "trick" the Texans into thinking we'd be okay with either of the QB's. Which is a valid argument in itself and the one Mr Scot is making, whether you want to do that or not is the discussion to be had. But then he's also saying we'd only make the trade, even if we did that "trick" successfully, if the Texans tell us who they're planning to take. And he's then compounding that insanity by saying they can't go back on it because it's a scarlett letter that would ruin careers. And that's where his argument completely falls apart, from both the Panthers and the Texans side of it as the Panthers only would do it if they still get their guy, but if that's true, then the Texans wouldn't do it as they'd then know they'd get their guy at #2. It's honestly baffling that he can't realize that at this point.

Again, just another beyond stupid argument. You're looking at everything in a vacuum and making a rather bad assumption that teams only trade back 1 spot when the other team tells you who they're going to draft and they have to follow through with it because if not, it's a career ender. Because again, I'd be willing to bet a lot of money there has never been a situation where teams made back-to-back pick swaps and then both teams took players of the same position. When those swaps happen, it's not because the team trading up told the other team who they were going to take as a contingency to making the trade, it's because they know with 100% certainty that the team isn't taking a player of the position they want. When those swaps happen, it's because they're doing it so a third team doesn't swoop in to make a trade and take the player the team picking second would want. THAT'S NOT A POSSIBILITY HERE Why is that so hard to understand?

No dude, you're just being dumb now, because your other posts are also saying any trade is contingent on the Texans being honest on who they'd pick and that they couldn't then go back on it and take the other player. Which literally negates what you just said, it's one or the other, not both. What you're arguing here is what Mr Scot has been arguing, that we'd be okay with either player and that's why we'd make the trade. Which in itself is a totally fair and valid argument to take, just not a trade that I'd personally make in the end. I was responding to you saying that we'd only make the trade if the Texans told us who they'd take, and then we'd only make the trade if it's not the guy we prefer... literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on a message board, and that's saying something.

Availability trumps any ability any player can have Size is a factor in availability Hence, size is a factor in the equation, period, end of discussion. That's not to say Stroud is the pick over Young solely on size alone, but it's 100% a factor, and in the end, if you're close on the ability of each player, to me that size factor is the deciding factor in the end when it involves a player of Young's size. If he was 6' and 215-220 lbs, then it might be different, but he's 5'10" and weighed in at 204 (which let's be real, he didn't work out there, he likely packed on a good 5-10 lbs solely to weigh in at the combine and has likely already lost that weight). Basically the opposite of boxing or MMA, where a fighter cuts all that weight before weigh in to make the limit and then puts 10-15 lbs back on before they actually fight. He likely packed on a ton of water weight in the days before being weighed in.

As someone else already said, the only legitimate way we trade with the Texans at this point is if we draft who they want at #1 and they give us an offer good enough at that point to trade back to #2. And really, the only way that happens is if we gamble on taking the guy we don't prefer, thinking it's who the Texans want and would then send a trade offer for. But that would be beyond stupid, as if the Texans then just took their #2 guy and kept their assets, we then traded a haul up to #1 to take our #2 ranked QB, which isn't happening.

While this is an accurate post, it's still the secondary argument to it all. First is just assuming the absurdity that teams "have to tell you who they're taking if you do a back-to-back pick swap" is an actual thing (which it's not). And second, even if it was a thing, and something the other team couldn't then go back on, it then becomes asinine to think that the Texans would make the trade. As if we knew all that information and we'd still make the trade, it's a clear sign to the Texans that we wouldn't be taking the player they wanted at #1 anyways. It's honestly just the most asinine argument ever, I'm angry at myself of continuing to get into this same argument, but it's just legitimately too stupid for me to ignore it. Scot's argument about us being okay with either QB and trading back to get more assets, while still not something I'd do as I'd rather take our top choice and not let someone else dictate that, is at least a real thing. But thinking the Texans would be honest in telling us who they'd take, us agreeing to that, and then the Texans still going through with it knowing we didn't plan on taking their guy, is just beyond absurdity.

I know my last post contained it, but it was long and at the bottom so putting it here again.... YOU'RE LOGIC IS UTTERLY AND SEVERELY FLAWED Again, think about it the other way around, from the Texans standpoint based on your argument that no team would trade down without the team trading up being honest who they'd pick. So for the sake of argument here, the Texans tell us they're taking Young, and we say we want to make the trade still. In that scenario, we then also just told the Texans that we prefer Stroud. So if we then told them we're taking Stroud, why would they then give us additional assets to move up to #1 to take Young when they would then know 100% that they could keep all their assets, stay at #2, get their #1 guy, and pay him less money at the same time?!?!?! If you still can't understand that, then I'm at a loss

I don't think that's a thing in the way you do. Do I think there are times that the team trading up tells them who they are taking? Sure, possibly if the GM's have a good relationship. But there is literally a 0% chance that it's a "rule" that is followed when teams do pick swaps of back-to-back picks. Mainly, because when that happens, the team trading down knows for certainty that the team trading up isn't taking the player they plan on taking. Not because the other team tells them, but because they know the team trading up is doing so for a specific position that the team trading down wasn't going to be taking. Remember, the only reason a team would ever trade up 1 spot is because they are being threatened that the team above them is going to trade the pick to a 3rd team who would then be selecting the player that 2nd team wants to take. It's always, "I have X team going to trade for this pick unless you want to give us something to make a swap with us", and that isn't a bluff you can make when there is a 0% chance that we'd be trading back with someone below 2. I'd also venture to guess that there has never been a situation in NFL draft history that two teams who are both 100% taking QB's swapped back-to-back picks. And if that did happen, it likely wasn't the 1-2 draft picks, and again, if it did happen, there is almost no chance the team trading up would honestly tell who they are selecting as it just wouldn't make any logical sense to do so. Your own post includes the proof as to why it isn't possible. "No team is trading down if there's a chance they're taking your guy" Again... just think about it logically... if the Texans said, "we're taking Young" and we still say we want to do the trade. Then that means we prefer Stroud, and if the Texans then know we prefer and would take Stroud, in what world do they have any motivation to give us anything to move up when they then know for 100% certainty that we're not taking the guy they want?!?!?! The lack of logic here is astonishing

LOL Okay, I know I just said a previous post was the worst take I've ever seen on a message board before, but man did I speak too soon, cause this one just blew that one out of the water in the race for worst message board take every. Arizona essentially already owns the #1 pick in the draft right now, they can take whoever they want going into the draft since they're not taking a QB and there is a 100% chance the top 2 picks are QB's right now. So in what world would they even give up a conditional 7th round pick to move from 3 to 1 and pay a larger contract for the same player they can sit at #3 and still take?

Honestly, this would be the only legitimate way we could make a trade with them at this point. We'd have to take the player they want, hoping they'd then try to trade us the #2 pick plus more for him. Which would be a massive risk to take if we did that taking the player we think they'd prefer instead of just taking the guy we'd prefer.

I've seen this argument a few times in the last 24 hours on here, and it's so badly flawed that it's not even funny. Legitimately as bad of a take as I've ever seen in on any message board before. There is no world where the Texans would tell us who they planned to take There is also no world where if for some moronic reason they did tell us who they'd take, that we would be able to believe them. There is also no world where if for some moronic reason they did tell us who they'd take, and they were honest about it, and we believed them, AND we then wanted to make the trade with them, that they would then actually pull the trigger on the deal in the end. Because in that third absurd scenario, it would tell the Texans that we weren't planning on taking that player with the #1 pick. And if they then knew we weren't taking the player they wanted, they'd have zero motivation to give us assets when they could stay at #2 and get their top ranked QB on a slightly cheaper contract. In the remote chance we actually swapped picks with the Texans, it would be without knowing who they wanted and us taking the chance they didn't take who we'd prefer. Short of tapping their phones/emails and finding out who they actually want that way, there is no scenario to be played out where we could actually know for certain who they want before making a trade with them.

Love the optimism, but this isn't topping 2011 when we didn't have to give up all the assets for the #1 pick and knew we were about to draft the reigning Heisman winner who just lead his team to an undefeated NC. Fun for sure, but 2011 was different than this will be, hard to top that one.

As I said earlier today in here, I'm only trading back with the Texans if I'm 1000% sure they're not taking the guy we would take at #1. And even then, even at 100% sure they're not taking our guy, I'm only taking the risk for #2, #12, and their 2024 1st Rounder, not a single penny less.

I think you're conflating "one favorite" with "higher ranked" in your arguments on this. Sure, maybe some people are arguing there is only "one guy" that they are okay with, but I think most of us, such as myself, understand the team may be okay with either of two of the QB's. The difference is that many of us don't think it's worth adding say a 2nd round pick to take someone we're okay with, as opposed to taking the guy we prefer over the other, even if only by a slim margin. This is the most important position in sports, even if it's the slimmest of margins we have between two guys, I'm not okay with risking the Texans taking that guy we prefer instead of just taking that guy ourselves at #1. Take specific player arguments out of it, if someone were to say you could have the QB you prefer or a QB you'd be okay with and a 2nd round pick, I'm not sure how anyone can say they're okay with taking your second choice at QB. Again, if this was about any other position on the field, then yes, trading back is the right call, but it's not, it's about QB, and you just have to go with your top ranked guy in a situation like this.

I also just feel the need to reiterate, that I don't think the Texans are even interested in this based on them not having already made a trade with the Bears. Once the Bears had this framework of a trade in place, there is basically a 100% chance they then called the Texans and said, "hey, we have a deal in place to trade the #1 to a QB needy team, but if you'd like to do a pick swap for your 2nd rounder (or maybe more), so you can pick the QB your prefer, we'll do that deal with you." As they then could have taken that #2 overall pick and offered it to us for a pretty similar trade, likely the same one except for the 2025 2nd rounder. If the Texans didn't make the trade then, it means they don't have much interest in moving up to #1 when they can keep all their picks and end up with one of the top 2 guys anyways. To me that is the sticking point in all of this that makes this such a moot argument, as we're not trading down to #4 after all this, just not happening. So if the Texans didn't trade with the Bears, they're sure as hell not trading with us now.

Yes, perfectly logical if they are a literal and complete tie as to which QB they'd prefer, but it's not logical in the slightest to think they can't find a way to separate them and have a preference. And yes, I realize they may be comfortable with either, but in the end, these guys are two very different players, to the point where the staff will be able to have one ranked over the other. Once you have a preference, I just see no legitimate reasoning to allowing another team to dictate which one we take when it's about the QB position. To me, that's what it all comes down to in the end, it's the most important position in all of sports and we have the chance now to pick the one we prefer, you make the pick yourself.

And that Bears QB didn't get his 5th year option picked up and has played for 3 teams in the past 3 years. And that 49ers QB likely just lost his job to the last pick in the draft. I think that's what you're missing here, nobody is upset with what we gave up for the #1 pick to draft a QB, it's that the QB's in this draft aren't enough of "can't miss prospects" to give up that much for them, particularly with what could be a historically strong QB draft class next year.

I think what people also seem to be forgetting is that if the Texans really only wanted one of the QB's, there is basically a 100% certainty that they'd have already made the trade with the Bears. There is no way the Bears made this trade without first re-checking with the Texans to try and swap, as trading down twice would have been the best thing for them, they'd still have been able to send that #2 overall pick to us for almost the same trade. We probably could have kept that 2025 2nd rounder, but still sent them everything else, and they likely would have gotten the equivalent, if not more, than that from the Texans to move down.

You can also look at it the other way around and I think it makes the idea of trading back to #2 look insane. If we had the #2 pick and were comfortable with two of the QB's, but we preferred one over the other, there wouldn't be a single person who has any issue with giving up a 2nd round pick to make the swap and take the guy we prefer. So why would we do the opposite to then let the other team decide. They'd have to have some sort of 1000% certainty that the Texans would be taking the QB we didn't prefer, and even then, I'd be very skeptical that it would play out that way. Because as I've said in the other threads, if the Texans felt we weren't taking the guy they wanted, they'd never make the trade with us, so fi they were to want to swap, to me, it says it means they think we're taking the guy they want.

Honestly, nothing they'd actually do, and the ONLY way I'd do it is if we legitimately couldn't decide on which QB to take at #1 and are about to actually flip a coin to make the decision (which let's be real, would never happen, they'll have a way of establishing who they rank higher). At that point, I'd take #2, #12, and their 2024 1st, and nothing less, dead serious. If it were any other position on the field, I'd take their 2nd rounder and probably throw a mid round pick back at them too, but at QB, we need to be the ones to decide who we draft, not another team. It's too important of a position to not make the decision ourselves. Yes, I realize we still have holes to fill and getting a QB we still like while filling them would be good for us, but in the end, for me, it just comes down to how important the QB position is and now that we've given up too much to move up to #1, I'd rather pick the guy we'd rather have, even if it's only marginally more than the other guy.

Not gonna lie, once we made the trade I had a feeling it will be Stroud, and one of the first things I thought of is that part of Shaq restructuring his deal to stay with the team will need to include a clause of him giving up his number for us to do it LOL

Most, if not all, of those players other than Evans are likely to never hit Free Agency, and when Evans does, he's well past his prime.

There is no way they won’t be able to rank one above the other, they might be close and they might have been okay with getting either going into the draft, but they’d still have a preference in the end. In a world where picking the right QB is this necessary, you don’t risk it, you take the one you have ranked higher.

No, not when it comes to QB, it’s too important to hope they take the guy we prefer second, even if comfortable with both. You gave all this up to move up to #1, you make sure you get the guy you rank higher, no if’s, and’s, or but’s about it

I'm not a fan of giving up so much to ge too #1 and have no starting WRs on the roster for him to throw to. We'll have to get at least 2 players better than TMJ or Lavish for him, so if we take Stroud, I think we should find a way to get back into the middle of the first to take his college teammate and hope it works like for the Bengals with Burrow/Chase. Think our 2025 First plus some more could get us into the middle of the round to get him, and that would be totally worth giving up a future first in that type of situation I think.