tukafan21

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.

Well yes, this is possibly correct. There is a chance that we don't currently have a favorite but we like 2 of them WAY more than the others. That's why you trade up to #1 now because the Texans weren't going to trade out of the #2 spot unless it was up to #1. But by draft night, there is a 0% chance that they don't prefer one over the other, even if by the slightest margin. At that point, there isn't an offer the Texans could or would make that would make us take the risk of them not taking the guy we prefer. And I don't care how much you're okay with either of them going into the process, if you have your choice of either, you take the one you prefer, you don't take whichever is left to you so you can pick up a 2nd round pick. Again, look at it the opposite way, if we had the #2 pick, would you be willing to package that with a 2nd rounder to move up to #1 and take the guy you prefer? 100% you would when it comes to the QB position. Which is why I still say the only way you do it, is if you somehow find out with 1000% certainty who the Texans want, and if it's not the guy we want, you do it for #2, #12, and 2024 1st. And that price is really just on the off chance that they make a last minute change of mind and at least we then picked up 2 first rounders to get the guy we didn't prefer. But any realistic trade they would make with us to move up to #1 to get the guy they want isn't worth us not just taking whoever we want.

If WR was so easy to find without a high first round pick, the Packers would have done it years ago to appease Rodgers. Replacing DJ will be harder than people think, particularly since we have to do it right away so we're not completely screwing over our rookie QB by giving him nobody to throw to, how has that worked out for Fields the last 2 years? To me, we now need to overpay if necessary to get Hopkins and give the rookie him as a safety valve. I'd also be very interested now in adding Thielen as I think he'd be a perfect safety valve as well, but if we get Hopkins, not sure we can afford Thielen on top of that with other holes needing to be filled as well.

Two different arguments Yours here is completely valid (not the side of I'd take, I'd rather just take the guy we prefer from the start, but that's just personal preference). This guy is arguing that we'd only make the trade if the Texans tell us who they want to take and that it's not the guy we prefer. Which is just beyond asinine

Dude, I'll just say it, you're flat out dumb. It's never happened because it's not a thing, it's just not, for many reasons. Hell, just look at it this way, let's say a team says we're taking Player A but then takes Player B. In your scenario here, you're saying they're not persona non grata and nobody is going to deal with them. So what happens with that team then says, "the Panthers are lying, we always said we're taking Player B, they're just trying to make us look bad" Now nobody knows who is telling the truth and who is lying, thus neither team is now the pariah that you are making them out to be. Stop being stupid

First of all, how many times have I said this and you apparently can't comprehend it.... THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO TELL A TEAM WHO YOU ARE TAKING IF MAKING A PICK SWAP.... IT'S NOT A THING And again, I've told you why that's not a thing, but apparently, to use your words, you haven't been able to comprehend that very logical and obvious reasoning. It's not a thing because anytime teams do a back-to-back pick swap, it's because of a 3rd team trading with the team with the higher pick, and the team with the second pick doesn't want them that to happen. Teams DO NOT do back-to-back pick swaps where both teams want a player of the same position, it just doesn't happen, and if it does happen, it's not in the first round, especially not the first and second pick, and especially not involving QBs. And even beyond all of that, if it were to happen, again.... THE TEAM TRADING UP DOES NOT TELL THE TEAM TRADING DOWN WHO THEY ARE TAKING BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD KILL THE POTENTIAL TRADE FOR ONE OF THE TWO TEAMS. Because as we've said numerous times, if they did that, there is no value in either team making that trade at that point. The team trading back isn't doing it unless the team trading up is taking a player they don't want. Which then means if the team trading up tells the team trading back who they'd take, and then the team trading back still wants to make the trade, the team trading up then knows with 100% certainty that the team ahead of them isn't taking the player they want, and thus it removes any need to give up assets to move up. It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. If you want to take Mr Scot's argument that we could tell them we're 100% fine with either QB and if they have a clear cut #1, that we'd then make the swap with them, that's totally fair and valid. But that's not the argument you're making, you're just making an absolutely asinine argument that doesn't hold water.

Remember when that was a thing? When teams would work out contracts with players before the draft and announce who they were taking first well in advance. I realize it's not really a thing anymore thanks to the rookie scale, that was really to prevent players from holding out if taken #1, but just weird to think that used to be a thing.

Which will be either DE or LB, 100% I'm not sure I see any scenario where we take something other than WR with our 2nd rounder now. There isn't an impactful enough FA WR out there to keep me from drafting a WR to grow with the rookie QB. Even if we can land someone like Hopkins in a trade, unless we also get a Jeudy or someone like that, we need to draft someone with that 2nd rounder. And seeing as our biggest holes before this trade was already at WR, along with LB and a pass rusher, logic says those positions are likely getting punted into next offseason for a splash move. They'll hope to hit the lottery again like with Luvu and Reddick, but if not, those positions don't seem likely to be addressed this offseason with long term solutions now.

I don't think it's that people look at DJ as one of the top 5 WRs in the league as much as it's what trading him away has left us with at the WR position for our rookie QB to throw to. We have the worst WR room in the NFL right now and that's not even debatable, not exactly the ideal scenario for a rookie QB to step in with. Sure, there's time to figure it out, but we had a top 20 WR on our roster until this trade, that's where the hangup is for me and I'm sure many others in regards to including DJ in this deal.

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.