What would a trade up to 7 cost

[Joker]

SF is considering Lance. They can afford to do that since they have a starter for 2021 and 2022.

says who exactly? It's smoke and mirrors week...EVERYBODY is lying and blowing smoke

 

[JarOfMayo51]

If that's what the Loins are seeking then I would never, ever, Ever, EVER EVAH make that trade for ANY of these non-Trevor Lawrence QBs.

Accepting that "offer" is akin to "volunteering" for a suicide mission.

That compensation is actually closer to the #4 pick, i got them a bit mixed up

 

[moosekill]

You're requiring a SB win in order to fit the definition of "winning".. Are you really unaware of just how ridiculous that is? Julio Jones was drafted in 2011. Since then, how many different teams have


Been to the SB
Won the SB



And how many different starting QBs have

Been to the SB
Won the SB



And let me help you with that second pair of questions by pointing out that Tom Brady has been to 6 SBs (possible 20 slots), and won 4 of a possible 10 SBs, in that time.



Then, when you're done with that, you can explain how it's Julio Jones' fault that the Falcons choked away the SB against the Patriots.

This is a really silly argument. The Falcons decided Julio was worth 2 drafts worth of picks. The simple argument is, no wr is worth two drafts worth of picks no matter how good they are. I wouldn't trade that much for a running back, see the VIkings/Dallas, or Miami, a punter, an offensive or defensive lineman, or any other player except possibly for a qb. When you couple that with the likely hood of that the wr you are drafting could end up being a bust, it is an idiotic trade. To be fair, he wasn't a bust, he is an awesome wr, but he is still a WR and hasn't put the falcons over the top.

 

[captain stone]

If the qb that we are very interested in is still available at number 7, I think it will take two first round picks( number 15 this year and next year's number one) if we can somehow work out a trade involving only this year's number one and this year's number two, I think we would have done very well.

I'm not waiting 90 picks to make my next one.

 

[captain stone]

The only issue with this Captain is what if Bill only likes one of the two qb's remaining, it would be risky not to jump Denver and potentially lose our guy.

This is the Worst. Year. Ever. to properly evaluate college QBs...There's NFW that Bill can be this sure enough of Any Non-Lawrence to sacrifice so much of our future for one of them.

 

[captain stone]

There won’t be better ones next year...

You don't know that.

 

[Tony2046]

Here is the Rich Hill Draft Value Trade Chart. It was last updated in 2017 and used historical draft trade data going back through 2011.

I just wonder if the recent QB trades combined with the increasing importance of the QB position make these carts semi-obsolete.

According to the chart the number 7 pick is worth 425.50 points.

The Pats have

• 1.15 -- (315.20 points)
• 2.46 -- (127.71)
• 3.96 -- (39.38)
• 4.120 - (23.10)
• 4.122 - (22.09)
• 4.139 - (15.13)
• 5.177 - (6.49)
• 6.188 - (5.08)
• 6.197 - (4.16)
• 7.242 - (1.53)

So in theory the Pats would need to trade their 1st and 2nd, and then would be in line to ask for a bit more back from Detroit (their 4.112 for our 4.139) along with the Lions #7 pick.

Another possibility would be to offer the Lions the Pats first, and a 2022 first (rather than 2.46 above).

While not having another pick until #96 would be far from ideal, with a 3rd and four 4ths there would be plenty of draft capital to move back up. Another option would be to ask for a 2022 3rd rather than a 2021 4th.

Not having 3.77 (idiotic filming of Bengals sideline) starts to look more egregious now; that would have been worth 59.85 points.



In terms of trading up for Atlanta's #4, that becomes more problematic; the #4 is worth 490.52. In other words the Pats would need to package 1.15, 2.46, 3.96 and 5.177. Now in this scenario the Pats would not have another draft pick all the way until 4.120, even worse than the 3.96 situation above.

While I understand that next year's picks are devalued during trades you're still losing the first round pick value for the next draft.

I'd rather be the recipient of that value rather than the giver.

 

[Tony2046]

Can you promise me that Lance, Fields, or Jones are going to be better then Cam?


it would be virtually impossible for them not to be.

That they are going to be even average starters? That is the only way I would even think about giving up what you are talking about giving up for them. Here’s the fly in the ointment, you can’t do that because it is just as possible they are a complete and utter bust.


I’m not sure
1) what you think I am giving up for them
2) how you think that you can “promise” anything about any draft choice.

Now your point about coaching and being on a quality organization is a good one and I trust BB to develop any QB taken to be the best he can be but even BB is human and doesn’t get everything 100% right. So agreeing that coaching and development time is valuable and important why are you throwing the rookie into the fire?


Because we won’t win this year with what we have. Starting the rookie by October both improves the chances of winning this season and accelerates the development of the QB

Why do you have your sights so set only on the top 5 who possibly could start now? Mills, trask, or monds have the physical traits that if given that time to develop could be decent starters And they cost SO much less.


Because they don’t. They aren’t in the top 5 for a reason. They cost so much less, because there ARE so much less. The game has evolved to the point where if you are a qb with a decent chance to be a good starter you are gone in round 1. Those guys have major flaws. To compare to another position a qb who falls to the 2nd or 3rd is like a position player who falls to 5th or 6th round. There is very little hope any of those guys will succeed, actually THEY would be the wasting pick that is over drafted.

Plus if they do bomb moving on from them is much easier so you can try again. Do you really have faith that the Patriots will get it right the first time and draft a 10 year starter enough so that you would set the franchise back 3 years if they miss?

I don’t, not because I question BB who is an A+ coach/gm who knows 10,000x what I do, but just because a real starting quality QB is so rare and even with the best information its a gamble.


This makes no sense.
You ding want to draft the guy most likely to succeed because if he doesn’t it sets the franchise back, so instead you will draft a guy with no chance to succeed and certainly set the franchise back?

I think the thing you are missing is that without a qb this team is going nowhere.
So nothing else really matters if you don’t fix qb.
Trading up to get a QB to fix the QB problem, even giving up what SF did results in a better team than using all those picks and not fixing QB.
It’s really that simple

You argument is akin to saying don’t sell the furniture to pay for fixing the roof that is leaking buckets. The furniture doesn’t do you any good when the roof is leaking on it.

Neither does going into foreclosure.

 

[Ring 6]

Neither does going into foreclosure.

Which is complete not analogous to the situation. But not refinancing your 9% mortgage (cam Newton) is.

 

[Ollie]

Because we won’t win this year with what we have. Starting the rookie by October both improves the chances of winning this season and accelerates the development of the QB

How many teams win with rookies at qb?

 

[Ring 6]

While I understand that next year's picks are devalued during trades you're still losing the first round pick value for the next draft.

I'd rather be the recipient of that value rather than the giver.

Devaluing next years picks is a function of urgency or desperation.
If you are going to give me next years 1 for this years 2 it’s because you think you have to have that player and it’s vital to this year and you are acting out of desperation.
A 1 next year had just as much value as a 1 this year to the long term health and success of your franchise. While you wait a year longer to get the player you have him for a year longer.

 

[Ring 6]

Because we won’t win this year with what we have. Starting the rookie by October both improves the chances of winning this season and accelerates the development of the QB


How many teams win with rookies at qb?

Some do. How many teams with the talent on the roster that this one has have started a rookie?
Roethlisberger won as a rookie.
Lamar Jackson won as a rookie.
Flacco won as a rookie
Tua won as a rookie
Watson would have won as a rookie if he didn’t get injured.
Prescott won as a rookie
Ryan won as a rookie
Wilson won as a rookie

Brady and mahomes won as virtually rookies.

There are a lot.

So my question to you, how many rookies started on solid teams capable of winning that failed?

 

[Zuma]

This is the Worst. Year. Ever. to properly evaluate college QBs.

If that's the case then it seems it's a smart move to take more of a risk to move up and get one...if proper evaluation hasn't been done by other teams. I don't want to sell the farm but you have to take risks and this is a good year to do that.

 

[The Boomer]

The trades we don't want to make:

The 15 Worst Quarterback Trades In NFL History

We've seen Hall-Of-Fame QBs be given up for next to nothing, and draft busts be traded for a king's ransom.

www.thesportster.com

The trade we hope for:

Chiefs trade up for QB Patrick Mahomes at No. 10

The Kansas City Chiefs have selected Texas Tech quarterback Patrick Mahomes II with the No. 10 overall pick of the 2017 NFL Draft after trading with the Bills.

www.nfl.com

Everyone who is so positive that the Pats must trade up for a top 5 QB are tempting fate. Either they like somebody enough to trade up as high as Pick 10 (once the Broncos make their choice or trade pick 9 to another QB coveting team), somebody slides who they like to 15 (after Denver the next 4 teams likely don't pick a QB except maybe the Vikings if they want their own QB of the future). Somebody else behind the Patriots might move ahead of them (after the Broncos) if they bid more than the Pats. However, the odds are that Jones (not a good enough athlete), Fields (epilepsy) or Lance (not enough experience or competition) will slide all the way to 15 or the cost to acquire one of them starting at pick 10 becomes reasonable, but only if they like whoever slides enough to pull the trigger.

Even Mahomes is now a Super Bowl disappointment. Why? Because the team surrounding him turned out to be flawed. How did he ever lose to old man Brady? Sooner or later, if you build a strong enough team, a star quarterback will become available without weakening 21 other positions, not considering special teams, that must be on the field for every play. QB is the most important position, but you can't mortgage your future to get one (even Mahomes).

 

[mgteich]

You don't know that.

No, there COULD be a top QB next year that we will be able to reach and they might be better than this year's group. How much do think it will cost for us to move up in 2022 to get an immediate starter? Will there more than one.

If need be, lets use that 2022 first now, and not to wait another year to start the clock on a starter.

 

[Zuma]

The trades we don't want to make:

The 15 Worst Quarterback Trades In NFL History

We've seen Hall-Of-Fame QBs be given up for next to nothing, and draft busts be traded for a king's ransom.

www.thesportster.com

The trade we hope for:

Chiefs trade up for QB Patrick Mahomes at No. 10

The Kansas City Chiefs have selected Texas Tech quarterback Patrick Mahomes II with the No. 10 overall pick of the 2017 NFL Draft after trading with the Bills.

www.nfl.com

Everyone who is so positive that the Pats must trade up for a top 5 QB are tempting fate. Either they like somebody enough to trade up as high as Pick 10 (once the Broncos make their choice or trade pick 9 to another QB coveting team), somebody slides who they like to 15 (after Denver the next 4 teams likely don't pick a QB except maybe the Vikings if they want their own QB of the future). Somebody else behind the Patriots might move ahead of them (after the Broncos) if they bid more than the Pats. However, the odds are that Jones (not a good enough athlete), Fields (epilepsy) or Lance (not enough experience or competition) will slide all the way to 15 or the cost to acquire one of them starting at pick 10 becomes reasonable, but only if they like whoever slides enough to pull the trigger.

Even Mahomes is now a Super Bowl disappointment. Why? Because the team surrounding him turned out to be flawed. How did he ever lose to old man Brady? Sooner or later, if you build a strong enough team, a star quarterback will become available without weakening 21 other positions, not considering special teams, that must be on the field for every play. QB is the most important position, but you can't mortgage your future to get one (even Mahomes).

25 year old Mahomes has been to 2 super bowls in his 3 years as a starter. He's 38-8. I'll take that disappointing QB.

 

[Ivan]

I agree. to get to 6 or 7, those teams will want our 1st and 2nd rd picks for starters. I would hate to give up our 2nd round pick this year. I would like our 1st and 3rd this year and our 2nd next year. I doubt that does it though.

It might not but it’s an interesting offer, I like it better than two firsts, which I think is their likely offer if they try to move to 7, and I think Fields is the target if they make that move.

 

[Ollie]

If that's the case then it seems it's a smart move to take more of a risk to move up and get one...if proper evaluation hasn't been done by other teams. I don't want to sell the farm but you have to take risks and this is a good year to do that.

View attachment 32358

I'm not sure that if the evaluation is harder to make that means it is a good year to take an increased risk. So if this year is going to be more luck than judgement compared to normal you want to take even more of a risk on that year? Tbh i think timing dictates we need to do it this year but i think it's one of the worst years to do that. You have less idea than normal that what you are reaching for will work out.

 

[Lansdowne]

The argument works both ways. There is a risk in trading a lot for a first round QB and having that QB flop. Nobody wants to see that happen. But just like there are QBs who flop, there are QBs that don’t flop. You could pass up an opportunity on a QB that ends up being as good as advertised, instead to go K-Mart shopping in the middle rounds where there is an even lower success rate. Sometimes the biggest risk is not taking the risk at all.

 

[50-yard-line]

The argument works both ways. There is a risk in trading a lot for a first round QB and having that QB flop. Nobody wants to see that happen. But just like there are QBs who flop, there are QBs that don’t flop. You could pass up an opportunity on a QB that ends up being as good as advertised, instead to go K-Mart shopping in the middle rounds where there is an even lower success rate. Sometimes the biggest risk is not taking the risk at all.

Which leads to the shocking conclusion that the Patriots should see what's available, figure out the cost, weigh one against the other, and do what's best for the team.