tukafan21

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.

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.