Mage

Ya'll are overvaluing draft picks Are you telling me you wouldn't trade Brown, Burns, and Horn for Watson? Because those are our last 3 1st round picks. Hell we had a stretch where our picks were Benjamin, Thompson, and Butler. You telling me you wouldn't have traded those picks for a franchise QB? There are other ways to improve your team outside of the draft, and a team with a franchise QB is almost always MUCH more aggressive and willing in free agency than a team without a QB. It would absolutely be worth it, IF Watson never got in trouble again.

If Watson never gets in trouble again the rest of his career, then he absolutely is worth that trade package. I think some of ya'll are really underestimating how much a franchise QB changes things. Even the Texans who have never been a well-ran organization and even behind horrible OLs, he led them to 10+ wins in 2018 and 2019. And he's 26 with near-elite accuracy, he'll be great for a long, long time. Now yes the off-the-field issues are a massive concern and a good reason to not be for the deal. But if we're strictly talking the value of a young QB, the deal itself is fine if you trust and believe Watson will learn from all of this.

Out of the 4 players, I'd probably do Brown and Chinn. Maybe Horn if you have questions about his rehab, but a man corner is more important than a box safety. I still think Brown can be a great player, but Burns is the safer player to stick with going forward.

Tagging Reddick would be dumb. Very skilled pass rusher and seems like a solid leader, but we don't need him. I'd rather see that money committed to the OL or hell, the safety position. We really need a playmaking safety who can play over the top, allowing Chinn to drop down more. Gilmore isn't worth re-signing unless he's taking a huge discount, and why would he do that? Jackson, I'm iffy about. If all he wants is #2 CB money, then hell yeah. I think he's a great corner to pair with Horn. But anything more than that and it is a hard pass.

So then you agree, it doesn't matter if a QB has to sit for the first 2 years, all that matters is how good they ultimately end up being?

The trade for Sam Darnold was not a bad idea. The physical talent was/is there and while his final year with New York was terrible, he showed a lot of promise in his 2nd year. 19 TDs in 13 games. All of his years in New York were better than his year with us, actually. The fact of the matter is sometimes, you have to take risks to get a QB. Trading for Darnold was a relatively low-risk move. The problem was, and always has been, picking up the 5th-year option. We could have gotten around not having a 2nd round pick this year - a 2nd round pick does not make or break a football team. But to make that financial commitment to Darnold was stupid as hell both at the time and in retrospect. We're in a position now where the move that makes the most sense is to just ride with him as a starter, but the team won't do that because they know the fans will revolt. But like I said, I don't think the trade itself was bad. It was a risky trade at a QB of importance. We aren't the only team that has done that. I'd argue the Colts have been a very well-run organization over the last several years since hiring Reich (not implying that we are one, because we aren't currently) and they traded a 1st-round pick for a QB they are probably going to have to cut. I can't hate a team for taking a risk on a former top-five pick. They just should have never, ever picked up his option.

This is such a flawed, misguided way of thinking. If a guy turns into an elite QB, who cares if it took him 2 years of learning on the sidelines?

Nothing changed, because he never said that It was only the same few posters who kept pushing the, "Watson doesn't want to come here" narrative. It was never reported that Watson wouldn't waive his no-trade clause for Carolina. All that was ever said was that as of the moment, Watson hadn't waived it (not that he would never do it). Because guess what? Miami was his #1 choice. It never had anything to do with him flat-out not wanting to come to Carolina... but the same posters kept pushing that same narrative no matter how many times it was disputed.

.... Okay? What does that have to do with my post?

I'm not saying I want us to trade for Cousins, because I don't. But he's definitely way better than mediocre. 124 TDs to 36 INTs since 2018. Even if you argue he is not as good as the numbers he puts up, and I think there is a fair argument there, he's still a lot better than mediocre. Cousins to me is in that 12-14 range for QBs, which is pretty good. And for all his faults, he was far from the reason the Vikings missed the playoffs last year.

Horrible

A lot of people on this forum are going to be looking real stupid if DJ Moore ever gets to play in a functional offense with a good QB.

I miss the days when this was one of the biggest reasons to complain about the Panthers.

The thing is, every single 1st round guy last year is a much better prospect than Pickett. Jones as a prospect gets super underrated. His accuracy was unbelievable. Great mechanics. Your prototypical pocket passer. You question his ceiling, but he was a very safe prospect. Pickett is risky as hell, and I'd also argue his ceiling is limited too. I think Pickett maxes out as a top 12 kind of guy. Which if he hits that, is worth taking in the 1st, but LIS that is his max to me. More than likely I see him being a Daniel Jones kind of guy. Someone who shows flashes but never puts it all together.

If Kenny Pickett is the best QB on the board, then we do not need to be drafting a QB in the 1st. And I like Pickett. I really do. His play-style is exciting and easy to love as a fan. But I wouldn't take him in the 1st.

I thought Fox took over more control of the defense down the stretch that year, but I could be wrong.

I have no dog in this fight However, an NFL ball is bigger than a college ball. So how Pickett managed to protect the ball in college isn't what concerns scouts (not to mention he wore gloves). It is if he can consistently and effectively grip the larger NFL ball. Which is why his combine and/or Pro Day will be important. Again, no dog in the fight. I really have no idea how he'll look throwing. I think it is a wait-and-see kind of thing.

How does that not more or less prove what I'm saying? It falls down to luck. The same team you are praising for drafting Aaron Rodgers, also drafted scrubs like Brian Brohm, Huntley, and in all likelihood, Love. I mean you really think the Patriots drafting Tom Brady has anything to do with anything other than mostly luck? Get real lol if the Patriots had any idea Brady would turn out the way he did, he wouldn't have fell to the 6th. Yeah sure they probably had a solid evaluation on him vs other teams, but again it was a lucky pick that they ended up with the GOAT. You made a post implying smart teams can do it in 1 pick. I replied giving you examples of organizations who needed to trade up to get the guy they want. It comes down to luck and where you are at in the draft. Yes you can obviously get a guy later in the draft, but your chances of hitting are greatly diminished. Then for some reason you responded saying, "smart teams have to make the right evaluation," as if that was ever what was being disputed. But yeah I'm "arguing for the sake of arguing," when my initial post was me just giving you a list of examples of teams lol And why don't you answer my questions? You said teams that need to use less resources to get their QB are smarter than teams who do. So are the Bengals, who fell into the #1 overall pick, a smarter team than the Bills? And don't try and backtrack and add context now, considering this is what you flat-out said: This is a point-blank statement made by you, suggesting that it makes you smarter if you can get a QB while expending fewer resources. Bengals used fewer resources to get said QB than the Bills or Chiefs did. So the Bengals are smarter. Correct?

And you know what I meant when I said stop trying to switch the conversation. Nothing to do with offering different viewpoints than mine, but all to do with the fact that I made a post responding to something you said, and you respond by basically changing what the convo was about. Never had anything to do with the actual evaluations these teams make, and it had all to do with your post implying that there is something wrong or that it is a black mark on an organization to give up a lot of picks to get a QB. If you have a good team, in all likelihood you aren't picking top 10, and in all likelihood you have to be aggressive to get a QB. But please explain to us how that makes a team like the Chiefs less intelligent than the Jaguars. Chargers only needed 1 pick to get their QB. This means they are obviously smarter than the Bills. No context needed whatsoever!

But that wasn't the conversation! You said smart teams only need 1 pick. I gave you countless examples of teams using more than 1 pick to get their guy, teams who would be considered "smart". You do this crap all the time. The conversation was never about teams needing to be smart in their evaluation of QBs. That is obvious... but you have a thing about stating the obvious, again that's your schtick and I get it. However my initial post was responding to your suggestion that smart teams only need 1 pick. "Smart teams can get the right guy with just one." The draft capital you use to get a QB has no bearing on your intelligence. Again, are the Chiefs less intelligent than the Jags? Bills less intelligent than the Chargers? 49ers less intelligent than the Ravens? If you are in a position to get a QB only using one pick, it is usually because you are drafting in the top 10. It has nothing to do with your front office being "smarter" than others. Which was the CONVERSATION. Not "smart teams make better evaluations about QBs than other teams."

Bro, why do you always try to switch gears lol I merely gave you several examples of how teams used a multitude of picks to get their guy, when you suggested that "smart" teams only need 1 pick. The conversation was never that teams need to be smart about the QB they are targeting. It was about the amount of draft capital teams used to get QBs. Yes you still need to make good evaluations. But there is no right or wrong way to go about getting your franchise QB - all that matters is you get them. You are 100% dead wrong to suggest that "smart" teams only need 1 pick. It is all dependent on where you fall in the draft and the strength of the QB class that determines what you will need to give up to acquire a desired QB. Are the Chiefs less smart than the Jags because they needed to trade up for Mahomes? How about Bills? Are they less intelligent than the Chargers? But you have your schtick and I get it.

In today's NFL, odds are if you want a QB, you either need to flame the hell out (Bengals, Jags) or be aggressive as hell (Rams, 49ers, Chiefs). There is nothing wrong with trading picks for an elite QB. They are that worth it. Look at the Bengals last year vs this year, and Burrow ain't even close to his peak yet.

It has nothing to do with being "smart." It is about being in the right position. The Chiefs traded extra picks for Mahomes. Texans traded extra picks for Watson. Bills traded extra picks for Allen. Rams traded for Stafford. Bucs got lucky that Brady wanted to go there. 49ers traded picks for Jimmy. They just traded picks for Lance. If you are in a position to grab your guy without trading anything (Chargers/Herbert), great. But finding a QB isn't a smart team/bad team thing. It really is mostly luck. There are countless examples, as the one I just used, that show there are more than one way for "smart" teams to get a QB. Sometimes you have to be aggressive.

To answer the other question, I would not trade guys like Herbert, Jackson, Allen, etc. for 3 1st round picks unless I somehow was already in a position to draft another highly touted QB (for whatever reason) and/or said QB was trying to force their way out. I don't think there really is a fair value on a QB of that level. We've never seen a young true franchise QB traded in his prime before, not in recent memory anyway.

How good of a franchise QB are we talking? Are we talking Kirk Cousins / Ryan Tannehill level of franchise QB? Then if so, nah. Are we talking Herbert / Jackson / Allen level of franchise QB? If so, then hell freakin' yeah they are worth 3 1st round picks. It is a bit trickier dealing with the draft though, as you just never know with a QB. I don't think I would spend 3 1st round picks to trade up unless I was absolutely convinced about said QB. I don't think I would have done it for Trey Lance - was not a fan of his film, very inaccurate. But I understand why the 49ers made the move. I would have traded 3 1sts for Joe Burrow. Lawrence too.