LinvilleGorge

We'd almost certainly have to take less. But that's fine. We'd still have our QB answer in Darnold. The flip side to this is if you pass in Fields and he becomes great elsewhere while Darnold continues to be a bum. OUCH.

Then you trade Fields. Until we answer the QB question it remains a need and QB need trumps all other roster needs.

My wife is driving me nuts. When we bought our house in CO, we lived across the country from any family to help and had an infant child. The move was IMMEDIATE. We got all the furniture in the house and everything else was a slow burn that happened when it happened. Major upgrades the same. I renovated the kitchen over the course of a week a year later. Rebuilt the deck and added a patio and gas fire pit over the course of a month two years later. Stuff like that. With this house, it's like she wants EVERYTHING done NOW. Every time I turn around she's bought more poo expecting me to drop everything and start working on it RIGHT NOW Like, WTF? Chill.

Yeah, seems bogus. Some random radio guy said he heard a rumor and then no one else chimed in on it.

Yeah, it's just not adding up. You don't trade a guy a couple weeks later for what we gave up if you were just being offered a mid-1st. At that point, might as well just keep hanging onto him hoping his value will go up when some teams strike out in the draft.

I don't understand why people can't understand this and are hung up on the trade. The only way that matters is if Darnold is worthless in which case QB DEFINITELY needs to be on the board at #8.

I might slide back a couple of spots for less, but not all the way back to #15 for less.

Who offered that and why wasn't it still on the table later?

I wouldn't do it unless their 1st next year was part of the deal.

If we'd offered #8 overall at that point they would've agreed immediately right after they picked their jaw up off the floor.

This is where I'm at.

I want Fields there just to give us the option. We could take him. We could trade down. Or we could take someone else. But the more options the better and one of the top QB prospects being there should get the phone ringing. I'd be pissed if we jumped on Horn early in the clock if Fields is there. If we aren't taking a QB and the phone is ringing we should at least hear what they have to offer.

We called and asked about #3. We deemed the price too high as understandly so.

Don't worry about it, it's not. You'll find a lot more engagement if you keep the quotes limited to one

See what above?

C'mon man. You're not actually this obtuse. Everyone is always unwilling to trade a guy until they get the price they want. The fact of the matter is that we negotiated this trade for weeks and landed on a 4th and future 2nd and 6th. If we actually really wanted him we wouldn't have let this linger for weeks negotiating over relative peanuts risking another team scooping him up out from under our nose. We wanted Darnold only at the relatively low price we paid.

Bro, you gotta stop with these multiple quotes. No one engages with you because they don't feel like editing out your posts to get to the quote that pertains to them. Just make multiple posts.

My source is that we negotiated for weeks over the Darnold trade. That's common knowledge. You don't negotiate for weeks over a trade if you actually really want a guy. We were obviously okay with losing him over peanuts.

I have no idea what you're trying to do. I just know that you're really hung up on a sunk cost to the point that you're admittedly fully willing to pass up on a franchise QB prospect at #8 simply simply because of a relatively small value trade made to acquire a former high pick bust of a QB.

They don't really believe in him. They negotiated for weeks over a paltry trade sum. If we really wanted him we wouldn't have risked losing him to someone else.

You're asking for proof but where's yours? As mentioned before, what we gave up in trade is peanuts for the QB position. Honestly, Darnold's trade value is better evidence AGAINST that. We wouldn't have been negotiating for weeks over a relative pittance if we REALLY wanted him. Verge has also said that if Darnold was black he wouldn't even be in the league right now.

Yep. We tried the smart, physically limited QB last year. It didn't work out. So now we're trying the physically talented underachiever.

Agreed. We wanted Watson. We legit tried for Stafford. We sniffed around Russell Wilson just for due diligence. We called Miami about #3. We obviously projected the draft and didn't see #8 working out for us at QB, thus here we are. If the leaves fall in a way that #8 works out, you don't let Sam Darnold, a 4th rounder, and a 2nd and 6th next year slow you down.

I just don't see that trade as much of an investment. Certainly not enough to forego adding a better option at QB if the opportunity presents itself. I honestly think that trade was made simply so that our hand wouldn't be forced. I don't think making the trade will force our hand the opposite way.

That'd be a tremendous improvement. One of the things that made Jake special was his clutch ability. He was basically just an average starting QB for the most part, but the bigger the moments the better he usually was.