Todd McShay mocks us to trade up with Miami to get Trey Lance

[BurnNChinn]

I’m not giving up all that for an unknown sorry, if I’m doing that I’m going after Watson or Dak

[Ornias]

5 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

a 'little more' would be YEARS of draft picks.. 

If we trade next years 1 for a QB (Lance) that doesn't pan out we are still out years of draft picks searching for a viable QB.

[OldhamA]

28 minutes ago, Daddy_Uncle said:

I dont understand why we care about mock drafts enough to discuss them. I never will understand it so I might as well get over it. Lance was my #2 qb going into the season behind Lawrence. Would not be mad at all to get him. No way we would need to trade all the way up to 3 though. Unless they know for sure he is their guy and can't risk not getting him. 

I was interested in Lance, then he missed the entire season.

He'd quite frankly be off my Draft board until the second round - he's too much of an unknown commodity. 

[RockyTopVol]

26 minutes ago, NAS said:

Anyone that thinks Lance will be there at #8 is delusional.  He has the most upside of any QB outside of Lawrence.  We'll need to at least trade up to #5.  

Completely agree. The Eagles and the Lions will need a QB...and that's after NYJ, Atlanta, and possibly Houston had already picked. We need to be aggressive if we want one of those three guys. 

[PhillyB]

the real question is why is someone named todd mcshay saying "my guy"

[OldhamA]

8 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

a 'little more' would be YEARS of draft picks.. 

I wouldn't trade for either, but if the cost for Watson is three firsts+ and the cost for Lance is two firsts and a second it's a no brainer. Take the proven commodity. 

[ForJimmy]

Next year’s first is on the table for the right QB. The second is a little steep considering how high it is, but if they bring in Lance and believe he is their guy, I can deal with it. Linemen better be the rest of the draft...

[AU-panther]

2 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

I wouldn't trade for either, but if the cost for Watson is three firsts+ and the cost for Lance is two firsts and a second it's a no brainer. Take the proven commodity. 

That assumes the Texans are willing to trade him and also that would just take 3 1st. 

[Ricky Spanish]

I don't hate it.

Lance is my #3 QB. We need a QB. We would be picking in the #3 spot after my first two QBs are taken.

Gimmie

[cardiackat88.]

16 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

a 'little more' would be YEARS of draft picks.. 

AND millions of dollars to finance Watson's salary.

What is SO F*CKING hard to understand about that??

[cardiackat88.]

8 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

I wouldn't trade for either, but if the cost for Watson is three firsts+ and the cost for Lance is two firsts and a second it's a no brainer. Take the proven commodity. 

And spend obnoxious amounts of money to fund Watson's contract, only for him to take a Newton-esque beating and demand a trade within three years?

You won't be able to pay an o-line to keep him safe, and his contract's salary will eat up all the positions of need.

[RumHam]

SOMEONE WAS fuging BORED. WHO TF WOULD TRADE UP FOR LANCE AND NOT LAWRENCE, FIELDS, WILSON?

[Byrdman4real]

Trading up to three probably will equal to Wilson or Fields over Lance

[kungfoodude]

1 hour ago, electro's horse said:

I don't know how to edit that poo but 1-4 is Lawrence, Wilson, Lance, Fields

Honestly if it costs that much to get Lance, just go ahead and toss in more firsts for Watson. 

Well, Lance in this scenario would cost a first and second. Watson will probably cost more than that. Maybe substantially and that is under the heavy assumption that he would actually want to come here.