Yes please

[NAS]

14 hours ago, j2sgam said:

After the way Chitown got fleeced in teh Trubisky trade, do you really want to be the team to get fleeced by them a few short years later? 
 

Hard No…

 

Rather stick with Corral & what have you instead of that…

 Are any of the qb’s really worth trading the farm for?

Chitown trade was only bad because they picked the wrong guy.  They could have had Mahomes.  You have to assume there's a conviction about the guy you want to draft and if you can't trust Fitt and Frank to do that, then the whole draft is pointless. 

Edited February 17, 2023 by NAS

[NAS]

2 hours ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

Question: when has a team ever given a boatload of picks to move up and it worked out for them? not saying it hasn't happened, i just don't recall any instance of anyone mortgaging the farm to get a single player and it looking good in hindsight.

Falcons trade for Julio Jones

Chiefs trade for Mahomes

Ravens trade up for Lamar

 

[Khyber53]

Awww hell no.

[1of10Charnatives]

2 hours ago, NAS said:

Falcons trade for Julio Jones

Chiefs trade for Mahomes

Ravens trade up for Lamar

 

Given that Julio is no longer with the team and they never won anything of substance with him (one nightmare sb appearance), it's fair to question that move. he was a great wr, but what did the falcons give up to trade up? i think that one could be argued either way, since to be fair jones did have a solid career with the falcons.

let's talk about the chiefs  traded up for mahomes, but did they really mortgage the future in doing so? i'm not just talking about trading up, i'm talking about a trade up that causes the trading up team to have to give up a boatload.  in mahomes case the price of moving up was a third and one future first rounder. That's not peanuts but i wouldn't consider it mortgaging the future. You're gonna pay at least a first to move up double digit spots in the first, but that trade still left the Chiefs very capable of drafting plenty of talent in the next few years to put around Mahomes.

Ravens trading up for Lamar: was a great move, but did they mortgage the future? in hindsight ozzie newsome's last move as a drafting gm was a steal. The Ravens gave up only their current 2nd rounder, and the next year's second rounder plus a late round pick in order to move into the end of the first and get a slightly lower late round pick in return. given what they got in jackson, they gave up very little.

In summary, of the three examples you gave, julio is the only one i'd agree might be an example of giving up the farm to move up and it working out, but even that one is iffy. The Chiefs moving up for Mahomes and the Ravens moving up for Lamar were savy moves, but I don't think the teams doing so gave up a eyepopping bevy of picks to trade up.

[csx]

That would be dumb since a QB isn't being picked at 1 and maybe not top 3. Discussing trading to 1 is a waste of time since it's not necessary to get either of the top QBs

[pantherclaw]

Won't happen. 

[ForJimmy]

19 hours ago, NAS said:

Falcons trade for Julio Jones

Chiefs trade for Mahomes

Ravens trade up for Lamar

 

Broncos traded up for Elway (mostly players) and the Bills traded up for Allen (included their starting LT). These trades look better on paper because it’s players vs more picks, but there were starters on decent teams. Maybe we could include a player like Burns and save some picks? Just don’t want to piss off our new DC.

[NAS]

22 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

Maybe we could include a player like Burns and save some picks? Just don’t want to piss off our new DC.

I would rather trade away picks than proven pass rushers who are yet to reach their prime. 

[ForJimmy]

32 minutes ago, NAS said:

I would rather trade away picks than proven pass rushers who are yet to reach their prime. 

Yeah I tend to agree. The only benefit would be the cap savings. Burns is about to get paid.

[NAS]

9 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Yeah I tend to agree. The only benefit would be the cap savings. Burns is about to get paid.

I have no problem with it.  You need to pay your draft picks, at premium positions, who have lived up to the billing which he has.  Pass rushers aren't easy to come by

[ForJimmy]

19 minutes ago, NAS said:

I have no problem with it.  You need to pay your draft picks, at premium positions, who have lived up to the billing which he has.  Pass rushers aren't easy to come by

The question is how much will Burns want vs his actual production. For example we can sign Ngakoue for probably around 13 million a year for 2-3 years who has 9.5 sacks in 15 games playing for Reich and the Colts. So (assuming he plays 17 games) he is a double digit sack player. Obvious not quite as good as Burns, but you can get your top QB while saving some picks plus have a good bit of savings that could be used for Bozeman and/or a TE in FA. 
So would you rather have the extra 4 or so sacks Burns will provide or have Ngakoue, Bozeman, and possibly someone like Gesicki while also acquiring CJ Stroud in the draft without losing a lot of future picks?

[NAS]

30 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

The question is how much will Burns want vs his actual production. For example we can sign Ngakoue for probably around 13 million a year for 2-3 years who has 9.5 sacks in 15 games playing for Reich and the Colts. So (assuming he plays 17 games) he is a double digit sack player. Obvious not quite as good as Burns, but you can get your top QB while saving some picks plus have a good bit of savings that could be used for Bozeman and/or a TE in FA. 
So would you rather have the extra 4 or so sacks Burns will provide or have Ngakoue, Bozeman, and possibly someone like Gesicki while also acquiring CJ Stroud in the draft without losing a lot of future picks?

It's not just about sacks, realistically Burns should have had even more sacks but he's been really good at pressuring the QB regardless. 

This roster is a QB away from going to the playoffs.  You have to take advantage of a window when it presents itself, instead of trying to worry about future draft picks.   Thee players and the coaching staff won't be around forever.   

Edited February 19, 2023 by NAS

[ECHornet]

11 minutes ago, NAS said:

It's not just about sacks, realistically Burns should have had even more sacks but he's been really good at pressuring the QB regardless. 

This roster is a QB away from going to the playoffs.  You have to take advantage of a window when it presents itself, instead of trying to worry about future draft picks.   Thee players and the coaching staff won't be around forever.   

If we're a QB away, which is the most important position on the field, we should be ok trading Burns if it means we land our QB.

[ForJimmy]

11 minutes ago, NAS said:

It's not just about sacks, realistically Burns should have had even more sacks but he's been really good at pressuring the QB regardless. 

This roster is a QB away from going to the playoffs.  You have to take advantage of a window when it presents itself, instead of trying to worry about future draft picks.   Thee players and the coaching staff won't be around forever.   

But it’s not just about future picks. It’s about signing FA pieces to fill other needs like TE and C with the cap savings. I haven’t looked up Ngakoue’s pressure rate, but I’m sure it’s good if he had 9.5 sacks. He had 10 the year before on the Raiders. I mean look no further than Reddick this past year. The Eagles signed him to a much cheaper contract than Burns will demand and he was 2nd in the league in sacks.

We just have to make sure we aren’t overvaluing our players because they have been producing. We need a QB first, but we have several pieces we need to strengthen to help that QB succeed. TE, C, WR, DE, LB, FS are all pretty strong needs still. Probably RB as well…