Jump to content

Rumors Fly Connecting Broncos to Falcon's No. 4 Pick After Atlanta Opens for Business - SI.com


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Fernando C. said:

You are talkig as if only Denver wants a QB... any team can give picks to trade up to 4,5,6,7 and 8.. any team can be entice to move down with a proper offer... but if you are zero in on 2 prospects like Lance,Fields or Mac being at 4 guaranties you having one of them... that is why trading up to 4 would be ideal... 

Also Denver has a very good young offensive team they would want to grow the new QB with this players.. they don't have glaring needs only at QB... so it makes a lot of sense to trade up for one...

As to Denver, they also have a first-year GM who inherited a young QB in Drew Lock.  Is he so in love with whoever the 4th or 5th QB is to spend valuable draft capital to come up, or does he opt to see if Drew Lock can stay healthy and develop with another year in their system?

I commented on why Chicago isn't likely to move up previously, GM/HC are hanging on by a thread.  Owners usually do not let Coaches/GMs in that situation trade any future draft capital since they may not be around to deal with the consequences.  Sure, NE and WFT are possibilities, but they would have to put together a stronger package than SF did to come up to Miami's spot because both NE and WFT would be coming up further.  Do they really value the 4th or 5th QB that much?

I know those of you who are eager to trade down what to believe that so many teams want this pick, but the reality is SF's trade up significantly weakened the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Al Bruce said:

I highly doubt Chicago will make a trade up from 20.  Their Coach and GM are in a similar situation to what DQ/TD were in last offseason, it's playoffs or bust for them in 2021.  I doubt ownership will let them trade any future picks with that being the case.

Do NE and WFT like the 4th or 5th QB in this draft class well enough to trade significant draft capital for him?  Not sure that will end up being the case.  SF trading up with Miami and ensuring that the first three picks will be QB's really diminished the 4th pick's trade value.  

Chicago needs a QB.  The problem for them is Naggy inherited Trubisky. They made playoffs twice in three years. The HC, GM and owners all want QB and offense. Dalton isn’t the answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jidady said:

No. That trade and the Darnold acquisition increased scarcity.

Teams are not going to trade valuable draft capital just because they "need a quarterback", so it's not about scarcity.  Teams trade draft capital because they love a specific quarterback. 

With Jax, NYJ and SF now signaling that they are going QB, you then have to believe that a team will feel so strongly about the 4th or 5th QB that they are willing to give up significant draft capital (I say significant because ATL should not trade this pick at a discount) to come up.  I am of the opinion that the media loves these QB's after Lawrence, Wilson and Fields more than the teams actually do.  And no, I am not buying the Mac Jones to SF rumors.  As such, I do not see an offer ATL can't refuse coming in unless something unexpected happens in front us.  

Nevertheless, I am firmly in the "stay at 4 and take the best non-QB in the draft" camp.  You can trade down from 35 if you want extra picks.

We will see what happens in three weeks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Al Bruce said:

Teams are not going to trade valuable draft capital just because they "need a quarterback", so it's not about scarcity. 

I mean, with all due respect to the rest of your reply, you'd already lost me right here. We've already seen draft compensation trades for Stafford, Wentz, Darnold, and the #3 overall pick. Those teams "need(ed) a quarterback" and paid some crazy prices to get one. It's absolutely about scarcity.  So, those two statements are demonstrably false.

To a larger point, the NFL runs on supply and demand, just like any other business. The most scarce product in the league is a viable starting QB. So, teams pay whatever cost is needed to get one.

Franchises know right now that if they want their pick of Lance or Fields, they need to get to #4. By #7, all five QBs are likely to be gone in this draft, #9 at the latest. That run on QBs is no different than a Black Friday sale. As stock gets lower, people get crazier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Al Bruce said:

I highly doubt Chicago will make a trade up from 20.  Their Coach and GM are in a similar situation to what DQ/TD were in last offseason, it's playoffs or bust for them in 2021.  I doubt ownership will let them trade any future picks with that being the case.

Do NE and WFT like the 4th or 5th QB in this draft class well enough to trade significant draft capital for him?  Not sure that will end up being the case.  SF trading up with Miami and ensuring that the first three picks will be QB's really diminished the 4th pick's trade value.  

Chicago attempted to trade for Stafford and Wilson. They do want a QB. Not sure they want a rookie but Dalton isn't the answer.

Not that it matters. I doubt we're trading down past 15 if at all. I'd say 7-15 is the range we want to be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Al Bruce said:

As to Denver, they also have a first-year GM who inherited a young QB in Drew Lock.  Is he so in love with whoever the 4th or 5th QB is to spend valuable draft capital to come up, or does he opt to see if Drew Lock can stay healthy and develop with another year in their system?

I commented on why Chicago isn't likely to move up previously, GM/HC are hanging on by a thread.  Owners usually do not let Coaches/GMs in that situation trade any future draft capital since they may not be around to deal with the consequences.  Sure, NE and WFT are possibilities, but they would have to put together a stronger package than SF did to come up to Miami's spot because both NE and WFT would be coming up further.  Do they really value the 4th or 5th QB that much?

I know those of you who are eager to trade down what to believe that so many teams want this pick, but the reality is SF's trade up significantly weakened the market.

You don't know what their 2nd QB is on their board so maybe Fields is there second overall player or Lance.. you are talking as if all teams have the same Board...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, jidady said:

I mean, with all due respect to the rest of your reply, you'd already lost me right here. We've already seen draft compensation trades for Stafford, Wentz, Darnold, and the #3 overall pick. Those teams "need(ed) a quarterback" and paid some crazy prices to get one. It's absolutely about scarcity.  So, those two statements are demonstrably false.

To a larger point, the NFL runs on supply and demand, just like any other business. The most scarce product in the league is a viable starting QB. So, teams pay whatever cost is needed to get one.

Franchises know right now that if they want their pick of Lance or Fields, they need to get to #4. By #7, all five QBs are likely to be gone in this draft, #9 at the latest. That run on QBs is no different than a Black Friday sale. As stock gets lower, people get crazier.

Of course viable starting QBs are hard to find, but the issue is more nuanced than what you are implying with your economic analogy. 

My point is that for a team to be motivated to come up, they now have to believe that the 4th QB in this draft is BETTER than the QB they have and BETTER than any QB that may be available next year since any deal would have to include next year's 1st at minimum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, celtiksage said:

Chicago attempted to trade for Stafford and Wilson. They do want a QB. Not sure they want a rookie but Dalton isn't the answer.

Not that it matters. I doubt we're trading down past 15 if at all. I'd say 7-15 is the range we want to be in.

I am not saying Chicago didnt want a QB, I am saying it's unlikely they are able to commit the necessary capital to go from 20 to 4 given that their GM is on thin ice.  Recall that this is the guy who traded up and draft Mitch Tribusky over Mahomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fernando C. said:

You don't know what their 2nd QB is on their board so maybe Fields is there second overall player or Lance.. you are talking as if all teams have the same Board...

Fair point, all teams do have different boards.  That is why I am saying for this to happen a team has to be in love with whichever QB is there at 4 after 3 QBs have already gone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Al Bruce said:

Fair point, all teams do have different boards.  That is why I am saying for this to happen a team has to be in love with whichever QB is there at 4 after 3 QBs have already gone.  

Yeah... that is the issue maybe ATL has Fields as the 2nd QB and BPA .... so you never know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jidady said:

I mean, with all due respect to the rest of your reply, you'd already lost me right here. We've already seen draft compensation trades for Stafford, Wentz, Darnold, and the #3 overall pick. Those teams "need(ed) a quarterback" and paid some crazy prices to get one. It's absolutely about scarcity.  So, those two statements are demonstrably false.

To a larger point, the NFL runs on supply and demand, just like any other business. The most scarce product in the league is a viable starting QB. So, teams pay whatever cost is needed to get one.

Franchises know right now that if they want their pick of Lance or Fields, they need to get to #4. By #7, all five QBs are likely to be gone in this draft, #9 at the latest. That run on QBs is no different than a Black Friday sale. As stock gets lower, people get crazier.

We could end up with 2 first round picks for the next two drafts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jidady said:

I mean, with all due respect to the rest of your reply, you'd already lost me right here. We've already seen draft compensation trades for Stafford, Wentz, Darnold, and the #3 overall pick. Those teams "need(ed) a quarterback" and paid some crazy prices to get one. It's absolutely about scarcity.  So, those two statements are demonstrably false.

To a larger point, the NFL runs on supply and demand, just like any other business. The most scarce product in the league is a viable starting QB. So, teams pay whatever cost is needed to get one.

Franchises know right now that if they want their pick of Lance or Fields, they need to get to #4. By #7, all five QBs are likely to be gone in this draft, #9 at the latest. That run on QBs is no different than a Black Friday sale. As stock gets lower, people get crazier.

Brother, can you imagine trading with a team that lands us in the top 10 next year? Theres the perfect time to get your QB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, falconfansince66 said:

Only if we move to Detroit's spot and ahead of Carolina at #8 as they'll likely snag Pitts if he's there at their pick (which made their QB trade pretty respectable keeping their top pick.)

 

13 hours ago, 1989Fan said:

I think CAR takes Parsons if he is there at 7. Rhule is all about building the defense in CAR.

I think the biggest negative of trading down to #9 is that I could definitely see Carolina taking Pitts at #8 seeing as they are empty at TE. Not sure I want to play him twice a year, I mean who the h*ck is going to cover him? 😬

Of course they could take Parsons but the drop off between TE1 and TE2 vs LB1 and LB2 is very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we so sure that no one is going to want a “generational” OT (Sewell), TE (Pitts), or WR (Chase) that they won’t trade up to take one of those ahead of Cincy, Miami or Detroit? I mean there are real possibilities for that to happen also I think.

Edited by Abeasley27
Spelling error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Al Bruce said:

Teams are not going to trade valuable draft capital just because they "need a quarterback", so it's not about scarcity.  Teams trade draft capital because they love a specific quarterback. 

With Jax, NYJ and SF now signaling that they are going QB, you then have to believe that a team will feel so strongly about the 4th or 5th QB that they are willing to give up significant draft capital (I say significant because ATL should not trade this pick at a discount) to come up.  I am of the opinion that the media loves these QB's after Lawrence, Wilson and Fields more than the teams actually do.  And no, I am not buying the Mac Jones to SF rumors.  As such, I do not see an offer ATL can't refuse coming in unless something unexpected happens in front us.  

Nevertheless, I am firmly in the "stay at 4 and take the best non-QB in the draft" camp.  You can trade down from 35 if you want extra picks.

We will see what happens in three weeks...

Logical take.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Al Bruce said:

Teams are not going to trade valuable draft capital just because they "need a quarterback", so it's not about scarcity.  Teams trade draft capital because they love a specific quarterback. 

 

Teams do it every year. And you can justify/“fall in love” with a QB (or any other positional player) when you are desperate for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Al Bruce said:

I am not saying Chicago didnt want a QB, I am saying it's unlikely they are able to commit the necessary capital to go from 20 to 4 given that their GM is on thin ice.  Recall that this is the guy who traded up and draft Mitch Tribusky over Mahomes.

And their Coach. I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Xfactor said:

If you want Surtain don’t trade with Denver. Now that Carolina has their QB word is Surtain is their pick.

If Lance or Jones is there, I think Carolina would go QB, there is no guarantee Darnold is fait accompli. Regardless, we trade with Detroit, Denver, NE, Chicago, WFT, or whoever makes the best offer.  Then we pick who is left on top of our board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jidady said:

I mean, with all due respect to the rest of your reply, you'd already lost me right here. We've already seen draft compensation trades for Stafford, Wentz, Darnold, and the #3 overall pick. Those teams "need(ed) a quarterback" and paid some crazy prices to get one. It's absolutely about scarcity.  So, those two statements are demonstrably false.

To a larger point, the NFL runs on supply and demand, just like any other business. The most scarce product in the league is a viable starting QB. So, teams pay whatever cost is needed to get one.

Franchises know right now that if they want their pick of Lance or Fields, they need to get to #4. By #7, all five QBs are likely to be gone in this draft, #9 at the latest. That run on QBs is no different than a Black Friday sale. As stock gets lower, people get crazier.

I hope you are right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...